Heyday Films

Jay Kelly (2025): Movie Star George Clooney Terrifically Stars as a Movie Star

Posted on by Jack Drees

“Jay Kelly” is directed by Noah Baumbach (White Noise, Marriage Story) and stars George Clooney (Gravity, Ticket to Paradise) and Adam Sandler (Happy Gilmore, Billy Madison) in a film about an actor who reflects on his career, choices, relationships, and legacy.

Throughout the years, there have been cases where I would point out that an actor plays themselves in a movie. This could be in a literal sense like Kumail Nanjiani did in the hilarious and heartfelt “Big Sick,” or in a figurative sense like Dwayne Johnson playing some variation of a character he has portrayed before, or some version of their off-camera personality.

While the character of Jay Kelly is not based on George Clooney or any particular actor, it is interesting to see an actor of Clooney’s caliber take him on, and it results in one of the best performances of the year. A good chunk of the performance is enhanced by the screenplay, crafted by Noah Baumbach and Emily Mortimer. The former is already an acclaimed name through his work on 2019’s “Marriage Story,” and Emily Mortimer is known for her acting career, but this is her first feature writing credit, and may I say it is a fine one to have.

Courtesy of Netflix – © 2025 Netflix, Inc

It does not surprise me that Noah Baumbach would work on a film like this. Not just because it is great, which it is. But also because it appears to take slight threads from “Marriage Story.” If you go back and look at “Marriage Story” and some of the reasons why the main characters’ relationship falls apart, a lot of it has to do with their creative lifestyles. They were both artists, but happened to be after different goals. In “Jay Kelly,” we see the title character having a uniquely successful acting career, which ultimately puts a damper on the relationships between him and several people he knows. One of the movie’s most moving scenes happens between Kelly and one of his daughters. She reminds Kelly of one of his acting gigs as a loving father. She says she remembers watching that project in particular and did not understand how her actual father was not as caring and attentive as the character he played.

This scene furthers one of Kelly’s extended struggles. Kelly seems to find it easy and appealing to escape his own world and enter someone else’s. It is almost like Kelly has ADHD and constantly feels the need to daydream. Except in his case, he does not imagine himself in another world, he comes as close as he can to living it. In this sense, the movie seems to imply the importance of appreciating what you have. Kelly seems to love his job. So much to the point where it gets in the way of important people like those in his family.

“Jay Kelly” surprisingly sticks the landing, because this movie had the potential to make the main character look like a jerk. The screenplay instead does everything possible to make Kelly human. Kelly means well, but his flaws sometimes stick out like a sore thumb, either to the audience or to the rest of the cast. There are moments of unforgivable behavior, but the movie never once makes Kelly look like a complete psycho. Maybe it is because we spend much of the movie with Kelly’s manager, Ron Sukenick, played by Adam Sandler. While Sandler’s performance does not quite have the dramatic oomph of “Uncut Gems,” it is nice to see him continue to expand his range. Especially considering he just came off of “Happy Gilmore 2,” which I did not review, but if I had to say something quick about it, I thought it was, in a word, fine.

Sukenick plays a huge part in forwarding Kelly’s journey. Their relationship, and by extension, the movie, makes me think of Bob Sugar’s line from “Jerry Maguire,” specifically, “it’s not show friends, it’s show business.” I get the sense that these two people are close, but at times they feel more like partners than friends, if that makes any sense. That said, the two do seem to like each other and get along just fine.

Clooney and Sandler are not the only super-sized names in this film. Much like another recent Netflix feature, “Wake Up Dead Man,” the star power in this film is massive. For the most part, it is hard to pinpoint a bad performance in the film, but it is chock-full of talent including Laura Dern, Greta Gerwig, Isla Fisher, and Riley Keough just to name a few. Similar to how we see George Clooney playing an actor, the film’s director and cinematographer, Noah Baumbach and Linus Sandgren respectively, have cameo roles as, you guessed it, a director and cinematographer on one of Jay’s films.

I enjoyed getting to see Kelly’s work throughout various points of his career. One of these examples also happens to be the first scene of the movie, which does an incredible job recreating a backdrop of metro New York, particularly the area around the East River, Roosevelt Island, and Long Island City, complete with the Queensboro Bridge above it all. When I think of my favorite films this year in terms of production design, “Jay Kelly” would probably not be my first choice. But the way this set is laid out perfectly showcases the location itself, and when Kelly is on camera, it does a great job at maintaining an illusion. If I look hard enough at the backdrop, I can tell that I am not looking at the real New York, but the movie, as well as the movie within the movie, does a great job at making said backdrop feel as real as possible.

One of the film’s most memorable aspects is the relationship between Kelly and Timothy Galligan. The two start off as classmates in acting school. At one point, the two try out at the same audition, only for Kelly to steal his friend’s spotlight. It is at this point where everything changed for Kelly and his career essentially began. This is especially true when one particular storyline comes into play where Kelly is caught on camera doing something terrible to Timothy. If the footage of that moment is released, it could jeopardize his career. The way the film navigates this storyline is topsy turvy to say the least, but the way it closes out is surprisingly satisfying and carries some emotional weight for both Kelly and Galligan. “Jay Kelly” is some ways a comedy, some ways a drama, but those two genres mesh together to make something special. It is a fascinating character study and is likely to stand out in several regards this awards season.

In the end, “Jay Kelly” rules. I need time to marinate as to whether I like this more than “A House of Dynamite” but of the five Netflix films I have watched this year, “Happy Gilmore 2” included, “Jay Kelly” is easily my favorite. “Jay Kelly” showcases some of the finest displays of talent in any film released in 2025. Whether it is George Clooney in front of the camera or Noah Baumbach behind it. I am going to give “Jay Kelly” an 8/10.

“Jay Kelly” is now playing in select theaters and is also available on Netflix to all subscribers.

Thanks for reading this review! My next review is going to be for “Bugonia.” Stay tuned! Also coming soon, I will be sharing my thoughts on “No Other Choice,” “Fackham Hall,” “Scarlet,” “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 “Jay Kelly?” What did you think about it? Or, what is your favorite Netflix release this year? Heck, I’ll count TV. Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

Wonka (2023): A Sweet But Tired Prequel Whose Strength Comes from Old Tricks

Posted on by Jack Drees

“Wonka” is directed by Paul King (Paddington, Space Force) and stars Timothée Chalamet (Dune, Call Me by Your Name), Calah Lane (This Is Us, Kidding), Keegan-Michael Key (Toy Story 4, Keanu), Paterson Joseph (Timeless, Peep Show), Matt Lucas (Come Fly with Me, Little Britain), Matthew Baynton (Ghosts, The Split), Sally Hawkins (Godzilla, The Shape of Water), Rowan Atkinson (Johnny English, The Lion King), Jim Carter (The Good Liar, Downton Abbey), Olivia Colman (The Favourite, The Mitchells vs. the Machines), and Hugh Grant (Four Weddings and a Funeral, Bridget Joneses Diary). This film is about a young Willy Wonka who tries to open a chocolate shop in the hopes of making his dreams a successful reality. He must also deal with the greed of a chocolate cartel that looms over him.

I absolutely adore “Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory.” When I was seven years old, I would watch that film almost every other night. I was equally as fascinated by some of Roald Dahl’s books, “Charlie and the Chocolate Factory” included. And if you all must know, I did watch the Tim Burton “Charlie and the Chocolate Factory” and while many of you will probably spew pitchforks at me, I do not just like the film, I kind of love it. It is simmered with the dark vibes of Wonka himself in every scene. Danny Elfman’s score is a banger. I really liked Freddie Highmore as Charlie. Johnny Depp as Willy Wonka leaves a little to be desired though, that’s the one big downside. Both films, especially the latter, make me want to stuff my face in chocolate. That’s how good those films are.

Thus far, we have had a couple of “Wonka” features that I tended to enjoy, so when I heard they were doing this new one with Timothée Chalamet, I was onboard. He is one of the best young talents working today. He has range. He has a natural look to him. So I was curious to see what he can do in a film like this. The great news is that Chalamet slays in his performance. As far as the Wonka character goes, he is significantly better than Johnny Depp. He is no Gene Wilder, but one thing to note about these two roles is that they are basically interconnected. This is set long before the events of the original “Chocolate Factory” story and the film does a decent job at making these two interpretations interlink. They don’t feel like the exact same character, but when it comes to a bridge in the gap between these two, it is filled exquisitely. Chalamet’s take on Willy Wonka matches his younger age, upbeat personality, and the dreams that clog his mind. Both Wonkas emit a sense of wonder and joy in their mannerisms, but as I watch Chalamet’s take and think about him, he seems to have more of a heart and significantly more patience than Wilder’s. Credit is due to Paul King as well for his stellar direction, as it felt not only distinctive, but effective enough to allow Chalamet to bring one of the year’s better performances.

Unfortunately, the film is not all pure imagination. In fact, the best parts of the movie to me, are mostly those in reference to nostalgia or things that came before in say “Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory.” Pretty much everything that is new feels like a far cry.

Much like “Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory,” “Wonka” is a musical. And there are callbacks to songs from the 1971 classic. The highlight of the film for me is the new take on the Oompa Loompa songs. They have new lyrics, new visuals, the whole nine yards. I thought those were well done, and it also helps that Hugh Grant sells the Oompa Loompa character to a tee.

The Hugh Grant Oompa Loompa might be my favorite character in the movie partially because of how Grant voices him. There is a certain snark factor to this character that I immediately welcomed. He also allowed for one of the better gags in the film during the second half. It is in the trailer, but having seen it in the film, it worked for me.

But with that Oompa Loompa bit aside, most of the musical numbers in this movie are some of the most forgettable and bland I have seen in ages. These are some of the most uninteresting musical numbers I have come across since 2021’s “Dear Evan Hansen.” As a movie, I liked “Wonka” better, but as a musical, this movie fails. Sure, there are rhymy timey lyrics, a lot of excuses for spectacles, all that jazz. That is what I come to expect in many musicals. But it is not a matter of it being in the movie, it is how it is done in the movie. I just wish the musical bits could have been done a little better.

The best way to describe “Wonka” to someone who has not seen the movie is that it is basically a Saturday morning cartoon come to life. Given the family friendly nature of the film and the musical aspect, that should not come as a surprise. In fact, Roald Dahl’s work, which this film is inspired by, has a very animated feel to it. Unfortunately though, if I were seven years old, I do not think I would be as transfixed by “Wonka” as I would hope to be. Maybe it would be one of those movies like “Attack of the Clones” that I like as a kid but grow up to realize it is not as good as I thought it was. To be honest, it is quite bland, it is a little boring at times. In fact, much like “Dear Evan Hansen,” I feel like the movie forces itself to be a musical at moments where it is better off staying closer to reality.

Sticking with the cartoony vibes, the antagonists of the film, specifically the chocolate cartel, feel rather mustache twirly. The movie does a terrible job at making these three look intimidating. The movie asks me to see them as bad people. And yes, objectively they are, but it is a matter of execution. There is almost no word I could use to describe this cartel other than unamusing. If anything, going back to the idea of “Wonka” basically being a live action cartoon, I theorize this film would be a lot better if they just went for the cartoon route and just animated it from start to finish. Heck, the musical scenes would pop more. The characters would come off as more appealing. In fact, many of the supporting characters like Bleacher (Tom Davis) and Mrs. Scrubbit (Olivia Colman) feel like they would lend themselves better to that style. If I had my way, I almost would want to see a 2D style animated movie set in this universe. I could imagine enormous potential with that concept. Unfortunately though, I don’t know how it would do at the box office, it would probably be a lot harder to market. But if word of mouth is good, maybe it would be worthwhile.

But if I have to be honest, the dialogue is unmemorable, the humor is metza metza, and the only performances in the movie I am going to fondly remember just so happen to be Timothee Chalamet as Willy Wonka and Calah Lane’s charming portrayal of Noodle. Both of those actors are the highlights of the film. They don’t always have the best chemistry, but going back to the dialogue, I am sure if I liked the dialogue better, maybe their chemistry would have worked better. Both actors seem to have done their best with the material handed to them. And as far as I am concerned, I have done my best on getting through this movie to call it one of the most average watches of the year.

In the end, “Wonka” was quite disappointing. The “Charlie and the Chocolate Factory” property was a big part of my childhood. Unfortunately this latest addition to it is nowhere near as magical or scrumdiddlyumptious. When I watched the 1971 and 2005 Roald Dahl book adaptations, it made me want to eat chocolate afterwards. I was a kid in a candy store. This latest prequel made me feel like an old man getting ready for my latest shouting event directed at a cloud. Paul King likely put his heart and soul into this project, but it unfortunately resulted in something that was poorly paced, uneven, and barely watchable. There are better movies to watch at the cinema this holiday season, or you can just stay at home and watch the other films this property has delivered over the years. I would recommend those over this one. I am going to give “Wonka” a 5/10.

Also, we have had two adaptations of “Charlie and the Chocolate Factory,” some other random takes on the property over the years, this prequel, and yet I have not seen a single “Charlie and the Great Glass Elevator” movie. Life is funny, isn’t it? Then again, having read both the “Charlie and the Chocolate Factory” books, the original appears more cinematic as it progresses, but that’s probably just the way I see it for now.

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

Thanks for reading this review! My next review is going to be for Illumination’s “Migration.” Also coming soon, I will have reviews for “Aquaman and the Lost Kingdom” and “Poor Things.” 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 “Wonka?” What did you think about it? Or, what is your favorite “Willy Wonka” or “Charlie and the Chocolate Factory” movie? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

Barbie (2023): A Pink, Vivid Trip Through a Life in Plastic

Posted on by Jack Drees

“Barbie” is directed by Greta Gerwig (Little Women, Lady Bird) and stars Margot Robbie (Suicide Squad, The Wolf of Wall Street), Ryan Gosling (Blade Runner 2049, La La Land), America Ferrera (How to Train Your Dragon, Superstore), Kate McKinnon (Saturday Night Live, Yesterday), Issa Rae (The Lovebirds, The Hate U Give), Rhea Perlman (Canadian Bacon, Poms) and Will Ferrell (Step Brothers, Elf). This film is about a Barbie doll (Robbie) who suddenly suffers a crisis that turns her whole world upside down.

If you asked me how excited I was when I heard they were making a “Barbie” movie, the answer probably would have been somewhere around zero. I had no excitement whatsoever. Though once I heard Margot Robbie would be playing the lead role, that excitement boosted up a bit. She has continued to boost her profile as an actress, even if her movies end up being either not the best in terms of quality or box office. When it comes to looks, I do not think there is another actress that would match Robbie when it comes to playing a Barbie doll. Obviously, this movie has other Barbies, and it has multiple Kens. But when it comes to actors who look like a Barbie doll, Robbie is the first person I would have thought of then, and after seeing this movie, my thoughts have not changed.

But there is more to a movie than what is in front of the camera, what REALLY got me excited, happens to be some of the people working behind the scenes. This film is directed by Greta Gerwig, who also helmed the incredible “Lady Bird,” a near-perfect coming of age flick. She also directed the 2019 adaptation of “Little Women,” which despite some solid filmmaking, only barely captivated me as a viewer. Despite a decent screenplay, I found the movie to be poorly paced. It was not my cup of tea. But my thoughts do not change the fact that Gerwig stands as one of Hollywood’s most prominent filmmakers today, and I was excited to see her not only direct, but also write “Barbie.” Alongside her is her partner, Noah Baumbach, a talented mind on his own. He wrote and directed “Marriage Story,” which broke me by the end of it. Naturally, the writers for this film were a dream team. Once I heard about all of this, I had gone from being less than excited, to outright looking forward to what this film could deliver.

That said, did it deliver?

I would say it did. Unfortunately though, depending on how you slice it, I do not think it is one of the year’s best films.

Now do not get me wrong, I said I enjoyed the film. Very much in fact. But I have my problems with it. I will address them right away. My biggest problem with the film is that the screenplay, as much as I admired the ideas behind it, occasionally spends too much time over embellishing certain things. Movies are at their core, visual. And honestly, “Barbie” has a screenplay that is quite good, but honestly makes me wonder if it would have been better had it been made into say a book. The movie is narrated by Helen Mirren, who does a good job with the narration given to her, but I feel like every time I hear the narration or see particular scenes play out, I wonder if it would have been more fun to read than watch. A major rule of filmmaking is to show, not tell. The movie looks dazzling and the dialogue is great for the most part, but I will not deny that when it comes to the film’s morals and lessons, they feel more as if they are told than shown sometimes. And I am not saying the movie is as some people would call certain things for some reason, “woke.” I think the movie has a positive message behind it, especially for women. Honestly, when it comes to women empowerment, it is handled much better here than it was in say the 2016 “Ghostbusters,” which continues to stand as one of the worst blockbusters I have ever seen.

Although on that topic, the movie may appear to present itself as a pro-feminist narrative, and in a way, it is. That is not a bad thing, that idea is handled decently throughout the film. But in reality, if anything, I think the film is a cautionary tale for anyone, no matter their gender or identity, to avoid taking too much power for themselves. Because while it may appear great for that side, there will always be someone else that potentially gets hurt. The way this movie handles its down with the patriarchy angle is one that more or less comes off as women asking those in power, “How would you like it if we did this sort of thing to you?” “Barbie” is a movie that prominently features multiple extremes and shows the problem with each one. The way the movie goes about doing so is brilliantly executed.

Despite its flaws, “Barbie” is a smart, funny, colorful film. It is nowhere near my pick to win Best Picture this year, but it is quite entertaining. Greta Gerwig and Noah Baumbach have crafted a number of excellent lines, a couple of which have already become meme-worthy. I have heard many people who saw the film before me say that “Barbie” is not going to be the kind of film one would imagine it to be. I knew that from the beginning. But even I was a little surprised as to where this movie ended up going. The film is undoubtedly creative and fleshes out not just its lead character, but also does a great job with supporting roles such as Ryan Gosling’s Ken.

Speaking of excellent casting, I am going to say the same thing I said about Margot Robbie. When it comes to the idea of who should a play a Ken doll, Ryan Gosling, I am not joking, was most likely the first actor that would have popped in my head several years ago. And despite this film being an expensive blockbuster, he does not phone it in. From what I have seen, I could tell Gosling not only embraced the role of Ken on set, but he looked like he was having a lot of fun with the role. After seeing this movie, I cannot imagine anyone else playing his character. I never thought I would say this, Ryan Gosling deserves an Oscar nomination for his efforts here. He knocks this role out of the park. He completely transforms himself here and it is glorious to see.

Not only does Ryan Gosling give, and I still cannot believe I am saying this, an Academy Award-level performance, I would have to say his song, “I’m Just Ken,” which has been all the rage for the past month, is a bop. Again, the Oscars are not until next year, but if they were tomorrow, Gosling’s performances as both an actor and a singer would be worth considering for the win.

The screen does not just lend itself to these actors giving their all. It also allows for some superb costumes, ferociously neat use of the color pink, and some utterly pristine production design. This film looks like a large toy set come to life. At times, it looks like something out of a dream. I will also say the segments set in our world do not look half bad either, but I will not deny that almost anything you will see on Barbieland qualifies for maybe my favorite set design of 2023. A lot of work definitely went into making these sets and the results are pleasing to the eye.

Much like “Oppenheimer,” which I saw before “Barbie” for those curious as to how I handled my Barbenheimer game plan, “Barbie” has a memorable final scene, particularly because of how they handle the dialogue. To give away the last line of the movie would mean I have to dive into spoilers for the two people who have yet to see it, but all I will say that the line stands amongst the funniest I have heard this year.

If I have any other complaints in the movie, it would be that Will Ferrell, despite his best efforts, came off as one of the weaker parts of the movie’s large ensemble. Will Ferrell is funny, and I have seen him be funny. But his shtick usually works in other stuff. He has one or two decent moments as the CEO of Mattel, though it is not enough to call him a highlight.

The rest of the cast however, for the most part, is perfect. If you told me a few months ago the SAG Awards would nominate the cast of “Barbie” for a Best Ensemble award, I would have appreciated the names on the list, but I would have asked if an acorn fell on your head. If you told me that today, I would buy your claim. The ensemble of “Barbie” gives it their all. I do not know if they will end up being the best cast of the year, but they are a contender, alongside “Oppenheimer,” to be the best cast of the summer. While this movie may not be my favorite this summer, I do not regret seeing it. I had a good time with it. It might be a one time watch for me, but the one time was a pleasant viewing experience.

In the end, “Barbie” is exactly what the marketing said it would be. The movie is for people who love “Barbie” as much as the people who hate it. I was never the target demographic for this movie, but that does not mean I did not have a great time with it. Margot Robbie kills it in the lead role. Ryan Gosling gives one of the best supporting performances I have seen all year. America Ferrera was also quite good. Simu Liu is another standout. I was looking forward to “Barbie,” but even I was delightfully surprised by how it was executed. This is not Greta Gerwig’s best work, but it is still a polished, well shot, well made film that was worth seeing. I am going to give “Barbie” a 7/10.

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

Thanks for reading this review! Also stay tuned for my reviews for “Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles: Mutant Mayhem,” “Talk to Me,” “Blue Beetle,” “Strays,” and “Gran Turismo.” That’s undeniably a lot of movies, and I will have my thoughts on them soon! If you want to see this and more from Scene Before, follow the blog either with an email or WordPress account! Also, check out the official Facebook page! I want to know, did you see “Barbie?” What did you think about it? Or, what is a toy that you would like to see adapted the big screen? If Mattel wants to take this business further, I would love to see what they could do with “Hot Wheels.” Seeing customized cars come to life would be rather magnificent if you asked me. Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

Once Upon a Time in Hollywood (2019): There Lived an Actor and His Stunt Double

Posted on by Jack Drees

“Once Upon a Time in Hollywood” is directed by Quentin Tarantino (Pulp Fiction, Django Unchained) and stars Leonardo DiCaprio (Inception, Titanic), Brad Pitt (World War Z, Allied), Margot Robbie (Suicide Squad, The Wolf of Wall Street), Emile Hirsch (Into the Wild, Speed Racer), Margaret Qualley (The Leftovers, Death Note), Timothy Olyphant (Santa Clarita Diet, Live Free or Die Hard), Austin Butler (Switched at Birth, Arrow), Dakota Fanning (Coraline, The Twilight Saga: New Moon), Bruce Dern (The Hateful Eight, The ‘Burbs), and Al Pacino (Scent of a Woman, Heat). This film takes place in Hollywood around the time of the Manson murders during 1969. The story focuses on the dynamic duo of the characters played by Leonardo DiCaprio (Rick Dalton) and Brad Pitt (Cliff Booth). Dalton is an actor and Booth is Dalton’s stunt double. Together, they have a hunger for fame and fortune as the Golden Age of Hollywood comes to a close.

If you have been following this blog in recent weeks, you may have gotten the implication that I have just recently introduced myself to the masterful works of Quentin Tarantino, a director known for his quirky style, gritty scripts, and his enthusiasm to deliver a rather nostalgic vibe to his films. And this film is no exception. It is shot using 35mm film, it takes place in 1969, and it is designed to be presented as a love letter to ancient Hollywood. It has callbacks to real life Hollywood figures including Roman Polanski, Bruce Lee, James Stacy, and Sharon Tate. There are tons of throwback cars that can be seen that truly highlight the automobile culture of California that seems to continue to exist today. It kind of reminded me of “Amercian Graffiti” a little bit.

My excitement for this film was through the roof as soon as the tickets went on sale. I called my dad, he and I agreed to go on opening Thursday, I picked to go to the 7:30 show at the Somerville Theatre, which if you are not from Massachusetts, it is a 100 year old theatre that has a few screens, but one of them is in a grand auditorium that shows a lot of event-type films. I was there last year for the 70mm film festival, more specifically, for when they showed John Carpenter’s “The Thing.” It was my second time watching the film, and the atmosphere was turned up to an 11 when it came to how lively the crowd happened to be. I thought we were going to get a few people to show up for this film, because let’s face it, “The Lion King” is out right now, everyone’s going to see that, and unlike “The Thing,” “Once Upon a Time in Hollywood” was playing for more than one night. Plus, it didn’t have reserved or reclined seating. People seem to flock to those two things nowadays.

And I’ll let you in on a little something about “Once Upon a Time in Hollywood.” It’s the single best movie experience I had this year. Yes, better than “Endgame.” The atmosphere was almost dead during “Endgame,” there are several moments in this movie where people would shout, yell, laugh, applaud, it felt like I went to the world premiere of a “Star Wars” film. It was the very definition of exhilerating! The theater might have been sold out, if not super close to being sold out. I got to chat to a guy in the row in front of me about Tarantino films, there was a lovely lady I got to talk to about his work and other people’s films. This was clearly going to be an experience to remember. OK… maybe this has to do with the atmosphere of the film. But how was the movie you ask? F*cking nuts! It’s a special kind of awesome! I mean, could you expect anything less from Tarantino? This is the fourth movie I have seen from him, and this is probably my 2nd favorite. This film is full of excellent scenes with great characters, lines of dialogue that made me laugh and cheer, and fantastic setpieces.

For those of you who don’t know, part of the production of this movie involved transforming Hollywood as if it were presented in the 1960s, and I think the movie did a really good job with it. All of the neon lights shining everywhere and the plethora of signs set the mood, I dug the driving scenes that really had that flair of fun attached to it, and I felt immersed into the world that happened to be presented almost to the point that I imagined myself as a part of it, and I think from watching “Pulp Fiction” and this film, that is something that I think Tarantino can do very well. And this may be a big reason why I enjoyed this film so much. No matter what movie I have seen from Tarantino so far, the appropriate vibe is automatically set. But I feel that Tarantino, from what I have seen so far, has done a better job with his films when they are slightly more grounded in reality. Even though I saw “The Hateful Eight” and there can be a definite argument that that film grounds itself in reality a little bit, it doesn’t really have characters that I can latch onto. The characters in “Once Upon a Time in Hollywood” feel raw, they feel like people I would probably run into at one point in my life. Maybe I’m biased since this takes place in Hollywood and I am an aspiring filmmaker and I can picture myself working with people who are similar in some ways to these characters, but my case still stands. “The Hateful Eight” has characters that at times are interesting, but for one reason or another, I just can’t relate to all of them.

And this is why I really enjoyed the main characters of the film, Rick Dalton and Cliff Booth. The two legitimately feel like a best friend pair, and seeing a number of scenes with the two together happened to be entertaining. Whether they were working or hanging out, they just made the movie worth watching. If I had to be honest, when it comes to acting, it’s almost difficult declaring whether DiCaprio or Pitt had the better performance because for one thing they’re both great actors. Not to mention, when you put the two together, they have the perfect recipe for a friendship. Plus, it kind of makes sense since in the movie Booth has to emulate Dalton in productions together, so in a way they have to act like they’re the same person. I’m not saying they are in real life. Both have their individual characteristics and storylines and they hypnotized me. I’ll also point out that the proper execution and quirkiness of said storylines are part of why I would want to go see this in the theater a second time.

And you want to know the best part about this movie? I can’t speak for everybody, but pretty much the entire theater, and this is a lot of people, happened to be dying laughing. This is why I enjoy going to movies with crowds, not to mention in cities (which I did technically for this film) because recent experiences have shown that my urban movie experiences (mainly during early access screenings) have usually gotten better reactions than ones I’d traditionally experience elsewhere. It felt like I was part of the worldwide Tarantino cult, they just accepted me after introducing me to their rituals, and we all came together for an experience of a lifetime.

As for myself, I am kind of in an unfortunate position because I have been exposed to tons of content, and as much as I enjoy watching certain comedies, I often feel like I have “seen it all” or seen enough to know what to expect. Here, I was laughing through a number of scenes, I was appreciating a lot of the dialogue that has been uttered, and it never felt like the movie lost its groove. It was one interesting moment after another. And this all builds up to the big. F*cking. Climax of a lifetime! It is quite literally a Tarantinogasm of super f*cked-up awesomeness on a stick! Is it the best climax or ending in movie history? No, it’s not, but it is by far one of the wildest. I cannot recall the last time, or at least the last recent time, that I laughed as hard as I did during this climax with all the s*it that was going down. I cannot go into it, but the climax alone is worth the price of admission, everything else feels like an appetizer. I, like pretty much everyone else in the world, saw “Avengers: Endgame” this year, and I thought the climax to that, especially as a geek, was fantastic. This ending, to me, wasn’t fantastic. It was bloody phenomenal!

And by the way, speaking of movies I saw this year, one of my other highlights happens to be “John Wick: Chapter 3.” That franchise, as you may know, has a lot of emphasis put on dogs, and the most recent installment manages to continue highlighting their importance to everything that’s going on. In my review for that film, I said it had my favorite dog-related scene of the year. That thought has since changed because “Once Upon a Time in Hollywood” has a scene that I really cannot go into involving a dog. If you have seen the movie, you may know what I am talking about. It’s almost out of left field in the best possible way. Talking about it feels like a sin because it’s something I really want to do, but it feels wrong because, well in this case, spoilers could flood out of my mouth.

Just… See this movie, my gosh it’s f*cking ride.

I will say though…

The film is not perfect.

Yes, I have raved about this movie to death. Both in person and on here, but there is one single, solitary flaw that I have with the film.

And to my disappointment, it kind of involves Margot Robbie’s character of Sharon Tate, because despite how she may have cool scenes, and how she has a relation to one of the film’s characters who is mentioned by name, she almost had no real part in this movie, or at least one that contributes to the bigger picture of what is happening. And I will admit, it was sad to see her in this film after realizing she is watching the last film she will be alive to see herself in. But even with that, her character could have had more depth to her. She didn’t feel lifeless, Robbie portrayed the character very well, and she was charming. Kind of like how in “Suicide Squad,” the movie itself wasn’t the greatest, but Robbie did an excellent job portraying Harley Quinn. I’d probably have to watch the movie again to decide whether or not this storyline was necessary because there is a part of me that does think it is compelling and is a part of this old Hollywood love letter, but also begs to question how needed it really is.

Nevertheless, the movie is still an excitement bomb. It is still one of my favorite movies of the year, and I would INSTANTLY go back to the theater and watch this film again because I saw this film with my dad, we couldn’t stop talking about it on the way home, and he made an interesting comment. He was laughing so hard that he must have missed something. When your film is good enough to possibly allow that to happen, a repeat viewing is inevitable. Will I go back and see the film one more time? Hopefully, but only time will tell. And if I do, I will be really damn excited.

In the end, the hype is real for “Once Upon a Time in Hollywood.” Tarantino once again presents himself as the cinematic mastermind he has always been made out to be. The film utilizes a lot of practical effects to turn Hollywood back fifty years, to say the acting is solid is an understatement, and there are several scenes I will be looking forward to viewing once I see this movie again, because it is absolutely phenomenal. And again, the Sharon Tate thing, I liked certain scenes she was in, but her character almost felt tacked on. I could grow in appreciation for her. After all she’s played by Margot Robbie, who is one of the most beautiful women working in film right now, so who knows? This is not to say she can’t act, because again, she was charming. And there are several films that I have seen this year that are funny. A couple of examples include “Long Shot” and “Fighting with My Family.” But when it comes to comedic timing and writing, this film is most likely going to be the absolute best we are going to get this year in terms of comedy. Between the awesome and brilliantly written final act, the investing opening scenes where we get to know our lovely main duo, and a gag involving dog food, there is so much to enjoy in this one film. I cannot wait to talk more about this film with other people and I cannot wait for this film to come out on Blu-ray. I’m going to give “Once Upon a Time in Hollywood” a very high 9/10. I have a feeling, and it’s just a feeling for now, depending on replay value and how I feel about certain aspects of this film over time, this could increase to a 10. I’m not sure, but this was one of the best looking films of the year, one of the most well shot movies of the year, one of the most interestingly written scripts of the year despite my flak given to Sharon Tate, and one of the most compelling ensembles of the year. But seriously, Tarantino, you are a god and we do not deserve you. Thank you for this orgasmic movie! And if it means anything, I’m pretty sure this has to be the best “9” movie of the decade so far. So a score change may be possible, who knows?

Thanks for reading this review! I just want to let everyone know that next weekend is the release of the “Fast & Furious” spinoff, “Hobbs and Shaw.” I probably won’t see the film right away because I’m going out of state for a night, but I will likely make a commitment to get my ass in the theater at some point. It is a movie that I am looking forward to simply because it looks absurd for all the right reasons, so once I can see it, I will take that opportunity. Be sure to follow Scene Before either with an email or WordPress account so you can stay tuned for more great content! Do you have a Facebook? Check out my Facebook page! You can get all the latest info from your favorite movie reviewing moron regarding upcoming content, new posts, and more! I want to know, did you see “Once Upon a Time in Hollywood?” What did you think about it? Or, what is your favorite Quentin Tarantino movie? 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!