#Drama

The Mule (2018): Clint Eastwood’s Second Disappointment of 2018

Posted on by Jack Drees

MV5BMTc1OTc5NzA4OF5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTgwOTAzMzE2NjM@._V1_SY1000_CR006741000_AL_

“The Mule” is directed by Clint Eastwood (Million Dollar Baby, Sully) and stars himself alongside Bradley Cooper (Guardians of the Galaxy, A Star Is Born), Laurence Fishburne (The Matrix, Batman v. Superman: Dawn of Justice), Michael Peña (American Hustle, Crash), Dianne Wiest (Life in Pieces, Law & Order), and Andy Garcia (Geostorm, Ocean’s Eleven). This movie is based on a true story and an article from The New York Time called “The Sinaloa Cartel’s 90-Year-Old Drug Mule.” It’s a about a guy by the name of Earl Stone, who is a war veteran, and he claims that he made the mistake of putting work before family. He missed a couple of important events, he cared for his plants more than his children, and he seems to be always doing something that will keep him from his family. Throughout the film, we see Stone trying to get cash for transporting loads on his truck under the responsibility of a Mexican drug cartel.

I haven’t seen much of Clint Eastwood’s work. As a film buff, or at least that’s what I like to call myself, part of me is slightly surprised that I have not looked into more of his stuff. I have seen “Sully,” “The 15:17 to Paris,” and “The Good, the Bad and the Ugly.” Now that “The Mule” is in cinemas everywhere, it allows me to dive deeper into seeing how talented Clint Eastwood really is, not only as an actor, but as a director. What I’ve seen from him acting-wise is pretty serviceable, including what I’ve seen from him in this movie. However, thus far, I have seen him direct competently, but there are other directors I prefer compared to him. I much prefer the work of filmmakers like Christopher Nolan (Interstellar, Memento), Wes Anderson (The Grand Budapest Hotel, Isle of Dogs), and Damien Chazelle (Whiplash, La La Land). While this is at times, a nice looking, and rather well done film from a technical and acting perspective, the fact is that I was honestly disappointed.

When I saw “The 15:17 To Paris” this year, I felt the same way as I do now. Clint Eastwood is a household name in Hollywood. But throughout a portion of the year, a part of me thought that was just Eastwood’s appetizer to get to the real film he wants to tackle in 2018. After all, the movie was released in February, which is one of the dumpster fire months for movies, so there’s a good chance that either the studio or Eastwood himself may have been dissatisfied over the outcome of what eventually became “The 15:17 To Paris.” The good news was that this was not the only film to be released in 2018 that is directed by Clint Eastwood. Maybe “The Mule” would be better than “The 15:17 To Paris.” Well, it was, but that’s not saying much because, again, I was disappointed.

Let’s talk about Clint Eastwood in this film, he does a good job performance-wise, but when it comes to his character, I have mixed thoughts about him. I can understand the way he felt at certain times. The way the character manages to develop is also charming. But there are certain qualities attached to him that are kind of off-putting. He would occasionally tell people they are stupid for using cell phones and the Internet, and there’s actually a scene that makes him come off as a less likable version of Hugh Hefner. I say that because Clint Eastwood is in his eighties, he’s playing a character around his age range. There’s a scene where we see him with some chicks in a bedroom, they’re all seducing him and removing his clothes, it’s not traditionally something that I would pay to see. Granted, “The Mule” is not a family movie, and I never asked for it to be. But I can’t recall the last time I said, I’m gonna go see Clint Eastwood f*ck someone twice as young as him. I also will say, age is just a number, and I’m not against someone dating a person much younger or older than them as long as it makes both partners of the relationship happy, but seeing an eighty-something year old Clint Eastwood engaging in sexual behavior with women that are much younger then him is not even close to my cup of tea. I don’t hate sex in movies, and this is based on a true story, so it could be worse, but it is cringeworthy as an idea.

I will say, despite my gripes with Eastwood’s character, I wouldn’t consider him the worst character in the movie, because a good portion of the film involves us as an audience getting a glance at the DEA investigators played by Bradley Cooper, Michael Peña, and Laurence Fishburne. I really didn’t care for any of these people. After all, the only time I legit gave a flying f*ck about them was towards the end of the movie. Oh yeah, I even completely forgot Laurence Fishburne’s character was even in the movie! Why are we here?!

This movie seems to pack in the moral that family is more important than work. It seems to suggest that being a part of a group of people you are attached to by relation is more important than being famous or busy. I will say, as a freshman in college, I did not choose to be busy for five days a week, other classmates who got to submit class choices before me did. But that’s not the point, my biggest wonder about the film is if Clint Eastwood has ever applied this moral that he seems to be hammering in towards his daily life. Granted, Eastwood did not write “The Mule” or the source material which it is based on, so therefore it cannot completely be his vision, but I wonder if someone as famous as Eastwood has been through his life making a similar mistake to this movie’s main character. Part of me wonders if Eastwood even relates to him. The regret of not seeing your family as much as one would desire can make for a compelling character, but the thing about Clint Eastwood is that he is such a famous actor and director. Not to mention he’s cheated many times. Granted, things are not as always as they seem, people change, and Eastwood is portraying a “character,” not himself. Nevertheless, despite a fine performance, part of me doesn’t completely buy Eastwood as his character.

I will say though, while I may be bashing this movie a little bit, one of the biggest positives I will point out is that there is one scene, I won’t specify, that has to do with death. It shows how people come together in a time of need, the fear of not knowing what’s going to happen when you’re going to die, not to mention the fear of dying itself. That is the best part of the movie and is probably the part I’ll admire the most as I reflect on “The Mule.”

In the end, “The Mule” is yet another dissatisfying attempt at a film from Clint Eastwood this year. I was talking with some family members as the year was coming to a close, and there are a few people I know who were anticipating and excited for “The Mule” to come out. I don’t know how many of them saw the movie by now, but in all seriousness, I don’t think got much good out of seeing “The Mule.” It’s not the worst movie of the year, not even close to be completely honest, but for a movie with Eastwood’s name on it, it seems that there could have been a lot more delivered to provide satisfaction than what was given to me as an audience member. I will say though, the acting is five times better than “The 15:17 To Paris” so that’s a plus! I’m gonna give “The 15:17 To Paris” a 6/10. Thanks for reading this review, pretty soon I’m gonna have my review up for “Instant Family,” a comedy starring Mark Wahlberg and from the same director who did “Daddy’s Home,” also starring Mark Wahlberg. Also, after I finish that review, be sure to stay tuned for my top 10 BEST movies of 2018 and my top 10 WORST movies of 2018! I will also say that the Golden Globes are on this Sunday, so if you want to see me talk about them, I might do a recap, but if I don’t, there’s a high chance I’ll be livetweeting throughout the show. To see my potential livetweets to the Golden Globes this Sunday, follow me on Twitter at @JackDrees, and feel free to hit the notification bell if you want Golden Globes tweets shoved right in your face. Be sure to follow Scene Before either with an email or WordPress account so you can stay tuned for more great content! I want to know, did you see “The Mule?” What did you think about it? Or, since Clint Eastwood has worked on both “The 15:17 To Paris” and “The Mule,” which of these two movies do you prefer? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

The Favourite (2018): Not My Favourite 2018 Flick

Posted on by Jack Drees

MV5BMTg1NzQwMDQxNV5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTgwNDg2NDYyNjM@._V1_SY1000_CR006701000_AL_

“The Favourite” is directed by Yorgos Lanthimos (The Lobster, The Killing of a Sacred Deer) and stars Olivia Colman (The Crown, Hot Fuzz), Rachel Weisz (Denial, The Mummy), and Emma Stone (Easy A, The Amazing Spider-Man) in a movie mainly about three women living in 18th century England. Queen Anne currently has the throne. She is close to Lady Sarah, who is taking her place for a certain time being. Meanwhile, a new servant comes in to help. Specifically, a woman by the name of Abigail.

My first ever exposure to “The Favourite” happened back in August when I saw “Eighth Grade.” Naturally, given how “Eighth Grade” leans towards roots of indie filmmaking, the trailers before the movie were mainly indies. I wanted to see this movie mainly because it has been given phenomenal reviews from critics and viewers alike. Plus, it seems to have enough legs for awards season. “The Favourite” has a 94% on Rotten Tomatoes, actresses Colman, Weisz, and Stone have all been praised for their performances, the director has been nominated for an Oscar for the last movie he did for its screenplay. While “The Favourite” was not my most anticipated film of the year, it certainly had enough to get me intrigued.

A lot of people like this movie, and I’m glad people are all able to agree that something can be artistic, compelling, and interesting.

I’m sorry, but I gotta poop on the party here. “The Favourite” is not that great.

Don’t get me wrong, there are things worth praising. The three main characters are all portrayed very well, the production design is unbelievable, and there are parts of the score that almost make me want to listen to it by itself.

That’s pretty much all I can really sum up in terms of positives that stood out. Because while I couldn’t come to the point where I’d consider this movie unwatchable, I thought that as a story it’s just… BORING.

Granted, it’s a period piece where there is no real action, so a lack of fast pacing is to be expected, but HOLY F*CK, this is a very well reviewed movie. I am surprised, disappointed, and I feel like I can’t get back the couple of hours I wasted watching “The Favourite.”

Wait, did I seriously just say that I wasted a couple of hours? Um, I’m sorry, that’s the actual runtime of the movie, so that would be generous. Look up the runtime, it’s a couple of hours and a minute. This movie dragged on to the point to where it felt like it was three hours! It felt like I was watching “Titanic!” Wait, did I mess myself up again? Why yes I did, the pacing to “Titanic” worked! The pacing to “The Favourite” just made me feel like I was watching a movie that just didn’t know when exactly it wanted to end.

This movie at times reminded me of another movie I saw as a kid, but truthfully have not seen since said point, and that’s “Babe.” This movie almost plays out like a book at times, because they provide “acts” or “chapters,” I’m not sure what the writers would prefer to call them. It kind of reminded me of “Babe” when they would cut to a title card of the new chapter’s name. It worked for “Babe,” probably because of the talking animals, maybe it added to the gimmick. Who knows? Maybe I’m cheating, because “Babe” is actually an hour and a half long. I won’t say how many chapters are in “The Favourite,” but the addition of telling me exactly where we are in the movie just made me feel extremely bored.

Granted, there is a part of me that really does want to like this movie, but I feel like my brain is going crazy and a large part of me is trying to remove this movie from my life. Every year, I imagine there is some average viewer out there looking at the Oscar-bait films and maybe they’ll agree with some picks, even if they don’t necessarily love them. But there is that one film that might be what someone would envision as Best Picture. When I say someone in this situation, I am thinking of snobby critics. There’s a good chance there is a regular Joe out there who won’t give a crap about what it is the snobby critics are thinking about. In fact, the regular Joe might as well be saying that the opinions of the snobby critics happen to be nothing more than pure dogs*it. I am not envisioning “The Favourite” as a masterpiece, so why should I envision it as a Best Picture contender?

I will give some credit for the story for not making me fall asleep, because I was able to not only buy into the chemistry between the main characters, but also manage to somewhat care about them. But again, I felt like I watched their story play out for a bit longer than I would have preferred.

Another thing I’d like to give massive credit towards is the beyond beautiful cinematography. There are many shots that feel massive, and immersed me personally into this film. Also, I would love to point that this was shot on 35mm film as opposed to many other films coming out now which are mainly shot digitally.

Through the beautiful cinematography we get a look at a lot of the gorgeous sets and locations in the movie. All of the set choices felt really authentic, especially considering how “The Favourite” was shot in Britain. There were a couple of indoor scenes that I thought had fantastic lighting, especially in some darker scenes where I could still see our characters. In fact, given all the candlelit scenes, it almost reminded me of what it would be like to see a “Minecraft” movie in live-action.

I would talk about the characters in depth, but the movie’s not good enough to deserve such a thing. I make it a tradition on Scene Before to make thousand word reviews at minimum, and I don’t want to waste my time talking about characters who I’ll probably not remember in months time. I will say, the main actors of the movie did a good job. But this movie is just forgettable in the worst possible way.

Let’s be real here though. If I were to only judge “The Favourite” from a technical perspective, I’d give it a very positive grade. I think stylistically speaking, “The Favourite” triumphs and turns out to be one of the best movies of the year. But it’s bogged down by horrible pacing, forgettable scenes, and just a boring vibe. Maybe it will make for good background noise that will look nice on a screen, kind of like what I said for the live-action “Ghost in the Shell” flick that came out last year, but as a movie, it just does not work.

In the end, maybe I’m overreacting, but I don’t feel like I wasted 2 hours. I feel like I wasted an eternity. “The Favourite” does for English-based period pieces what “The Girl on the Train” does for mysteries. It may have good acting, but the pacing is blasphemous. In fact, to throw my point at the wall and guarantee it to stick, let me just have you know that when I saw “The Favourite,” I saw “Vice” as part of a double feature. “Vice” is also based on a true story and happens to be over 10 minutes longer than “The Favourite.” Not only did I like “Vice,” I didn’t feel like I was tied to a chair watching paint dry. But I gotta give “The Favourite” credit where its due, despite how it is similar to watching paint dry at times, at least the paint color was a good choice. I’m going to give “The Favourite” a 4/10. This could change at any time, and who knows? Maybe by Oscar night, the verdict could go up, perhaps even double. I dunno, my brain could be going through hell right now for all I know. Thanks for reading this review! Pretty soon I’m gonna have my review up for “Aquaman.” I just saw it recently and I have plenty to say about it. Be sure to follow Scene Before either with a WordPress account or email to stay tuned for more great content! I want to know, did you see “The Favourite?” What did you think about it? Or, since it kind of makes sense, what is your favorite movie of 2018? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

Vice: 2018’s Biggest “Dick Pic”

Posted on by Jack Drees

MV5BMTY1NjM0MzgxMV5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTgwNDc4NTY0NjM@._V1_SY1000_CR006401000_AL_

“Vice” is directed by Adam McKay (Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy, The Big Short) and stars Christian Bale (The Dark Knight, American Hustle), Amy Adams (Nocturnal Animals, Arrival), Steve Carell (The Office, Battle of the Sexes), Sam Rockwell (Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri, F Is For Family), Tyler Perry (Diary of a Mad Black Woman, Gone Girl), Allison Pill (American Horror Story, The Newsroom), and Jesse Plemons (Game Night, Friday Night Lights). This film is based on the true events, or as the movie suggests, as true as possible, revolving around Dick Cheney, a prominent figure in the US government, and his story of how he changed US history as we know it.

This film is directed by Adam McKay, a name who I do know primarily for comedy. He has done a lot of work with Will Ferrell including “Anchorman,” “Step Brothers,” and “The Other Guys.” Also, he was one of the writers for “Ant-Man.” And while “Ant-Man” may technically be regarded as an action flick with superheroes, part of me would also argue it is a comedy because like some other films in the Marvel Cinematic Universe like “Spider-Man: Homecoming” and “Thor: Ragnarok,” it has many attempts at humor riddled throughout. He seems to have recently made a transition to serious films, most notably with 2015’s “The Big Short.” No, I have not seen the movie. But with a plot revolving around the mortgage market, some serious s*it is to be expected. I will say when it comes to McKay’s direction, it’s pretty well done, but the real highlight to me when it comes to McKay’s work here is the writing, which transitions into not only one of the trippier movies of the year, but also one of the best edited films of the year. I won’t go into detail, but there is a segment where apparently they start rolling credits during the middle of the movie. F*cking brilliant. Also, this is trying to be a serious film, but also it has that feeling of a Wes Anderson-esque film. It’s serious, but it also knows when to have good old quirky fun.

I will say though, going into the film, I knew this film was already well reviewed (for the most part). It has a leading total of six Golden Globe nominations, a couple of SAG nominations, and the concept sounded like something that would generally create buzz. As for my thoughts, I thought it was pretty good, but maybe not best picture good. I mean, looking at the Golden Globes nominees, I’d probably choose “Vice” as the musical/comedy winner, but that doesn’t say a lot. I have not seen “Crazy Rich Asians,” “Green Book,” or “Mary Poppins Returns,” and as for “The Favourite,” without spilling my ultimate thoughts on it (review coming soon), it was just not as likable as “Vice.” The biggest problem I can think of when it comes to this film more than any other is that it mislead me in terms of expectations. The marketing made me think this was heavily going to revolve around the George W. Bush administration, but it is really more about Dick Cheney’s life as a whole.

When it comes to Dick Cheney, I felt this interpretation of the character was very well done, and Christian Bale could have a chance at getting some awards. I gotta also give praise to the makeup department, because HOLY CRAP. Christian Bale is in his forties right now and the makeup in this movie makes him look like he’s a lazy grandpa on a generic sitcom that never got good ratings. I watched a movie that came out last year, you guys may know what I’m talking about, “Darkest Hour,” which starred Gary Oldman. The makeup for Dick Cheney in this movie is about on par as the makeup for Winston Churchill in “Darkest Hour.” In “Darkest Hour,” you have Gary Oldman, who at the time wasn’t “young” per se, but he still looked relatively youthful given his age. In “Darkest Hour” he transformed into, well, Gary the “Old Man.” In “Vice,” the same can be said for Christian Bale, who actually happens to be younger than Gary Oldman.

Another standout performance comes from Amy Adams as Cheney’s wife, Lynne. The way they showed her off in this movie was kind of intriguing. It shows the power of a lovely husband and wife. Cheney would occasionally need to bow out from his campaign for one reason or another but his kick-ass wife would occasionally step in. Also, yes, from an acting perspective, Adams is SUPERB. I became rather invested in her character for some time, not to mention her relationship with Dick Cheney. I cared about their family, their daughter happened to come out as gay, and despite coming off as conservative, they clearly understand their daughter. I wouldn’t call this movie LGBT propaganda, which I think is cool because propaganda is something I usually don’t want in my media, but it just shows you how human people can be. Granted, this is a Hollywood movie, and Hollywood nowadays is full of liberals, so there is a good chance that there is a liberal agenda attached here somewhere, but still.

My personal favorite acting job in the movie was done by Sam Rockwell. Last year he won an Oscar for his role in “Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri,” so therefore it should be no surprise that the dude has acting chops. Honestly, I think he might have a shot at another one. He plays George W. Bush like angry ten year old plays “Fortnite.” He’s lean, mean, and he just does it oh so beautifully. Last year when I saw “Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri,” Rockwell might as well have done my third favorite acting job in that film. Here, he’s probably at my top spot. And again, the makeup department did a great job here! No debate about it.

I will say that I might have an interesting perspective when it comes to this movie because I actually grew up during the Bush adminstration. I actually wasn’t old enough to remember 9/11. My earliest memory of hearing about it was in the year 2011, when I was eleven years old and watching a commercial on Nickelodeon while “Spongebob Squarepants” was on or something like that. This movie manages to capture the fear of the 9/11 event from inside government headquarters. It also manages to showcase how Cheney was able to get s*it done, and really, he seemed to have gotten more done than George Bush. There is a scene where the two are sitting down and having chat, some time before Bush became president and Cheney just suggests he’ll deal with foreign policy, bureaucracy, whatever any normal human being would find boring about working as the president of the United States.

Also, one last thing, I mentioned that Adam McKay wrote a Marvel movie, but now it can be argued that he directed a Marvel movie. Stay for the credits because there is a good scene to watch if you pay attention. I WILL NOT go into detail, but it takes a bunch of people who are in the movie for a scene and just basically puts them in a funhouse of our modern society. Look forward to it.

In the end, “Vice” was not exactly disappointing, but it also wasn’t the “Best Picture” that the Golden Globes seems to be calling it. To me, this is another “Moonlight.” It’s good, but not “Best Picture-worthy.” I would love to however give massive kudos to the editing, writing, acting, and makeup department. Everyone affiliated with those categories, you rock, you’re awesome! There’s a good chance I’ll watch the movie again at some point, but when it comes to award-bait this year, to me, “Vice” is no “First Man.” I’m going to give “Vice” a 7/10. Thanks for reading this review! Pretty soon I’m going to have my review up for “The Favourite,” which is going to probably be my final review of the year. I want to see “Aquaman” at some point, but part of me is not sure if I’ll get to it on time before the new year begins. But speaking of the new year, be sure to stay tuned for my top 10 BEST movies of 2018 and my top 10 WORST movies of 2018. Those lists will be up once 2019 arrives. Be sure to follow Scene Before with a WordPress account or email so you can stay tuned for more great content! I want to know, did you see “Vice?” What do you think about it? Or, what do you think is going to happen at the Golden Globes this year? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

Welcome To Marwen (2018): Back to the Future Part IV: A Robert Zemeckis Film

Posted on by Jack Drees

MV5BMjIxMjUwMjItMGIxYS00NTlmLTgxZTQtMzg2Yjc1ZWQ3YTYxXkEyXkFqcGdeQXVyMjM4NTM5NDY@._V1_SY1000_CR006311000_AL_

“Welcome To Marwen” is directed by Robert Zemeckis (Back to the Future, Forrest Gump) and stars Steve Carell (The Office, The 40-Year-Old Virgin), Eiza González (True Love, Baby Driver), Leslie Mann (Blockers, Knocked Up), Merritt Wever (Signs, Nurse Jackie), Janelle Monáe (Hidden Figures, Moonlight), Gwendoline Christie (Star Wars: The Force Awakens, Game of Thrones), Leslie Zemeckis (The Polar Express, Beowulf), and Neil Jackson (Quantum of Solace, Abesentia). This film is about an assault victim who likes cross-dressing. The victim’s specific name is Mark Hogancamp, and after the attack, it has been revealed that his memory is not in good shape. In order to restore his memory, Hogancamp decides to build a World War II village in his yard.

I saw the trailer for “Welcome to Marwen” a while back, and even if I didn’t see the trailer, I probably would have been excited for the film no matter what. Why? Well, Robert Zemeckis is directing the film. I loved his work in numerous films including “Back to the Future,” “Who Framed Roger Rabbit?,” “The Walk,” I just think the dude has serious visionary talent when it comes to crafting a film. “Welcome to Marwen,” on paper, is no exception to this notion. The film manages to focus on the real life events of Mark Hogancamp while simultaneously giving a nearly animated look at his dolls. So in a way, you can also call this the live action version of “Toy Story.”

If you want my short thoughts on the film right away, I’ll be honest, I really f*cking enjoyed it. In fact, I have to say it’s one of the year’s best films, but to be completely honest it is not for everyone. When I say that, I don’t mean that in a way that is sort of related to the movie showing mature content or giving viewers scares or anything, but there is something in this movie that I noticed, but when I went on social media, it kind of got an uplift in terms of how it was addressed.

Without spoiling anything, Steve Carell’s character has a certain “attachment” if you will to his dolls. I have a feeling some will consider it cute, some will consider it creepy. I am on the side that finds this to be cute. But if you really want to know if I have problems with the film itself, I only really have one thing that I think I can address, and it’s kind of in the nitpick territory.

“Welcome to Marwen” is based on a true story, and I haven’t looked much into said story or watched the documentary from which this movie adapts, so I don’t know how much is altered. Although there is one story that applies to the dolls, I won’t go into detail about it, it could be possible that Hogancamp came up with bits and pieces of the story at the very least, and it involves time travel. The dolls are supposed to go into the future by 15 lightyears. The fact is, I have to be Mr. Movie Reviewing Moron and point out that lightyears are a unit of distance and not time. A lightyear is nearly six trillion miles. If this were fiction, I’d probably be a bit more harsh when it comes to this film, especially if it were a movie specifically revolving around time travel, but I still couldn’t help but point this out.

The reason why I love “Welcome to Marwen” so much not only has to do with visuals, characterization, directing, anything like that, but it also has to do with the fact that this is a story about storytelling. A good portion of the movie focuses on the CGI world of dolls. It partially helps us in understanding who exactly our main character is, not to mention, who he wants to be. Not only was the world immersive, engaging, and charming, the doll characters are also a delight. They have this vibe to them that makes you want to hang out with them, or at least one that makes you think they can protect you. And in total honesty, the last time I saw some sort of concept similar to the style executed in “Welcome to Marwen” is probably… …well, I don’t know. If they ever make a live action “Toy Story,” I’d remind Disney and Pixar “Welcome to Marwen” beat them to it.

Speaking of this world, this is also responsible for many of my personal surprises in the movie. This is technically a vision where dolls can talk, but I didn’t expect the badassery out of some of the action scenes which were given to me here! In fact, there are times, when this movie, despite being PG-13 and not R, goes for dark violence. There is a scene in the movie where a doll splits in half! There is also a scene where a doll falls into a fence, and the top of the fence is going through its body like a sword!

Before we discuss Steve Carell’s character of Mark Hogancamp, I would just like to say that this year has been interesting for a couple cast members of “The Office.” You have two transitions from a couple of actors who were once comedy-oriented and now they’re trying to get more serious. You have John Krasinski who did “A Quiet Place” and you also have Steve Carell who was in “Beautiful Boy,” “Vice,” and this movie. Also, when it comes to Carell I gotta say, the dude can act. I was able to buy this character and see him for the way he was. He manages to deliver certain mannerisms that made me feel for his character. If I were to make a comparison, if you have ever seen “Anchorman” and you wanted a more serious version of his character in that, with perhaps ten times the depth provided to his character in that movie, this is the flick for you.

The other real highlight in this movie for me in terms of characters is the one played by Leslie Mann, specifically Nicol. Yes, there is no “e” in her name. Mann’s character in this film is someone who not only has a story of her own, but manages to play quite a bit into the story of Hogancamp as well. There is a scene in this film that was extremely well acted by both Carell and Mann, and no matter what you think of it in terms of realism, I thought it was very well done.

When it comes to all of the dolls Hogancamp owns, each one manages to have its own story, which I really liked. They are not just pieces of plastic that Hogancamp plays with. In fact, his own doll even helps explain the story of him getting beat up for cross-dressing. If you had to ask me personally, I have no interest in cross-dressing, but for those of you who do, that’s your thing and I don’t care, I’m not gonna straight up attack you over it. The film does a great job at making you side with someone because they were attacked for something they wore. If they wore a t-shirt that said “EVERYONE DESERVES TO DIE,” that’s a different scenario, but nevertheless, this film succeeds.

I also will say one thing about this movie, it’s directed by Robert Zemeckis, director of “Back to the Future.” The thing about “Welcome to Marwen” that I want to talk about has to do with my recent nitpick. One of the gadgets that plays into the story of the dolls in the movie is a time machine, and it nearly resembles a Delorean. So if you guys want to see Robert Zemeckis direct another “Back to the Future” movie, this is the closest you’re going to get.

In the end, I LOVED “Welcome to Marwen!” Is this a movie for everyone? From the way it is marketed, almost. It’s not for kids, there’s some serious s*it that goes down in the movie. But I wouldn’t say that I’d recommend this movie for every single audience. But for ME, and ME PERSONALLY, I ate this movie up. It sort of blends “Toy Story,” “The Secret Life of Walter Mitty,” and “Back to the Future.” This film might be an Oscar contender, but I don’t think it’s gonna make much money though. Aside how this film is seemingly going to be divisive in terms of criticism, it is competing against “Aquaman,” “Bumblebee,” “Mary Poppins Returns,” and “Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse,” but if you want to support an artistic vision, this is for you. I have no idea how long this is going to last, and I’m sorry for saying this based on how many reviews are trashing on this movie, I’m going to give “Welcome to Marwen” a 10/10! This is probably one of those scenarios where my unbelievably crazy opinion is going to stand out from a lot of other people. So you know what? In celebration of absurdity, let’s talk about some other unique film opinions I have.

  • ANIMAL HOUSE WAS BORING!
  • MAD MAX: FURY ROAD IS NOT AS GOOD AS EVERYONE SAID!
  • I ENJOYED PAUL BLART 1 & 2!
  • GROWN UPS 2 IS NOT JUST BETTER THAN THE ORIGINAL, IT’S ACTUALLY A GOOD FILM!
  • I LIKED CARS 2!
  • REVENGE OF THE SITH IS THE BEST STAR WARS MOVIE!
  • I LIKED A COUPLE OF LIVE-ACTION TRANSFORMERS FLICKS (1 & 3)!
  • I LOVE TIM BURTON’S CHARLIE & THE CHOCOLATE FACTORY!
  • FANT4STIC WAS BAD, BUT NOT AS BAD AS EVERYONE MAKES IT OUT TO BE!
  • GUARDIANS OF THE GALAXY VOL. 2 IS NOT GOOD!
  • THOR: RAGNAROK IS OVERRATED!
  • THE HOBBIT MOVIES HAVE A PURPOSE IN SOCIETY!
  • OZ THE GREAT AND POWERFUL MIGHT MATCH THE ORIGINAL WIZARD OF OZ IN TERMS OF QUALITY!
  • I LIKED VALERIAN AND THE CITY OF A THOUSAND PLANETS!
  • I HATED WE BOUGHT A ZOO!
  • PITCH PERFECT IS ONE OF THE WORST COMEDIES I’VE EVER SEEN!
  • DISNEY NEEDS TO STOP THE TREND OF THEIR LIVE ACTION REMAKES DESPITE HOW BEAUTIFUL THEY SOMETIMES MANAGE TO APPEAR!
  • BLACK PANTHER IS OVERRATED!
  • IRON MAN 3 IS MY FAVORITE IRON MAN MOVIE!
  • SPIDER-MAN 3 WAS AWESOME!

So there you go. In the comments section, I want to know a few things. Did you enjoy “Welcome to Marwen?” Not everyone has seen it yet, but still. Also, what are some controversial or odd opinions you have about movies? Your full honesty is absolutely appreciated. Thanks for reading this review! This weekend is a pretty big one for movies, and maybe I’ll catch one of the films that come out on Christmas weekend. The one I want to see, aside from ones that could have potential at winning an Oscar, is “Aquaman.” After all, if I do so, it’ll mean I’ll have given my thoughts on every major comic book movie this year. Be sure to follow Scene Before either with an email or WordPress account so you can stay tuned for more great content! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

Bohemian Rhapsody (2018): This Movie Will Rock You, and Occasionally Drop a Rock Over You

Posted on by Jack Drees

mv5bndg2njixmduynf5bml5banbnxkftztgwmzeznte1ntm-_v1_sy1000_cr006291000_al_

“Bohemian Rhapsody” is directed by Bryan Singer (X-Men, Jack the Giant Slayer) and stars Rami Malek (Night at the Museum, BoJack Horseman) and is about the story of Queen and its singer, Freddie Mercury. We get glimpses into the formation of Queen itself, Mercury’s personal life, and how the band went on to become the huge success and inspiration powerhouse that it is.

If you ask me what my favorite genres of music are, chances are that one of my answers would be rock. Queen formed during a time of rock and roll bands being pretty much in their prime. As we look back on them today, they’ve helped shape the genre with iconic beats, lyrics, and how their music has blended into our pop culture. One of my all time favorite scenes from a comedy that’s not necessarily funny is the pep rally scene during “Revenge of the Nerds” where “We Are the Champions” is playing as the nerds achieve victory against the jocks. One of my favorite songs that I often don’t typically quote as being a favorite song happens to be the movie’s title, “Bohemian Rhapsody.” There so many elements to that song that separates it as its own thing whereas all the other songs follow a certain formulaic rhythm. While some may consider songs not following a rhythm a giant flaw, “Bohemian Rhapsody” manages to make such an odd quality work extremely well. Speaking of which, the creation of this song basically highlights something I’ve noticed while watching this movie, and something that I often think about when it comes to the movie industry.

One of my favorite movies of all time is “Blade Runner 2049.” Much like its predecessor, it failed at the box office. As far as the domestic total goes, it didn’t make its budget back. One reason behind this is probably likely due to the movie’s runtime coming in around two hours and forty-three minutes. There’s a part of the movie where we see “Bohemian Rhapsody” coming to life, and the executive is basically denying permission to let the public hear the song. Queen’s band members think their song is nothing short of a masterpiece, but as we all know, corporations are about money. This is where the phrase “time equals money/money equals time” comes into play. The executive thinks the song is too long, six minutes to be specific, which leads to a fantastic sex joke by the way. When it comes to “Bohemian Rhapsody,” I assume a lot of people can look at a song like that today and say that it was created with a purpose to stand out from other songs. This is why I think modern music sucks. Most of the modern music I hear, especially those songs that play on loop on the radio for all of eternity, all seem to have similar patterns or formulas. It’s almost as if every song is an obvious remix of each other. Oh yeah, and with most modern music, technology has basically ruined a lot of it. Moments like this shows that it is sometimes OK to take risks and throw money out the window for the chance of an everlasting success. In terms of scenes, this was most certainly the highlight of the movie for me. As far as characters go, it’s gotta be Freddie Mercury.

Freddie Mercury is played by Rami Malek, but in reality, to say Malek “played” Freddie Mercury is a bit of understatement. In my book, Malek transformed into Mercury. In terms of singing, it is a slight disappointment that Malek is lip-syncing, but at the same time, I can’t help but praise him for everything else. Everything from the mannerisms, the moves, and while this may be more of a compliment towards costume design, I have enormous praise for the outfits he’s got on. As far as his performance goes, I don’t know if it will win him an Oscar, but he certainly comes close as far as this year is concerned. In fact, I will admit, funny enough, when it comes to my overall knowledge of Queen, the way I view Freddie Mercury’s performance in this film is somewhat similar to how I view Queen in general. I for one definitely know Freddie Mercury and who he is. The other band members, I don’t really know their names, so why should I give a f*ck? That’s not to say that they aren’t good in this movie. All of their actors have done a great job at delivering effective performances, but they don’t stand out that much compared to Malek’s. Then again, that could be because “Bohemian Rhapsody” is more of a Freddie Mercury movie than anything else. Sure, it has Queen. Yes, it has songs from Queen in it. Although it gets through the life of Freddie Mercury in terms of seemingly important plot points. And the more I think about it, it does make sense, the only original member of Queen to have passed away was Mercury himself. Not to mention, the marketing seems to make the movie a lot about Mercury. In the first trailer for this film, it explicity states in text form: “The only thing more extraordinary than their music is his story.” Boom, now you know it’s a Freddie Mercury movie. I will say though, this brings me to some slight confusion about the title. I know Freddie Mercury sings “Bohemian Rhapsody,” but in reality, it is a QUEEN song, executed by multiple members. If you really wanted to smack-dab a sticker on this movie saying “THIS IS UNARGUABLY A FREDDIE MERCURY STORY,” just call it “Mercury.” Sounds kind of epic if you ask me. The more I think about the “Bohemian Rhapsody” movie, the more I think about Freddie Mercury. The other members of Queen just aren’t sticking out to me. It would be like the 2004 movie “Ray.” What’s the movie about? Ray Charles. Granted when I think of Ray Charles, I don’t think of any particular band, but still, if you are going to have your movie revolve around maybe one character as opposed to a band, take my suggestion into consideration. I’m not saying “Bohemian Rhapsody” is a terrible name. It’s an awesome name no matter where you slap it. Not to mention, for a movie like this, it’s still more than marketable. As far as any other performances go, the only one to me that truly stands out is Mike Myers (Shrek, Austin Powers) as the executive I talked about earlier.

If there was one big criticism I had with the movie however, it is some of the writing. This movie is obviously going for some Academy Awards, but I think screenplay is not one that will be achieved. While most of the writing is actually pretty decent, there are a couple of moments I just wasn’t able to believe. These moments just felt rather Hollywoodized. Granted, it’s a movie, and not everything has be crystal clear to reality, but these moments just felt like something I wouldn’t be able to believe. If this movie were pure fiction or a fantasy than maybe I’d buy into a couple of these moments I’m talking about, but I just don’t buy them here. Other than that, I’d say “Bohemian Rhapsody” is a fine movie and certainly worth watching in the theater. If you thought watching “A Star Is Born” is awesome in the theater, it might become somewhat obvious that watching “Bohemian Rhapsody” in the theater would have a similar effect.

Speaking of the theater, I want to go back to what I said earlier about the production of the “Bohemian Rhapsody” song. One of the complaints the executive had in the movie is that the song goes on forever. Let’s face it, a movie about Queen and Freddie Mercury is very likely something people would go out and see. And to prove it even more, IT BEAT A DISNEY MOVIE on its opening weekend. That same weekend by the way, it made less than a million dollars under its overall budget in the US alone! This film is two hours and fourteen minutes long. I wouldn’t consider this film to be a “long” movie, but once I walked out of the auditorium, I heard someone’s conversation calling the movie a bit long as far as they are concerned. I managed to find it hilarious, and maybe a little less than satisfying, to discover that the story to the “Bohemian Rhapsody” song would actually apply to the results of the “Bohemian Rhapsody” movie. To me, this movie reminded me of why I usually choose to enjoy every little moment of what I watch, as opposed to putting my head down waiting for the third hour to pass.

In the end, “Bohemian Rhapsody” had the exhilaration of a concert and at times, the joy of looking at a wax museum. Rami Malek shines as Freddie Mercury. The cinematography really immersed me into the story. The concert scenes were wild and fun. The costume design also deserves tremendous kudos. Is it a little over the top? At times, sure. But it doesn’t take away from the true spirit of Freddie Mercury and Queen itself. “Bohemian Rhapsody” is definitely worth your time, especially for a watch in the theater. I’m going to give “Bohemian Rhapsody” a 7/10. One last thing before I go, when I saw this movie, I witnessed it at an IMAX, and those theaters have given me some of my all time best experiences, but this time the trailers were playing and all of sudden the footage stopped and we were staring at a green frame for maybe five minutes. I have never had so much fun with a movie experience going wrong in my life. Thanks for reading this review! Please stay tuned for more content coming down the road because sometime soon I will be posting my thoughts on this year’s Rhode Island Comic Con! I’ve gone for the fourth year in a row, had a great time, and as someone who has gone for multiple years, I am excited to point out something that has probably been done differently than years before that counts as a complaint from the years prior that has now been somewhat resolved. Those of you who attend the con might know what I’m referring to. Without giving any hints, I’d just like to remind everyone to follow Scene Before either with a WordPress account or an email so you can stay tuned for more great content! I want to know, did you see “Bohemian Rhapsody?” What did you think about it? Or, what is your favorite Queen song? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

Marrowbone (2018): Crossing the Line Into An Unmemorable Horrorland

Posted on by Jack Drees

mv5bmza5ndm1mjmznl5bml5banbnxkftztgwnduymta4ndm-_v1_sy1000_cr006651000_al_

“Marrowbone” is directed by Sergio G. Sánchez and stars George MacKay, Anya Taylor-Joy, Charlie Heaton, Mia Goth, and Matthew Stagg in a movie that starts as every happy-go-lucky story does, with the mother dying immediately. This mother’s death now leaves four children varying in age to take care of themselves. At the same time, this death has to remain in secret. If the secret gets out to the town lawyer, Tom Porter (Kyle Soller), it’ll be revealed that the new caretaker, Jack, the oldest of the children, has nobody in his home that is over the age of 21. This gives the alert that Jack, is illegally taking care of his younger siblings. That’s not all, because throughout the movie, they have to deal with a monster inside the house.

I bought this movie for $15 during my time at New York Comic Con, so why not watch it? Going into the flick, I was somewhat intrigued as to what I was about to see. I am not a complete and total stranger to the studio behind this movie, Magnolia Pictures, although in this case the studio label is Magnet. They made a movie that came out earlier in the decade, “Grand Piano,” starring Elijah Wood (Lord of the Rings, Happy Feet) and John Cusack (Better Off Dead, Say Anything), which I wholeheartedly admired. Naturally, while I wasn’t expecting to compare this movie to “Grand Piano” (different genres, different crew, etc), I did have some faith in Magnolia because their name is not as prominent as Disney or Sony, which for the most part, seems to be all about the money as opposed to quality. They operate on the more independent side of the spectrum, much like another prominent studio, which I honestly probably like a lot better than Magnolia, A24.

Another thing to consider is how good 2018’s movies have been so far, specifically in the horror genre. “A Quiet Place” came out in April and it was one of the most innovative horror flicks I’ve seen. What John Krasinski was able to do not only with as someone who had little materials to work with, but also as a first-time director is astounding to me. My favorite horror film of the year however, has to be, coincidentally, an A24 film. To be specific, “Hereditary.” Toni Collette better be nominated for an Academy Award, the cinematography was stylistically successful, and it is a truly wild ride.

“Marrowbone” is not as good as those two films.

Before the crew sends their pitchforks flying in the air, all the way to my house, let me just state, it’s good.

One of “Marrowbone’s” biggest strengths comes from the cast. The chemistry between all of the children is extremely believable, there’s even some chemistry between one couple I was able to buy into, and as far as everyone’s general acting ability goes, a job well done is in order.

Another aspect I totally found myself getting into was the score. It’s been days since I watched the film from start to finish, but it somewhat reminded me at times of what Howard Shore did for “Lord of the Rings.” Since I seem to be spitballing Shore’s name right now, I’ll also give a shoutout to Fernando Velázquez for creating the excellent score for this very film. The score also manages to accommodate the stellar cinematography, most notably the land shots. Will this receive any Best Cinematography awards during the upcoming season? Hard to tell, this movie didn’t make much money during its limited release and it is not even out on digital yet.

When it comes to the main characters, the oldest of the siblings goes by the name of Jack. He is the one responsible for hiding the family secret throughout the whole runtime. While there are moments in the movie where I do side with him, while there are moments where I do root for him, there’s also this thought that I’m currently having in my mind that is trying to get me to gather all of my other thoughts about him. Jack is a likable, although slightly unmemorable character. Then again, it’s not as easy for him to stand out when you have a young kid in the mix who occasionally serves as comic relief.

By the way, that young kid’s name is Sam and he is played by Matthew Stagg. Out of everyone in the film, I gotta say that he delivers the best performance. No, he is not the next Jacob Tremblay, he is not the next great child actor to be remembered for eternity (might need to see more work before my ultimate verdict on that though). I also got to give credit to the writing for the movie because some of the character’s most notable lines are pretty much what the audience might as well be thinking. He is curious, he is suggestive, and he is charming. Having seen Matthew Stagg perform as this character, I can’t imagine anyone else playing him.

Also, I can’t go without mentioning that this is a horror movie and there are supposed to be some scares in this thing. The scares are there, but I feel like maybe they could have been taken up a slight notch. I wasn’t really genuinely terrified by what I’ve witnessed. However I must say I will say that the monster this movie seems to heavily revolve around is very well done special effects-wise. Nice work! The scares are not horrible, but they are also not as memorable or outstanding as I’d hope they’d be.

In the end, I don’t really have much else to say about “Marrowbone” because everything else I really do have to say is in spoiler territory, and if I actually had the ability to remember more of the movie, I would be talking about it more. Again, it’s not a terrible movie. It could be some decent background noise on Halloween, but there’s not really much more credit I can give to it other than that. Well, maybe except the production value, that is excellent. Also, I must say, another factor that makes me think this is worth a second viewing is that there is a 4K Blu-ray for this. By the way, I used that for my review. So I guess that copy is a hearty $15 well spent. Perhaps this movie would also get the same verdict I gave to live-action “Ghost in the Shell” last year. It’s not a fantastic movie, but if you want a movie that can show off a new giant TV, this wouldn’t be a bad pick. Especially when you consider there’s a 4K edition of it available. Maybe part of my lack of remembrance towards “Marrowbone” has to do with my review coming days after seeing the movie, as opposed many of my other reviews which traditionally are posted in much less time compared to when I finished the movie. So in that case, maybe some human error applies to this. I’m going to give “Marrowbone” a 6/10. I have a strong feeling this grade could go up in the future during a potential rewatch, but for now, this verdict stands. But still, going back to the beginning, 2018 has been one of the best years for movies I’ve ever seen. By far the best year for movies since I started Scene Before. The good movies this year have certainly outweighed the bad. There were a number of all timers like “Avengers: Infinity War” and “Won’t You Be My Neighbor?.” Even some of the stinkers this year couldn’t rival some of my worst movies of the past couple of years. Maybe “The Hurricane Heist” sucked, but it was certainly better than “The Space Between Us.” Melissa McCarthy’s “Life of the Party” took every ounce of life I had and set it on fire, but it was not as bad as that 2016 “Ghostbusters” movie she starred in. “Marrowbone” is a slightly forgettable movie, but it still gets a 6 from me. Well done.

rhodeisland_comiccon_november2018_eventimage_600x280-copy-24e2513026

Thanks for reading this review! I just want to say to everyone reading this that I wish you all a Happy Halloween and good luck avoiding teepees, eggs, and most importantly, police officers telling your kids they are too old to trick or treat. Speaking of treats, this weekend I’ll be my making 4th annual trip to Rhode Island Comic Con, and I’ll be documenting all of the craziness that is bound to go down. I should also have you all know that it is my birthday weekend, so hopefully, I can beg somebody to give a free autograph or photo. Cons are not cheap! Also, there’s a movie theater not far from me in the area, so if I have the time, maybe I’ll catch something there. I’m well aware that this weekend is the release of “Bohemian Rhapsody,” one of my most anticipated movies of the fall. And no, I’m not reviewing “The Nutcracker and the Four Realms” (depending on how many requests I end up getting)! Maybe if I want to torture myself I will do such a thing, but for now, I’m staying away! Be sure to follow Scene Before with a WordPress account or email so you can stay tuned for more great content! I want to know, did you see “Marrowbone?” What did you think about it? Or, since it is Halloween, what is your favorite horror movie? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

First Man (2018): One Giant Spacegasm

Posted on by Jack Drees

mv5bywfhzgvjmtatzdcwmc00yty3ltljywutnzriodzlowfknjezxkeyxkfqcgdeqxvymjmxote0oda-_v1_sy1000_cr006311000_al_

“First Man” is directed by Damien Chazelle (Whiplash, La La Land) and stars Ryan Gosling (Blade Runner 2049, The Notebook) as Neil Armstrong. This movie takes place during the events of Apollo 11, the most famous of the Apollo missions. Many people going to see this movie probably know the story, Neil Armstrong and some other astronauts attempt to land on the moon, but this movie explains a little bit more than that. It goes into the personal and family life of Neil Armstrong, and shows off all the preparation that went into executing such a daring mission.

I don’t know if many people reading this remember, or even knew when this movie was first announced, but my first time hearing about it was around January 2017 if I recall correctly. As if the concept alone of the moon landing was interesting enough, it was to be helmed by one of my favorite directors working today, Damien Chazelle.

Damien Chazelle is known for his work on “Whiplash,” but in my eyes, his popularity skyrocketed during the release of “La La Land.” That movie is a 2016 musical which went on to win 7 Golden Globes, which also happened to be the total number of awards the movie happened to be nominated for. Speaking of awards, the movie went on to receive 13 Oscar nominations, 6 wins, which doesn’t happen to include the rare instance of the kinda sorta maybe victory of Best Picture. So kids, if you are reading this and think that your dream will never come true, if you think you’ll never be able to colonize Mars one day, just remember this. Two films were labeled Best Picture at the 89th Academy Awards!

When it comes to “First Man,” this is actually a really interesting movie though because out of all the feature-length films Damien Chazelle has done as a director, this is actually the first one he doesn’t have a screenplay credit for. Granted, this movie was actually written by Josh Singer, who also wrote the screenplay for 2015’s “Spotlight,” which won Best Picture at the Academy Awards. Even so, the fact that this was not written by Chazelle himself made me slightly worried. I was beginning to wonder if I didn’t like this movie, it might partially lead to me thinking Chazelle is another Brad Bird. He’s a fantastic director, but only fantastic when it comes to directing his own material. Having seen this movie, that worry is meaningless, because I’ll be honest with you, this is one of the best movies I’ve seen all year. In fact, when putting Chazelle into the conversation, it’s my second favorite film of his directly behind “Whiplash.”

Just about everything in “First Man” worked. The acting, the directing, the score, the entertainment value, the sound work, the effects, everything just felt as if it was created by a god. I went to see “First Man” in IMAX, which I will get to, but I must say, regardless of whether or not you went to see “First Man” in IMAX, I must tell you, this is one of those films that you have to get off your ass and see in the theater. This joins some recent films like “Dunkirk,” “Blade Runner 2049,” “Avengers: Infinity War,” “Ready Player One,” and “A Quiet Place” on the list of films to watch on the big screen. What the crew did for this movie in terms of cinematography is genius.

In all honesty, part of me wonders how many people will notice or care to notice, some of the images in the movie, are incredibly fuzzy or grainy and it just feels like they were gathering dust before processing. Let me just have you know that this movie was shot on 16mm film. Most of the scenes early on in the films, that take place on Earth, looked somewhat old-timey. And I honestly thought that fit, because believe it or not, I don’t know how much you guys know about Neil Armstrong’s life, but when this movie started it was basically a soap opera. For some people, I imagine that will take them out of the movie, but to me, it fit because for one thing, you can’t alter history. It partially comes into play when developing Armstrong as a character. Also, it showcases the excellent acting ability of Ryan Gosling.

Ryan Gosling is the star of the movie and he seems to have a decent range as an actor. You can put him in a movie as a sex doll that girls will dream about. You can put him in a movie where he happens to be somewhat passionate and upbeat. And you can put him in a movie where maybe he happens to be intentionally robotic. To call Ryan Gosling my favorite actor of all time is a stretch, but he is a true force in the industry. And when it comes to his portrayal of Neil Armstrong, overall it is really good, but I have a couple minor complaints. For one thing, Neil in this movie is incredibly stoic at times. If he was as stoic in this movie as he was in real life, then whatever, then my complaint will be taken off. That’s not to say he doesn’t show any emotion at all. He’s actually seen in the beginning of the film shedding tears. It’s a great performance, but part of me wonders how much Neil Armstrong would say it’s “him” had he been alive to see this picture come to life. Ah well, where’s Buzz Aldrin when you need him? Another minor complaint I have is a bit nitpicky, but Neil Armstrong was born and raised American, and yet they cast the very idea of the “Sexy Canadian Boy” Halloween costume. Again, nitpicky. It does not however change the fact that the interpretation of Armstrong is still a top-notch performance. Plus, it’s still a pasty white dude, so it’s not like they’re trying to make Neil Armstrong a woman or black and erase history by doing so.

Speaking of minor casting issues, I also should point out that Claire Foy (Unsane, The Crown), who plays Neil’s wife, Janet, is British. Let me just point out that much like Neil Armstrong, Janet was born and raised American. It’s still a great performance and BY FAR the best one in the entire film. I really hope Foy receives a Best Actress nomination. Several scenes from her add tons of emotional weight to the film and I can imagine in a way, back in the 1960s, her character would not only encapsulate the thoughts of just herself, but those people who are out of Neil’s family who have to watch the crew go to the moon. Granted, it’s a lot worse for her, because she can lose her husband, but still.

All my complaints in this movie are legit complaints for sure, but in reality, they are easily forgivable because they fall under the classification of “minor” or “nitpicky.” One small complaint I have is something that occurs towards the end of the film that I wonder if it actually happened. Without going into spoilers, when Neil Armstrong gets to the moon, he has an object with him that happens to be very significant. As far as I’m aware, there is no concrete evidence to this happening. If it did happen, cool. But if it didn’t, maybe it added some emotion, but there would also be that part of me who thinks that shouldn’t even be in the movie.

Speaking of objects on the moon, let’s get controversial! One report that has been going around about “First Man” is that there is no scene showing the American flag being planted on the moon. As someone who witnessed this movie, let me confirm to you all, THIS IS TRUE. Many conservatives for what I know are upset about this and they’re hoping this movie fails. Based on the box office for the opening weekend, it lost big time to “A Star Is Born” and “Venom,” which retained its first place spot for the second week in a row. By the way, f*ck “Venom.” I will say though, this is kind of a spoiler, but it’s not really going to affect your viewing experience, at least I don’t think. If it’s any consolation, the American flag is shown on the moon during the film. I can understand why people would be upset about this, but honestly I don’t really care. I live in America, and this is an American achievement, but at the end of the day, “First Man” is supposed to be a film, not a propaganda piece. Also, if you like your flags so much, let me just remind you that the astronauts have American flags on their spacesuits, and there’s actually a scene where an American flag is being raised. Also, I’ll be honest, I’m glad that someone like Damien Chazelle directed this movie as opposed to someone like Michael Bay. I say that because there would be an American flag overload to the point where the planting scene would involve Neil Armstrong breaking the laws of physics, jumping into space bumping into one planet into the next like a pinball. Once that’s all done, he flies back to the moon striking the surface with the flag like Link did to Ganon in “The Legend of Zelda: The Wind Waker.” Also for fun, we cut to explosions happening in Russia therefore symbolizing their loss in the space race. There are reasons why I wouldn’t mind seeing the flag planted in the film, but the direction Damien Chazelle took with the movie worked very well and made me not care about seeing the planting of the American flag. The emotional journey mattered more in the end to me than seeing a country’s representation, even if I do happen to be a part of that country. Plus, you also have to consider international audiences. How will they respond to this? I don’t know. There’s always room for experimentation. Even so, I guess it is not wrong to assume that international audiences will be able to recognize the accomplishment that the US made with the moon landing, but at the same time, since it is not their accomplishment, they’d probably find the scene less relatable. I really think I should do a separate post someday on why it might be a good idea to have the planting of the American flag shown in the movie and why it might not be a good idea. Now let’s move onto…

Screenshot (362)

SPACE.

Before we actually dive into my thoughts on the space scenes, I gotta say that I saw this movie with my mother and sister. I can understand why some people would have certain complaints but one that really stuck out to me is that my mother said the movie spends too much time in space. I find this amusing because “First Man,” after all, is a space movie. I’m not saying it’s invalid, each to their own, but I thought the space time was fine. And trust me, it does spend a bit of time. Aside from focusing on Apollo 11, the movie spends some time focusing on Gemini 8. I’m willing to bet this is where my mother complained. Although I appreciated that the movie decided to include that, because this establishes not only the dangers for anyone who has to go to space, but as far as Neil Armstrong goes, he had to experience said dangers before moving onto another dangerous mission that is amazingly daring, to the point where he might never see his wife and kids again. One thing I also admire about this scene is the music, which is very reminiscent of “2001: A Space Odyssey” when they play “The Blue Danube.” ALSO, THE SOUND WORK IS TOP-NOTCH! If this movie doesn’t win best director at the Academy Awards, it better get something in the sound categories because it is something worth hearing. While the movie is great overall when it comes to sound, in fact some of it reminded me of “Gravity,” one of the best scenes when it comes to sound comes after the lunar lander touches down on the moon.

In terms of sound, cinematography, and theatricality, the walking onto the moon is definitely one of the best scenes I’ve witnessed all year in a movie. And you even get an added bonus if you see this movie in IMAX. As you can see, the crew is getting ready, opening their hatch, as they are about to see the moon outside their craft. So you get to see the camera coming out, and BOOM! Silence. Scientifically accurate for sure, but that’s not the point. The effect that lack of sound has on the scene literally dropped my jaw. And as if that’s jaw dropping enough, the lunar sequences for this movie were shot on IMAX film. So once the camera comes out of the craft, we go from the aspect ratio we’ve been seeing for the entire movie so far to full fledged, screen-covering glory. WALL TO WALL. FLOOR TO CEILING. Looking at Neil Armstrong up close makes you feel like you are an ant compared to him. The screen dominated me in that moment. The way everything plays out in that from acting, directing, and camerawork just felt like I was in a museum looking at paintings instead of a movie. And another reason why I love this IMAX transition goes back to how this movie was shot on 16mm film. Everything looks fuzzy, it was somewhat of a more unsettling time back then. This takes all depression out of the equation and we have gone from a sad movie that felt like a soap opera, to the end of an epic. It’s one of the best movie transitions I’ve seen in recent memory, and some of the all time best use of an IMAX camera that I am aware of.

I will say that a number of movies shot with an IMAX camera happen to be ones I enjoy. Take the “Transformers” movies out of the equation however. On the subject of cinematography, something happens in this movie that made me realize how awesome this movie truly was. When it comes to filmmaking, one term I’ve always hated was “shaky cam.” But there are several scenes in this movie that actually use shaky cam, and it almost made me change my mind on it entirely! Shaky cam is probably a reason why some critics aren’t massive fans of certain action movies. Aside from hiding poor stuntwork, one reason why I imagine some people use shaky cam in their movies may be to heighten tension. I can’t really recall many moments where shaky cam increased tension for me. Here in “First Man,” there’s moments where shaky cam happens to be prominent and believe it or not, I am not bashing on it. A good movie can do things that people have seen before which have been done with care and everything works. A great movie can take something that might not be your thing and change your perspective on it. While I do enjoy space movies VERY MUCH, I don’t traditionally find myself bowing down to the gods of shaky cam. Shaky cam is a reason why I find shows like “Modern Family” somewhat off-putting. I honestly don’t know if I am overrecating, I wonder how other people would react to something like this, but this is just how I felt from my experience.

In the end, I wouldn’t call “First Man” an A+, but it sure comes close. This is by far one of my favorite movies of the year, and when it comes 2018’s new releases, “First Man” is up there with “Ready Player One” as one of my favorite theater experiences. It has the potential to shoot itself up to an A+ depending on replay value or depending on how I view this movie outside the theater, but in reality, from a critical point of view, while it has some minor things to complain about, there are really no glaring errors (then again, I don’t work for NASA, so science isn’t my biggest strong suit). What Damien Chazelle did with this movie is truly something to appreciate. The cast, while not technically completely matching with their counterparts were believable and added to the movie’s overall grit. The score is appropriate for the film and perhaps something maybe I’ll listen to for motivation. While there were not really any shots to pick out to say that they were really innovative for the most part, the cinematography in “First Man” is certainly something I hope not to forget sometime in the future. Also, if you can, please, go see “First Man” in IMAX. You’ll thank me later. I’m going to give “First Man” a 9/10.

Thanks for reading this review! For those of you who read my work often, you may be aware that I’ve gone to New York Comic Con. I went almost a couple of weeks ago, and don’t worry, a post on that is coming. I just need to put it together. I’m actually going to be in a hotel room in Connecticut this weekend because I’m going to see the Impractical Jokers live, so when I have some free time, or if I choose to be a madman and stay up all night (which would be appropriate because I’m in a casino), maybe I’ll work on this post then. As far as movie reviews go, I will say that my next pick is currently undecided, maybe I’ll go see “Bad Times at the El Royale,” “Goosebumps 2: Haunted Halloween,” maybe “Night School.” A good comedy is soothing every once in a while. Seriously though, I’m almost considering going to see “First Man” again sometime soon. It’s that good. Be sure to follow me on Scene Before either with an email or WordPress account so you can stay tuned for more great content! I want to know, did you see “First Man?” What did you think about it? Or, you know what? F*ck it. Was the moon landing faked? Please comment below, I would like your honest answers, I won’t judge (maybe). Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

A Star is Born (2018): Lady Gaga Can Act?!

Posted on by Jack Drees

mv5bmje3mdq0mta3m15bml5banbnxkftztgwmdmwndy2ntm-_v1_sy1000_cr006741000_al_

“A Star is Born” is directed by Bradley Cooper (Guardians of the Galaxy, Joy), who also stars in the film as well, alongside Lady Gaga (Machete Kills, Sin City: A Dame to Kill For) as two singers who have both of their individual problems in life. Bradley Cooper plays a country vocalist who has a drinking problem and Lady Gaga plays someone who writes her own songs but lacks the courage to sing those songs. Both meet each other, fall in love, and go on a journey together as they sing.

This was a movie I was looking forward to this year. Bradley Cooper is not a bad actor, and judging by the idea of this movie alone, it seemed like a good idea on paper to get a singer (Lady Gaga) to act in a role that primarily involves singing. Also, one thing that really interested me was the fact that Bradley Cooper, someone who is usually known for acting, actually decided to write and direct this film. Granted, this just shows his range in the film industry, especially when you begin to consider how great this film truly is. But you know what? I gotta get something out of the way, it has problems, so just to scratch those off the board, I’m gonna tackle those first.

One problem that I imagine is going to get some controversy is the songs in this movie. This may be just me, but the main song in the movie, “Maybe It’s Time,” just didn’t work for me. I don’t know, the fact that the same lyrics are used more than a single time in a row just felt slightly off-putting. Granted, it might almost make me look like a hypocrite because there’s a song that has nothing to do with this movie, known by the name “Roadhouse Blues,” which has a similar tactic. Then again, I find this movie’s song to be a bit more serious, and I found the tactic in “Roadhouse Blues” perhaps a bit funnier. Speaking of songs, I don’t feel like there’s going to be many songs from this movie that I’m either going to remember or want to listen to again. And that’s kind of sad because this movie revolves around music and singing. I imagine the studio wanted to sell an album based off this movie. Chances are they just lost a customer! It’s not like I walked out of “La La Land,” where I not only remembered songs from the movie, but I had some of urge inside of me that made me want to listen to certain songs again.

I’ll say once again, this film is directed by Bradley Cooper. This is actually his directorial debut and I gotta say, this is a pretty good debut. Not as good as it could have been. I will say there could have been some improvements. But as far as lighting goes, I really like the bar scene. The lighting of the bar really stood out to me. I don’t know why, but it just felt like something you’d probably encounter in a big city. Cinematography wise, some of the shots sometimes immersed you into concerts, maybe even toward’s Bradley Cooper’s typical everyday life. As decent as the directing may have been, especially for a debut, it doesn’t hold a candle to the fantastic acting. Bradley Cooper’s performance as Jack was believable and had some emotion beneath it. You can see this broken singer who is still chugging along with his life. Also, for those who don’t know, the singing in the movie is Bradley Cooper’s actual voice. It kind of reminded me of Tim McGraw if he happened to combine with Rick Deckard from “Blade Runner.”

The best performance in the movie however, hands down, is Lady Gaga. While this movie is mainly about Bradley Cooper’s character’s life, I gotta say, character and acting-wise, Lady Gaga dominates as the character of Ally. Casting-wise, I gotta say, it may almost feel cheap on paper getting a singer to do an acting gig. Why not give it to an actor? But when you consider the fact that Lady Gaga is playing a singer, you know why she was chosen for her specific role. And it’s not like Lady Gaga is new to the world of acting. Just look at her IMDb! Seriously though, great casting! Although my one problem with the character, despite Lady Gaga’s killer performance, is the nose story. I seriously have to ask, is this based on true events? I can understand people being insecure about their looks. But not only am I not aware of people being insecure of how their nose appears, but when it comes to Lady Gaga, she didn’t make that story believable. I sort of said this before, and I’ll say it again This is like getting Mila Kunis, who was then recently nominated at the Teen Choice Awards in the Female Hottie category, earned the #2 spot on AskMen’s Top 99 Women list, and earned Esquire’s Sexiest Woman Alive in 2012 to play a stay at home mom who wears “typical mom clothes.” Maybe this statement is technically a little invalid because I’m a guy, and it seems to be a gender-oriented stereotype that guys don’t usually care about their own looks as much as women do, but I usually don’t see people complain about their nose, or say someone’s nose looks ugly. That idea is almost cheesy at this point. But in reality, despite the weird writing, Lady Gaga hit it home with her performance and made the movie.

Another highlight performance comes from Sam Elliot (Road House, Mission: Impossible), who plays the brother of the main character. This character goes by the name of Bobby and he seems to know that something is up with his brother. He’s trying to get the message across to his brother that he shouldn’t be drinking as much as he is. Clearly the brother is not listening. His performance is maybe a little more quiet than some of the others in the movie, but in the end that’s what makes it great.

Also, for those who are curious to know, there is a dog that plays a role in the movie and believe it or not, that dog actually happens to be Bradley Cooper’s own pet. When I first heard about this, I thought that little factoid was rather interesting. I went to see this movie with my mother and sister, they thought the dog was cute, but I’ll be honest with you, and if Bradley Cooper is reading this, I love your work, I apologize, it looks like a canine Fozzie Bear, and not in a good way. This does not affect the score, and my opinion of the dog has nothing really to do with how I feel about the movie, but I just thought I’d let you know about the little factoid if you were curious.

In the end, “A Star Is Born” is awesome, and if you are planning on seeing this, don’t wait for streaming, don’t wait for the DVD, don’t wait for On Demand, go see it in the theater. I actually went to see this movie in Dolby Cinema at AMC, there were literally parts where I felt like I was in a concert. I have my gripes with the movie, but this movie certainly had enough to admire to the point where I consider it one of the better flicks I’ve seen this year. As far as Bradley Cooper as a director goes, I’d like to see more of his work, and given how he also has a screenplay credit for this movie, I’d like to see more from him in that field as well. I’m going to give “A Star is Born” an 8/10. Thanks for reading this review! Tomorrow I’m going out to see the new movie directed by Damien Chazelle, “First Man,” which is based on the events of the Apollo 11 mission. Be on the lookout for that. Sticking on that topic, I’m not sure, but depending on my work load this week and how I feel, I’m going to do an extra post related to “First Man” aside from the review. I’m not gonna give any details as to what it is, but please stay tuned. Speaking of things of to be on the lookout for, I am also going to have my analysis of my time at New York Comic Con, so stay tuned for that. Be sure to follow Scene Before with your WordPress account or email so you can stay tuned for more great content! I want to know, did you see “A Star is Born?” What did you think about it? Or, just out of curiosity, not that it’s going to happen, but do you see Bradley Cooper potentially being able to direct “Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3?” Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

Apollo 13 (1995): Houston, We Have a Movie Review

Posted on by Jack Drees

Hey everyone, Jack Drees here! Apologies for the slight delay on this review. My goal of this space movie review series is to do one new post in the series every Thursday. Although work (and fun) have gotten in the way, so you’re getting this on a Friday and for that, I apologize. Right now, “First Man” is in theaters everywhere, and I do have plans to review it (as long as I can get my “A Star Is Born” review up first). For those of you who are curious to know what “First Man” is about, it revolves around the moon landing and how Neil Armstrong and his family cope with the enormous difficulties of the Apollo 11 mission. Funny enough, that is not the only movie involving the moon landing I’ll be talking about this year. Another one goes by the name “Apollo 13.” Without further ado, let’s dive into the review!

mv5bztzlmtliodktzmq3mc00ytizlthknjutmdyzngexntqxzmu3xkeyxkfqcgdeqxvynjuxmjc1otm-_v1_sy1000_cr007491000_al_

“Apollo 13” is directed by Ron Howard and stars Tom Hanks (Big, Forrest Gump), Bill Paxton (Weird Science, Aliens), and Kevin Bacon (Footloose, Friday the 13th) as the trio of astronauts who go on a mission associated with the movie’s title. This is the seventh manned mission of Apollo and the third which involves an attempt to land on the moon. Based on true events, the three astronauts are onboard a ship which eventually faces damage, thus making the journey back home more difficult. It is up to NASA to help strategize a plan to get the trio back to Earth.

When it comes to the Apollo missions, the one that we mainly still talk about to this day is Apollo 11, which is getting covered in the upcoming movie, “First Man.” However another mission that got covered a while back, specifically 1995, in movie form was Apollo 13. As far as this movie goes for me. I first watched it in 2014 in a science class during eighth grade. I enjoyed the movie and thought it was a very compelling mission. I appreciated the space scenes, the music, and the launch sequence. Having watched it now, I’d probably say I MIGHT like it less than I did back then, but I still enjoyed it. In fact, now that I’m older, I feel like I paid a bit more attention to the dialogue, which probably felt a tad more compelling than it did when I was 14 years old.

When it comes to the music, this honestly feels like some of the most patriotic music I’ve ever heard in a movie. The main theme almost reminds me of a theme that used to be on CBS Evening News until getting rid of it in 2016. And I’ll be honest, that’s probably where this movie excels more than anywhere else. The music basically does the talking. It reminds you to pay attention. It sometimes give you a feeling that you need to silence yourself. At times it is almost eerie. When I watched this movie, one piece that can be heard almost reminded me of some of the last music you hear before the credits in “The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug.” Looking at this movie now, I can totally see why they decided to put this music in, and it does symbolize how this mission is not just for the world to see, but just like the groundbreaking Apollo 11, it was for the United States to see.

Let’s talk about some of the performances in this film. I mean, you do have star power from folks like Tom Hanks, Bill Paxton, and Kevin Bacon, but in reality their individual performances do not really make the film what it is. As a matter of fact, it’s their chemistry. It’s how they get along as a team and how they cooperate with each other in space. These three look like they get along with each other, they look like buds, and they also look like they are actually trying to help each other in a time of need. But I’ll be honest, the performance I’ll probably forever credit is Ed Harris (The Abyss, Jacknife) as Gene Kranz.

Gene Kranz is a guy who I occasionally still hear about today. He was part of the documentary “Mission Control: The Unsung Heroes of Apollo,” which I have reviewed on here. I have a friend who works for NASA who has met this fine gentleman. And I will say that my friend has also brought up his name every once in a while. When it comes to his portrayal in “Apollo 13,” my gosh. I f*cking loved it. Ed Harris literally knocked it out of the park when it comes to not only talking, but believe it or not, remaining silent. One thing I often think about when it comes to talented actors who go on to get nominated for Oscars is how they have that one moment where they just talk. The talking seems to stick out to a point where it stays in your head. It’s very compelling. But as I’ve learned from another movie this year, “Won’t You Be My Neighbor?,” silence is a great gift. There is a moment in this movie, specifically towards the end, where we see Ed Harris say no words. If you have not seen this movie and decide to check it out one day, be sure to look out for that. By the way, Ed Harris was nominated an Academy Award for this performance and lost to Kevin SPACEYYYYOW! Gross! Get that away! Get out! Get out!

Speaking of mission control, the set for mission control was very well done. It felt rugged, the colors seem to be accurate, and the computers just scream like they are from the time frame which this movie takes place. Also, as far as your NASA employees go, they seem to fit the time frame as well. Nerdy, white males who could have potentially gotten kick me signs on their backs or atomic wedgies when they were in school. And to add a little extra nerdiness to the mix, I even noticed pocket protectors. As I was watching the movie I was just saying to myself that everyone resembled Lewis or Gilbert from “Revenge of the Nerds.” And now that I think about it, maybe George McFly from “Back to the Future.” Costume design and casting was very well done here.

One thing I do find interesting about this movie though is the PG rating. If this movie came out today it would probably be PG-13. I find it really interesting to see that a movie  with as much smoking and language as it has actually managed to get a PG rating. Then again, according to Wikipedia, smoking wasn’t really as big of a problem until 2007. It almost reminds me of “Back to the Future” which got a PG even though it has multiple utterances of the word s*it and some other vulgar language that parents wouldn’t want their kids to hear. I’ll say though for “Back to the Future,” PG-13 was a new concept back when it came out. When “Apollo 13” arrived it actually was a thing for a decade.

One of my favorite scenes of the movie, despite how Apollo 13 was a mission where the astronauts attempted to go to the moon and never made it, involves being on the moon. We cut to a scene where Tom Hanks’s character, Jim Lovell, is actually getting off a craft and envisioning himself walking on the moon. It’s almost sad looking at that. In a lot of movies, I imagine some people saying that they care about historical accuracy, and I’m with those people. Here though, I don’t want to know if Jim Lovell actually envisioned that. If that vision was fabricated, I don’t give a flying f*ck. That actually enhances the movie in so many ways. And in a way, it almost shows how dreams can slip away from you. Many boys dream of being an astronaut. Sorry, kid, lower your expectations.

Also, one more thing.

SPACE.

That’s a tradition in this series, so I might as well keep it going!

In the end, I don’t really have much to say about “Apollo 13,” but what I do have to say is that it is a watchable, enjoyable space flick based on a great story. “Apollo 13” is directed by Ron Howard, who also directed “Solo: A Star Wars Story,” which I suffered through this year. To those who must know, this movie truly showcases the talent of Ron Howard. Leave “Solo” in the dust! Overall, I think “Apollo 13” is a good movie, and I would say while it is the worst of the films I tackled in this review series, it is certainly worth watching. I’m going to give “Apollo 13” a 7/10. Thanks for reading this review! I hope you enjoyed this space movie review series, apologies for the delay once again. But at least I was able to get this out. Stay tuned for my review of “First Man.” I don’t think that’ll be up right away, but given how I am seemingly seeing it on Sunday, I’ll have my thoughts on it probably sometime next week. Be sure to follow me on Scene Before either through an email or WordPress account that way you can stay tuned for more great content! I want to know, did you see “Apollo 13?” What did you think about it? Or, what is a dream you had as a kid that never became a reality? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

Gravity (2013): Life in Space Is Impossible

Posted on by Jack Drees

Hey everyone, Jack Drees here! Some of you may be aware that I am currently doing a series of reviews which involve space movies. Last week I did my review for “2001: A Space Odyssey.” I’m pretty sure I HAVE NOT talked about the movie before. LOL. Now it is time for my second entry in the series. After this week, I will be tackling another space movie, which is all being done in preparation for the upcoming Damien Chazelle directed “First Man.” This movie is going to release on October 12th everywhere in 2D and IMAX so look around for your local showtimes regarding the film. As for the movie we’re going to be talking about today, that is going to be the 2013 flick “Gravity.” In fact, coincidentally, this review is being brought to you EXACTLY FIVE YEARS AFTER “GRAVITY” CAME OUT IN THEATERS EVERYWHERE. Therefore, this review feels very fitting. Without further ado, let’s blast off, and get going with the review!

MV5BMTY1NTc0NTA0OV5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTgwOTE4MjgwMTE@._V1__SX1859_SY884_

“Gravity” was directed by Alfonso Cuarón (Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban, Children of Men), stars Sandra Bullock (The Proposal, The Heat) alongside George Clooney (The American, Batman & Robin) and revolves around a girl by the name of Ryan Stone (Bullock). She is in space working with Matt Kowalski (Clooney) when all of sudden their mission doesn’t go according to plan. A bunch of debris coming towards them causes a separation in crew members, and now it is up to Kowalski and Stone to survive together in space.

Now this is the start of the review so I might as well set the mood.

AT 600KM ABOVE PLANET EARTH THE TEMPERATURE FLUCTUATES BETWEEN +258 AND -148 DEGREES FAHRENHEIT

THERE IS NOTHING TO CARRY SOUND
NO AIR PRESSURE
NO OXYGEN

LIFE IN SPACE IS IMPOSSIBLE

Aside from the Warner Brothers logo which happens to introduce the movie, this is the first thing that can be seen on screen regarding “Gravity.” There are many introductions to a movie that can either remind you what you’re in for or get you excited for what’s to come. This one succeeds at both tasks. The rise in the music, the black screen, and the fades of the text. All of these remind you that you’re in for a ride. You have to strap yourself in. Many bumps are ahead. There’s even some sounds in the background that might as well associate with what a disaster in space would end up being.

Then… you cut to…

SPACE.

Much like the space shots in the last movie I reviewed, specifically “2001: A Space Odyssey,” pretty much all of them are insanely gorgeous. I will probably give the 1 up to “2001” over “Gravity” when it comes to space shots based on what it is shot on and how they actually crafted everything in space as supposed to using CGI (you can’t really do that in 1968), but given how realistic the CGI looks in this movie, I am almost convinced at times that this actually is space. I had a conversation with a companion months after this movie came out where she uttered this movie is basically “all visual effects.” She’s right. The amount of effective green screen used in “Gravity” actually blows my mind. It’s almost like we’re witnessing “Jurassic Park” in space. I say that because “Gravity,” like “Jurassic Park” relies heavily on CGI and the way they’ve executed visual effects in both movies just feel like they can blow your mind out of the water.

Speaking of shots, this movie came out in 2013, and as far as movies released that year go, this one won Best Cinematography at the Academy Awards. And holy crap this movie deserves it. Let’s talk about some of the unique shots in “Gravity.” When it comes to “Gravity,” the first shot I think of is actually the earliest one we see in the film. We see Earth, and a spacecraft is coming in. We also get to see our characters. If you have never seen this movie, this is probably gonna get you to want to check this movie out. That shot goes on for somewhere around ten minutes! Can you imagine how much rehearsing went into that shot? Can you imagine how much preparation the director and people behind the camera had to go through? I wonder what the storyboards must have been like!

Another cool shot is one that is pretty much reminiscent of a first-person game. And I mean that literally, they have FIRST-PERSON shots in this movie. There’s one in the middle of the film that has Ryan Stone trying to get into the International Space Station and as she opens the door to get inside, you can get a view into her helmet just before the door flies as she tugs onto it.

Take that, “Hardcore Henry!” You stole “Gravity’s” idea! I’ve seen this movie in IMAX, and as I reflect on what this movie has, it just makes me want to create a petition to rerelease this film in the format so I can experience shots like the ones I mentioned in such an immersive way.

Going back to visual effects, we need to talk about 3D. There are VERY few movies that I think have been worth the extra money for 3D. Some include “The Hobbit” trilogy, “Mad Max: Fury Road,” and f*ck it, even the stupid “Ghostbusters” remake. Gotta give it credit for something, ya know. “Gravity” is also in such a category. You have many scenes where debris and characters are flying everywhere and it’s all just a visual spectacle to the face. It’s like you’re in space and you’re constantly getting hit in the head with debris! Only thing is you’re much more likely to survive because in all practicality you might as well be Dominic Toretto from “Fast & Furious.”

I can’t wait for “Fast & Furious” in space. It’s gonna be great.

One of the most immersive scenes in the movie comes from when Ryan Stone changes spacesuits and is outside the ISS. More debris is incoming, and all of a sudden, the ISS is doomed. You’re seeing bits and pieces flying everywhere and it is just like going on a ride at Universal. While Ryan Stone is certainly in danger, you feel like you’re in danger as well. I also love the line given by Ryan after she is free from any more suffering in this incident.

“I hate space.”

One of the main characters in “Gravity” is played by George Clooney. His name is Matt Kowalski, and he seems to have a knack for telling stories. As I watched this movie, I noticed that when the mood seems to be light, he would tell a story, maybe it is one the characters have heard before. If not, he tells one that has a similar vibe or structure to it.

Another main character, and I’m talking about someone who is technically THE main character is Sandra Bullock’s Ryan Stone. Talk about one of the best established characters of the decade. She starts off this movie as a seemingly normal character and then you get into her backstory. It’s almost like watching a Pixar movie that doesn’t really gear itself towards children. I mean, HER KID DIED. All she does when she isn’t in space, is go to work and drive. That’s gotta be the most boring life imaginable. I mean, she doesn’t clean McDonald’s restrooms, but even so. Given her backstory and the fact that she is TRULY pulling through, it just makes you root for the character that much more.

I gotta say though, when it comes to the end, that’s where this movie falls flat. This film is an hour and thirty-one minutes, but I don’t know how to feel about the ending. Without going into spoilers, it’s not an out of place ending, but I don’t know, I kind of wanted to see more than just what we got. Also, speaking of out of place, there’s a song that you can hear at the end of the movie and the credits, one of the weirdest song choices in movie history.

Also, regarding out of place stuff that I won’t really spoil, George Clooney’s character does something towards the end of the movie that really, honestly, makes zero sense. If you want to get technical with me, I might even say there are two things. I don’t even know, it just feels out of place. If anything, I could say it might be associated with an illusion or some sort of vision, maybe symbolism, it just makes the movie feel very strange and I just don’t understand why he would be doing what he’s doing.

Now it is time to get…

NITPICKY!

I’ll be honest with you, I don’t do work with rockets, I have no scientific background in anything related to space, I don’t work for NASA. My friend does, but she’s busy doing her own thing, so no, I didn’t ask her to help me out with this post. And you know what? I’d probably do a fine job noting some inaccuracies that can be seen in “Gravity,” but the fact is, I’d really be taking the words out of someone’s mouth. To be specific, the words of Dr. Neil DeGrasse Tyson.

Some of you might remember the pointing out of scientific inaccuracies since early on in this movie’s release. But one of the more notable bits when it comes to that is from Tyson. He went on Twitter and had a few things to say.

Again, it’s nitpicky, it’s not like we have everybody in the world going around saying the same thing as this guy. Maybe some people would complain about the single-dimension of George Clooney or the cheesy lines that occasionally pop up. But at the same time, science is something that I’m willing to bet a number of filmmakers want to get right in their movies. If your movie has something that maybe in the screenplay was written to be completely compelling, but on screen has the most glaring scientific flaw, some people might point out the scientific flaw as opposed to what makes the scene a thing of beauty. In fact, you know that friend at NASA I was talking about? Even she sometimes says that Hollywood and science don’t always mix and she is not into that sort of thing.

And for those of you who think Dr. Tyson hated “Gravity…”

And this is something that can be taken seriously. While you can certainly enjoy a movie for what it is, there is certainly no shame in pointing out problems, even if they are nitpicky. After all, the more accurate the science is in the movie, the more I might end up enjoying it. “Gravity,” according to my memory, might as well be the first movie where I didn’t exactly question the science on screen, but it had me realizing that when it comes to science, not everything was perfect. In that sort of way, this movie is kind of special to me. How often can you say you remember a movie for its flaws? OK, well, more than you think, I still remember “The Emoji Movie.” But at least these flaws aren’t game-breaking.

In the end, “Gravity” is scary, it’s suspenseful, it’s what you can totally ask for in a space disaster film. To this day it is by far one of the most immersive movies I’ve ever seen. Some of the camerawork is not only masterful, but just so brilliant that it basically changes the game of how future movies could be made. And it did in a way if you think about it given how “Hardcore Henry” took the first-person concept and made an entire movie out of it. I could be wrong. Maybe video games were a bigger inspiration, I don’t know for sure. But if “Gravity” was bigger, cool. Not to mention, “Hardcore Henry” uses GoPro as its source of cinematography whereas this movie’s main source happens to be Arri Alexas. Like Dr. Tyson, I enjoyed this movie very much and I’m going to give “Gravity” an 8/10. While this movie does have some problems, what really gives “Gravity” the 8 mark for me is the journey of watching this film. Our main hero who is just trying to survive is definitely one of the more compelling characters I’ve come across over the past few years. The sound work done in this film is scary as s*it. The visual effects feel like in a way that they may be somewhat groundbreaking, or in some cases, International Space Station breaking. And the cinematography is just so brilliantly done.

*IF YOU LIKE RAMBLING OR BEING INFORMED ABOUT THINGS, READ ON FROM HERE*

Thanks for reading this review! Next week will be my final installment in my space movie review series in preparation for “First Man.” Just a reminder, “First Man” is in theaters everywhere on October 12th, but the day before I will have my review up for “Apollo 13.” I’ll be honest with you, and I’ll let you guys know in advance, I’m not sure how this review will turn out. I’m not saying it’s gonna suck. In fact, if I knew it was gonna suck, I’d scrap the review altogether. But compared to this movie and the other one I’ve reviewed in this series, “2001,” “Apollo 13” just happens to be a film I don’t have as much experience with. I will say one thing I’ve noticed with reviews for older movies is if I know the movie, I put more detail into the review. In my Tom Cruise series, I barely put anything into my review for “The Firm” because my review for it was composed after my first viewing whereas “Risky Business” was something I not only seen before but also happened to have a deep passion towards. My “Firm” review ended up at over 1800 words and my “Risky Business” review ended up at over 3400 words. Then again, it’s not about quantity, it’s about quality. And I may be underestimating myself. I have seen “Apollo 13,” but it’s been years and I only deeply remember various parts. Plus I’m going to New York this weekend and I haven’t even watched the movie yet. Maybe I’ll watch it, go to sleep, wake up, and start my review on the train ride to New York, I dunno.

Speaking of New York, be sure to stay tuned for my thoughts on this year’s New York Comic Con! I will be going to the con on Friday and Sunday. I do have Columbus Day off, so if I have time, maybe I’ll use it reviewing the con and telling you what I purchased there. For those of you who want to see more of my work, be sure to follow Scene Before with a WordPress account or an email so you can stay tuned for more great content! I want to know, did you see “Gravity?” What did you think about it? Or, what is your personal worst scientific inaccuracy you’ve ever seen in a movie? Doesn’t even have to be scientific, maybe history-related. Your choice. You have the power.

Only you can control your future. -Dr. Seuss

Scene Before is your click to the flicks!