Drama

A Complete Unknown (2024): Timothée Chalamet Shows His Range One of His Most Complicated Roles Yet

Posted on by Jack Drees

“A Complete Unknown” is directed by James Mangold (Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny, Logan) and stars Timothée Chalamet (Dune, Interstellar), Edward Norton (The Incredible Hulk, Fight Club), Elle Fanning (The Neon Demon, Maleficent), Monica Barbaro (FUBAR, Top Gun: Maverick), Boyd Holbrook (Narcos, The Sandman), Dan Fogler (The Goldbergs, The Walking Dead), Norbert Leo Butz (Bloodline, The Exorcist: Believer), and Scoot McNairy (Halt and Catch Fire, Nightbitch). This film is set in much of the 1960s and centers around a young Bob Dylan as he establishes several relationships and creates a series of songs.

Bob Dylan is to music what the “Star Trek” franchise has been over the years to television and movies. He has been relevant since the 1960s, produced a lot of material that has been well regarded, and has somehow managed to maintain even the slightest hint of relevancy up until now. Much like the “Star Trek” franchise, I cannot say that I have the deepest appreciation for Bob Dylan. It is not that I hate Bob Dylan, or “Star Trek” for that matter, it is just that I never find myself circling around to Dylan’s music despite having many options for the taking.

You may remember there was an Amy Winehouse biopic in the middle of 2024 called “Back to Black,” which I gave a positive review. I do not think it was particularly striking or memorable, but I ended up leaning positive on it. It has its moments of fun and does a good job at capturing the darker side of Winehouse’s life. I also said that even though the movie presents the artist’s songs well, I would not claim to be an Amy Winehouse fan. I was not one before the movie. I am still not one after the movie. The same is true with Bob Dylan. I still appreciate his music, but I am pretty much in the same position as I was going into a “A Complete Unknown.” I am a Bob Dylan appreciator. Not a Bob Dylan fanatic. In regards to my appreciation, it is perhaps greater for him now than it was before, but still. I also think “A Complete Unknown” does a great job showing Dylan’s impact on the music industry by the time the movie’s over.

Is the film entirely accurate? No, it is not. If you know your Bob Dylan lore, you would know that he had a girlfriend in the 1960s by the name of Suze Rotolo. That is not the case in this film as Dylan himself requested her name would be changed. Therefore, we see Elle Fanning play a character by the name of Sylvie Rotolo (left). Regardless of accuracy, Fanning does a good job with the role. She has spot on chemistry with Chalamet’s Dylan. Speaking of chemistry, Chalamet also has quite a spark with another love interest in this film, Joan Baez, played by Monica Barbaro.

Overall, it is easy to say that the acting in “A Complete Unknown” is a standout element. This extends to more than just love interests. Edward Norton does a great job playing Pete Seeger. Dan Fogler plays one of my favorite characters in the film, Dylan’s manager, Albert Grossman. I thought of the entire cast, he was the one that delivered the most laughs. He had plenty of good material in the script to keep him busy. Boyd Holbrook oozes with charisma as Johnny Cash.

But of course, the real star of the show is Timothée Chalamet as Bob Dylan. Chalamet has been killing it for the past year or so. In 2023, he starred in “Wonka” as the title character. While I did not love the film, he does a phenomenal job with the role. I criticized “Wonka” for having unmemorable music sequences, but it does not mean Chalamet did not do his best with them. He has proven himself to be a solid singer, and therefore it is no surprise that Chalamet ends up lending his own voice to Dylan’s songs. Not only that, but Chalamet also plays the guitar in this film. I love Chalamet’s overall commitment to the role and he looks like he is having fun with it. If I had one thing to say though, there are some scenes where Chalamet has a bit of an accent to his character that feels kind of played up. It is a little over the top. Not quite over the top enough to sound like something out of “Saturday Night Live,” but at times it was a little distracting.

As an artist, I always appreciate when a movie has something to say about art itself. “A Complete Unknown” does this very well. Not only does the film highlight a portion of Bob Dylan’s career, which by the way, given how much Dylan has done over the years, I think it is wise of the filmmakers to just corner the story into just a small chunk of his life. It is worth noting within this small chunk of Dylan’s life we get to know a bit about his influence on the music industry and his rise to becoming an icon. With these elements in mind, this presents Dylan with a problem. While he is known for his music, deep down, he would like to be more than the identity in which society has given him. He wants to try new things and experiment. This film builds to a point where we see such a monumental shift come to fruition. Bob Dylan has built a reputation as a storytelling folk artist with a calming vibe. But we find out later on that he wants to implement electric instruments into his repertoire. The extended scene where we see this play out is easily my favorite part of the film. Not only is this sequence entertaining and presents significantly more stakes than we have seen throughout the story’s prior points, but we see Chalamet successfully channel his character’s happiness and indifference in regard to what others think of him.

This movie is more than just the rise of a popular musician, but it is also the story of an artist who just wants to make art. This is a consistency in every scene. Dylan sometimes tends to put his art before the people in his life, whether he knows them personally or they just so happen to be fans. It is his greatest passion in life. The movie shows the balance of making art to impress people intertwined with the complication of making art for yourself. It showcases the hurdle of shattering audience expectations. When you watch a movie, a shocking twist is sometimes warranted and can often be done well. But when is the shift too significant? That is a question this movie tries to answer and I think the overall response has resulted in an entertaining and exciting climax to a solid flick.

In the end, “A Complete Unknown” is not my favorite film of the year, but it has a series of strong moments and performances. Additionally, it has great production design, good direction by James Mangold, and a cozy vibe. I walked out of this awards contender feeling similar to how I did walking out of an Oscar-winning film I watched in 2023, specifically “The Holdovers.” “A Complete Unknown” is a movie that emits a sense of coziness. The movie practically puts you in a warm blanket. Again, this movie did not transition me into becoming a Bob Dylan fan. I am not going to go on YouTube just to listen to his music on a regular basis. But the musical sequences where we see Dylan’s folk songs come to life are most definitely comforting. If this movie is playing near you, give it a shot. I am going to give “A Complete Unknown” a 7/10.

“A Complete Unknown” is now playing in theaters everywhere. tickets are available now.

Thanks for reading this review! And that is the last of the movies I saw in theaters in 2024! Coming soon, I will be talking about my top 10 best and worst movies of the year. Like the past couple years, I will be starting with the worst. Stay tuned! If you want to see these countdowns and more from Scene Before, follow the blog either with an email or WordPress account! Also, check out the official Facebook page! I want to know, did you see “A Complete Unknown?” What did you think about it? Or, what are your thoughts on Bob Dylan as an artist? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

Babygirl (2024): “That’s Magic.” – Nicole Kidman

Posted on by Jack Drees

“Babygirl” is written and directed by Halina Reijn (Bodies Bodies Bodies, Instinct) and stars Nicole Kidman (Being the Ricardos, The Northman), Harris Dickinson (Beach Rats, Trust), Sophie Wilde (Everything Now, Boy Swallows Universe), and Antonio Banderas (Shrek 2, The Mask of Zorro). This film is about a CEO who puts her career and family on the line when she has an affair with a much younger intern.

I saw “Babygirl” at an AMC Theatres location. If you have been to an AMC in the past few years, you may know that Nicole Kidman has served as a bit of a mascot for the brand. I am not completely in love with this, as her spots make up part of the reason why the previews at AMC are so neverendingly long. Honestly, I would be happy if they get rid of the AMC spots containing Kidman altogether. Some see these spots as an anthem, but I find them to be an annoyance. Amazingly, during my screening of “Babygirl,” they did not play one of the Nicole Kidman spots on top of the other 26 or so minutes of theatre promotion and trailers and such. I was a bit perplexed. As much as I hate those ads, I think seeing one of them play before this film in particular would have set the mood.

That said, it does not change the fact that I was rather excited for “Babygirl.” The trailers I have seen for the film are well produced, and allowed me to have high expectations for what was to come. I had a sense of what the movie was about before going in. I think if anything, the trailers did a great job at letting the audience know what the vibe was going to be. The marketing looked fun, compelling, and perhaps most importantly, sexy. After all, desire plays a major part in this film’s narrative, particularly when it comes to the state of our protagonist, Romy.

“Babygirl” is going to end up being one of the more memorable movie experiences I have had this year. It is not my favorite movie of the year, but it is an experiential event. And it all starts at the beginning of the film when we see Romy’s major problem. The film impressively highlights Romy’s lack of desires with her husband (Banderas) and her struggle to fulfill herself in her sex life. We see this part of the story flesh itself out over time and it unleashes some great acting from both Kidman and Banderas. The two perfectly portray a couple who happen to be on a bit of a decline.

“Babygirl” delivers the vibes I was hoping I would get out of “Challengers.” A lot of people love “Challengers,” but I was not one of them. “Babygirl” is easily the steamiest film I have seen this year. This is a film that I would recommend watching, but I would think twice before putting it on when your parents, or especially your grandparents are in the same room. I think this could make for a hot movie to set the mood on date night. This is especially noticeable with the fiery chemistry between Nicole Kidman’s Romy and Harris Dickinson’s Samuel. Their boss/intern connection eventually develops into something not as necessarily safe for work. Several scenes between these two do much more than satisfy. They also beautifully fit within the context of the story. They help us get to know each of the characters. They remind the audience of Romy’s internal struggle. Both actors are completely believable as said scenes play out. Harris Dickinson was not on my radar previously. Although he had a role in 2022’s “See How They Run,” which I gave a positive review. Dickinson is not just good in this movie, I cannot see anyone else playing his specific character. I left this film wanting to see more of his work. If there is another Harris Dickinson movie coming out, consider me interested.

Now judging by what has been said so far, you might think that I will remember this movie for its eroticism. While that is definitely this movie’s top selling point, the film is layered when it comes to fleshing out its protagonist. I must reiterate, Nicole Kidman is a knockout in this film. She gives a powerful performance that I hope gets plenty of buzz in the coming months. But I love how this film manages to make its main character a CEO. We see Romy in a position of power at work. At home, she is busy raising a family and pleasing her husband to the point where she forgets to take care of herself. Additionally, this film is set around the holidays, which is traditionally a hectic time of year. Romy is busy being this wise, helpful presence in other people’s lives that when all of a sudden Samuel enters her own life, she cannot help but submit to him. I mentioned this film is steamy, but sex is just a selling point. As a character piece, “Babygirl” sings.

Though in more ways than one, “Babygirl” is easy on the eyes. The film has a clean look to it. The color palette looks like something out of an insurance commercial, but I mean that as a compliment. The film is certainly picturesque with some vibrant locations and sets. The camerawork is also very good. The shot choices consistently deliver on immersion. Select shots go on for extended periods of time, allowing me to take in and digest the actions of said shots. There is also one shot in the film that starts in the air and slowly navigates down to several of the characters as they walk through a yard. It is a breathtaking series of images.

Again this movie is set around the holidays, and it does maintain a joyful look to it, even if a good portion of it is spent inside a corporate office. In a sense, kind of like the holidays, the movie has a vibe that meets somewhere in the middle of noticeable stress and occasional happiness. Every moment in this film maintains a brisk pace and there are scenes I practically leapt into the screen. There is one scene at a rave that is arguably worth the price of admission. Although fair warning, if you have trouble with flashing lights, I recommend maybe sitting this movie out. For all I know, “Babygirl” could become a Christmas tradition for some people. Maybe not with the family. But I think if you are either by yourself or with your partner, this could make for a great watch around the holidays. While the films have their notable differences, I think “Babygirl” could even serve as part of a double feature with “Eyes Wide Shut.” After all, both films are associated with sexuality, feature Nicole Kidman, and are set around Christmas! It’s perfect! Also, as the Movie Reviewing Moron, I do not endorse watching “Eyes Wide Shut” with the family either. That’s a no-no.

Courtesy of A24 – © A24

In the end, “Babygirl” is 2024’s sexiest movie. Nicole Kidman gives a standout performance as Romy. The rest of the cast is also quite solid. Harris Dickinson also notably plays his role to perfection. The film is a great balance between vibes and characterization. I do recommend this film under the right circumstances. Again, do not watch if your parents or grandparents are in the room. Same goes if you have kids. But if you are in the right place at the right time, “Babygirl” is a must see. I am going to give “Babygirl” an 8/10.

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

Thanks for reading this review! My next review is going to be for “A Complete Unknown,” the brand new movie starring Timothée Chalamet as Bob Dylan. If you want to see this review and more from Scene Before, follow the blog either with an email or WordPress account! Also, check out the official Facebook page! I want to know, did you see “Babygirl?” What did you think about it? Or, what movie do you watch every year around the holidays? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

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

Posted on by Jack Drees

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

© 2024 SEARCHLIGHT PICTURES

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

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

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

© 2024 SEARCHLIGHT PICTURES

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

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

© 2024 SEARCHLIGHT PICTURES

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

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

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

© 2024 SEARCHLIGHT PICTURES

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

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

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

Gladiator II (2024): This Is Why I am Here… 24 Years Later

Posted on by Jack Drees

“Gladiator II” is directed by Ridley Scott (Blade Runner, Alien) and stars Paul Mescal (Normal People, Aftersun), Pedro Pascal (The Mandalorian, The Unbearable Weight of Massive Talent), Joseph Quinn (A Quiet Place: Day One), Fred Hechinger (Thelma, Eighth Grade), Lior Raz (Hit & Run, Fauda and Segev), Derek Jacobi (Last Tango in Halifax, Vicious), Connie Nielsen (Wonder Woman, Nobody), and Denzel Washington (The Equalizer, The Siege). This film is the sequel to the 2000 film “Gladiator” and this time follows Lucius, a slave who seeks revenge against General Acacius after his army invades his home. Doing what he can to avoid death, Lucius must survive in the Colosseum while his mentor plans to overthrow twin emperors Geta and Caracalla.

To this day I have only seen the original “Gladiator” once. As for the one time I saw it, I found my experience to be quite positive. In fact, it is one of Ridley Scott’s better films. When “Gladiator II” was announced, a couple thoughts ran across my mind. My first thought was “Why?” Not just because it is the latest in an endless barrage of sequels, but of all the stories people could have done, “Gladiator” is not one that I would have imagined needed to be continued. In fact, if you remember how the first film ends, it made me question if the franchise would have to defy logic in order to keep going. But in the case of the “Gladiator” franchise, whereas I previously imagined the name pertaining to one person, particularly Maximus from the first film. This sequel proves that “Gladiator” is more than just Maximus. The “Gladiator” name is more of an idea than anything else. Because this time we are focused on Lucius, who also appeared in the original film in the form of an eight year old boy.

If anybody remembers “Star Wars: The Force Awakens,” chances are you or someone you know has said the movie is a copy paste of the 1977 franchise original. For the record, “The Force Awakens” is still my favorite film of 2015, partially because while it gets back to basics, it utilizes those basics really well. The film does a great job fleshing out its characters while also delivering action and flying sequences that are much more epic to look at than what we got in the 70s. “Gladiator II” is in a somewhat similar boat. For the record, I do not think the first “Gladiator” is as good as both of those “Star Wars” installments, but I do recognize the Academy Award Best Picture winner for its technical achievements, stellar action scenes, and killer lead performance from Russell Crowe.

Structurally, “Gladiator II” is much like the original, where the film is about a slave fighting for their own freedom. A lot of the steps and challenges our protagonist has to face is similar to the ones Maximus faces in the 2000 predecessor.

That said, while I was invested in Lucius’ journey in this second film, I think Maximus’ journey in the first installment is more compelling. Part of it is because the journey, despite some differences, is like watching the first movie all over again. I would not call it the Dollar Tree version of that journey. It has more pizzazz than that, maybe Five Below would be a halfway decent retail equivalent to use in this case. Part of why I was not as compelled by this sequel compared to the original may be because of Paul Mescal’s performance.

For the record, do not think I am dissing on Paul Mescal as an actor. Mescal does not just a good, but a great job in this film. His performance is commendable and he fits the role he is given. But the thing about Maximus from the first movie, I almost cannot see anyone other than Russell Crowe playing him. On the other hand, I can probably imagine a few other people filling Lucius’ shoes. In fact, not only can I imagine it, I have concrete evidence to prove it! We have already seen Lucius in the first “Gladiator” as a young boy! And that actor did not even come back for this sequel. The guy was not even asked if he wanted to return in the first place! I know Paul Mescal is like a decade younger than Spencer Treat Clark, but still, age comes after everyone in Hollywood these days.

While Mescal’s portrayal as the film’s lead is no Russell Crowe, if the Oscars were tomorrow, I think one performer in “Gladiator II” would have my vote for Best Supporting Actor, and that is Denzel Washington. One thing I noticed about some of the performances in “Gladiator II” is that they would sometimes be delivered with some hyperactivity. Sometimes it works, sometimes it does not. In the case of Denzel Washington, it not only works, kind of like Russell Crowe in the original “Gladiator,” I cannot see anyone else playing Washington’s character. And the more I watched him through the movie, the crazier he became. There are some things this character does in this movie that elevate his already commanding presence in certain scenes. I would like all of you reading this to find out what some of those things are yourselves. No spoilers. But Washington easily gives one of my favorite performances of the year.

Other than Washington, perhaps the biggest highlight of “Gladiator II” should come as no surprise, the action. The action takes a lot of what is good in the original and puts its own spin on it. It is brutal, smoothly shot, and sometimes tries to fit as much information onto the screen as possible. I knew the action in this film was going to be exciting as soon as it began. There is a sequence in the first few minutes that almost looked like a fun third person video game.

As for the fights in the Colosseum, those do not disappoint. That said, if you are looking for historical accuracy, that is where this movie may not be for you. I am not going to spoil the sequence in the arena that caught me off guard, but if you like your movies to be representative of practical events in history, you may not be a fan of this sequence. That said, I was a fan. A big one at that.

That is not the only historical liberty this movie takes. There is a moment where we see one of the characters reading a newspaper. Only problem, the printing press had not been invented until 1200 years after this film takes place. The more I think about “Gladiator II” and the glorious experience it gave me, I recognize that some of my positives regarding the film require me to bend logic and what I know about history. If I watch this film at home, chances are I could have a different opinion, a different mood perhaps. But from the second row in a crowded auditorium, I was onboard even during the more flawed moments. If anything, I will use the “Tenet” philosophy… “Don’t try to understand it, feel it.” And felt it I freaking did.

In the end, “Gladiator II” is a thrilling, captivating movie that takes you on an exciting ride through ancient Rome. It is not Ridley Scott’s best movie, but much like the original he directed more than two decades ago, the movie nails its atmosphere and delivers a completely riveting experience. The movie is chock full of different kinds of performances ranging from grounded to hyperactive to downright demented. I believed in all of them. Despite what I said about Paul Mescal, do not get me wrong, he truthfully kills it in the film. I cannot wait to see what he does next. As far as action goes, the movie has some cool kills and bloody finishes, but as far as this year for cinema goes, “Dune: Part Two” is still significantly superior in that department. But if you are looking for a fun time at the cinema, this is a solid option. I am going to give “Gladiator II” a 7/10.

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

Thanks for reading this review! Some of you reading this post might be asking if I took part in the Glicked, Wickedator, Wickedglad double feature whatchumacallit. To answer that, I can tell you I did watch both “Gladiator II” and “Wicked,” but not back to back, but I did see “Wicked.” That review is going to wait awhile. As for my next review, that is going to be for the brand new holiday-themed action flick “Red One,” starring Dwayne Johnson and Chris Evans. You can also expect reviews soon for “A Real Pain,” “Y2K,” “Juror #2,” and THEN you will see my review for “Wicked.” Hope that is not too terribly long of a wait. 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 “Gladiator II?” What did you think about it? Or, which of the “Gladiator” films do you prefer? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

Here (2024): The People Who Brought You Forrest Gump Reunite for a One of a Kind, Beautiful Mess

Posted on by Jack Drees

“Here” is directed by Robert Zemeckis (Back to the Future, Forrest Gump) and stars Tom Hanks (Toy Story, A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood), Robin Wright (Forrest Gump, The Princess Bride), Paul Bettany (WandaVision, A Knight’s Tale), and Kelly Reilly (Sherlock Holmes, Above Suspicion). This film chronicles various events over millions of years from the same location, capturing the moments and lives of those who live there.

First off, for those not aware or for those who happen to live outside the United States, this review is being posted just before Thanksgiving. Because you cannot have Thanksgiving… without “T Hanks.” In all seriousness though, Tom Hanks and Robert Zemeckis make for one of the most notable actor-director duos in Hollywood. The two have worked together to create films including “Cast Away,” “The Polar Express,” and in the past couple years, Disney+’s “Pinocchio.” Both people are reuniting for their latest collaboration, “Here.” Also appearing in the film, Robin Wright, therefore allowing for a “Forrest Gump” reunion. The fact that this film had talented, experienced people is only part of why I was looking forward to it. Having first seen the trailer to “Here” at my local multiplex a few months ago, I have been excited for it ever since. I was under the impression that this could end up being a unique film with a lot of potential.

From a camerawork and cinematography perspective, “Here” is by no means as immersively complex as “Birdman,” a movie that is set in multiple locations and uses blink you’ll miss it techniques to trick your mind into thinking it is done as one singular shot. But the selling point that kept me most interested in “Here” was getting to see the camera sit in a spot where it does not move. Having seen the film, I think the film gets creative with that concept, spanning different points in time. Everything from prehistory to the birth of the United States to modern times where we see the interior of a suburban house. The movie always maintains a quick pace from scene to scene, and even in moments that feel less relevant to the big picture, I was still hypnotized by everything that was going on.

That said, much like another Robert Zemeckis film featuring Tom Hanks, “The Polar Express,” this film could use some work when it comes to the characters. I have gone several holidays watching “The Polar Express” and even though the point a to b progression is clear for its protagonist, the Hero Boy, I cannot say I resonated with that film’s characters maybe to a degree I would have preferred. I always found the “experience” of watching “Polar Express” to be immersive, often inviting. But I wish I got to know the people in the film on a deeper level. Most of them are one-note or stereotypical. Similar to the ride to the North Pole in “The Polar Express,” I like the journey “Here” takes me on. This movie also has one notable improvement over “The Polar Express.” It does a better job fleshing out its main characters, a task that marvels me considering how many points in time and the list of people this film deals with. But even with that in mind, the characters themselves are still not the greatest when it comes to Zemeckis’s filmography. I am not going to remember anyone’s name from this film within the next couple months. If I watch this film a second time, which for the record, I would, I am probably going to be just as immersed as I was in the first. But whereas “The Polar Express” takes you on a fantastical voyage, “Here” is essentially like watching security camera footage but with twice the production value.

The one consistent story through a security camera is not always a person being captured, but rather the room or space someone just so happens to be in. Similarly, the story for “Here” is not consistent. It is bits and pieces. Perhaps it is an allegory on life itself. As we age, we remember certain times of our lives more than others, and maybe this movie is a reflection of our deepest memories. There are moments that speak to us, there are little things in the background, and even some times of our lives we would rather forget. It also shows how places can become a foundation of who we are. If you have a home for a long time, like the place or not, it becomes a part of you.

While I found the pace of the film to be a positive, I also found its fidgety structure to be a negative. The film is presented in a non-linear order, and in some ways, it works. Part of me wonders if Zemeckis wanted to do this film linearly at one point and was not loving it. I honestly do not know if the film would be any better had it been linear, in fact, one could argue it would be worse, I wonder if most audiences would like it. But still, the film is a bit clunky, though somewhat surprisingly, it also happens to be clear.

Once again, this is the latest project between Tom Hanks and Robert Zemeckis. But of course, another one of Zemeckis’s collaborators is here too, composer Alan Silvestri. Far and away, my favorite scores I have heard this year are definitely “Dune Part Two” and “IF.” And while Silvestri does not bring forth a score as memorable as those, he holds his own. Similar to “Inside Out 2,” this film opens with music that comes off as welcoming as can be. It is grand, it is prominent, it almost takes me into the screen. I could see myself listening to parts of the score in my free time.

For those who do not know their film history, “Forrest Gump” won Best Picture at the Academy Awards the year it came out. Having seen “Here,” it is hard to say that this film is going to be nominated for even one Oscar this year. Yes, Tom Hanks is given a lot to do. But I cannot name a moment of this film where he particularly stands out, and the same can be said for most of the ensemble. Though if I recall any actor in this film being a surprising standout, it would be Paul Bettany. “Here” is definitely not the worst film in Zemeckis’s library, but it is far from his best. It is no “Back to the Future,” though I will definitely remember this film more than “Allied” or that adaptation he did of Roald Dahl’s “The Witches” that ended up going to HBO Max. But I cannot lie, even though I would not say the film is perfect, it is a unique, fun, fascinating journey and I think it is remarkable how much material and substance some scenes are able to present about a specific time, specific people, and their lives with just so little material to work with.

In the end, “HERE” are my thoughts on the movie… I had a really good time with it! Is it messy? Sure, but much like the characters sometimes come to realize about the house we see for most of the film, it is sometimes a beautiful mess. I also dug the ending. The movie caps off on an emotional note. Kind of like Robert Zemeckis’s 2018 film “Welcome to Marwen,” I wonder if I am going to be alone when it comes to my positive opinion regarding this film. I loved “Welcome to Marwen” when I saw it. In fact, I loved it so much that I was shocked to find out how many other people did not like it. Having seen “Here” however, I can get why this movie would not work for certain people. At times it feels more like an experiment than a concrete story. But it does not mean the experiment is boring. I was invested from start to finish. I am going to give “Here” a 7/10.

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

Thanks for reading this review! If you want to see more reviews coming soon, stay tuned for my thoughts on “Gladiator II,” “Red One,” “A Real Pain,” “Y2K, “Juror #2,” and “Wicked.” If you want to see these reviews and more from Scene Before, follow the blog either with an email or WordPress account! Also, check out the official Facebook page! I want to know, did you see “Here?” What did you think about it? Or, what is your favorite collaboration between Tom Hanks and Robert Zemeckis? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

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

Posted on by Jack Drees

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Apprentice (2024): Sebastian Stan Shines as Controversial Businessman Donald Trump

Posted on by Jack Drees

“The Apprentice” is directed by Ali Abbasi (Holy Spider, The Last of Us) and stars Sebastian Stan (Captain America: The First Avenger, The 355), Jeremy Strong (The Big Short, The Gentlemen), Maria Bakalova (Borat Subsequent Moviefilm, Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3), and Martin Donovan (Insomnia, Tenet). This film follows a young Donald Trump in the 1970s and 80s and examines his career as a businessman.

I will be honest, I was extremely hesitant to watch and review this film. Part of it is because I do not typically want to dive into politics on Scene Before. Well, maybe except for this month with my Election Days reviews. By the way, go check out my thoughts on “The Campaign,” “W.“, and “On the Basis of Sex” if you want to see me talk about some slightly older films. I mean, they are not that old, they are from the 21st century. That said, I will remind everyone that it is November 2024, therefore it is the culmination of an election year in the United States. Marketing-wise, it would make sense to release a film of this nature around the latter half of the year. But as a viewer, I was also weary of checking it out because regardless of my political views, election season is already anxiety-inducing on its own. But of course, I thought this would be a good film to talk about given the time of year, really the time in society in general. For the record, I am going to do as best as I can to stray away from my personal views on Donald Trump as a politician.

That said, one thing I will note for people maybe looking to watch this movie, it is not about Trump’s political career. It instead contains itself to a time where he was more well known as a mogul, a New York personality. Also despite the title, this is not set in the 2000s or 2010s. I say this because, well, Trump hosted “The Apprentice” at the time. As slightly misleading as that title could come off, there is a reason why the movie has its namesake. For one thing, the film is about a younger Trump, and heavily explores the building blocks of his business, his love life, his family life. It sprinkles a lot into a two hour runtime but it is not a piece about Trump’s entire life. Since I was born in the late 1990s, I inevitably know Trump more as a politician as opposed to anything else. Having followed Trump through that realm in recent years, he has certain trademarks, words, and mannerisms that have become a part of his personality. Sometimes they are even used against him in a jokey manner. Sebastian Stan to my lack of surprise dives into some of these trademarks, and while the film is definitely somewhat grounded with its intimate camerawork, it also has a feel to it that is comparable to more comedic material in media.

To be real, Sebastian Stan is probably not going to win the Academy Award for his portrayal of Donald Trump, as much as some may be convinced “liberal Hollywood” will let him win out of spite of others. But I like his performance in “The Apprentice.” Like I said, some of Trump’s trademarks come up in the film, and I think Stan masters them without coming off as a cartoon. One thing I have noticed over the years about most of the Trump performances I have seen is that a lot of them come off as hyperbolic. But those performances traditionally tend to fall within a certain context. Maybe they’re on a variety show like “America’s Got Talent” or “Saturday Night Live.” They tend to work for what they are. But I was surprised to see Stan deliver on a much calmer interpretation of the well-known businessman. Regardless of how I feel about Trump as a person, seeing something like this is refreshing. Now having seen the performance in this movie, kind of like say Alec Baldwin’s portrayal in “Saturday Night Live,” I am sure that there is an audience that will look at this performance, perhaps even the screenplay behind it, and immediately find themselves turned off by it. To call this a pro-Trump film would be like calling “Deal or No Deal” a pro-banker game show. Am I surprised by this film’s leanings? Not really. But the fact is I found the film as a whole to be entertaining. It is well-paced, it is engaging, and I latched onto the characters.

What this film surprisingly reminds me of is the “Star Wars” movies. This could apply to a number of them, but perhaps the first that comes to mind is “Revenge of the Sith.” As I continued to watch the relationship between Trump and attorney Roy M. Cohn, their dynamic in this film showed similarities to that of Anakin Skywalker and Palpatine. In this case, Trump would be the Anakin and Cohn would be the Palpatine. After all, Cohn is a little older, a little wiser, and very much getting into Trump’s head throughout the film. The movie presents Cohn as a mentor figure to Trump, instilling him with all sorts of knowledge. Cohn even presents three rules to Trump: “always attack, never admit wrongdoing, and always claim victory.” This is a motto that the public has seen Trump live up to in recent years especially regarding his political career.

I also love the overall aesthetic of this film. It is practically a symbol of Trump as he builds himself. If this were set years down the road, maybe this movie would be presented as something that looks more professional, considering how he would have continued to establish and maintain his name. But this matches a story about a guy who is trying to live up to his family name while also assembling the building blocks behind a legacy of his own. Only he has not yet been able to make that happen. Trump may be one of the most prominent men in the world today, but like with anyone else, getting to that position takes time.

The film is sometimes shot and presented in such a claustrophobic manner. It puts in you the movie with its multitude of closeups, darker colors, grim lighting, and sometimes vlog-like style. The more I look at this movie, it reminds me of those home videos shot on older camcorders in say the 1990s or early 2000s if you gave the captured video a pinch of polish and a bigger budget.

In the end, “The Apprentice” fires on all cylinders. It is engaging, it is raw, surprisingly funny at times, and lets out the best from its solid cast. Sebastian Stan, to my surprise, was a decent pick for the lead role. “The Apprentice” is most definitely not for everyone. In fact, I not only say that thinking a certain group of people who like Trump will immediately be turned off by the film, but there is also some visual content that may be uncomfortable for some viewers regardless of your political leanings or thoughts on Trump himself. In hindsight, I can see why this movie did not make a ton of money. People often go to the movies to escape, and I do not know if “The Apprentice” would be one of those films that would allow people to do such a thing, especially at this time. But I also could see why certain people would find the film to be relevant. I cannot recommend this movie to everyone, and knowing the current landscape, it is hard to know how many minds in any direction will be changed once the film’s over. That said, I give the film a thumbs up. It has a compelling narrative, good direction, and fine acting. I am going to give “The Apprentice” a 7/10.

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

Thanks for reading this review, my next review on the lineup is going to be for a film that is getting a lot of conversation right now, and that is “Anora.” I cannot wait to talk about this flick. Look forward to that review coming soon. Also on the lineup, I have reviews on the way for “Here,” “Gladiator II,” “Red One,” “A Real Pain,” and “Y2K.” Also, my final Election Days review is hitting the blog next week, and it is for the movie “Elvis & Nixon.” I just watched the film earlier this week and I cannot wait to talk about it. 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 Apprentice?” What did you think about it? Or, in the spirit of Donald Trump… Tell me your honest thoughts on “Home Alone 2: Lost in New York.” Personally, while it has its moments, it is a bit lazy in its structure, very much copying the recent success of its predecessor. Also, how you do get lost in New York? If you know numbers, you’re good as gold! Either way, if you have thoughts on “Home Alone 2: Lost in New York,” let me know those thoughts down below. Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

On the Basis of Sex (2018): Felicity Jones Shines as RBG in This Surprisingly Decent Biopic

Posted on by Jack Drees

Hey everyone, Jack Drees here! It is time to continue Scene Before’s Election Days review series. Unusually, this review is being posted on a Monday! I intended this series to be updated weekly on Tuesdays, but to be frank, I have a commitment tomorrow. I am not sure if my schedule would allow me to finalize this post then, so I thought I would get it out today. Speaking of unusual, unlike the last two movies I reviewed, “The Campaign” and “W.“, this review regards a movie about someone whose seat is determined by elected officials, not necessarily by the people of the United States on Election Day. Today we are going to focus on the prominent Supreme Court Justice, Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Having joined the Court of Appeals in 1980 during the Jimmy Carter administration, not to mention appointed to the Supreme Court in 1993 during Bill Clinton’s time as the U.S. President, she has maintained a reputation as a trailblazer. This film focuses on a time in her life before all that happened. Is the movie worth watching? I will share my thoughts below and you can find out for yourself.

“On the Basis of Sex” is directed by Mimi Leder (Deep Impact, Pay it Forward) and stars Felicity Jones (Rogue One: A Star Wars Story, The Amazing Spider-Man 2), Armie Hammer (Cars 3, Nocturnal Animals), Justin Theroux (Mulholland Drive, The Girl on the Train), Sam Waterston (Law & Order, The Newsroom), and Kathy Bates (The Waterboy, Misery). This film is about Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who must overcome various obstacles to help herself, her family, all the while trying to establish a career in a competitive, everchanging climate.

Despite coming out more than half a decade ago, I missed “On the Basis of Sex” when it came to theaters. After all, there were so many films coming out at the time that I could only get to a certain number of them. I was mainly focused on what insiders were projecting to be the major awards contenders at the time and “On the Basis of Sex” did not seem to be one of them. I was intrigued by the premise, but I had a bit on my plate. My motivations even caused me to miss “Bumblebee,” a blockbuster I was curious about at the time. By the way, I do not have a review for it, but it is a good movie! I eventually ended up buying a used copy of “On The Basis of Sex” on Blu-ray for $3.99, so I thought it would be worth checking out some time. And worth checking out, it is.

I knew “On the Basis of Sex” would be good, but I did not expect it to stand out the way it does sometimes. I want to quickly address the pacing of this movie. I am not surprised when I watch say an action movie or a comedy movie and find myself immersed in those environments to the point where time moves at supersonic speed while watching those. There was a point where I checked how far the movie was into its runtime and to my surprise, we were almost halfway through and I thought to myself, “Wow! I guess I’m really enjoying this!” It reminds me of when I watched “The Post.” It is shocking and delightful to know how immersed you can get in a story from time to time that is almost non stop talking.

“On the Basis of Sex” starts off on a high note. Perhaps literally. Partially because the song choice in the beginning perfectly sets the tone for the movie. It is loud and grabs your attention, kind of like the fight for equal rights this film often tends to highlight. But not only does the movie start well from an audio perspective, but the opening sequence set at Harvard is finely edited and shot. The movie starts off with this gigantic sea of men, therefore illustrating how there is a lack of women in Ginsburg’s position. The men are also all wearing suits and jackets. Each jacket looks almost like the other. They’re grey, they’re black. It is a limited and somewhat uninviting color palette. Then you look at Ginsburg in her light blue outfit. I am sure if she were wearing similar colors to the men surrounding her we could identify Ginsburg just fine. But her outfit, most notably due to its vibrant color choice, easily grabs your attention. I thought the costuming is top notch here, as it is for the remainder of the film.

Felicity Jones plays Ruth Bader Ginsburg in this film. Jones does a decent job portraying a rather commanding figure. When I think of RBG, I think of someone who is motivated, someone who takes charge. This is not her most notable lead role in the last decade, but I must say between this and the much more popular “Rogue One: A Star Wars Story,” Jones does a decent job playing strong women while also gracefully showing the weaknesses of said characters. When I watched “Rogue One,” I thought Jones did a good job at highlighting Jyn Erso’s uncertainty on screen. I remember when she was leading people into battle and I could feel her timidness, even though she was not showing it. In the case of RBG, I could tell Jones was showing more confidence this time around. After all, the movie shows she is still learning new things, but she is mature and certain as to what she wants. As to how to get it, that is occasionally the obstacle. At times, the obstacle exists just because of how other people see her.

The film dives into the sexism that women deal with, even today. We see a man telling RBG to smile more, change her tone. There is a moment where we see Ginsburg and her daughter walking through the street and some construction workers are catcalling them. We see Ginsburg, reservedly tell her daughter Jane, played by Cailee Spaeney, to just keep walking. But the daughter is not having it, she yells at them, signaling their actions are not okay, and then hitches a cab. This leaves her mother surprised and impressed, showing the progression of how women are opening up as to how they prefer to be treated. It is a memorable scene and does a good job at highlighting how far women’s rights have come generation after generation, even if it is shown through something as small as this.

The film also shows Ginsburg, despite being a star student in law school, struggling to find work. And while the job market can prove to be competitive in a number of contexts, for Ginsburg, she struggled to find work because of her identity. Multiple law firms turned her down because they did not want to hire a woman. We find out Ginsburg ends up taking a position as a professor at Rutgers Law School, which initially tends to bewilder her husband, Martin Ginsburg. Through the tone of the dialogue and various visual cues as Ruth reveals such news to her husband, it is emphasized that maybe this is not the outcome both sides were expecting. Even so, the two recognize the small victory. It is a decent scene showing the bumpy road that it is life. Once several doors close, another one may open that you were least expecting.

Despite how much I enjoyed “On the Basis of Sex,” it is not without its flaws. “Hollywoodized” is a term I have used on Scene Before in the past, and it fits here too. At times, this movie’s dramatization is rather obvious and almost distracting. While the movie is based on true events, there are certain moments during the showcasing of said events that feel like they would only exist in the context of a dramatized film.

Although if there is one thing that pipes itself up throughout the movie that really kept me interested, it is Mychael Danna’s score. Having watched lots of films over the years, I have had my fair share of scores I liked, but there are a certain amount that I would revisit on my own time. “On the Basis of Sex,” to my surprise, seems as if it could end up being one of those scores. Maybe I will eventually play it while writing my reviews.

As far as biopics go, I am not going to pretend “On the Basis of Sex” reinvents the wheel. There are moments where we see Ginsburg’s life play out that were beyond fascinating to learn about but the structure of the film does have a been there done that feel at times. If you can handle some predictability, cliches, and overdramatization every once in a while, you might like this movie.

In the end, “On the Basis of Sex” surprised me. I mean, I was not surprised the movie played out the way it did in parts. There is definitely a noticeable formula that I thought was met. But Felicity Jones carries this film as the lead. Although that does not mean there are no other standouts in the cast. Some include Armie Hammer, Kathy Bates, and even Cailee Spaeney as Ginsburg’s daughter, Jane. What did surprise me was how fast time flew as the movie progressed. I cannot say I felt bored or uninterested, so I have to give credit to the movie for keeping me awake. I am going to give “On the Basis of Sex” a 7/10.

“On the Basis of Sex” is now available on DVD, Blu-ray, Digital, and VOD. As of this writing, the film is available on Netflix for all subscribers.

Thanks for reading this review! I have one more review coming up next week in the ongoing Election Days series and it is going to be for the Amazon Studios film, “Elvis & Nixon.” I have not seen this film before. I just watched the trailer. It seems to promise a lot of fun. I figured after a couple of heavier films, and yes, I include “W.” as an example even though it has comedic elements, I thought it would be fun to maybe end with something on the lighter side. Stay tuned for that review. As for newer releases, stay tuned for my thoughts on “The Apprentice,” “Anora,” “Here,” “Gladiator II,” “Red One,” and “A Real Pain.” 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 “On the Basis of Sex?” What did you think about it? Or, what is a movie you watched that you feel went by much faster than you were expecting it to? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

W. (2008): No Review Left Behind

Posted on by Jack Drees

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Megalopolis (2024): Mediocritis

Posted on by Jack Drees

“Megalopolis” is directed by Francis Ford Coppola (Dracula, The Godfather) and stars Adam Driver (Star Wars: The Force Awakens, Marriage Story), Giancarlo Esposito (The Mandalorian, Abigail), Nathalie Emmanuel (Furious 7, Game of Thrones), Aubrey Plaza (Parks and Recreation, Dirty Grandpa), Shia LaBeouf (Transformers, Eagle Eye), Jon Voight (Reagan, Midnight Cowboy), Laurence Fishburne (The Matrix, John Wick: Chapter 2), Kathryn Hunter (Poor Things, Andor), and Dustin Hoffman (Lenny, Kramer vs. Kramer). This film is set in the city of New Rome, which is basically an alternate version of New York City. The story is about architect Cesar Catilina as he aspires to rebuild his city into a utopia, much to the opposition of New Rome’s mayor, Franklyn Cicero (Esposito).

Francis Ford Coppola’s resume is one to behold. If you go on the IMDb top 250, you will notice that several of his titles make the list. Heck, as of this writing, “The Godfather” and “The Godfather Part II” literally take up the #2 and #4 spots. “Apocalypse Now” is also at #56. Coppola has no doubt cemented his legacy in Hollywood as one of the icons. Heck, even though it is not talked about as much, I have to say that I really liked “The Outsiders.” It’s a solid movie inspired by a pretty good book. Kind of like Clint Eastwood, it is somewhat mind-blowing to know that Coppola is still making films at his age. “Megalopolis” has become something of a passion project for Coppola. He has been developing it off and on for many years. He’s talked with several actors for an opportunity to appear in the film. He’s even sold part of his winery so he could self-finance the film. But was this movie worth all that time and effort? As much as I champion Francis Ford Coppola for bringing the movie he wants to cinemas, I simply wish I liked it more. “Megalopolis” is not my least favorite movie of the year, but it is certainly one of the most boring.

I will be honest, I almost did not go see this movie, because I heard about the bad reviews this movie was getting some time before checking it out. And I had already dealt with the abomination against humanity that is “Joker: Folie à Deux.” I did not know if I had it in me to sit down and dedicate time to this controversial flick. Unfortunately I hate myself enough to do just that. After two hours that honestly almost felt like two and a half, maybe three, I can say that this film is one of the most unmemorable I have seen all year. That honestly says something. I am sure a lot of people put effort into the films they are crafting. But in the case of “Megalopolis,” I already knew this was a labor of love from the start. Having seen this film come to life, I almost cannot see anyone else doing this film in the style that Coppola did. That said, I cannot say I found the style entirely appealing.

Now, this film is a feast for the naked eye. The lighting in this film offers a variety of color. This one shot of Adam Driver’s face that continues to be ingrained in my memory. From a production value standpoint, this film gets top marks. “Megalopolis” is kind of like, well, here comes another mention of that stinker… “Joker: Folie à Deux.” There is no doubt that the look of the film is worthy of praise. It goes without any debate that it is nicely shot, contains good costumes, and has marvelous set design. There are times where I feel the film gets a little too far-fetched in terms of how fantastical the look comes off. But there are others where I can buy what the film is selling and I like what I see.

The film is set in New Rome, which as I mentioned earlier is basically New York City with some minor changes. The structure is the same, it contains tons of tall buildings, there’s the Statue of Liberty. The Madison Square Garden even exists in this film, and I kind of like what this film has done with the place. In Ancient Rome, people flocked to the Colosseum for events like gladiator fights. And in a sense, MSG is basically a modernized version of the Colosseum. This movie tends to present a stadium with the old school glory of the Colosseum with the modern day wonder of the Madison Square Garden people still flock to today. A good portion of the movie is spent there, and while there are some clips set within the arena which contain select editing choices I honestly found to be mind-numbing, I think the film nails the atmosphere of that venue to make it as Colosseum-like as possible while still factoring in what makes it what it is today. There is very much a blend of old meets new throughout the execution of such an iconic venue.

“Megalopolis” as a film somewhat reminds me of “The Boy and the Heron,” made by another visionary director, Hayao Miyazaki. For the record, I think that film is significantly better than this one. But I say this because I thought the best part of that film is its world-building. That said, the story and characters appear to play second fiddle in comparison. While “Megalopolis” contains a decent cast, most of the characters are missing a spark of some kind. In fact, I would almost argue none of the performances are really that great. There are definitely some that are okay. But some are over the top while others are forgettable. Adam Driver seems to try his best, but it is no “Marriage Story.” If you want a better outing from Aubrey Plaza, go see “My Old Ass.” As great as Laurence Fishburne’s voice is, seeing him in this movie makes me think I would rather be watching “The Matrix” right now. If anything, even though New Rome is a city and not a person, I would almost argue it is a character of its own and is more interesting than any of the people in this film. Then again, that is not saying much.

Although if I had to name one character I surprisingly enjoyed on screen it would be Vesta Sweetwater (top), played by Grace VanderWaal, and if you somehow remember that name from almost a decade ago, then you probably watched season 11 of “America’s Got Talent.” VanderWaal plays a pop star who the film establishes to maintain her purity and remain a virgin until marriage. It is a whole thing. But I thought VanderWaal carried an incredible screen presence whenever she played this character. When she came on screen, she commanded my attention. While her screen time was brief, it made for one of the film’s few highlights, and that says a lot considering I wanted The Clairvoyants to win “AGT” the year she was on by a clear mile. Just one moron’s opinion. That said, VanderWaal is great here. She plays her part well.

In the end, “Megalopolis” is one of those movies that the more I look at it, the more I am transfixed with the images on screen, but not so much the substance within them. When I walked out of “Megalopolis” I started to forget about the film’s context, story, and characters, but there is one thought that stuck in my mind. This could be a decent tech demo. It is colorful, bright, and offers a lot of detail frame by frame. I could clearly tell that Francis Ford Coppola put his heart and soul into this project, but sadly it is kind of a mess. It also comes off as rather pretentious and overly cartoony, which is not the finest combination. Is it the worst film of the year? No. In fact, threepeat alert! It is not as bad as “Joker: Folie à Deux!” So… Yay? I am going to give “Megalopolis” a 4/10.

“Megalopolis” is now playing in select theaters. Tickets are available now.

Thanks for reading this review! If you like this review, I have more coming! Stay tuned for my thoughts on “Venom: The Last Dance,” “The Apprentice,” “Anora,” “Here,” and “Gladiator II.” If you want to see my reviews for these films 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 “Megalopolis?” What did you think about it? Or, what is your favorite Francis Ford Coppola film? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!