Drama

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

Posted on by Jack Drees

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks for reading this review! If you enjoyed this review for “The Creator,” you might want to know that I have reviews coming up for “Dumb Money” and “It Lives Inside.” Stay tuned! If you want to see this and more from Scene Before, follow the blog either with an email or WordPress account! Also, check out the official Facebook page! I want to know, did you see “The Creator?” What did you think about it? Or, what is your favorite of Gareth Edwards’s films he has done thus far? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

Gladiator (2000): A Colossal Epic of Roman Glory

Posted on by Jack Drees

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks for reading this review! If you enjoyed my thoughts on “Gladiator” and want more Ridley Scott in your life, I have two more reviews coming in the Ridley Scottober series! One next week, followed by another the week after. Stay tuned. Also, be sure to check out my review for “The Last Duel,” Scott’s epic drama from 2021. If you want to see this and more from Scene Before, follow the blog either with an email or WordPress account! Also, check out the official Facebook page! I want to know, did you see “Gladiator?” What did you think about it? Or, what is your favorite sword and sandal movie? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

Body of Lies (2008): A Pinch of Intrigue Mixed with a Hint of Blandness

Posted on by Jack Drees

Hey everyone, Jack Drees here! Happy October! Or should I say, Ridley Scottober! What is Ridley Scottober? Well, throughout the month of October, I will be reviewing four movies directed by Ridley Scott! I wanted to do this because in addition to getting one themed review done this year, I might as well prepare myself for Ridley Scott’s upcoming feature, “Napoleon,” which so far has won me over with the marketing. I cannot wait to see it. Let’s kick things off with the first review in the series, “Body of Lies,” Scott’s 2008 spy thriller.

“Body of Lies” is directed by Ridley Scott (Black Hawk Down, Gladiator) and stars Leonardo DiCaprio (Titanic, The Aviator), Russell Crowe (Gladiator, A Beautiful Mind), Mark Strong (Stardust, Babylon A.D.), Golshifteh Farahani (M for Mother, Half Moon), Oscar Isaac (The Nativity Story, Law & Order: Criminal Intent), and Simon McBurney (The Golden Compass, Friends with Money). This film centers around a CIA agent named Roger Ferris, who attempts to track down a terrorist leader in Jordan.

I owned the Blu-ray for this film for almost six full years, and yet I have not watched this film for the first time until only last month. On the cover, there is a lot to like. Between Ridley Scott’s name behind the scenes, in addition to DiCaprio and Crowe’s names standing out for the talent on camera. All of these people, not just today, but even back in 2008 have proven their worth. In fact, “Body of Lies” is not the first rodeo between Scott and Crowe, as the two have worked together multiple times before, therefore it shows they have a solid business relationship. The same cannot be said for Leonardo DiCaprio, but I am sure both individuals brought plenty of promise to each other at the time of production. When you have these three names together, it equally brings a lot of promise to the audience.

Unfortunately though, while the promises of this film do not appear to be empty, they do not feel like they were entirely met. Now, these three individuals do an okay job in the film. But I cannot say that this film comes off as the pinnacle of any of their resumes. Whether we are talking about a collective or individual effort. All three have done better things before, all three have done better things after. In fact, of the Ridley Scott pictures I have seen, this is one of the more pedestrian ones he has made.

The movie is shot well, like many other Ridley Scott pictures. In fact, this was shot by Alexander Witt. This is the first proper cinematography credit in a feature film. Much of his work prior, not to mention after, was as a part of a second unit, but this time around he is on the front lines. The way the camera is used in “Body of Lies” for the most part provides for a bit of an uneasy vibe. After all, that is what the film should be beyond its surface, it is a soldier vs. terrorist sort of rivalry. “Body of Lies” is a film that at times puts you in the middle of the action, but it does not have enough oomph to make me run out on the streets and recommend this film to others. Although if there is one additional positive to point out, the color palette of this film perfectly establishes its overall atmosphere. It has this moody feel to it, but it supplies itself in such a way where everything around it still manages to pack in a tad of thrills and excitement. It was easy on the eyes.

Speaking of beginnings, I am pleased to report that this film is one of the early roles from Oscar Isaac, who I think is one of the better performers who has tended to lend himself to content within the spectrum of popular culture over the years. This is not his first role. Isaac was previously in films like “All About the Benjamins” and “The Nativity Story.” But I think this film shows how solid of an actor he was early in his career. Despite his first name, he is not on an Oscar level here, but he is one of the standouts in this film for me, which says something considering who the two leads happen to be.

This film stars Russell Crowe in addition to Leonardo DiCaprio, and when it comes to the former, it is clearly established that he is a dad. Particularly, one who is heavily involved in the lives of his young children. This allows for an ongoing gag where his character is doing things for his children all the while trying to balance work. We see him on the phone with Leonardo DiCaprio completing important calls all the while either doing something such as taking his kids somewhere or tending to them. While this is a great way to establish a character’s background, the amount of time spent exposing this feels like overkill. I do not know if they were trying to be funny with this tendency, after all this is a thriller, not a comedy. Sure, maybe if I were a parent myself, which I am not, maybe I could relate to this gag. And the more I think about it, seeing this sort of reminds me of seeing my mom taking calls over the years while I am in her presence given her line of work. But when it comes to this gag, it feels like too much delivered in my face. The phone gag feels like the one moment that the movie is going for humor. But because everything else, for the most part, comes off as serious, the only reaction I have as this is going on is silence. I am not saying this should not be in the movie, it serves a purpose as to establishing the characters, but I think it overembellishes itself at times.

The narrative, in terms of progression, character development, and concept, all get the job done. There is nothing remotely broken that I can point out about the film in terms of how everything in it is laid out story-wise. All the characters work. The chemistry works. The concept works. And that is the best way that I can sum up “Body of Lies.” It is not a film that is overly offensive. But it is also not a film that I walked out of thinking that it is a game changer. It is a film that I think some people would kill their first born child in order to have it be as good as it is. But when it comes to the reputation of Ridley Scott, who continues to be one of the more respected filmmakers working today, this feels kind of bland. There is a reason why nobody is talking about “Body of Lies” all these years later and instead bringing up other films like “Blade Runner” and “Thelma & Louise.” It’s because those films made a mark on its viewers culturally and managed to deliver something special. And yes, “Body of Lies” is exciting at times and there are moments where the intrigue is there, but it is not enough for me to say I would watch it again in the next few months. Maybe it would make for good background noise if I find it randomly on cable, but that is probably the extent of it.

If there are any other highlights I can point out, I did like the relationship between Leonardo DiCaprio’s character, Roger Ferris, and his love interest he meets along the way. Said love interest, Aisha, is played by Golshifteh Farahani. I thought the two had solid chemistry and every moment they were on screen together, they clicked. They probably had the best connection in the entire movie. Their bond was fun to watch.

In the end, “Body of Lies” is… Fine, I guess. When I bought the Blu-ray six years ago, I was quite intrigued to know that Ridley Scott was behind it. I was intrigued by the big names on the cover. There was a lot of potential. The potential here is not wasted, but it does not mean the film doesn’t underwhelm. There is nothing about this movie that makes me angry, but there is nothing about this movie that makes me think I should go back to it anytime soon. Ridley Scott is a respected filmmaker. And while this may be an okay movie for some people, this may not be the finest Ridley Scott movie. I am going to give “Body of Lies” a 6/10.

“Body of Lies” is now available on DVD, Blu-ray, and streaming. As of this writing, it is available on Max to all subscribers.

Thanks for reading this review! If you enjoyed this first installment to the Ridley Scottober series, guess what? I’ve got three more coming! I don’t think the next review is gonna be on Saturday like this one. To be frank, I wanted to get this review out a little earlier, but I have had a pretty busy week. And I honestly have a busy week next week too, because I’m gonna be on vacation in New York, but I should have some time to whip something up. I’m gonna be on a train for three to four hours, so I can definitely do something. Maybe I will drop the review Thursday. I am kind of playing this series by ear at this point. But if you want to see another one of my reviews for a Ridley Scott movie I did a couple years back, check out my thoughts on “The Last Duel!” That should hold you all over for some time. If you want to see this and more from Scene Before, follow the blog either with an email or WordPress account! Also, check out the official Facebook page! I want to know, did you see “Body of Lies?” What did you think about it? Or, what is a movie from a respected filmmaker that you think may be one of their inferior works? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

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

Posted on by Jack Drees

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks for reading this review! My next reviews are going to be for “Meg 2: The Trench,” “Bottoms,” and “A Haunting in Venice.” Stay tuned! If you want to see these reviews and more from Scene Before, follow the blog either with an email or WordPress account! Also, check out the official Facebook page! I want to know, did you see “Gran Turismo?” What did you think about it? Or, what is a way that video games have influenced your life? It can be positive or negative, either way works. Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

Haunted Mansion (2023): A Mildly Amusing, Mildly Eerie, Mildly Decent Ride

Posted on by Jack Drees

“Haunted Mansion” is directed by Justin Simien (Bad Hair, Dear White People) and stars LaKeith Stanfield (Sorry to Bother You, Selma), Tiffany Haddish (Girls Trip, Night School), Owen Wilson (Cars, Loki), Danny DeVito (My Cousin Vinny, Jumanji: The Next Level), Rosario Dawson (Clerks II, The Mandalorian), Dan Levy (Schitt’s Creek, Happiest Season), Jamie Lee Curtis (Everything Everywhere All at Once, Halloween), and Jared Leto (Blade Runner 2049, The Little Things). Inspired by the Disney ride of the same name, this film centers around a group of people who band together in a large mansion. Together, they try to rid of evil spirits roaming around the house.

Before we begin, I must make something clear. I have not seen the other “Haunted Mansion” movie starring Eddie Murphy. I am specifically referring the one titled “The Haunted Mansion.” Therefore if you want to my thoughts about it and how it compares to this latest film, you will not be getting them. Although I do have some experience with Disney ride-based movies. While the franchise is not perfect, I think a number of the “Pirates of the Caribbean” movies are fun. “The Curse of the Black Pearl” and “At World’s End” particularly stand out. I also saw “Jungle Cruise” in the theater a couple years ago. I thought it was fine at best, but the charismatic cast, catchy score, and occasionally joyful imagery make the film worth seeing at least once. Speaking of “Haunted Mansion,” there was a Halloween special on Disney+ by the name of “The Muppets Haunted Mansion,” which blended the iconic puppets with a spin on the Disney attraction. Safe to say, that film was hot garbage, so I was hoping this “Haunted Mansion” movie would at least be slightly more tolerable than that.

Safe to say, this 2023 film is a step up from the 2021 “Muppets” Disney+ special. Although this should not be a surprise considering how this is not made for television. That said, it is far from being a must see picture.

As an adult, I cannot see myself watching “Haunted Mansion” again. But maybe I would if I was a kid. I am not saying that this is movie that insults anyone’s intelligence, but I think that if I were a kid watching this film, this could serve as a gateway to other horror titles down the road. It probably would have gotten me into the genre. Now that I am an adult, I have an appreciation for horror, even though I do not always watch the titles of the genre. This is not as scary as many of the more mature titles I have seen, but if we are talking about occasional chills, this movie does its job. It does not make my eyes jump out of their sockets, but this film has the unique distinction of being what I would call pleasantly scary. It is a fine line between tame and scary that will not make me have nightmares. Now to be frank, if “Haunted Mansion” upped the scares a bit, there is a good chance I would revisit the film. But if I were watching this with kids, I would enjoy the moment with them. The film is cute, but not cuddly.

One of the more notable aspects of the film is the cast. The film is stacked with big names, and they are arguably the bigger attraction in this film than… Well, the attraction. Look at these names! You have Jamie Lee Curtis, the legendary scream queen who recently won an Academy Award! There is Roasrio Dawson! Her charisma knows no bounds and it continues to shine in this film! Let us not forget Owen Wilson. Of course, with a film like this one containing a blend of scares and fun, he is definitely here to deliver some of the latter. But the protagonist of the picture is played by LaKeith Stanfield, an actor who continues to get better with time. He plays an astrophysicist turned paranormal tour guide by the name of Ben Matthias. His investment in both dark matter photography and the supernatural, or more particularly, a love interest’s investment in the supernatural, drives his every move throughout the film. I thought Stanfield was a smart, charming center of the story. But it does not mean that I was not able to latch onto anyone else. Gabbie’s (Roasrio Dawson) angle as a single mom was specifically compelling. She made a number of scenes stand out. Given the nature of this film, it is hard to complain, even though I will, about the fact that this star-studded ensemble gives average performances. Not bottom of the barrel performances, though they could have been better. But I must also say that if there is another complaint I have acting-wise, it is that even though they has some funny moments, actors like Owen Wilson and Danny DeVito for instance feel like they are playing a version of themselves to some degree. They never annoyed me throughout the film so I can forgive them somewhat, but as far as this picture goes, chameleons they are not.

The film reminds me of other lighthearted horror films to have come out in recent years. Particularly the 2015 “Goosebumps” movie and “The House with a Clock in Its Walls.” Only thing, I think enjoyed both those movies more. Maybe it is because I watched those in my teens whereas I watched “Haunted Mansion” in my twenties. But I remember thinking about “The House with a Clock in Its Walls” in particular, which is also family friendly, and seeing certain pieces of spooky imagery that continue to linger in my head today. Yes, the movie has colorful moments despite having a dark side, but it does not necessarily hold its dark side back. Maybe if I were six, I would be scared by “Haunted Mansion.” But those worries might go away by the time I am say, twelve, thirteen years old.

“Haunted Mansion,” which as of this writing came out just over three weeks ago, is not going to make a lot of money at the box office. In fact, it has practically fallen flat on its face already. The film, which cost $157 million to make, has recently surpassed the halfway mark to making its budget back. I am not talking domestic. I am talking worldwide. So for all the people who helped contribute to this film’s lack of box office, should I recommend you see “Haunted Mansion?” That requires a complicated answer. I would not recommend this movie over say “Oppenheimer,” but it may be worth watching if are going with family, or if you intend to watch the film alone like I did, maybe go for the matinee price. Or if you have a theater subscription like A-List or Unlimited, take advantage of it. The best things in life are (sort of) free.

The film, despite its forgettability, bland humor, and cast that sounds great, but could have been used more effectively, does look nice. Jeffrey Waldron’s cinematography looks really good. The CGI is unrealistic, but it fits the movie at hand. If it were in say an “Indiana Jones” flick, then we might be having a different conversation. The inside of the mansion also looks really cool. Although at the end of the day, if I have to be real, if I want the Haunted Mansion experience, I would not watch this movie again. I might just flock to Disney World if I had the money. The long line would be worth it. Again, I have not seen the Eddie Murphy film. Maybe that would be a better use of my time as well. Although judging by the 31% audience score and even less promising 13% critic score on Rotten Tomatoes, maybe not.

In the end, there are things to like about “Haunted Mansion,” and the positives definitely outweigh the negatives. But the positives do not really stand out. Thankfully, the negatives are not anger-inducing. Not once did “Haunted Mansion” feel like an endurance test. It was a just a movie that I wish could have been better. It is not the scariest movie I have ever seen. It is not the funniest movie I have ever seen. It is just passable enough to the point where I can say I enjoyed a series of moments throughout. Some of the characters are neat, but the writing could be better. The look is nice, but the scares are off and on. There are better movies out there, but there also are worse movies out there. “Haunted Mansion” is somewhere in the middle. I am going to give “Haunted Mansion” a 6/10.

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

Thanks for reading this review! My next reviews are going to be for “The First Slam Dunk,” “Barbie,” “Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles: Mutant Mayhem,” and “Talk to Me.” 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 “Haunted Mansion?” What did you think about it? Or, if you saw the 2003 film “The Haunted Mansion,” how does this 2021 film compare to that? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

Oppenheimer (2023): A World-Defining Film for a World-Defining Time

Posted on by Jack Drees

“Oppenheimer” is directed by Christopher Nolan (Interstellar, Tenet) and stars Cillian Murphy (Inception, Peaky Blinders), Emily Blunt (Edge of Tomorrow, Mary Poppins Returns), Matt Damon (Downsizing, We Bought a Zoo), Robert Downey Jr. (Iron Man, Chaplin), Florence Pugh (Black Widow, Don’t Worry Darling), Josh Hartnett (Cracked, Pearl Harbor), Casey Affleck (Manchester by the Sea, Gone Baby Gone), Rami Malek (No Time to Die, Bohemian Rhapsody), and Kenneth Branagh (Death on the Nile, Tenet). This film is about the adult life of J. Robert Oppenheimer, a physicist who would play a major role in changing the course of both science and history.

Christopher Nolan is my favorite film director working today. I appreciate every single one of his films. “Interstellar” is my top film of the past decade, not to mention all time. “Inception” is a marvelous, trippy, dream-esque trip like no other. While they are not my favorite comic book movies, I think “The Dark Knight” trilogy is full of great action, characters, and performances. “Memento” is one of the better non-linear stories that comes to mind. I even liked “Tenet.” I have seen it four times in theaters. I do not know how many people can say that. While I call what I do critical, I will not deny that I am a Christopher Nolan fan. I look forward to every one of his films, including “Oppenheimer,” which I put amongst my most anticipated of the year. This film is a different angle for Nolan, who has created dark material, but he does so with a sense of joy sparkled in somewhere. For “Oppenheimer,” there is no joy. Only sour vibes. If you look at “Dunkirk,” which is set during a depressing time like World War II, the movie fails to earn a more mature R rating, instead of a PG-13, because there is a lack of blood and other things in it like excessive foul language. “Oppenheimer” is Nolan’s first R rated film since 2002’s “Insomnia,” a remake of a 1997 Norwegian film of the same name.

Safe to say, when it comes to the content of “Oppenheimer,” Nolan does not hold back compared to some of his other films. Much like “Dunkirk,” there is not much blood to be seen. There is not much violence either. However the film earns an R due to sexuality, nudity, and language. If you take out some of the sex or swearing, Nolan and crew probably could have earned a PG-13. Even with the sex and nudity, it honestly feels tame, especially when compared to another recent film, “Joy Ride.” There is nothing that comes off as super objectifying or over the top about it. In some ways, it feels everyday, but with some extra flair to it. Of all of the Christopher Nolan films, and this is not a diss on any of the others, this is some of his most lifelike work yet. Then again, having it be based on history definitely helps.

But overall, what did I think of the film? Well, as of now, I have seen “Oppenheimer” twice. That should tell you something you need to know by the end of this review.

In addition to being his most mature work yet, Christopher Nolan fires on all cylinders in “Oppenheimer” to tell a story that not only captivated me through showcasing history’s past, but also highlighting where we may be going. On the surface, “Oppenheimer” chronicles the life of a man who dedicated his life to his field, only to have his choices lead to monumental events. It is so much more.

For those who are often challenged when facing three hour films, I can tell you that this film is a heavy watch, but even with that in mind, those three hours are used brilliantly. There is a lot to see, and a lot to digest. Despite the long runtime, “Oppenheimer” is especially worth seeing in the theater. If you have a small bladder, plan wisely. Because if you are like me, you will enjoy much of what is in front of you.

“Oppenheimer” is told in a way that despite being non-linear, flows like a straight line. It is also told in a way that I think only someone resembling a Christopher Nolan-type could tell it. The film is heavy in flashbacks and storytelling shifts. The story may be called “Oppenheimer,” and it is ultimately a film about the titular character from start to finish. But it is not always told from his perspective.

Speaking of Oppenheimer, Cillian Murphy is gold throughout the picture as the title character. If the Oscars were tomorrow, he would be a serious contender for Best Actor. A lot of what makes Murphy pop is his subtleties. There are multiple signals throughout the film of what Oppenheimer was thinking, that may sometimes be highlighted by either something he says, or an expression on his face. In addition to Murphy’s mannerisms, he looks the part, and ultimately, feels the part.

Joining Murphy is a stacked cast whose talents know no bounds from Florence Pugh to Kenneth Branagh to Robert Downey Jr. in a bit of a departure from what he has been doing in recent years through his time in the MCU. I have seen users on social media say that Robert Downey Jr. is finally “acting” again. First off, he never stopped, he just played Iron Man so many times that it may feel like he is. Over the years he has done a great job as Tony Stark, and he also kills it here as Lewis Strauss. Like Murphy in his lead role, Downey Jr. is probably gonna be a frontrunner for Best Supporting Actor by the end of the year. But in all seriousness, look at this cast! Matt Damon! Emily Blunt! Rami Malek! That is not even the stretch of it! The cast is a murderer’s row of both star power and off the charts performances. It is like what “Amsterdam” was trying to be, even with an iconic, experienced director to back them up, but the difference here is the comparatively greater execution.

This film sort of reminds me of “2001: A Space Odyssey,” because “Oppenehimer” deals with weapons somewhat similarly to how “2001” deals with technology. Throughout history, mankind has had an obsession with tools. In a way, they made us stronger, they kept us alive, and in some ways, we refuse to live in a world without them. Technology and weapons continue to evolve, and therefore, there could be a breaking point. “Oppenheimer” begs to ask what happens if mankind not only gains enough power to destroy an entire group of people, but possibly themselves. When this film highlights the development of the bomb, there is a lot of talk about the weapon’s uncertainty. During its assembly, the chances of the bomb destroying the entire planet were near zero, but some would argue even that is too intimidating of a chance. When the bomb went off, it seemed like the weapon that made all others inferior. But like how there is always a bigger fish, there may also be a bigger weapon as time goes on.

I have seen a couple horror titles this year and I can say “Oppenheimer” is eerier than both titles. “Oppenheimer” may not come off as a horror movie at first sight, but it is certainly one by the end of it. Speaking of the end, to drive that point home, I will not say anything about what happens, but there is a final exchange in the film that I cannot stop thinking about. “Oppenheimer” is responsible for possibly the greatest last line in the history of film. It is up there with “Well, nobody’s perfect,” from “Some Like it Hot.” I am not going to give the line away, but it is a series of words that will stick with me, along with the hallowing shots that follow.

One of the reasons why Christopher Nolan is a favorite director of mine is that while his movies vary across the board, is that they are some of the most prominent examples of narratives that get me to think. “Interstellar” got me thinking about the earth’s future, in addition to my own. “Dunkirk” made me think that people are genuinely good at heart even in the worst of times. “Tenet…” Well, it certainly got me to think. Maybe think backwards sometimes. “Oppenheimer” is another one of those thinker kind of pictures, but it is making me think in ways where I am afraid that mankind may achieve a point of self-destruction. As a moviegoer, I often watch films for an escape from my problems. But not all films are created equal. Sometimes there is room, depending on the occasion, for a film that reminds you of your problems, or in this case, highlights problems that could haunt you for the rest of your life.

I was off and on as a history student in school, but there is a basic saying about history that justifies teaching even the darkest of tales. Those who do not know history are doomed to repeat it. That saying is perhaps the backbone of “Oppenheimer,” no matter how you slice it. This film may tell the story of J. Robert Oppenheimer, and he is by all means the protagonist of this picture, but he is more of a notable presence than a “hero” in some ways. There are certain scenes where other characters may see him as such, but he is not entirely a proper fit for the description of “hero.” Understandably, “Oppenheimer” was not released in Japan. There is also no scheduled release there as of yet. That said, as I watched the film, there are moments where I got the notion that the film served as an occasional apology to the country. It is not necessarily in your face propaganda, but from start to finish, the film never comes off as an attack towards Japan or its people. If anything it comes off as a warning to anyone who desires mass destruction on a large group. And yes, that is all the while the movie highlights an event of mass destruction. But it says that if we get to a point in our history where we continue to fight, where we continue to destroy each other, we may ultimately destroy ourselves.

Again, “Oppenheimer” is a horror movie disguised as a three hour historical drama. If you think ghosts, ghouls, and goblins are the scariest things you will see this year, just wait until J. Robert Oppenheimer gives a speech to flag-wielding Americans in a gym. If I watch a new horror movie in theater around spooky season, there is a good chance that it will not leaved as haunted as I have the past two times I have watched “Oppenheimer.”

In the end, “Oppenheimer” is a hallowing time at the movies, but nevertheless a remarkable achievement of cinema. While I really liked “Tenet,” I think “Oppenheimer” is a step up from Christopher Nolan’s previous efforts. If anything, this may end up being a top 3 film of his for me. The film stands as a technical achievement that must be seen in a large format like IMAX. This is especially considering it was partially shot with IMAX film cameras by Hoyte Van Hoytema, who also used the camera to shoot three other Nolan titles and even Jordan Peele’s “Nope.” Additionally, it is a dramatic achievement that has been perfectly executed by its star-studded cast. Even with the haunting nature of this film, a good portion of the imagery is awe-inspiring, the music is captivating, and the sound is beautifully audible. That said, if I had a complaint with the film, the sound mix, despite the powerful audio and score, is not the greatest, which is not new for Christopher Nolan. Other than that, the movie stands as one of the director’s best. I am going to give “Oppenheimer” a 9/10.

“Oppenheimer” is now playing in theatres everywhere. The film is also available in select IMAX 70mm locations for a limited time. I had the grand opportunity to see it in one of those locations, and if you are thinking of taking the opportunity to see “Oppenheimer” in one of those locations, I highly endorse it. Tickets are available now.

Thanks for reading this review! Pretty soon I will be dropping reviews for “Haunted Mansion,” “The First Slam Dunk,” “Barbie,” and “Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles: Mutant Mayhem.” Stay tuned! Also, 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 “Oppenheimer?” What did you think about it? Or, what is the scariest non-horror title you have ever seen? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

BlackBerry (2023): A Perfect Cast and Thrilling Script Dial Up a Great Time

Posted on by Jack Drees

“BlackBerry” is directed by Matt Johnson (The Dirties, Nirvana the Band the Show), who also plays Doug in this film. Joining him are stars Jay Baruchel (How to Train Your Dragon, This Is the End), Glenn Howerton (A.P. Bio, It’s Always Sunny in Philadelphia), Rich Somner (Mad Men, The Devil Wears Prada), Michael Ironside (Highlander II: The Quickening, Superman: The Animated Series), Martin Donovan (Insomnia, Tenet), Michelle Giroux (Blood Pressure, Black Mirror), SungWon Cho (One Piece, Ranking of Kings), Mark Critch (This Hour Has 22 Minutes, The Grand Seduction), Saul Rubinek (Warehouse 13, Frasier), and Cary Elwes (The Princess Bride, Robin Hood: Man in Tights). This film is about the rise and fall of the once popular smartphone, BlackBerry.

Nostalgia has been a primary factor into the marketing and execution of many films over the years. Look at how many major franchises there are right now trying to cater to people’s long-held memories. In fact, just this month, we are seeing the tenth installment to the “Fast & Furious” franchise and Disney’s live-action edition of “The Little Mermaid.” Whether we have a childhood connection with the franchise or we discovered it sometime back in the day, there is no doubt that both of these names are likely to thrive because of their recognition. Similarly, I have a bit of a childhood connection to BlackBerry. When I was in elementary and middle school, they were all the rage. Not in my demographic, but amongst adults. My mother had a couple BlackBerrys through her life, I knew teachers who had them, I came across ads for them, and I remember playing games and watching YouTube on my mom’s device when she did not need it. I remember the keyboard, some of the ringtones, the scrolly wheel. It was a nifty looking device, but looking back, it definitely feels bulky by today’s standards. I am still glad we have this film to take audiences back to a time that I almost forgot even existed. I am glad we have an excuse to start talking about this device once again and bring it back in a sense. If anything, this movie is doing for the titular phone what the “Guardians of the Galaxy” sequels have been doing for Microsoft’s Zune, except that was practically a failure from the getgo.

“BlackBerry” was a film that came out of nowhere for me. I have seen some of the marketing, but it is one that has not kept my attention compared to say some of the bigger blockbusters, partially because of how much money must have been spent on the campaign. But now that I saw the movie, I think I am going to help cheapen those marketing costs a tad. Because “BlackBerry” gives “John Wick: Chapter 4” competition for the best movie of 2023. There are some easy comparisons to make between “BlackBerry” and films like “The Social Network” and “The Founder” because of its tech connections or the company’s story of humble beginnings. But to me, what makes “BlackBerry” so great is the same reason behind movies like “The Disaster Artist,” and even more recently, “The Phantom of the Open” working so well for me. Because movies like these manage to find inklings of success in one’s failure.

Of course, unlike “The Room,” which “The Disaster Artist” highlights, the BlackBerry phone and brand were a success to begin with. Granted they had a tough beginning, but they also had a meteoric rise. This movie showcases how they were the phone to define the 2000s, and I believe they arguably had more relevancy at that time than the iPhone when it was announced. It did not take long for the latter to thwart BlackBerry off its throne, but still.

This film has an excellent cast including Jay Baruchel as Mike Lazaridis (left), one of the core people behind BlackBerry’s development. Joining him in a dynamic duo is Matt Johnson as Doug (center). More on him later. Michael Ironside kills a grit-filled supporting role as Purdy. Everyone in this movie is great. But if there is one individual that outshines them all, Glenn Howerton, who plays Jim Balsillie, not only gives the best performance in the movie, but one that has the potential to be my favorite of the year. Granted, it is only May.

If Glenn Howerton’s bone-chilling, jaw-dropping portrayal does not end up being my favorite of the year, I think it will end up being the most overlooked of the bunch. It is a marvel to the tenth degree. It is a fantastic blend of brilliant dialogue and hallowing physicality. Howerton’s presence alone is almost intimidating, and hearing him speak sometimes almost shivers me. To know that is possible with how down to earth this movie comes off, is incredible. The acting in this film is phenomenal, and Howerton is the cream of the crop of what is already a terrific ensemble.

The thing I enjoyed most about “BlackBerry” is that it not only shows the eventual lack of consumer interest BlackBerry earns because of competition, but also because of how the people making it were never on the same page. We see a group of people who disagree with how things should be done behind the scenes. One can call this a case of there being too many cooks in the kitchen, but it can also be said that it is a matter of those cooks not having the same values. Not only when it comes to how the product itself should be made, but the overall process of how the people making it should compose themselves. There is an obvious transition of the company’s doings throughout the film. Not only in terms of its growth, but how its people either grow or refuse to grow with it. It shows how one humble group can transform into a serious industry mainstay, and to do that might mean you have to take the fun out of your objective.

If I have one complaint about the film, I think the cinematography and the color palette are occasionally off-putting. The movie is kind of shaky and all over the place. One may argue that could add an induction of anxiety, which is a good way to describe this movie at times. But I also think the movie slightly lacks a cinematic feel because of this choice. This is likely a subjective preference, because when I think of certain TV shows I do not like, “The Office” often comes to mind because the camerawork, while definitely well-intentioned, is not my cup of tea. Maybe the overall look will work for some people, but for me, it is one of the weaker elements in an otherwise outstanding film.

“BlackBerry” is the cinematic lovechild of Matt Johnson. He co-wrote the film, he directed the film, and he even starred in it as Doug. By the way, he may be the most charismatic, endearing bundle of joy this film has. Johnson has some experience as someone who has worn multiple hats in this industry. But I think “BlackBerry” could be his big break depending on the box office and how well this film does at home. Much like I said about Ari Aster after seeing “Hereditary” a few years ago, I think if Matt Johnson announces his next project, I am there. While he may not have the style of Aster, he certainly has the substance and personality to back things up. I cannot wait to find out what Johnson does from here.

This is a film about sacrifice, greed, determination, and how one’s best efforts can unfortunately lead to one’s greatest failure. I love this movie, I think you should see this movie. And hopefully unlike the BlackBerry phone, it will never go out of style.

In the end, “BlackBerry” has achieved nerdvana. Of the past five months of movies, this one stands out. It is one of my favorite screenplays of the year. It is one of my favorite casts of the year. It is one of my favorite movies of the year. It is a surprisingly thrilling story with compelling characters that I had all sorts of feelings for. This movie works because it not only got me to side with the main characters, but it made me sympathize or occasionally side with anyone in the movie who would perhaps antagonize the main characters too. I know “The Little Mermaid” is going to clobber all the other movies at the box office this weekend. But if “The Little Mermaid” is sold out and you want to see something else, or if you want to drop your kids off at “The Little Mermaid” and see something else while you wait for their movie to finish, this may be your best option if it is playing in a theater near you. I am going to give “BlackBerry” a 9/10.

“BlackBerry” is now playing in theatres. Tickets are available now.

Thanks for reading this review! If you like this review, check out some of my other ones! Recently I did reviews for films like “The Super Mario Bros. Movie,” “Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3,” and “Dungeons & Dragons: Honor Among Thieves” just to name a few. 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 “BlackBerry?” What did you think about it? Or, did you ever use a BlackBerry phone back in the day? Which model did you use? What are your thoughts on the product? 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!

Air (2023): Dribbles of Nostalgia Meets Cheer-Worthy Excitement

Posted on by Jack Drees

“Air” is directed by Ben Affleck (Live by Night, The Town), who also appears as one of the films stars. Alongside him in this studded cast are names including Matt Damon (The Last Duel, The Martian), Jason Bateman (Game Night, Horrible Bosses), Marlon Wayans (Scary Movie, The Wayans Bros.) Chris Messina (Devil, Argo), Chris Tucker (Rush Hour, The Fifth Element), and Viola Davis (Suicide Squad, Fences). This film is about Sonny Vaccaro’s mission to put Nike on the map and track down rookie Michael Jordan to make the greatest shoe of all time.

I am not a sports nut. Granted, I live near Boston, so I have admittedly had some history of going to a Sox game or searching up certain highlights on YouTube or reluctantly watching the Super Bowl because my grandma’s favorite team, the New England Patriots are in it. While I am not a sports person, I am a movie person. And I have come to learn some sports are like movies. There are so many compelling tales to be told whether they are historic rivalries like Magic Johnson vs. Larry Bird, the legacy of Tiger Woods, or the miracle on ice during the 1980 Olympics. But those stories are about the players, which we have seen on screen before. What has not been shown on screen as often are the success stories of those who are supplementing sports and their respective athletes. Despite having an athlete like Michael Jordan in the movie, “Air” is not about an individual athlete or group of athletes accomplishing something bigger than themselves. Instead, it is about a company who is trying to reinvent the wheel. Only with a shoe.

For those of you who know your film history, you would know Michael Jordan himself has appeared in movies before. He was the star of the 1990s time capsule, “Space Jam,” which I unfortunately had the displeasure of watching. The sequel starring LeBron James is not much better. If you want any filmmaking advice, here is my suggestion. If you are going to make a movie featuring Michael Jordan, whether he is in it, or somebody plays him, leave Bugs Bunny out of it. And that is one reason why “Air” is a really good movie. As for other reasons why this is a really good movie, the screenplay may be the best I have witnessed so far this year. Not only is it based on a compelling true story, not only does it have great dialogue, but it is funny, dramatic, and on top of that, the characters are well-crafted and executed with care. Alex Convery should be proud of himself. This is not only a great screenplay, but this has brought him his first credits. Ever. According to IMDb, this is his first writing credit, in addition to being his first producing credit. As far as I am concerned, he started his career off with a bang.

Sonny Vaccaro is an admirable protagonist. He may look like an everyday dude, but he has a drive to him that I cannot help but respect. He has a goal in mind, he knows it is difficult to accomplish, but he will do just about anything to achieve it, even if others call him crazy. There have been many protagonists throughout history who aspire to conquer larger than life obstacles. All this guy wants in life is to sell people a shoe that can do it all. And this movie does a great job at making that obstacle feel bigger than it should be. Damon’s performance is a perfect balance between nuanced and heightened. It hits the Goldilocks Zone. Damon is perfectly cast as Vaccaro and I almost cannot imagine anyone else playing this character.

Although if I had to note another performance that perhaps stands out more, it would be Viola Davis’s efforts as Deloris Jordan, Michael Jordan’s mom. There is a certain flair to her performance that only she can provide. Davis is already an incredible actress by herself, but having a character as compelling as this one makes for a winning combo. While Damon is a fantastic lead, Davis, almost unfairly, steals every scene she is in.

Speaking of the Jordan family, this movie made an interesting choice regarding the Michael Jordan character. A Michael Jordan character does appear in the movie, but Jordan does not play himself. Michael Jordan is played by Damian Delano Young, which given his limited resume, this movie should end up being his big break. Throughout the select moments and scenes where Jordan can be seen in frame, we never see his face. His dialogue is also kept to a minimum. Granted, this is not Michael Jordan’s story per se. He is a supporting character, he is a crucial part of the story, but at the end of the day, it is Sonny Vaccaro’s story. It reminds me of Steven Spielberg’s “The Post,” where Richard Nixon, a crucial fixture of the film’s idea and setting, only makes an appearance in one scene with bare visibility. Michael Jordan is used sparingly and mostly towards the end of the movie. Do I think it is a tad odd we never see Jordan’s face? Maybe a little. I would like to see a reality where someone plays the character and shows his face, but I think the version we got allowed the character to feel special despite not doing much at all.

There is something about “Air” that left me… Well, up in the air. This movie is set in the 1980s and it is shoehorned with reference after reference after reference. On a positive note, I felt that when it comes to encapsulating the time period, the movie did an excellent job at capturing that magic. I think if you grew up during the 1980s, you might be taken back. If you admire culture based in the 1980s, you might be in for a treat. That said, I think the constant references and deep cuts become distracting after awhile. I only need to be reminded that we are in a certain time period so many times. Although if I had to note one deep cut that blew my mind once it came up, it is the use of Tangerine Dream’s score from “Risky Business.”

There are movies that I know are based on true stories, but I do not know all the ins and outs of what happens, therefore making the narrative more satisfying. “Air” is a movie containing events I could sometimes see coming, but they nevertheless have a gigantic oomph when they happen. However, giving my lack of knowledge on sports and shoes, it made the movie’s final moments all the more satisfying. When I left “Air,” I had a smile on my face. I am glad a story like this was told. It made me happy.

If I have any other comments to make on the film, it would be that the looks of the film are pristine. And I am not necessarily talking about the camerawork or cinematography, although that is not bad either. I am referring to the costumes, the makeup, and outlooks of all the characters. The costumes are not as intricate as say a period piece set centuries ago, but going back to what I said about this film’s nostalgia factor, these costumes feel like they belong in a time like the 1980s. “Air” is well written, well paced, and maybe I will watch it again sometime.

In the end, how could I not enjoy “Air?” In today’s society where we still have COVID-19, we still have division, we still have chaos, I always happen to be looking for stories that make me feel good, and “Air” is one of those stories. I think this movie is going to do very well with audiences over time. I do not know how much of a presence it will have at the next awards season given how early it has come out. But if Amazon Studios gives “Air” a big enough push, it can do some magic. With its already successful theatrical run, I hope it also does well when it drops on Prime Video. “Air” is not my favorite film I have seen so far this year, but it is one that I am going to think about on a consistent basis. Also, between “The Way Back” and now “Air,” Ben Affleck is the new king of basketball movies. I am going to give “Air” a very high 7/10.

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

Thanks for reading this review! Pretty soon I am going to have reviews for “How to Blow Up a Pipeline” and “Sisu,” both movies just recently came out, and I saw both of them. I will have my thoughts sometime soon. Also, I have my ticket to go see “Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3” this week, so you can also expect a review for that movie coming soon as well. 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 “Air?” What did you think about it? Or, who is your favorite athlete? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

65 (2023): Jurassic Farce

Posted on by Jack Drees

“65” is written and directed by Scott Beck and Bryan Woods, the duo who also scripted “A Quiet Place” and “A Quiet Place Part II” alongside John Krasinski. This film stars Adam Driver (Star Wars: The Force Awakens, Marriage Story) and Ariana Greenblatt (Avengers: Infinity War, Awake) in a story set 65 million years before modern times. In this science fiction adventure, Mills (Driver) crashes on prehistoric earth, which to him is an unfamiliar territory. He discovers within the surroundings of this land, there is intelligent life, specifically a young human girl, and dinosaurs.

“65” is easily one of my most anticipated movies of the year. Yes, it has an early release date. Although it has a lot of promise going into it. Adam Driver is a terrific actor who gives it his all in every project he does. The plot is simple but also engaging enough to not turn me off. Oh, and what was the other thing? A little something called DINOSAURS!

I was not just excited for “65” because dinosaurs were in it, but I happened to be eagerly awaiting to see what precisely “65” would do with these dinosaurs. Because I was hoping we would get a proper use of these creatures after a couple underwhelming “Jurassic World” movies. The last couple were not that great, especially “Dominion,” which I consider an achievement because it somehow managed to make dinosaurs boring. While the trailer for “65” showcased the dinosaurs to some degree, it never fleshed them out. That gave me the impression that the dinosaurs in this movie would be special, they are not going to emit a special kind of staleness. In addition, they will actually come off as scary.

But you know what is also scary? The fact that “65” might just be the worst movie I have seen so far this year.

I am truly disappointed to bring this thought to the table, because I was genuinely excited for this movie. It hurts to watch a movie that sucks. However, it breaks my heart to see a movie that I was rooting for from the beginning turn out as bad as it did. Although I should have seen the writing on the wall. Sony did not do a ton of marketing for this film. While I had no intentions to watch this, mainly because I am not caught up in the franchise, Sony made the decision to release this movie the same weekend as “Scream VI.” “65” is not a pure horror flick, but it has a ton of horror elements wrapped in whatever package it tends to bring forth. Therefore, I would not call it counterprogramming. Maybe Sony thought it could do well as a double feature with its competitor. I am not sure.

Once again, “65” is written and directed by Scott Beck and Bryan Woods, whose experience with “A Quiet Place” speaks volumes. No pun intended. Much like “A Quiet Place,” “65” is a simple movie with a few characters who are simply trying to survive against dangerous monsters. Or in this case, dinosaurs. Although what made the screenplay for “A Quiet Place” so brilliant compared to a ton of other mainstream films is that it has almost no spoken dialogue. There are a few lines. There is also sign language. But it goes to show the power of film as a visual medium. While “65” does not have a script that insults your intelligence, the way certain lines came to life did not end up coming off in maybe the way I would have hoped. There is one particular exchange between Mills and Koe where the former emits a noise, and there is this awkward pause. Not only is the pause, again, awkward, but the noise sounds almost unnatural. For all I know, maybe Driver was poorly directed in that moment.

“65” is like if “Jurassic Park,” “A Quiet Place,” and “The Midnight Sky” got together to create a lovechild. You have dinosaurs, minimal lines, and an older man/younger girl relationship that moves things along. Except in the case of “65,” they forgot the part where they actually had to make a good movie.

This is not to say there are no positives in “65.” The film’s visual effects look clean and slick. They fit perfect within the film’s environment. The tech looks polished. The dinosaurs look real. I have no problem with the way this movie looks. I would also say some of the shots are screensaver-worthy. Not to beat a dead horse, even though this movie was not executed perfectly, the concept was at least intriguing. There was also some tension to be had in the movie regarding a particular element beyond the main characters’ control. Although I wish the writing happened to be better and the characters had more of a personality than what the movie gave me.

If I had to make a guess, “65” sounded like a great movie on paper, but was ultimately a project whose signs of doom appeared somewhere in the edit. If I pitched a movie to a studio about dinosaurs, I am sure the person on the receiving end would at least be curious. How could they not? Unless they are named Barney, dinosaurs equal instant, guaranteed entertainment. And the “Jurassic World” movies, including “Dominion,” which released two years after COVID-19 ruined everything, made tons of money despite what I and others have to say about them. “65” is not the same movie as “A Quiet Place,” but Beck and Woods evidently use similar techniques from one film to the other. There is not much dialogue, and therefore, there are moments where we are shown things instead of being told them. A basic rule of filmmaking is to show instead of tell, which is part of what makes “A Quiet Place” work like a charm. But what also made “A Quiet Place” work is that I bought into the relationships between its characters. I liked the dynamic between the family. The main duo in “65” barely has any chemistry whatsoever. Both Driver and Greenblatt do their best alongside each other with the material given to them. Although it does not change the fact these two are leads in an awkwardly designed story that I wanted to end as soon as possible.

Also, it says a lot when a movie that only goes for 93 minutes, just over an hour and a half, somehow feels too long, not to mention insufferably boring on occasion. This film is set 65 million years before our times, and yet that is how long this movie sometimes feels. Maybe this film would have made for a good video game. You could go around detailed portions of prehistoric earth. You could fight dinosaurs. You could have cool weaponry. But as a movie, this was a waste of time.

In the end, “65” is a roaring disappoint. What is it with dinosaur movies as of late? “Jurassic World: Dominion” is one of the worst blockbusters to have released in recent memory. And now “65,” which I thought could have given a boost to the dinosaur movie realm, only makes me think that these kinds of movies should be extinct. I am not going to remember “65.” In fact, I frankly think I may have tuned almost all of it out of my head by now. That is how bad this movie is. Go something else if you have the chance. I am going to give “65” a 2/10.

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

Thanks for reading this review! My next review is going to be for the latest DC movie, “Shazam!: Fury of the Gods.” I had a chance to watch the movie last Thursday, and I cannot wait to share my thoughts on this sequel. 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 “65?” What did you think about it? Or, what is a movie you saw in recent memory, that you were looking forward to, only to have your hopes shattered? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!