Crime

Juror #2 (2024): Nicholas Hoult Dominates the Screen in Clint Eastwood’s Latest Flick

Posted on by Jack Drees

“Juror #2” is directed by Clint Eastwood (Million Dollar Baby, Gran Torino) and stars Nicholas Hoult (The Menu, The Garfield Movie), Toni Collette (Hereditary, The Way Way Back), J.K. Simmons (Spider-Man, Saturday Night), Chris Messina (I.S.S., The Mindy Project), Zoey Deutch (The Suite Life on Deck, The Politician), Cedric Yarborough (Speechless, The Goldbergs), and Kiefer Sutherland (Flatliners, Designated Survivor). This film is about a family man who struggles with a moral dilemma while serving as a juror on a high-profile murder trial.

© Warner Brothers

As a hardcore moviegoer, I am always intrigued when I know I have the opportunity to take part in a unique experience. Over the past number of years, I have seen various Christopher Nolan movies in IMAX 70mm. I went to a free screening of the 2020 film “Emma.” at a theater just outside of Boston because the film’s star and director, Anya Taylor-Joy and Autumn de Wilde, were there as part of their press tour. During a vacation in Los Angeles, I ended up watching “Turning Red” at the El Capitan Theatre on Hollywood Boulevard just days into its 2022 release. With the film dropping on Disney+ at the same time, the El Capitan was one of the few ways I could actually see the film in a cinema. The film was playing in select locations in California and New York, and I was lucky enough to be close to one of them.

Similar to that last example, “Juror #2” continuously played in a limited number of theaters since its early November release. I was lucky enough to catch a screening at one of these theaters on the fourth week of its run. I say this not just because of the limited availability, but because the film is so good that it makes me wish more theaters were playing it.

Unfortunately, after just a little more than a month, it looks like the movie’s theatrical run has come to an end. Even in markets like New York and Los Angeles, there are no showtimes to be found. The film is however available for home viewing, and while it is not guaranteed you will get the definitive experience, you certainly will get a great film. This is one of the most engaging movies I have watched all year. It is not short on edge of your seat moments and stellar characterization. The film is helmed by Clint Eastwood, and it amazes me to know that he is 94 years old and still making movies as excellent as this.

Nicholas Hoult plays the film’s lead, Justin Kemp, and he kills it. I do not think Hoult is going to win an Oscar this season, but if he does, or at least gets nominated, I think he has the film’s scribe, Jonathan Abrams, to thank to a certain degree for giving him such delicious material to work with. Hoult is given quite a bit to do in this film, and he handles all of it very well. He plays a complicated character who loses not even a single ounce of admirability as he goes on.

This film puts Justin Kemp, in a place where you can easily see his internal struggle. He runs into a scenario that I could imagine most people with a sense of decency would never want to face. The film presents his journey in such a way that makes me like his character the entire time, even though I know he kind of has a dark side. I do not mean this in a bad boy or admirable jerk or lovable idiot kind of sense. Kemp is genuinely a good guy who must deal with the consequences that are given to him. He is not perfect, but the movie gives you enough background to like him despite his flaws.

Hoult easily outshines everyone in the supporting cast, who are by no means doing a bad job, but Hoult is in a league of his own. That said I think Amy Aquino is likable as Judge Thelma Hollub. She plays the part well. The same can be said for Toni Collette, Chris Messina, and Kiefer Sutherland (above) as Faith Killebrew, Eric Resnick, and Larry Lasker respectively. Some of the supporting jurors get their moment to shine when it is relevant to the story. A few of those moments stood out. I also enjoyed seeing one juror who was written in such a way where the movie presents her to be brainwashed by cliches of the true crime genre. That said if I had one complaint, and it is a minor gripe if anything, this film for the most part feels grounded, that character is almost a cartoon in certain moments. I do not dislike her, but tonally, she almost feels like she is in a different project.

While Hoult’s chances this awards season are still up for debate, I have to say “Juror #2” has some of the cleanest editing I have seen in a film all year. The film is essentially linear, though it also contains perfectly placed flashbacks and each moment is timed perfectly to generate a proper reaction. There are quite a few moments where this movie had my eyes glued to the screen and a lot of it has to do with how long it took me to process each moment.

The film also ends on a perfect note. I will not spoil it because as far as I am concerned, Warner Brothers for some reason wants no one on earth to see this film. But as if the final 10, 20 minutes are already engaging enough, the film throws in an appropriate final note. One could argue that this final note is predictable. I would not judge you for saying that, but I would say it is fitting, so I would not use the “predictable” complaint here. I would rather have a predictable ending that makes sense as opposed to an out of left field ending that has no place in the narrative whatsoever. To me, this final note is done in such a way where I like it more for its overall execution as opposed to the fact that someone thought to insert it in the film to begin with. I think such a sentiment can fit for the rest of the film. The film itself is not entirely predictable. It has parts that you can tell a certain thing is probably going to happen, but every action in this film is done in what can almost be described as the finest way possible.

With Clint Eastwood being 94 years old, there is a possibility that “Juror #2” could be his last film. If that is the case, I would like to say that this is a much better way to cap things off than the middle of the road 2021 film “Cry Macho.” But also, I hope that by some miracle, “Juror #2” comes back to theaters so more people can see it on the big screen. This is a film that if it were released in a wider capacity, probably would have generated more discussion about the legal system, moral dilemmas, and been a water-cooler conversation piece. I wish the movie to have some success at home, but like a lot of movies that go to theaters, I wish it had more time and accessibility. Sure, it is probably going to rack up solid word of mouth. But I wish it had a bigger release that way people watching it at home are more likely to have faith that it is going to be worth their time. And for the case of “Juror #2,” it is definitely worth your time.

In the end, there are a number of reasons to watch “Juror #2.” It is a spectacularly written, well-paced, thought provoking thriller. Nicholas Hoult, again, probably is not going to win that many awards this season, but I would not be mad if he gets one or two nominations because he plays one of the most complicated characters I have seen in any film this year. The film’s supporting cost from Toni Collette to Chris Messina to even J.K. Simmons all play their roles nicely. If this is Clint Eastwood’s swan song, it is a great note to end on. But there is a saying that you are only as good as your last project. The quality of this project only makes me curious to know if he has another one just as good up his sleeve. I am going to give “Juror #2” an 8/10.

In fact, going back to “Cry Macho,” “Juror #2” has now made more money at the box office in a handful of theaters than “Cry Macho” did during its entire run. For the record, “Cry Macho” made $16.5 million whereas “Juror #2” has racked up $19.9 million. Both failed to make their budget back, but I honestly would have liked to know what the case would have been if “Juror #2” were playing more in rural areas and the suburbs. Granted, there are external factors affecting “Cry Macho’s” release including a simultaneous drop on HBO Max and continued questioning over safety when it comes to COVID-19. But even so, for this film to make as much money as it did given the circumstances is not bad. I just wish there were more ways to see it.

“Juror #2” is now available on VOD and is available on Max for all subscribers on December 20th.

Thanks for reading this review! My next review is going to be for one of the most popular movies out right now, “Wicked.” I had a chance to see it opening weekend, so I will let you know my thoughts on the phenomenon. Also coming soon, stay tuned for my thoughts on “Smile 2,” “Nightbitch,” “Kraven the Hunter,” and “The Lord of the Rings: The War of the Rohirrim.” 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 “Juror #2?” What did you think about it? Or, what is your favorite Clint Eastwood film? There are plenty to choose from, so let me know which one you think is best down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

Joker: Folie à Deux (2024): An Unnecessary, Overpriced, Frustrating Sequel That Falls Flat On Its Face

Posted on by Jack Drees

“Joker: Folie à Deux” is directed by Todd Phillips (The Hangover, War Dogs) and stars Joaquin Phoenix (Don’t Worry, He Won’t Get Far on Foot, Gladiator), Lady Gaga (A Star is Born, House of Gucci), Brendan Gleeson (The Banshees of Inisherin, Troy), Catherine Keener (Being John Malkovich, Capote), Zazie Beatz (Deadpool 2, Atlanta), Steve Coogan (Percy Jackson & the Olympians: The Lightning Thief, Philomena), Harry Lawtey (Industry, You & Me), and Leigh Hill (Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them, Game of Thrones). This is the sequel to the 2019 film “Joker” and once again follows Arthur Fleck who this time around meets the love of his life, Lee Quinzel, while incarcerated at Arkham State Hospital.

Comic book movies this year have been a fascinating ride. If you told me that we would be getting only one Marvel Studios film this year, multiple prominent R-rated titles, and another movie from the same writers who did “Morbius,” I would have you called you crazy. Just to recap, I loved “Deadpool & Wolverine” and I hated “Madame Web.” Those movies are on two opposite sides of the spectrum. The former might be my favorite movie of the year, while the latter might be my least favorite movie of the year. And for those asking, I did not see “The Crow.” Going into “Joker: Folie à Deux,” I assumed that this movie would fall somewhere between “Deadpool & Wolverine” and “Madame Web” in terms of quality because those are on two extreme ends of my quality scale. Statistically, it makes sense. But I also realize that there is a lot of potential that could be fulfilled with a “Joker” sequel.

I say there is a lot of potential that could be fulfilled with a “Joker” sequel while also realizing there is just as much of a chance that nothing good could come from it either. After all, we got this sequel for the same reason we get sequels to lots of other movies. Money. The original film made history by being the first R-rated title to make a billion dollars at the box office. And one can argue it deserved to make a lot of money. It was a well made film that not only differentiated from other comic book movies at the time, but it was a well-crafted, well-directed, well-acted story that highlights how some of society tends to look at mental health. In addition to its praise from other bodies during awards season, “Joker” was nominated for 11 Oscars and took home two. If you are an executive at Warner Bros. and you are looking at the financial success and extended conversation that came about because of “Joker,” chances are you would want to greenlight a sequel. Personally, if I were there, I would be a bit hesitant. The first film ends a on satisfying note and I am not sure where I would want to take the story next. But I do admire the sequel taking a big swing with the idea that there were going to be musical elements attached. That is something we do not see in stories based on comic books. Forget “La La Land,” I want to know more about “Ha Ha Land!”

There is no doubt that “Joker: Folie à Deux” takes big swings, and because of how much money the last one made, it is likely that this sequel could get away with a lot of them. But it misses on each one. “Joker: Folie à Deux” is a movie that does not really understand its own identity. I think there are times when movies can be a bunch of different things at once, but “Joker: Folie à Deux” does not stand out positively in regards to any of its disciplines. When it comes to being a jukebox musical, it is annoying. That is if it technically is a jukebox musical. We will get to more on that later. As a courtroom drama, it is a bore sometimes. There are select moments that kept me interested, but it is kind of off and on. As a sequel documenting Arthur Fleck’s progression as a character, there is almost no progression to be seen. Yes, we see him meet Lee and that plays a part in the story. But a good portion of the sequel is a reflection of what happened in the first film. There is nothing wrong with referencing consequences in a case like this, but the movie spends so much time reflecting on its past that it forgets to live in the present. Yes, the story is about the aftermath of its 2019 predecessor, but the movie does not do a ton to explore this character any deeper.

I enjoyed the first film. I found it to be a fascinating study on how a broken man like Arthur Fleck transformed into someone who became a face of chaos. I was invested in his story, his journey. I was not invested in Arthur’s arc this time around. Sure, there are moments that had my attention. But again, these are moments in an otherwise excruciating film. When you spend an extended period of time in court hearing about and reflecting on the events of a successful first movie, all that comes to mind is the idea that if I had time on my hands, I would probably rather go back and watch that movie again instead of this one.

It is kind of like what I said about “Furiosa” earlier this year, which was not horrible, but it ended in such a way where I thought I should go back and watch “Fury Road” again as opposed to the movie I just watched, which I found to be inferior.

“Joker: Folie à Deux” plays very much like the finale to the popular TV series “Seinfeld.” Much like that finale, “Joker: Folie à Deux” piggybacks off the success of its predecessor and fills so much time referencing said predecessor. Both projects spend a lot of time in court where said references come to life. But they are both missing a spark of what made the older material click. Both projects tend to put its main characters in uncomfortable positions. Not just in the story, as many projects should. But as a viewer, I can say I watched both of these feeling a bitter taste in my mouth. The “Seinfeld” finale goes out of its way to spoon-feed to the audience that its regular cast just so happen to be morons. “Joker: Folie à Deux” centers around someone who has a criminal history, which we have seen before. Without going into specific details, I do not need to watch “Joker: Folie à Deux” with the need to “root” for somebody who did what they did in the previous movie. But at minimum, I want to be engaged. And the film does not allow me to do that much.

I would like to talk about the film’s musical elements, that is if you can call them that or if the crew can actually confirm if this movie is a musical to begin with. Again, we will discuss more on that soon… Because the way I see things, this film fails miserably as a jukebox musical. Yes, there are no original songs. Did I recognize any of the songs in the movie as they were being performed? Sure. Could I tell you what the songs in the movie were if you ran into me on the street? Probably not. The lead duo’s singing in this film is kind of off and on. But when it is off, it is off. Never once was I watching these two and felt a complete sense of immersion. This is also really sad because I saw the movie at my local IMAX, which just so happens to be one of the few locations showing the movie in the brand’s coveted 1.43:1 aspect ratio, which is often used when shooting and presenting Christopher Nolan’s movies. When we get to the musical sequences, the screen goes from scope to IMAX and personally, I notice it. But not once do I “feel” it. This movie does not do anything to make its musical or singing sequences exciting. The ideas represented in each song do not change much. They are often a distraction from the story as opposed to a part of the story. Can Lady Gaga sing? Of course she can. But I am not going to pretend she does her best work here. If you want to see Lady Gaga sing like a champ on screen, just go watch the 2018 edition of “A Star is Born.” She is incredible in that.

Although if there is one thing I like about the musical sequences, there is some cool set design. There is one sequence where we see the leads together in front of a clearly fake night sky with a “Hotel Arkham” in the background. I thought that set in particular was atmospheric. It looked nice. But the sequences themselves are sometimes a drag or simply outright unmemorable.

You might think I am not satisfied with these sequences because I have an agenda against musicals. To me, musicals are like any other genre, if there is a project in it that appears to be done decently, it has my interest. If you want a review for a musical that I think needs more attention, than check out my thoughts on Steven Spielberg’s “West Side Story.” I was looking forward to seeing what “Joker: Folie à Deux” can do with its musical elements. I knew that these elements were in the movie before I watched it. But I looked back at the marketing, and part of me wonders how good of a job the marketing team did at implying that this movie was going to be a musical. Every time I watched the teaser trailer and I saw the shot of the spotlight shining on Arthur and the scene with Hotel Arkham, I realized those moments were musical-like. I thought people would pick up on that. But I watched with this movie with my dad. In fact, we went to see “Beetlejuice Beetlejuice” together last month and the “Joker: Folie à Deux” teaser played in front of it. Maybe my dad’s trailer retention is not the greatest, but we ended up seeing this movie together too and he was not expecting a musical out of a film like this. For the record, he told me straight up, he does not like musicals. He made that clear when the film ended. Kind of like the first “Joker,” I respect this sequel for putting things in it that we do not usually see in a comic book-based film. I wanted all the musical shenanigans to work. But the singing was not the greatest. The songs were not that good. The movie kind of reminded me of “Dear Evan Hansen,” which did not work for me as a musical partially because the transitions to the numbers themselves did not come off as seamless as maybe they could have. They felt very out of place. There is one, maybe two numbers in the movie that feel natural in terms of that movie’s atmosphere. But that is about it.

Some of you might be reading this with the urge to ask several questions. For those who had no exposure to this movie, you may be wondering how musical elements got into the project to begin with. And others may wonder why the heck I am calling “Joker: Folie à Deux” a musical at all. Because if you ask one of its stars, Lady Gaga, or its director, Todd Phillips, they will say this film is not as much a musical, as opposed to a movie with a ton of music in it. If you ask me, “Joker: Folie à Deux” is simply a bad attempt at a musical. It is a musical that places its songs as an afterthought. I would like to use a quote from YouTuber Jeremy Jahns’ “Transformers: The Last Knight” review. This quote has more to do with that film’s pacing, but hear me out. “In the end, it’s how long a scene feels, not how long it actually is.” The same principle applies to this film’s identity and genre. Lady Gaga and Todd Phillips can try to sell me on the notion that “Joker: Folie à Deux” is not a musical as much as they want. But even though I sometimes think the phrase “the customer is always right” can sometimes be overused and presents cases where that is not always accurate, as a customer who bought a ticket to this movie, all I saw was a bad musical. That is what my dad who went with me saw too.

But let us say that “Joker: Folie à Deux” is somehow not a musical, and instead just a movie with plenty of singing. I do think there is a place in cinema for non-musical movies where the characters do a lot of singing. One example that comes to mind is Mamoru Hosoda’s anime, “Belle,” which is about someone who develops a virtual singing career. The moments where the lead character in that film sings occasionally play out like a musical. They’re visually creative and are presented in a massive scale, but those moments are not straight up musical sequences per se… Though there is one moment that takes a lot of inspiration from Disney’s “Beauty and the Beast.” But unlike “Joker: Folie à Deux,” each song in “Belle” effectively furthers the story and just so happen to be presented in sequences where not once did I have the illusion that a gun was locked right next to my head. Additionally, the soundtrack to “Belle” itself contains banger after banger after banger. I have found myself not just rewatching “Belle” at home more times than I would like to admit, but also listening to the songs from the movie in my spare time such as when I am in the car or when I am doing reviews like these.

Now that such an overblown, elongated, supersized rant about whether or not this movie is actually a musical is over, you might be thinking… Did I like anything about the movie? Well, yes.

For starters, the film does carry a few consistencies from the previous installment that also work the second time around. Joaquin Phoenix does a good job in the lead role. I do not think he is going to win an Oscar this year unlike he did in the first movie. But he puts on a captivating performance. Although to be fair on that “no Oscar this year” comment, I think the material this time around did him fewer favors than what he had in front of him for the first movie. Lawrence Sher also returned to do the cinematography, which like the first film, is really good. In fact, you could argue it was improved from the last movie. This film feels slightly bigger than the last one in terms of its scale. I do not know if I saw $200 million brought to the screen like the budget suggests, I would assume Joaquin Phoenix and Lady Gaga got a good chunk of that money. But as I mentioned earlier, I like how the movie uses IMAX technology. Judging by everything I said so far, you can probably tell I am in no rush to buy the Blu-ray. But I hope if they do put one out, Warner Bros. allows the release to show an expanded aspect ratio during the IMAX scenes. Another consistency that I love in this film is the score. Like Joaquin Phoenix did for Best Actor, Hildur Guðnadóttir won an Oscar for her work on the original film in the category of Best Original Score. Personally, it was not my favorite score of the year. I think Alan Silvestri’s music in “Avengers: Endgame” was that year’s winner for me. That and Michael Abels’ work on “Us” was quite good too. But I remember hearing the “Joker” score and it captured the dark tone the film carried at times. It is not exactly depressing, but can easily induce a sense of discomfort. And “Joker: Folie à Deux’s” score does the same thing. It really shows how good your score is when an image or scene of the movie from which it originates comes to mind, and when you are thinking about said image or scene, you hear a glimmer of that score in your head at the same time. When I think about “Star Wars” sometimes, I will think of a certain moment and easily attach John Williams’ music to that thought. Hildur Guðnadóttir’s work has that power in both the original film and this sequel.

There is also one scene in the movie that I will not go too heavily into because it does involve potential spoilers, but there is a moment where Arthur is asked to sign someone’s book. While the autograph is being written, the person who gave the book says something that prompts a certain reaction out of Arthur. “Joker: Folie à Deux” is a movie that unlike many other comic book-based projects, does not have many laughs. But knowing what this movie entails, it does not need them. This one moment in particular though was hilarious. If you somehow drag yourself to the theater to check this monstrosity out and remember this part of the review, you will know which scene I am talking about when it comes up. It was a highlight of the movie for me.

The film also tends to maintain consistency with other stories about Joker and Harley Quinn, or in this case, Arthur and Lee. In the story, these two, as much as they like each other, show signs that they may not be the best match. I thought the film at times does an okay job at highlighting that. But at the same time, whether it was trying to highlight that or not, as I watched Joaquin Phoenix and Lady Gaga together on screen, those two actors honestly could have played off each other a little better. Watching these two together felt awkward at times. Was discomfort the point when it comes to this film’s lead couple? You can definitely make that argument. But the discomfort was exactly as it sounds. Straight up uncomfortable. I was not marveled by the two leads of “Joker: Folie à Deux.” If anything, they were missing a spark. Yes, they are played by recognizable people with talent, but their talents do not lend themselves to this movie.

For the record, “Joker: Folie à Deux” has been out since early October, so chances are some of you reading this have seen the movie, but for those who have not, I will not spoil the ending. That said, we are going to talk about it. First off, it comes out of nowhere. Second, unlike the first movie, it does not feel satisfying. It is one of those endings that when you see it, you are left wondering if they forgot to finish the movie. Sure, it is somewhat conclusive, but there is a feeling of emptiness that comes with it. Is the ending bold? Perhaps. But again, this is another swing and a miss. Having seen this ending, it is a final note that would have honestly worked better if it were attached to the first movie. Knowing the climax of the first movie and how that all goes down, I think that if the climax of that first movie, as it was, came to an end, we see Arthur in jail, and a particular chunk of the second movie’s ending were implemented into the first, I think it would have been a better fit. In fact, as I said, I do not have anything against the first movie’s ending. But I think if that recently mentioned chunk were used to cap off the first film, it would have made for something incredible. It might be an ending that I would be talking about on a positive note for years to come. It would have been clever. The ending to “Joker: Folie à Deux” is a slap in the face. It left me speechless, confused, and a bit broken. The movie could have been a continued progression of the title character, or at least his alternate identity, but almost refuses to give any interesting expansion to him at all. And it culminates with maybe the most baffling ending I have ever seen in a movie based on a comic book.

This is one of those endings that tries so hard to be clever, but it fails to get any raw reaction out of me. It is the below freezing icing on the heavily wax-induced cake that is “Joker: Folie à Deux.” It is a contender to be the most controversial film I have reviewed in years. It is a film that seems to be confused in what its audience is. I found a decent number of people on the Internet who enjoyed this movie, but there is a reason why if you look at the box office, another clown-centered film, “Terrifier 3,” which for the record I do not plan to see, is currently finding its people and “Joker: Folie à Deux” is not. It appears to understand its purpose and who it is for. At the box office, “Joker: Folie à Deux” had the biggest second-weekend drop in comic book movie history. Clearly, I am not alone when it comes to adding to this film’s bad word of mouth. While this movie has some okay parts in it and looks nice, it is nowhere near enough to outweigh the pile of garbage that toppled me throughout its poorly paced runtime.

In the end, “Joker: Folie à Deux” just so happens to be a joke itself. But am I laughing? Absolutely not. There is a common consensus about sequels that they are usually not as good as their predecessor, but rarely do I recall seeing a step down as massive as this one. If anything, “Joker: Folie à Deux” reminds me of say my transition from “Star Wars: The Force Awakens,” one of my favorite films in the franchise, to “Star Wars: The Last Jedi.” If you read my review for “The Last Jedi,” you would know that I gave that film a positive grade when it came out. But the more I thought about the movie, and after rewatching it, the less I liked its story choices. And “The Last Jedi” and “Joker: Folie à Deux” are kind of similar in some ways. Both films look beautiful. They have good scores. But I am not a massive fan of the directions they took the story and certain characters. I wish we got something different with them. “Joker: Folie à Deux” only manages to support my thoughts that this property would have been better had the timeline just been one and done. I did not see the point of this movie other than to make a quick buck. Going into the movie, I would have argued it could have garnered some awards talk because of the previous film’s success, but this film is not receiving the best word of mouth. If I were to picture this movie’s fate at next year’s Oscars, I think it will have a chance it being nominated for several technical categories. But I do not know if it will get any of the big ticket ones like screenplay, director, actor, or picture. “Joker: Folie à Deux” is not even the worst comic book movie of the year. This sequel has the abomination against humanity known as “Madame Web” to thank for that. But “Joker: Folie à Deux” is probably the biggest disappointment I have seen in a long time. I was looking forward to this movie. I thought it had potential. But all I saw was an iffy courtroom drama with bad musical and singing sequences, an underuse of Lady Gaga, a series of unmemorable events, and a big fat dumb ending. I am going to give “Joker: Folie à Deux” a 2/10.

“Joker: Folie à Deux” is now playing in theaters everywhere. Tickets are available now. Plenty of seats are available, I guarantee it!

Thanks for reading this review! My next reviews are going to be for “Look Back,” “Piece by Piece,” “Saturday Night,” and “Megalopolis.” 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 “Joker: Folie à Deux?” What did you think about it? Or, what is the biggest step down in a franchise you have seen from a certain installment to the one that came after it? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

The Instigators (2024): Wicked Average

Posted on by Jack Drees

“The Instigators” is directed by Doug Liman (The Bourne Identity, Jumper) and stars Matt Damon (The Martian, Good Will Hunting), Casey Affleck (Manchester by the Sea, Gone Baby Gone), Hong Chau (Kinds of Kindness, The Menu), Michael Stuhlbarg (Call Me by Your Name, The Shape of Water), Paul Walter Hauser (Cobra Kai, Inside Out 2) Ving Rhames (The Garfield Movie, Mission: Impossible), Alfred Molina (Raiders of the Lost Ark, Spider-Man 2), Toby Jones (Frost/Nixon, W), Jack Harlow (White Men Can’t Jump), and Ron Perlman (Hellboy, Pinocchio). This film is about two men who go on the run with a therapist after a heist does not go as planned.

As someone who has lived in Massachusetts all his life, it should not come as a surprise that I have a few Boston-based movies under my belt. Movies like “The Departed,” “Good Will Hunting,” “Spotlight,” “Ted,” “Patriots Day,” “Stronger…” Granted I still have not seen everything like “Mystic River,” “Black Mass,” “Gone Baby Gone…” Still waiting to get around to those. But as someone from this area, I feel it is my duty to check out a Boston-based film when possible, which is one reason why I saw “The Instigators” recently.

Sadly though, I cannot say I was that excited for this movie. The trailer failed to impress me, and I did not think this movie was going to do that well.

There are times where I almost forgot I had to review this movie, which is really weird when you consider my experience with it. This is a true story… When I saw this film on opening Thursday night, I am not making this up, my theater was decked to the brim with “The Instigators” posters. If this were my bedroom, you would think I have an unhealthy obsession with this movie. That should probably give you some indication as to how my experience went down.

For the record, I do not despise “The Instigators,” but I also cannot say it is worth your time either. This is one of those movies that barely kept me awake as it went. Does it have a good pace to it? Sure. Do I like the cast in the movie? Sure. Do I think the movie has some clever moments? Sure. But everything about the overall experience of the film just screams middle of the road. There is nothing outright amazing about “The Instigators,” especially when compared to other Boston titles like “The Departed.” If I was in a Boston mood and I wanted to truly pay attention to every single detail on screen, I would simply turn on “The Departed.” But as for “The Instigators,” the situation in which I most likely see myself watching this movie again in the future would probably be when I just need some background noise. Part of me wants to say that I could maybe catch the movie on cable and just leave it on, but I highly doubt that Apple is going to allow that to happen. I do not think they are in that kind of business.

Now as someone who resides on the North Shore of the Bay State, I do fit into some local stereotypes. I do enjoy Dunkin’, I buy a ticket to a ballgame at Fenway, I have used the term “Storrowed” every once in a while, and I have even had the privilege of seeing a couple Boston Marathons in person. When I was in college the Boston Marathon route went right by my campus, so I took advantage of my commuter parking pass and got to see the event play out a couple times. Heck, I went to see this movie IN THE ONLY THEATER TECHNICALLY IN BOSTON, not any of its suburbs, selling tickets for it! But I have to be real with you, as much as I try, to varying successes and failures, to maintain my local roots, I have to admit this movie does a good job linking itself to the Greater Boston culture. When I say this however, I should also say, the movie almost does… TOO GOOD of a job. Sometimes the outcome this movie provides when it comes to its Boston tributes, if you can call them that, is almost pornographic. Whether it means Alfred Molina randomly showing up with Dunkin’, getting Rob Gronkowski of all people to make a rather gratuitous cameo, or having Hong Chau’s character mention she’s from Lynn during a chase and having the other characters say “Lynn Lynn the City of sin” just because. Though I must admit, there is a scene in the movie where we see a protest outside of Boston City Hall and I almost burst out laughing as soon as I saw a sign that read “FIX THE MBTA!”.

It is almost as if the crew behind this movie decided to ingrain themselves so heavily in Boston culture to the point where they sort of built a decent atmosphere for the film, but did not have the brains on how to make the film as entertaining as can be. Because as I look back at this film, I find to be uneventful, unmemorable, and minimally engaging. I cannot say I hate any of the characters on screen, but I am not going to remember their names in six months.

That said, this film is led by Matt Damon and Casey Affleck, and the two, to my lack of surprise, have decent chemistry in their roles. They both do a good job as two guys from Quincy, and even though I admit their journeys in this film fall into some pits of predictability, I enjoyed seeing their motivations play out and their personalities come to life. But when you have these two leading a movie like this, I kind of expect something more from the script or the plot, or even the direction.

Heck, this movie is directed by Doug Liman, whose resume partially includes “The Bourne Identity” and “Edge of Tomorrow,” which like those movies or not, you would probably agree with me when I say they look pretty cinematic. This movie honestly looks like it was made for television between its lighting that appears as if the crew forgot to brighten the bulb a tad occasionally. Yet at other times, it has some unusual camera tricks that try to appear cinematic, but only manage to feel jarring the longer I gaze my eyes upon them.

If I had to pick a performance in the film that stood out to me the most, it would probably be Ron Perlman as Mayor Miccelli. At a glance, Perlman very much looks the part of a politician. He has this look to him that like some politicians, you question yourself in the back of your mind on whether or not to trust him. His presence in the film made for some good scenes, especially towards the end.

And you know what? This is a poetic transition. If I had anything else to say that is positive about the film, I must admit, I was not 100% thrilled with all that it had to offer, but there are several scenes where you can easily be entertained by these characters. The entire cast oozes charisma, even if they are playing characters whose names you will probably erase from your memory after leaving the theater. Is part of it because some of the actors in the cast are recognizable? Perhaps. Why do you think I am going about this review referring to the actors names but not acknowledging their respective characters? But like some of their previous work, those recognizable actors play their parts well here. However, for me, this film was missing something. If anything the film is almost too stereotypical and lacking in any oomph that will make audiences remember it for years to come.

In the end, “The Instigators” is a somewhat entertaining movie, but it is not one that had me engaged the entire time. As the heist goes down, I am interested in what is going on. But I cannot say there are any standout moments in this film that will cement it as one of my favorites of the year. Does everyone in the cast do a good job? Again, sure. But they are not Oscar-worthy. This movie is on Apple TV+, and I can frankly see why. I have to be real, their record has not been working for me. Other than “CODA,” which is amazing, I cannot say I have seen one movie from Apple yet, and I include “Killers of the Flower Moon” in this thought, that has totally floored me. If you were planning on watching “The Instigators,” I am here to tell you your time will not be completely wasted, but you can probably use that time to do other things that would be more exciting. I am going to give “The Instigators” a 5/10.

“The Instigators” is now playing in select theaters and is available on Apple TV+ for all subscribers.

Thanks for reading this review! If you want to see more reviews like this, I have more coming! Stay tuned for my thoughts on “Sing Sing,” “Borderlands,” “Skincare,” “My Old Ass,” “Reagan,” and “It Ends with Us.” If you want to see these reviews and more from Scene Before, follow the blog either with an email or WordPress account! Also, check out the official Facebook page! I want to know, did you see “The Instigators?” What did you think about it? Or, since I clearly have no faith in their service, what is something you recommend on Apple TV+? Yes, I know they’ve got shows like “Ted Lasso,” “Severance,” “For All Mankind,” but I want to specifically ask if there are any movies from them that you enjoyed. Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

MaXXXine (2024): Mia Goth and Ti West Deliver Those 1980s Vibes and Good Times in the Third Installment to the “X” Saga

Posted on by Jack Drees

“MaXXXine” is directed by Ti West, who also directed the previous installments of what is now known as the “X” trilogy. This film stars Mia Goth (Infinity Pool, Emma.), Elizabeth Debicki (Tenet, The Burnt Orange Heresy), Moses Sumney (The Idol), Michelle Monaghan (Gone Baby Gone, Eagle Eye), Bobby Cannavale (Ant-Man, Sing 2), Halsey (Sing 2, Americana), Lily Collins (Abduction, Priest), Giancarlo Esposito (The Mandalorian, Abigail), and Kevin Bacon (Apollo 13, Footloose). This film follows adult film actor Maxine Minx. When she lands her big break by getting the lead role in a feature film, Maxine must deal with being targeted by a mysterious killer.

Before I give my thoughts on “MaXXXine,” I will give you a bit of a recap of my thoughts on “X” and “Pearl.” For the record, I have never reviewed those films. I missed them in the theater, so I skipped those reviews and watched the movies at home. I thought as a horror film, “X” definitely delivers the creeps. I also like the chemistry between the characters and I thought the climax was rather entertaining. That said, knowing some of the content in it, I would probably think twice before watching this movie with my parents. As for its sequel, “Pearl,” not only do I think it is a step up from the original, it is almost my favorite horror movie of 2022, and that was in a year containing a murderers’ row of good horror films. You had “Smile.” You had “Barbarian.” The only pure horror movie, if you prefer to call it one, I thought was better than all of these titles, was “The Menu.” No offense to “Pearl,” but one movie made me want a cheeseburger and the other did not. Mia Goth is a star as the lead role. The cinematography is gorgeous. The color palette at times is like something out of a Disney movie if you put it in the hands of an anarchist. The score is beautifully grand. And as much as I enjoyed the climax in “X,” the last moments of “Pearl” are borderline unforgettable. It has an incredible monologue scene, it is gory, and a final shot for the ages. Tonally, the film matches the motivations and dreams of its own character, and I was immersed with all of it.

So, I liked “X,” and I liked “Pearl.” This franchise is two for two so far, therefore that gave me confidence that “MaXXXine” could be another win. After all, the trailer sold me for its vibes. It took me back a few decades, promised plenty of action, and it looked like another solid performance from Mia Goth. This time around she is replaying the role she had in the first film, Maxine Minx. So I was curious to see what she would bring to the table now that she was clearly onto bigger things.

As for what was brought to the table, I would say I was quite pleased. While I think “Pearl” is still the best entry of the trilogy, “MaXXXine” is another worthy installment that delivers on gore, characterization, and plenty of style.

One thing I appreciate about “MaXXXine,” and therefore, the “X” trilogy in general, is its individual flair. Each movie so far has its own feel to it. But simultaneously, they all feel consistent. “MaXXXine” has the sleaziness of “X” if you mixed it with a detective thriller. It has that after dark vibe with a pinch of class. The feel fits the movie perfectly, especially considering the dark past of the protagonist, the creepy nature of the antagonist, and the actions that ensue throughout the runtime.

If you want me to be real, as much as I like “X,” part of me would think twice before watching it in the same room as my parents. As for this movie, I feel perhaps more comfortable if I put it on in front of say my dad. But I would probably stay away from my grandma. That said, if you like gore, this movie is not short on it. If you like a good story, this movie has it. And if you want a film that also manages to please on the technical side, look no further. Despite this movie’s dark tone, it has plenty of color. It is beautifully lit and gorgeously shot. Some of the costume choices stand out, especially for, and it is a bit ironic to say given her established profession, Maxine herself. The production design is also pretty neat. At times, the more I look at it, the more I think about it, part of me would not mind seeing this movie’s universe in video game form. Some of the night scenes in particular elicit a unique sense of immersion.

The performances in “MaXXXine” all around are great. Elizabeth Debicki is a standout as Elizabeth Bender, a director on a film Maxine’s working on. Kevin Bacon is also a highlight as John Labat, a private investigator who clearly knows a thing or two about being fashionable. But of course, this is Mia Goth’s movie, and much like this franchise’s protagonists aspire to be, she is a star. She kills this role with fire. When I think about my favorite actors working today, Mia Goth never comes to mind, and I feel ashamed to say that because I have seen her in several movies now, and even if I do not particularly enjoy a film in which she appears, such as “Infinity Pool,” Mia Goth herself still comes off as one of the better parts of the movie. And here, she commands each scene she is in. Goth is a powerhouse.

Admittedly, there are a couple scenes in this film that do not quite have the memorability that others deliver. But even in those scenes, I was still onboard. The film is nevertheless properly paced and a fun ride. There is one kill in this movie that may go down as my favorite of the year. It is definitely a favorite of the past couple years. The climax of this movie at times had me on the edge of my seat. This movie also has an ending that not only fits will within its narrative, but if the series were to stop here, it would be a swell conclusion. I would not mind seeing more from the “X” franchise, but if it were to end here, it ended on a fine note. Ti West once again, writes and directs another sensationally fun flick, getting the best out of Mia Goth, who continues to prove she is one of this generation’s more notable talents. I would not mind seeing more from these two, whether they are together or not. Props to both of them.

In the end, “MaXXXine” is not my favorite installment of the “X” franchise, but I think if I had to pick a movie to watch on a Friday night, I think “MaXXXine” would probably get the edge over the original “X.” I think it offers more entertainment value, slightly more preferable vibes, and perhaps a more memorable outing with Mia Goth in the lead role. It could be recency bias though, I have not seen “X” since 2022. But for what I recall, I think “X” has the edge story-wise. Not that “MaXXXine” has a bad story. If anything, I was mostly engaged with it, but of the three movies in this series so far, I think if I had to pick the weakest of the three stories, “MaXXXine” would probably come out on top. And I say that despite some of the places it takes us. One of the things I love about this movie is how it uses the Universal Studios Lot in Hollywood. Seeing Los Angeles in 1985 was pleasing to the eye. Speaking of pleasing to the eye, as a lover of neon, this film is not short on it. I do not know, maybe that is just a me thing. That said, “MaXXXine” is another solid effort from Ti West and Mia Goth. The “X” franchise continues to thrive, and I am going to give this movie a 7/10.

“MaXXXine” is now playing in theaters and is available to rent or buy on VOD.

Thanks for reading this review! I have more reviews along the way including “Twisters,” “Deadpool & Wolverine,” “Kinds of Kindness,” “Sing Sing,” and “Borderlands.” 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 “MaXXXine?” What did you think about it? Or, what is your favorite movie of the “X” trilogy? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

Boy Kills World (2023): Bill Skarsgård Lets the Bodies Hit the Floor in This Adrenaline Rush of an Action Flick

Posted on by Jack Drees

“Boy Kills World” is directed by Moritz Mohr (Akumi, Ronin 2035) and stars Bill Skarsgård (Malignant, It), Jessica Rothe (Mary + Jane, Happy Death Day), Michelle Dockery (Downton Abbey, Good Behavior), Brett Gelman (Stranger Things, Fleabag), Isaiah Mustafa (It Chapter Two, Murder at Yellowstone City), Yahan Ruhian (Warrior, Bullet Train), Sharlto Copley (Hardcore Henry, Monkey Man), H. Jon Benjamin (Bob’s Burgers, Archer), and Famke Janssen (X-Men, Taken). This film is set in a dystopian time and is about a deaf and mute person who is trained to become an instrument of death. Now he must use all that he knows to achieve revenge over the murder of his family.

If I were to make a top 10 most anticipated movies of 2024 list at the beginning of the year, there is a solid chance “Boy Kills World” probably would not have been on there. Why? Because I had no idea about it. But had I seen the marketing for it at the beginning of the year, I probably would have considered sliding it into one of the spots, or at least noting it as an honorable mention. “Boy Kills World” looked like a bloody good time. And if you put Bill Skarsgård, one of this generation’s great actors together with H. Jon Benjamin, one of this generation’s great voiceover artists, you may have a recipe for a winning combo. On paper, this sounds like my kind of movie. In execution, this is most certainly my kind of movie. It is like if “Deadpool” had a baby “John Wick: Chapter 4” and it just so happened to be set in a environment straight out of “The Hunger Games.” I am not even a huge “Hunger Games” fan, but my god, is this movie delicious…

“Boy Kills World” is as simple as can be when it comes to the premise. Basically, a guy has to survive against his enemies all to get to a specific person he needs to kill. But the way this movie goes about it is unbelievably satisfying. Technically speaking, this movie has a color palette that bridges a gap between grit and fantasy… Fluid camerawork that flawlessly showcases an endless series of incredible action sequences from start to finish… And on top of that, some surprisingly intricate and palatable production design. For a movie set in a dystopian future, I was pleasantly surprised to know how much pizazz said future has.

The costume design in this film is a bit of a standout to me. It is kind of all over the place in terms of color, design, and vibe. But the movie somehow makes all of those costumes feel consistent with one another. Each costume suits the characters’ personalities in addition to the personality of the movie itself.

Going back to the “Deadpool” meets “John Wick” comparison, this movie, much like those, involves our main character looking for a little payback in honor of those he loves. Also like both movies, our protagonist, in this case, Boy, is a mastermind when it comes to killing. The stellar choreography we see from him certainly adds to the thrills as well. And much like “John Wick: Chapter 4,” I found this movie to be very video game-esque. Every other moment, our protagonist has something new to fend off, and each time, it is done with a lovingly quick pace. The action not only looks great, but it is to some degree, nonstop. In fact, one could argue that this movie is more video game-like than “John Wick: Chapter 4,” because the main character does not speak. You ever play a video game like “The Legend of Zelda” or “Portal” where everyone has lines except for the main character? That’s what this movie reminds me of. Except in this case, unlike say Link from “The Legend of Zelda,” we actually get some context fed to us as to why Boy does not speak, and it works.

The closest we get to the main character speaking is H. Jon Benjamin being a guiding voice for our protagonist, and he does an excellent job all the way through. He has a lot of lines in this movie. While I sometimes complain about actors, particularly in voiceover roles, playing themselves like Dwayne Johnson and Kevin Hart practically did in “DC League of Super-Pets,” I am going to give H. Jon Benjamin a pass because there is an endless sense of energy in his performance. He is one of the best parts of this movie, and we do not even see him! On top of that, if you have never heard H. Jon Benjamin’s voice, turn on any episode of “Bob’s Burgers” right now because he is legendary. There is a saying in film that you should show instead of tell. That should always be the priority. But if you want to know how much I enjoyed this movie, I will remind you that H. Jon Benjamin’s “telling” is probably some of the coolest I have witnessed in cinematic history. He can make anything sound epic, and he is only helped by a dynamite script.

It only makes sense that someone like H. Jon Benjamin would have a voiceover role in this film, because not only does it feel like a video game, it has a lot of cartoony elements. Yes, the movie is live-action. But going back to the costumes, the movie rides a fine line with them to the point where they feel authentic, but fantasy-like. The violence is over the top, creative, and bloody to no end. A lot of the dialogue is expressive, comedic, and leans into an occasional digression here and there. Also, one of the key points of this movie is the Culling, which gathers 12 people who are going to be murdered on live television. The way the movie goes about handling something like this, to my surprise, makes me buy it. If you ever watch live sports, you would notice how riddled they are with commercialism and sponsorships. When we get to the Culling, we find out the assigned killers are dressed as breakfast cereal mascots. I do not want to see a future where we have deadly events like this. But if we ever get to that point, I can see a timeline where something like this happens. After all, people need to get paid, and big corporations need to sell cereal. It’s a win win. And in “Boy Kills World’s” favor, it adds to the humor of it all despite the movie being dark and gory. There is a fun side to it.

This movie is not only killer when it comes to style, but it slays when comes to substance. Story-wise, the movie does a good job at letting us get to know about not just our protagonist, but it also does the same when it comes to handling his sister. I thought she was a standout. From the marketing, this looks like a movie that was going to deliver on action, maybe let the story take a back seat. But no, I was pleasantly surprised by how invested I became in the plot, and the details of our protagonist. This movie has multiple winning combos. A revenge tale mixed with a dystopian vibe. One of this generation’s great physical actors mixed with one of this generation’s great voice talents. And on top of the sick action, you have an admirable story. What more could you want out of a movie like this?

In the end, it is a shame that “Boy Kills World” only made 3 million bucks at the box office, because it is one of my favorite films of the year so far. It kind of reminds me of one of my favorite comedies of last year, “Bottoms,” not only because it delivers on laughs, but because it is set in a world that makes up an occasionally absurd set of rules that I can somehow buy into. If you want to see action that pushes the limits, this movie is for you. If you are not a fan of blood, violence, gore, or seeing people get killed in creative ways, maybe stay away from this one. But I am a sick person, so this movie was certainly for me. I am going to give “Boy Kills World” an 8/10.

“Boy Kills World” is unfortunately, not playing in many theaters right now. I checked for showtimes in Los Angeles and New York City and could not find anything. If you live where I live, in Massachusetts, there is one theater playing it in Rockport right now. Not sure where else it is playing. But if it is playing near you, see it. I endorse this film. Otherwise, you can preorder it right now to watch on VOD.

Thanks for reading this review! My next review is going to be for “Challengers!” Stay tuned! Also, be sure to check out my reviews for “The Fall Guy,” “Tarot,” “IF,” and “The Garfield Movie.” 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 “Boy Kills World?” What did you think about it? Or, what is a movie you saw this year you wish more people were aware of? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

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

Posted on by Jack Drees

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Posted on by Jack Drees

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Many times, actually.

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

Fast X (2023): Xtremely Atrocious

Posted on by Jack Drees

“Fast X” is “directed” by Louis Leterrier. It was originally supposed to be helmed by Justin Lin, who has done a few of the franchise’s installments, including the recent “F9.” However, due to drama with star Vin Diesel (xXx, Guardians of the Galaxy), he left the directorial position. So that’s fun… Although he does have a screenplay credit. Speaking of Vin Diesel, joining him is a cast including Michelle Rodriguez (Dunegons & Dragons: Honor Among Thieves, Widows), Tyrese Gibson (Morbius, Black and Blue), Chris “Ludacris” Bridges (Karma’s World, Crash), John Cena (Peacemaker, Blockers), Nathalie Emmanuel (The Dark Crystal: Age of Resistance, Game of Thrones), Jordana Brewster (Dallas, Lethal Weapon), Sung Kang (Power, Obi-Wan Kenobi), Scott Eastwood (Suicide Squad, The Longest Ride), Daniela Melchior (The Suicide Squad, Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3), Alan Ritchson (Reacher, Titans), Helen Mirren (Skyfall, The Queen), Brie Larson (Captain Marvel, Room), Rita Moreno (West Side Story, 80 for Brady), Jason Statham (Crank, The Transporter), Jason Momoa (Aquaman, Slumberland), and Charlize Theron (A Million Ways to Die in the West, Bombshell). This series of moving images that technically qualifies as a blockbuster film once again centers around Dom Toretto and his “family” as they must stop Dante Reyes from ending their lives.

We did it folks! We have reached TEN of these films now. ELEVEN if you count that one “Hobbs & Shaw” spinoff that was quite entertaining. …Yay? To be honest, I could not have been less stoked about “Fast X.” I have seen plenty of bad movies, including some to major franchises like “Star Wars,” “Jurassic Park,” and “Transformers.” Few movies like “F9: The Fast Saga” have reeked of such an abominable aftertaste. Why did it not work? Because it treated me like an idiot.

The “Fast and Furious” franchise has evolved to such idiocy over the years. It has gone from being “Point Break” with street racing to taking on a shark-jumping identity that only gets bigger, not to mention dumber, with each installment. From “Fast & Furious,” the fourth movie, to “Furious 7,” everything that resembled such shark-jumping never took me out. “The Fate of the Furious” and “Hobbs & Shaw” came close, but I still enjoyed the movies for what they were. “F9: The Fast Saga” feels like a lowest common denominator tentpole. Between John Cena’s stiff acting, Dom Toretto’s lack of charisma, and the forced space scene had me chuckling at it for the wrong reason, I cannot see myself watching “F9: The Fast Saga” ever again.

But I am one who believes in second chances. Therefore, for that reason, in addition to the fact that I feel somewhat obligated to put out a review, I decided to check out “Fast X” on opening night a couple weeks ago. The trailers honestly did nothing to excite me. In fact, I felt like was spoiling the movie for myself through whatever the heck the marketing campaign was. But I tried to act mature and let the movie speak for itself.

Safe to say, there were enjoyable moments. Maybe, one, two, or three. Because there are many others that I would rather forget.

This is, unfortunately, just about as bad as “F9.” I left “F9” feeling appalled as to how this franchise got to where it was, but I thought it had a couple cool ideas. I left “Fast X” feeling like I got punched in the brain. By the end of the film, I had perhaps the quickest 180 degrees shift I have ever experienced as a movie watcher. I went from liking where things were going, to wanting to scream like an unsatisfied customer at Disney World. Because there are times where the film has inklings of fun in it. But they are never enough to justify me paying money to watch the movie in the first place, and even in a couple more entertaining moments, they include some of the dumbest ideas and realizations ever brought to the big screen. I think I figured out what the X in “Fast X” stands for. No, it does not mean the number ten. It stands for Xcrement.

There is so much nonsense that happens in “Fast X” that I need to split this review into two or three parts to definitively explain all of what I need to say. I am not going to, however, because I would be a jerk. So, let us widdle down some things.

For starters, I am convinced that “Fast X” does not know how cameras work. Not that the film is poorly shot, it is in a word, fine. That said, there is a scene at the beginning of the movie that serves as a reminder of who the Toretto family happens to be. Not only is this as expositional as can be with a couple core characters standing in a large room doing nothing, but the footage used to talk about the Toretto family, are movie shots. Not security camera footage, not raw video that could have been uploaded to social media, but carefully crafted shots that are used in past films. It reminds me of “Batman & Robin” where a particular shot of Poison Ivy is reused for plot purposes, but that shot came from the camera shooting the movie with no inserted gimmicks, tricks, or added context. So either the “Fast & Furious” franchise is secretly one of the world’s most ambitious documentaries or this scene is as lazily set up as public transit in almost every corner of the U.S.. It does not take long for me to be taken out of the film, which is unfortunate because the film does try to give some stakes in certain situations. But even when that happens, it is difficult for me to appreciate it because I am not convinced anything in this movie will matter.

This movie has a ton of characters. But size does not matter, it is what you do with it. Not much is done with it to be frank, because there is almost no charisma from any of the characters! This includes the lead!

Domenic Toretto is arguably the most overpowered, unlikably boring protagonist who continues to maintain some semblance of relevance in our cultural zeitgeist. I remember when these movies made the heroes feel superhuman, but they continued to have some degree of verisimilitude to their actions. Dom is God at this point. Vin Diesel may have chosen to be Superman in “The Iron Giant,” but as far as I am concerned, if Dom Toretto were forced to fight Superman, Toretto has a chance of clobbering him at this point. Other protagonists, even in movies I do not enjoy, will have me guessing if they are going to make it out of a sticky situation. If anything, Toretto practically is the sticky situation in every scene. He is not the villain, but he is a man without weakness. And while anything’s possible, this franchise proves it, I would rather see characters who have to deal with their troubles because the reality is that nobody’s perfect. Sure, there are some added stakes in this film with Dom having a kid, and Jason Momoa plays a compelling antagonist. But those two things are not enough to make a good movie. This is where the “Mission: Impossible” franchise often succeeds where “Fast & Furious” does not. Because while the movies are fictional spy adventures, they have fewer fantastical elements and more interesting characters that keep me engaged in the picture.

In fact, going back to Dom’s kid, Brian, he is nicely portrayed by Leo Abelo Perry. I am not convinced that he looks like the offspring Dom and Letty would have, but nevertheless. He is good in the film. What is not good in the film, is Dom’s parenting skills. I know this film defies logic, physics, and science, but is it the dumbest time for me to ask why the heck Brian is able to drive at eight years old? I mean, he can… But, are there like, laws… Against that? Ah, who am I kidding? The only law this movie knows is Murphy’s Law.

Although there is one good cameo in the middle of this film. I will not say who the individual of interest is, because I had no idea they were in the film going into it. But they are seen while the film is set in London. Additionally, this individual has some of the funniest lines in the film by a long shot.

Also, if any characters were improved, it would have to be John Cena’s Jakob. Unlike the last movie, he is actually charming, more than just a buff body, and kind of funny. One of Cena’s strengths as an actor is comedy. Since his last outing in the “Fast” universe, he has definitely improved himself as a performer, and I think the writers have similarly improved on his character and relied on some of what made John Cena’s performance in “The Suicide Squad” pop. The character himself is a bit of a diversion from what we have seen in “F9,” but it does not change the fact that Cena’s continued commitment to his craft is shown here.

I am going to do my best to talk about the end of this movie without giving a ton away. Inside I am vomiting just thinking about it. There is, an absurd, albeit the tiniest bit engaging moment where Dom flees from a couple oil trucks. Okay… At least no one is in space. Then we get an out of nowhere cliffhanger. While somewhat abrupt, that moment gave me hope. I thought the movie for the most part was mediocre at best, but that scene nearly redeemed everything else because it hinted that there could be at least one ounce of stakes in this universe. THEN we get to the ACTUAL ending. Where we find a couple other characters witnessing something, then another something happens. Once the other something happens, I think I witnessed an achievement in storytelling that could only be awarded with a Razzie. I said “F9” gave “Sharknado” ideas. That honestly feels like the tip of the iceberg at this point for how ridiculous things get in this franchise. What happened?!

One of the common things I hear about another popular series of films, specifically the MCU, is that those movies are more like theme parks than actual films. There are a few theme park-like elements in the MCU, but they are just a small part of what makes the films themselves exciting. They are still entertaining stories with likable characters. That said, if Martin Scorsese watches “Fast X” and walks out thinking that it is less theme park-esque than anything in the MCU, then he may as well be entitled to his wrong opinion. I would rather watch “Iron Man 2.” I’d rather watch “Black Widow.” Dude, I would rather watch “Thor: The Dark World” instead of not just “Fast X,” but both of this franchise’s most recent outings! How bad do you have to be to compared to a franchise of 32 movies, and I would watch all of those instead of these last two duds?! This movie has thrills, but little character growth. This movie has style, but no substance. This movie has action, but no stakes. And what we get is one of the worst movies of the year, not to mention one of the worst cinematic efforts of the decade.

When I walked out of “F9,” I lost any excitement I had for “Fast X,” and the trailers lowered it even more. As for “Fast X,” I think the most positive thing I can say about this movie is that people got paid to make it. Just because you have all these big stars including Vin Diesel, Brie Larson, Charlize Theron, and Jason Momoa, does not mean the film can get away without delivering a good script to back them up. After the first act, everything in this film feels as haphazard as a carnival ride. Whereas MCU movies are debatably theme park rides instead of cinema, “Fast X” feels more like a carnival ride that was shipped in and set up at the last minute. It is wobbly, squeaky, and its roughness cannot match its acceptable appearance. The film looks okay. The cinematography is pedestrian, although the editing is a bit over the top. Maybe too much for its own good. There is no way I can convince myself that “Fast X” adds anything fresh or exciting to this franchise. Its old tricks, despite their remixes, are honestly tired at this point.

In fact, speaking of old tricks, if I have to be honest and state what I think could be the most enjoyable moments of the film, they may be the ones from the beginning. While that may seem vague, let me remind you that much of that is really just a flashback to “Fast Five.” Do not get me wrong, I like “Fast Five.” But after watching “Fast X,” I was not convinced that I should watch it again. Instead, I thought I would rather watch “Fast Five” again. While some may take this as a compliment regarding the franchise’s longevity, if the franchise wants to save itself in the future, it might as well craft something good to release in the present, and maybe not indulge a whole ton in its past.

Movie franchises are only as good as their last project. Granted, money also talks. “Fast & Furious” makes money. But sometimes the two go hand in hand. Look at “The Divergent Series.” The third movie comes out to less than stellar reviews, the box office is equally unsatisfying, and not only was it announced that the fourth film would go straight to television, the film never saw the light of day following said announcement. Or for a more recent example, Look at “Ant-Man and the Wasp: Quantumania.” The movie ended up receiving some of the worst verdicts in the MCU and ended up having significant drops during following weekends at the box office. Sure, the movie made quite a bit of money, but by current MCU standards and with the diminishing of the COVID-19 pandemic, it is below what it could have made.

Going back to “Fast Five,” this movie utilizes that predecessor to tell a story of its own. Because the villain, Dante, is the son of Hernan Reyes, the antagonist of “Fast Five.” If I have to give this movie one compliment, its villain is one of the more redeemable elements of the experience. I am not going to pretend that it saves the film from being a disaster, but Jason Momoa steals every scene he is in. Every one of his mannerisms reminded me of a more adult version of Jim Carrey’s Doctor Robotnik from the “Sonic” movies. In fact, I am not surprised Momoa pulls off his performance. Having seen one of his most recent projects, “Slumberland,” he has a bit of a fun side to him that I have not uncovered through his time as say “Aquaman.” Not to diss on his performance as Aquaman, but “Slumberland,” despite its flaws, showed perhaps a likably cartoony side to him. At times, this film feels like a cartoon that tries to ground itself too much. Jason Momoa feels like the one performer who showed up to do a different project than those around him. Everyone showed up to be an action star while he showed up to be a goofball with guns and an endless motive to kill. I do not recommend going to see “Fast X,” but if there is any reason I would argue you should, Jason Momoa is the first idea that comes to mind.

There is nothing wrong with a franchise evolving from its roots. But “Fast & Furious” shows what happens when evolution goes too far. Adding a little ridiculousness is fine. In fact, it is actually kind of cool. Although what does not work is seeing that ridiculousness turn into chaos. Sure, this movie harkens back to the street racing element that was utilized in prior installments. But it is overshadowed by the many negatives that result from the franchise’s evolution. I do not have as much emotional attachment for these characters as I once did, because I am convinced that they are going to make it out of any situation they find themselves in. They say the definition of insanity is doing the same thing multiple times and expecting different results. “Fast X” defies reality just as much, if not more, than “F9.” Therefore, this franchise fits the bill to where it could be called insane. It is just about as insane as I would be if I ever watch this movie again.

In the end, “Fast X” somehow managed to go below my already miniscule expectations. A bad “Fast & Furious” movie is one thing, but two in a row destroys my faith in the future of this franchise. I have a feeling this movie was designed with an ending to get me to ask “Where are they going with this?”. Only thing is I saw that ending and thought, there is almost no possible scenario where I tune into the next movie and it compels me from the first scene. I have seen some solid cliffhangers over the years in film. I have seen them in movies like “The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug,” “Back to the Future Part II,” “Inception,” and the “Incredibles” installments. These are endings that either give me solid questions, make me beg for solid answers, or sometimes both. For “Inception,” it leaves my mind to wonder what could be happening. These are solid endings that build extended promise. “Fast X” might be promising something, but I can only assume it will be empty. But before that ending happens, things are not too great either. Between all the nonsense, the boring characters, and lackluster dialogue, this is easily one of the worst movies of the year. I am going to give “Fast X” a 2/10.

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

Thanks for reading this review! Pretty soon I am going to have reviews for films like “The Blackening,” “Spider-Man: Across the Spider-Verse,” and “Hypnotic.” Stay tuned! If you want to see more from Scene Before, follow the blog either with email or WordPress account! Also, check out the official Facebook page! I want to know, did you see “Fast X?” What did you think about it? Or, what is the most abysmal, rotten, downright awful travesty of a blockbuster film you have seen in recent years? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

How to Blow Up a Pipeline (2022): A Young, Admirable Ensemble Carries This Environment-Centric Feature

Posted on by Jack Drees

“How to Blow Up a Pipeline” is directed by Daniel Goldhaber and stars Ariela Barer (Runaways, Atypical), Kristine Froseth (Looking for Alaska, The Society), Lukas Gage (The White Lotus, Euphoria), Forrest Goodluck (The Republic of Sarah, The Revenant), Sasha Lane (Utopia, Loki), Jayme Lawson (Farewell Amor, The Batman), Marcus Scribner (Black-ish, She-Ra and the Princesses of Power), Jake Weary (Animal Kingdom, Fred: The Movie), and Irene Bedard (Pocahontas, The Mist). This film centers around several environmental activists as they band together to, as the title suggests, blow up a pipeline.

Some of you reading this review may be hearing about this movie for the first time today. I ended up watching this movie for a few reasons. First, the trailer was really good. It had a certain flair to it that individualized the project. Second, to some degree, I care about the environment. I cannot pretend I am perfect, but I try to do my part when it comes to preserving it. Third, the release period seemed limited. It was playing at select theaters with minimal times available. In fact I did a search for showtimes in my area, and found out “How to Blow Up a Pipeline” currently is not playing anywhere near me. It is available to watch at home, but still. I am glad I saw this movie when I did. In a time where I recognize climate change, the world being on fire, and needing to take care of my surroundings more than ever, I thought this movie could be, at least, an important watch. Now that I have seen it, would I recommend it?

After some thought, I would say that question requires an extended debate.

It has been a couple weeks since I watched “How to Blow Up a Pipeline.” I wish I could have gotten this review out earlier but between other movie reviews being in the… You know, pipeline… And other things in life getting in the way, I have waited until now to talk about it. That said, I do not remember everything I saw in this movie. This is a simple movie. This is also on the shorter side. But if I were asked to give any of the characters’ names or their backstories, I would need to do a Google search. This also speaks to something that stood out to me in the movie as I watched it. The best thing about “How to Blow Up a Pipeline” is the chemistry between everyone in the ensemble. While I do not think the individual characters are that memorable, they come off as a well-oiled machine (sorry) when they work together.

To all of the environmentalists out there, I would like to make it clear that I did not necessarily enjoy “How to Blow Up a Pipeline” because of what it says about how we treat our planet. Instead, if I were to give a surface level summary of my experience, I enjoyed the movie because of the characters and how this film’s story effectively highlights the characters’ issues. The shared motivation of the main characters made me ask some perhaps much needed questions. I will get to those later. Yes, the movie heavily involves an oil pipeline, which as a singular concept, is a controversial topic regarding the future of this planet. But as the movie goes on, we see how it affects ordinary people. Granted, this is a work of fiction. But as I watched the movie, it felt raw. I not only felt connected with the main ensemble that were trying to blow up the pipeline, but the supporting characters that have to deal with the pipeline’s effects.

If I did not make myself clear already, I am not a climate change denier. I try to recycle as much as possible. I want good public transportation and I try to utilize it as much as I can. I own a car, but when I bought it, I avoided leaning towards an SUV or truck because of their effects on the environment. Naturally, if this movie was designed to change my mind on the oil industry or my views on environmental preservation, it will not. If anything, one can argue that I might be predisposed to this movie because of my views. But I think this is an important film, even if it is not my favorite I have seen recently. I think as we transition ourselves and evolve, this is something I will think about on one occasion or another. I am glad this movie this movie was made, not just because I was entertained with the journey the characters go through, but why said journey was taking place.

I can see certain people watching this movie and not siding with these characters. That said, movies like this go to show that everyone believes they are the hero of their own story. I have seen movies where I think the protagonist is a buffoon, I do not know how I could ever side with them. Specifically, Paul Thomas Anderson’s “Licorice Pizza.” But part of that has to do with my values and when this character is presented to be as moronic as he is, not once did I get a sense that this moron was charismatic or the least bit justified for his behavior. “How to Blow Up a Pipeline” is a hard sell based on its low budget and not exactly star-studded cast, although they have been in some popular television programs. Another season it is a hard sell is because it picks a side, not to mention a side that is likely to trigger some people. It did not trigger me, but I am not everyone else.

The movie begs to justify destroying things for the sake of sending a message. That is a tough question that I honestly do not know how to answer. Because history has shown that destruction of property or similar acts can be effective in sending a message and bringing change. Look at the Boston Tea Party. But is it worth the trouble? Is it worth the consequences? Not only do we see the oil pipeline destruction motivation play out, but this same message through destruction is being delivered from the very first scene. The first minute of the movie features one of the main characters slashing the tire of a gas guzzler car, while also posting a flyer as to why they did it. That is something that I also have mixed feelings on. It is definitely less harmful in more ways than one, but I do not know if the person on the receiving end is either going to change their mind or react fondly. Sure, destroying things can bring attention. But how far do you go to support a point? It is a question worth asking, but it is hard to say if it is worth answering.

“How to Blow Up a Pipeline” is something I probably would not have watched unless I was doing Scene Before. That said, I do not have any regrets. As a character story, this is captivating. As a thriller, it is intriguing. As an overall movie, it was worth the watch. Is this movie going to open anyone’s minds? It is a possibility. Because even though it is a work of fiction, it tends to base itself within the confines of an issue that feels real. And it is an issue that is likely to only become heavier depending on where we go as a society. The film is not playing in many theaters right now, including the ones near me. And while I cannot give “How to Blow Up a Pipeline” a glowing recommendation, I can say it is superior to many of the movies I have reviewed in recent months, especially the more popular titles everyone is giving their money to.

In the end, “How to Blow Up a Pipeline” was thought-provoking. It was a bit of a surprise because part of me did not know what to expect going in. This is not a project I would watch at home on a Friday night. But it is also a project that I am glad I saw this one time on a Friday night where I had nothing else going on. If you are looking to be entertained, you might get that out of this movie. But I left the film feeling more invested in questioning the deeper meaning behind the characters’ actions more than anything else. Despite the film not being my favorite of the year, I hope it is one that is brought up in conversations throughout the years to come. I am going to give “How to Blow Up a Pipeline” a 7/10.

“How to Blow Up a Pipeline” is now playing in select theatres and is available to buy or rent on digital services.

Thanks for reading this review! Pretty soon I am going to have reviews for “Sisu” and “Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3.” Stay tuned! Also, for those of you who have followed me for some time, I want to address the status of my “Super Mario Bros.” 1993 review. I am working on it. Unfortunately, due to other movies coming out and time constraints, I have no official date as to when the review will be released. Maybe when the 2023 adaptation releases physically. I do not know. If I have an update, I will give one. But for now, that review is being put on hold. Hope you understand. If you want to see this and more from Scene Before, follow the blog either with an email or WordPress account! Also, check out the official Facebook page! I want to know, did you see “How to Blow Up a Pipeline?” What did you think about it? Or, what is a movie with an ecocentric message that you enjoyed? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

John Wick: Chapter 4 (2023): The Most Action-Packed, Exciting John Wick Yet

Posted on by Jack Drees

“John Wick: Chapter 4” is directed by Chad Stahelski, who has directorial credits on all of the previous installments in the franchise. This film stars Keanu Reeves (The Matrix, Bill and Ted’s Excellent Adventure), Donnie Yen (Rogue One: A Star Wars Story, Ip Man), Bill Skarsgård (It, Barbarian), Laurence Fishburne (The Matrix, Ant-Man and the Wasp), Hiroyuki Sanada (Mortal Kombat, Bullet Train), Shamier Anderson (Goliath, Invasion), Lance Reddick (The Wire, Bosch), Rina Sawayama, Scott Adkins (Criminal, American Assassin), and Ian McShane (Kung Fu Panda, Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides). This film centers around John Wick as he tries to get revenge against the High Table and take down anyone who stands in his way.

I love the “John Wick” franchise. One thing that stands out about this franchise that separates itself from several others is that not only is the first movie good, but every sequel that comes out is a step up from its predecessor. I enjoyed “John Wick: Chapter 2” more than the original, and I found “John Wick: Chapter 3 – Parabellum” more entertaining than “John Wick: Chapter 2.” The objective of a Hollywood sequel is to, perhaps stereotypically, go bigger, but it does not always mean it is better than what came before. “John Wick” has gone bigger in its two sequels to extremely pleasing results. From one film to the next, the action sequences are incredible, the cinematography is amazing, and the lore is fascinating. And it happens to be all the more so with each go. That said, after two successful sequels, I wondered if the franchise ran out of steam. I thought “John Wick: Chapter 4” was just going to be a cash grab that would make most of its money from name recognition. I wondered how they could possibly top the other films.

Now that I saw the film, I can confirm “John Wick: Chapter 4” not only tops its predecessors. It stabs them, shoots them, and sends them tumbling off a cliff. It makes those films inferior and asserts its dominance. “John Wick: Chapter 4” is easily my favorite film in the franchise, and I did not think I would come to that conclusion a year or two ago.

This film is the fourth installment of an ongoing franchise that has made a decent chunk of change. It stars a well-known actor who has continued to maintain his relevancy in an extended career. Some may say that making this film implies Lionsgate would be, understandably, playing things safe. I understand why they made it, but I was not sure if I wanted it, that is until I watched it. I thought when they were making this film, it was a sign that “Hollywood” happened to be running out of ideas. After seeing this masterpiece, and I mean that in every sense of the word, I can confirm that Hollywood is not running out of ideas. Because this movie came up with a buttload of fresh new ways to kill people.

This movie has a great list of characters between all of the returning faces like Keanu Reeves as John Wick, Laurence Fishburne as Bowery King, Ian McShane as Winston, and Lance Reddick as Charon (RIP). But the newcomers manage to steal some of the spotlight for themselves. Donnie Yen, who may be at risk for being typecast as a visually impaired, skilled fighter, is brilliant in this film. I loved every minute he was on screen. Scott Adkins does a great job with his limited screentime as Killa, who is only enhanced by some excellent makeup and costume design. Did I mention assassin dogs?! Bring on the assassin dogs!

Over the past few years, we have practically been in a Keanussance with the previous “John Wick” installments amongst other projects like “Toy Story 4,” “Bill & Ted Face the Music,” “The Matrix Resurrections,” and even the “Cyberpunk 2077” video game. Of all of the projects Keanu Reeves has done in recent years, this is the best one. It is up there with “Point Break” and the original “Matrix” installment as one of the greatest Keanu Reeves projects of all time. But if I have to be real, I should not solely rely on encouraging my readers to take a shot every time I gloriously say the name Keanu Reeves, because the real stars of the show are the people behind the camera. From director Chad Stahelski, who has consistently delivered one good time after the next with this franchise. To writers Shay Hatten and Michael Finch, who have conceived my favorite screenplay in the “John Wick” franchise since the simple but effective original. To cinematographer Dan Laustsen, who has distributed some of the most palatable shots in an action movie to date. To production designer Kevin Kavanaugh, who has built a multitude of sets that do not deserve to look as good as they do in a movie where tons of people get killed by a guy who has successfully utilized a pencil as a weapon.

This is one of the most thrilling action flicks ever put to screen, and it is not only because Keanu Reeves takes names in corners that you did not know existed, but because so much care was put into each frame. If anything, the progression of the “John Wick” movies reminds me of “Mission: Impossible” in recent years. From the third movie and onward, each one felt like a step up from its predecessor. For “John Wick,” each movie feels like a step up from the original, which is already a decent time.

I have said that this is my favorite “John Wick” script since the original. Part of it is because, like all the other installments, it maintains a sense of atmosphere that makes a series like this something of its own. But also because it is the closest the franchise has come to making me relate to or feel strong emotions for the characters. While the first “John Wick” is my least favorite in the franchise, I will not deny what made that first movie work is its ability to make me root for “John Wick” over his loss. It is all the more significant when considering that I am probably the furthest thing from a dog person. The sequels are great, but I remember them more for what the characters did as opposed to why they did it. What makes the fourth movie the best one is that it takes the substance of the first movie and the style that has improved from one installment to the next and showcases what the full potential of what this franchise could be. This is the ultimate “John Wick” experience from scene one to the final frame.

If I had anything else of note to say, I would recommend maybe watching the other movies before this one. For starters, they’re good movies. But I also bring this up because there may be some lore to pick up on before this fourth film. If I had any problems… They are not coming to me. I was worried about the runtime. However, this movie flew by, because I was having fun. That is ultimately what “John Wick” is. And between Keanu Reeves’s trademarks, his dynamite chemistry with Laurence Fishburne, all of the action, this is the epitome of fun. These types of movies are not for everyone. My mom would not like this film. But if you are an action junkie and refuse to watch “John Wick: Chapter 4,” you are missing out on the pinnacle of what this genre is capable of. From a technical perspective, this movie checks every box and receives extra credit. The sound design might end up being the best of the year depending on what comes out after this. Every frame looks like a painting. Some of the music is quite good too. The lighting is balls out and spectacular. At times, the stunts made me wince. I have enjoyed all of the “John Wick” installments, but as far as this movie goes, I am bending over for it like it is my lord and savior.

In the end, “John Wick: Chapter 4” is a thing of beauty, a thing of splendor. It is something I will be thinking about for a long time. The track record for “John Wick” over the years has reminded me of the track record for “Mission: Impossible” over the years. It gets better every time. Keanu Reeves has personally earned a seat at my High Table. When it comes to movies, few things beat a surprise. Few things surpass the time when a movie comes out of nowhere, I am not looking forward to it, but I see it anyway, and it ends up being one of the best things I have watched in recent memory. I was technically looking forward to “John Wick: Chapter 4,” but not on the level that I was going into “Chapter 3.” That said, this is better than chapters 1, 2, 3, all of them. Everything has led to this, the ultimate “John Wick” experience. I do not know if “John Wick: Chapter 4” will be this year’s “Top Gun: Maverick” or “Avatar: The Way of Water” as a select big budget, popular film that shoehorns its way into the Best Picture slate at the Oscars, but we shall see. I am thinking this franchise is not only back, but better than ever! I am going to give “John Wick: Chapter 4” a 10/10!

“John Wick: Chapter 4” is now playing in theaters everywhere. Tickets are available now!

Thanks for reading this review! I have a couple more reviews coming up very soon including one for “Dungeons & Dragons: Honor Among Thieves,” which I plan to see tonight. Also coming soon, I will be sharing my thoughts on “The Super Mario Bros. Movie,” which hits theaters next week. Speaking of which, I figured with the brand new “Mario” film coming out, I thought it would be a perfect opportunity to go back and review 1993’s “Super Mario Bros.,” which I have to remind myself, unfortunately exists. I just rewatched the film earlier this week and I will be sharing my thoughts on it soon. If you want to see this and more from Scene Before, follow the blog either with an email or WordPress account! Also, check out the official Facebook page! I want to know, did you see “John Wick: Chapter 4?” What did you think about it? Or, what is your favorite of the “John Wick” movies? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!