Entertainment Film Distributors

Fackham Hall (2025): Fackin’ Average

Posted on by Jack Drees

© 2025 – Bleecker Street

“Fackham Hall” is directed by Jim O’Hanlon (Coronation Street, Your Christmas or Mine?) and stars Thomasin McKenzie (Last Night in Soho, Joy), Ben Radcliffe (Pandora, Anatomy of a Scandal), Katherine Waterston (Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them, Afraid), Emma Laird (The Brutalist, A Haunting in Venice), Tom Goodman-Hill (Baby Reindeer, Humans), Anna Maxwell Martin (Bleak House, Motherland), Sue Johnston (Downton Abbey, Coronation Street), Tom Felton (Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone, The Flash), and Damian Lewis (Billions, Homeland). This film showcases the shenanigans and problems that ensue as a porter forms a bond with the daughter of a prominent family, just as said family is coming together for an extravagant wedding.

If I had to give a rundown of my most anticipated films of the year back in January, chances are “Fackham Hall” would not have made the list, partially because I had no idea it was coming out. In fact, I was first made aware of the film while watching trailers before the underwhelming horror flick “Bone Lake.” This film, like that one, is distributed by Bleecker Street, so it makes sense that the red band trailer, which played exclusively in theaters at the time, would be the last thing I’d see before the feature presentation. But if I were to go back in time and tell my younger self that “Fackham Hall” would be coming out in December, then maybe I would have considered putting it on the list. This is partially because I would tell my younger self that the trailer gave me the biggest belly laughs I have had watching a piece of marketing in years. I do not recall the last time I watched a trailer and nearly lost self-control from cackling as audibly as I did.

Unfortunately, “Fackham Hall” was not as good as I was expecting it to be. Do not get me wrong. It was not an automatic guarantee that this film was not going to work for me. This film is being marketed as “Downton Abbey” meets “Airplane.” As much as I enjoyed “Airplane,” “Downtown Abbey” never struck me as my kind of show. This is why you never saw me review any of the “Downton Abbey” movies. I never watched the show, so it would not make a lot of sense for me to watch the movies. Though I went into this film with an open mind because it came off as something that one could appreciate without necessarily needing to watch “Downton Abbey.” One can argue such a thing to be true.

Among the reasons why I was looking forward to this film, one of them is the the fact that comedian Jimmy Carr is attached to the project. If you know me, you would be aware that Jimmy Carr is one of my all time favorite comedians. I watch his specials on YouTube on a regular basis. I have seen him a few times when he’s performed in New England. I also like him as a game show host. In fact, he is one of the film’s five writers, making this his first screenplay. Carr also has a small role in the film as a vicar. He is only on screen for one to two minutes, but he plays his part to the best of his ability. This is not to say he did a bad job, but he played a character who basically has one running joke, specifically that he says things that sound taboo or wrong, only for him to pause and finish the rest of what he has to say. On paper, the joke is funny. But I have seen the trailer for this film and as someone who was looking forward to seeing Jimmy Carr on screen, I wish he had some variety in his material.

In fact, remember how I said the trailer was one of the funniest I have ever seen? It does not mean the movie is. I think part of that has to do with seeing the trailer in the first place. One of my biggest fears going into any comedy film is the possibility that they show all the best bits in the marketing, and based on what I have seen through “Fackham Hall’s” marketing in particular, I cannot name one joke in that stood out to me that was not in the trailer. Also, multiple jokes likely lost their intended effect since I already got to see them in advance. Other than that, there are a lot of jokes that feel too over the top, and that is saying something for a film called “Fackham Hall.” The film is filled with a lot of toilet and taboo humor. It often came off as if it were being written by a young child who just learned what the word “boobies” means.

Overall, the film has a lot of jokes. Therefore, those jokes trigger a lot of reactions. For a film that ultimately left me underwhelmed, I had a surprising amount of laughs. That said, I cannot really name a favorite joke. Also, with this movie having a lot of jokes, it also indicates that a good chunk of them fell flat. There are a few references to The Beatles and the works of J.R.R. Tolkien. While the jokes sound clever on the page, they feel less clever on the screen. I could see myself writing these gags down and amusing myself as I read them, but their delivery in the film did not do it for me. Lots of comedies have jokes that are better than others. Although in the case of “Fackham Hall,” the balance between good jokes and bad jokes is not exactly satisfying.

Also, once again, “Fackham Hall” is written by four people. I wish I could have been a fly on the wall to see the process of the screenplay being put together. I want to know who came up with the best jokes of the film, who came up with the weakest, and how everyone decided to tie the story together. The film comes very close to having an identity crisis. While the film is often smooth sailing, it introduces a mystery plot that makes sense within the context of the film, but it simultaneously feels tacked on.

For all I know, this movie could age well and find an audience over time. If anything, I blame myself for perhaps getting so overly invested in the film prior to its release. This film left such a lasting impression on me before it came out that it only increased the chances that I would be disappointed.

Do not get me wrong. My feelings about the film do not change my opinions about the people involved. Thomasin McKenzie is a great actress and it is nice to see her find work. I am proud of Jimmy Carr for expanding his horizons and doing something outside of standup and game shows. One of the film’s writers happens to be Jimmy’s brother, Patrick Carr. It is lovely to see family working together. Overall, the cast of the film, even the most minor of characters, all do a fantastic job with their roles. I just wish all this talent resulted in something more entertaining.

In the end, “Fackham Hall” is one of the most of the disappointing films of the year for me. Maybe I set my expectations too high, which could be part of the problem. But that initial trailer, to me, promised so much potential for laughter that my hype levels reached the sun. There were definitely laughs in “Fackham Hall,” just not to my desired degree. Once again, this film has five writers. I wonder if that played a part in this film’s pace, because by the time we get to the murder mystery portion of the film, it felt rather out of the blue. Not necessarily in a satisfying and twisty way, but instead it made me go, “Okay, so this is happening…” I would not avoid this movie like the plague, but I still would not recommend it. I am going to give “Fackham Hall” a 5/10.

“Fackham Hall” is now playing in theaters. Tickets are available now.

Thanks for reading this review! My next review is going to be for “Scarlet!” Stay tuned! Also coming soon, look forward to my thoughts on “The Secret Agent,” “Hamnet,” and “Avatar: Fire and Ash.” If you want to see these reviews and more from Scene Before, follow the blog either with an email or WordPress account! Also, check out the official Facebook page! I want to know, did you see “Fackham Hall?” What did you think about it? Or, what are your thoughts on “Downton Abbey?” Is it a good show? Are the movies worth watching? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

Civil War (2024): Alex Garland’s Most Dramatically Immersive Film Yet

Posted on by Jack Drees

“Civil War” is directed by Alex Garland (Ex Machina, Annihilation) and stars Kirsten Dunst (Spider-Man, Wimbledon), Wagner Moura (Elite Squad, Puss in Boots: The Last Wish), Cailee Spaeny (Priscilla, Pacific Rim: Uprising), Stephen McKinley Henderson (Dune, Lady Bird), Sonoya Mizuno (House of the Dragon, Devs), and Nick Offerman (Parks and Recreation, The Founder). This film is set in a dystopian future United States and centers around a group of people trying to make it to Washington, DC before rebel factions descend upon the White House.

As I have said on this blog before, some of my favorite directors working today include Christopher Nolan, Damien Chazelle, and Quentin Tarantino. Those are usually the big three that come to mind. Although one director I happen to admire somewhere down that list is Alex Garland. I love his directorial debut, “Ex Machina.” A film that has become increasingly relevant and captivating with age. Looking back at his sophomore directorial effort, “Annihilation,” I think that film is a slight step down. But there is a lot that works in that film. Visually, it is uniquely stunning. Natalie Portman does a great job in the lead role. As an experience, I found parts of the film trippy, intriguing, and even a little terrifying. Looking back, it also has one of the better musical scores of the past decade. As for Alex Garland’s next movie, “Men,” I cannot say I hated it… In a thumbs up, thumbs down world, it is a thumbs up. The actors do a good job. The color palette and overall aesthetic pops. But it felt like there was something missing from that film. It lacked an oomph of sorts. Naturally, I was curious about “Civil War.” Even with that in mind, I was not fully sure where to set my expectations. I thought this movie could go one way or another. It was either gonna stand out in such a positive way or in such a negative way. Turns out, it does both.

“Civil War” is not a movie I am going to recommend for everyone. If you are looking to have a good time, then maybe go see something else. I am not saying that “Civil War” is a terrible movie. It is far from being bad. But if anything, it reminds me of when I watched say “12 Years a Slave,” which to a certain degree, is not the happiest watch. The two movies are completely different in terms of plot and execution, but they deliver similar feelings of uneasiness. This movie made me feel genuinely uncomfortable. There are scenes in this film where I am tittering in my seat because the context of said scene is frankly disturbing to say the least. And honestly, and I mean this as a compliment in regards to “Civil War,” some of those scenes feel real. Or if not real, genuine enough to the point where I believe it could happen. This is especially true for one scene that has caught my attention since first watching the trailer.

If you saw the marketing for “Civil War,” you have probably seen Jesse Plemons on screen. He plays an ultranationalist and he owns the role to the tenth degree. I am sure Plemons is the nicest of guys in real life, but I would never want to come across this character in my travels. His portrayal of this character, simply known as “Soldier,” is delivered with subtlety, but even his calm mannerisms pack a punch. Whenever he is on screen, I am simply waiting to hear a pin drop, or anything else that would get me to jump out of my chair. I know I just saw “Abigail,” which by definition, is a horror movie prominently featuring a vampire. But I have to be real, compared to Abigail, Plemons’s character is nightmare fuel.

The strongest point for “Civil War” is how easy it is for me to feel like I’m in the middle of the action. I saw this movie in IMAX, and of the IMAX experiences I had, this is one of the more interesting ones. Because when I go to IMAX, I go for the thrills, the chills, and the excitement that, like the opening countdown suggests, CRYSTAL CLEAR IMAGES and EARTH-SHATTERING SOUND can bring. This movie was almost too loud at times, but I also think that from Garland’s point of view, that was on purpose. The gunfire, explosions, and all the other ruckus of war were dialed up to an 11 to the point where I felt like I was there. Part of me assumed I was actually in the moment with Kirsten Dunst or whoever else was on screen at the time.

Kirsten Dunst plays Lee (left rear), a photojournalist. When it comes to defining a main character for “Civil War,” it seems as if there are limited solid options on the table. This movie is a controversy generator, but I will note that when it comes to selecting a main character, a photojournalist like Lee is a smart choice. Lee is active enough to the point where she is technically involved in the war, but her job basically keeps her from picking a side. Dunst is well cast in the role and delivers quite a performance. She does a good job.

The film may be called “Civil War,” but at its core, you could argue that this film is essentially a road trip movie. It is about a group of characters trying to get from point A to point B with the intentions of running into as few obstacles as possible. Along for the ride is Wagner Moura as Joel (right front), a Reuters journalist. Stephen McKinley Henderson as Sammy (left front), a New York Times journalist and Lee’s mentor, and Cailee Spaeny as Jessie Cullen (right rear), an aspiring photographer. All of these actors fit into their roles nicely and have good chemistry. Casting-wise, this movie hit the jackpot.

As I said earlier, “Civil War” is a movie that stands out to me in both a positive and negative way. In addition to the balance between the thrills and all around discomfort this movie brings to the table, this notion also stands true for its technical aspects. I have already talked about how the sound does its job while also coming off as one of the movie’s drawbacks. But much like the sound, the film editing has my brain driving itself in circles.

There are points in this movie that had me thinking to myself that the editing is not just great, it is a contender to win an Oscar next year. In fact, the editing in this film, in addition to being perfectly paced, spectacularly highlights the power of photojournalism. This is something that is personal to me as someone who has spent the past year working in news, but also as someone who has taken journalism classes in college. But if I have one thing to say about the final edit, it is that there are a couple of music choices that are about out of left field. I think the film’s music, for the most part, works. But there are one or two instances where I found myself perplexed.

As for the film’s reflectiveness of our society, obviously there are moments that feel genuine enough that remind me of the world we live in today. But as for the idea that California and Texas could unite in war anytime soon, I found that to be a bit of a fantasy. At the same time though, I do not entirely care that they are in this war together. If this film felt more genuine than it is, chances are it would generate more controversy than it already unleashing amongst its audiences. I went to see a movie with a friend of mine in March. One of the trailers was for “Civil War.” Based on what she saw, she thought this movie should never have happened. Based on her words, I gathered she thought a movie like this could potentially be dangerous. Personally, I can see where she is coming from. This is why, again, if you are looking for are a looking for an escape, maybe this is not the movie for you. As for me, I think “Civil War” is one of the better films of the year. It is not quite on the level of say “Dune Part Two,” but much like that recent science fiction masterpiece, “Civil War” is technically powerful and delivers a one of a kind experience.

In the end, “Civil War” is not going to be a film I will end up watching on a Friday night anytime soon, but I am glad I checked it out. It is a film that is huge in scope, massive in world-building, but in terms of the overall premise, it is as simple as can be. The story is nothing more than just journeying from point A to B and making sure nobody dies along the way. The cast is well-rounded and marvelously put together. Jesse Plemons, despite not having an official credit, practically steals the show. Nick Offerman also does a good job as the President. I thought he fit the role perfectly. The film is not flawless. In fact, even the aspects of the movie that lean more positive have some glaring negatives attached. When it comes to ranking the Alex Garland movies, this is not as enthralling as “Ex Machina” or as exciting as “Annihilation,” but it is certainly more memorable than “Men.” I am going to give “Civil War” a 7/10.

“Civil War” is now playing in theaters. Tickets are available now!

Thanks for reading this review! While a lot of people ended up seeing “Civil War” when it came out, my next review on the other hand is for a film that practically no one bothered to watch. That my friends, is “Boy Kills World,” which only made a few million dollars at the box office. I am proud to be one of the lucky individuals that had the pleasure of watching this experience of a flick. I cannot wait to share my thoughts on it with you all. If you want to see this review and more from Scene Before, follow the blog either with an email or WordPress account! Also, check out the official Facebook page! I want to know, did you see “Civil War?” What did you think about it? Or, what is your favorite Alex Garland movie? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

The Gentlemen (2019): A Confused, Hungry Lion of a Ride

Posted on by Jack Drees

mv5bmtlkmmvmyjktytc2nc00zgzjlweyowutmjc2mdmwmjqwota5xkeyxkfqcgdeqxvynti4mze4mdu40._v1_sy1000_sx675_al_

“The Gentlemen” is directed by Guy Ritchie (Snatch, Aladdin) and stars Matthew McConaughey (Interstellar, Sing), Charlie Hunham (Nicholas Nickleby, Queer As Folk), Henry Golding (Last Christmas, Crazy Rich Asians), Michelle Dockery (Good Behavior, Downton Abbey), Jeremy Strong (The Big Short, Succession), Eddie Marsan (Ray Donovan, Jonathan Strange and Mr Norrell), Colin Farrell (S.W.A.T., The Lobster), and Hugh Grant (Four Weddings and a Funeral, A Very English Scandal). This film is about an American expat who is trying to make money through selling off his marijuana business in London. This leads to eventual chaos… And by chaos, I mean what my brain went through while watching this movie.

It’s been a week since I saw “The Gentlemen” just to get things up to speed. My noggin is still spiraling in all sorts of directions.

Honestly, I am sort of glad I have waited as long as I did to talk about this movie. I saw this on the Wednesday before it came out to a pretty active crowd, there were laughs and applause throughout, therefore this seemed like a fine experience. As for other reviewers, they seem to be digging this movie. I on the other hand cannot say I share the same opinion as everyone else. Let me just start with the positives, because believe it or not, this movie has some.

This film is finely directed and it feels as if Guy Ritchie is delivering his own style and implementing it into the final product. The characters feel like they could only come out of a movie of this kind, maybe a few others. The casting from Matthew McConaughey to Colin Farrell, to Michelle Dockery is all very well done. It also shows how brilliantly each character is performed based on each actor’s ability. In a way, it almost had a similar vibe to “Kingsman: The Secret Service,” while not exactly being the same film overall in terms of plot and style. And if you know me, you know I think “Kingsman: The Secret Service” is one of the better spy films of the past decade. Part of the movie revolves around two characters who are basically reading a movie script and analyzing what the movie calls a true story in an attempt to turn that into a feature film. One of the better parts of it is when they throw out archaic terms like 35mm, anamorphic widescreen, almost in that tone where someone thinks of what cinema is “supposed to be” like in the “good old days.”

A number of the action scenes are enjoyable. Again, going back to the characters, there is a scene, and if you watch the trailer, chances are you got a taste of it, where Matthew McConaughey almost looks like a madman as he has a gun in his hand. There are a couple other fun scenes too, don’t get me wrong.

Other than that, this movie has no real reason for me to go back and watch it again… Except for one thing, which I will get to later.

If you go back up the opening paragraph, chances are you noticed me trying to describe the movie and I ultimately present it as if some blanks need to be filled. I’ll be honest, that’s because pacing-wise, this movie is almost too fast. I said this film reminds me a tad of “Kingsman: The Secret Service.” One of the great things about that movie in my opinion is how it almost never stops, it kept me glued because of the bonkers action and ridiculousness of all to be seen. While that may have been a positive in “Kingsman,” such a notion honestly deters “The Gentlemen.” There could be an argument to make that this is one of those movies that could end up getting better through multiple watches, that way I can digest everything, but in order to do that, there has to be some sort of desire that a viewer like me must achieve to watch a movie again in the first place. After watching “The Gentlemen,” there are elements that I liked, but as a film, I have managed to find a lot of it forgettable and even though I am not great with names in real life, I walked out of this film wondering what everybody’s name was.

Just for the record, I have been previously been diagnosed with ADHD, or attention deficit hyperactive disorder, which is just a fancy way of saying that my mind likes to go in several places at once. This feels like a movie that maybe I would make if I were to shove in a bunch of ideas, locations, characters, but I just want them in there just for the sake of being there. In real life, my ADHD sort of represents a less than pleasant span of attention at times, and from one moment to the next, the movie just feels like it cannot stick to a proper idea for a suitable length of time. One moment it’s here, one moment it’s there, the next moment it feels like it is about to go everywhere! That’s the best way I can describe this disappointing mediocrity.

This film is directed by Guy Ritchie who also helmed “Snatch” in the past, which I have enjoyed due to its individualistic style and overall fast pace. I barely remember the film partially due to how I have only seen it once, but I remember enjoying it. But he also did “King Arthur: Legend of the Sword,” which was a waste of precious time. As a director, there is no doubting that Ritchie likes to do films kind of in his own way, sort of like Quentin Tarantino or Wes Anderson. I do respect the feeling of creative freedom that is represented from “The Gentlemen,” I just wish the movie was better as a result of said creative freedom. Too many movies seem to be tied down to a formula or locked into the requirements of a studio, “The Gentlemen” sort of reminds me of the kinds of movies I would prefer to see today. At the same time however, this movie almost feels like something Zack Snyder would direct. Now that is a bit of a stretch, but if you have seen films like “300” and “Sucker Punch,” which if I were to review right now, would receive positive grades, they feel like they ultimately do a better job at representing style over substance.

I also kind of see why a film like this sort of ended up in January, while I could probably market this film with ease and maybe represent it as summertime fun with all sorts of action, that’s not entirely what is shown in the final product. This is a film that I would imagine behind the scenes some were feeling would be not too difficult to describe, but not the easiest film to describe either. This makes it harder to form a concrete marketing campaign. January is usually seen as dumping ground for film, so it would not be surprising that the studio thought a film like “The Gentlemen” could end up in such a release month.

Also, over the past number of days, I’ve been starting to crush on Michelle Dockery because of this movie. Just saying. Not that it affects my score all that much.

In the end, “The Gentlemen” is a movie with a number of positives in it. The action is slick and fun, the writing style is something probably only Guy Ritchie himself would come up with, the casting is perfect! But this film needs to calm down. If anything, I should remind you all of another film that came out recently, “Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker.” I want to bring this up because one of the complaints I have heard about “The Rise of Skywalker” is that the movie feels like it is too quick. Having seen “The Rise of Skywalker” myself I have no idea what these people were thinking, I think the fast pace of the film made it fun, compared to its predecessor, “The Last Jedi.” But if you don’t like the bonkers pace of “The Rise of Skywalker,” try watching “The Gentlemen” and tell me you have a basic understanding of EVERYTHING that is going on. I don’t know, maybe I am getting ahead of myself. Going back to the one reason why I might watch this movie again, there is a good chance that I could watch “The Gentlemen” a second time and like it more because the film goes so fast, maybe I will catch something new. But having seen it once, I am going to have to continuously wonder if it warrants a second viewing. Until then, I have to be brutally honest, because I’m going to give “The Gentlemen” a 5/10.

Thanks for reading this review! This SUNDAY, FEBRUARY 2ND, that’s Super Bowl Sunday, is the beginning of the Super Bowl for movies, the Jackoff Awards! For the record, the actual ceremony will not be up until SUNDAY FEBRUARY 16TH, a little more than two weeks from now. I am not going to provide too many hints for the nominations, but for those of you who have witnessed last year’s events related to the ceremony, you’d probably be aware of how I handled Best Picture. This year, once again, once I announce the nominees for Best Picture, I am going to provide a poll of the ten movies and have you pick the one that YOU think should win. Why? Because I already chose mine earlier this month in my best movies of the year list! Now, it’s your turn! Be sure to look out for my upcoming nominations announcement this Sunday! If you want to see this post and more from Scene Before and Flicknerd.com, give the site a follow via an email or WordPress account. Speaking of following, give me a like on my Facebook page, located on the Zuckerberg Land itself! I want to know, did you see “The Gentlemen?” What did you think about it? Am I getting ahead of myself? Or, what is a movie that you think is too fast-paced? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!