History

The Smashing Machine (2025): Dwayne Johnson Stars in a Quirky Bore

Posted on by Jack Drees

“The Smashing Machine” is directed by Benny Safdie (Uncut Gems, Good Time) and stars Dwayne Johnson (Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle, Central Intelligence), Emily Blunt (Edge of Tomorrow, The Girl on the Train), Ryan Bader, Bas Rutten (Paul Blart: Mall Cop, Kevin Can Wait), and Oleksandr Usyk. This film is about mixed martial arts fighter Mark Kerr and his life in and outside of the ring.

“The Smashing Machine” is maybe my most anticipated film starring Dwayne Johnson in a long time. I like The Rock, but he is not a thespian. He is beyond charismatic, but I never imagined him potentially holding an Academy Award in his hand. That is until this movie happened. If you are familiar with this film’s director, Benny Safdie, then this may remind you of one of his previous films.

Remember “Uncut Gems?” That film starred Adam Sandler, a talented comedian. However, when it comes to his film roles, he lacks range. The reception of his then recent films like “Pixels” or the “Grown Ups” franchise did not help things either. Having Johnson lead this film results in what one could describe as a departure from his typical fare where he simply plays himself.

This movie has a likable actor leading it, and a solid filmmaker directing it. So my question after seeing it is, “Why did I not enjoy this more?”

Admittedly, I am not much of a sports guy. And I do not know squat about MMA. Maybe that has something to do with it. But I am capable of enjoying other movies about combat sports like “Fighting with My Family,” which interesting enough, literally features The Rock playing himself… Or “Cinderella Man,” an engaging underdog story set during the Great Depression. So, what was missing with this flick? If I were to compare this film with those other two, the first thing that comes to mind is that the lead in this film is not exactly someone I cared for. Both “Fighting with My Family” and “Cinderella Man” have admirable lead characters that I could root for. Even if those films had some cliches, they felt like experiences.

Courtesy of A24 – © A24

Rather than experiencing “The Smashing Machine,” I felt like I was observing it. To my lack of surprise, Dwayne Johnson is excellent as Mark Kerr. It has to be his greatest performance to date and I can see him being nominated for an Oscar this season. But as I watched this character, very rarely was ever able to attach myself to him. The screenplay has the makings of a masterpiece on paper, but the execution sometimes feels flat. The film is based on true events and the story itself is intriguing as a concept, but it does not stick the landing.

That said, Johnson is not the only standout performance in this film. I came for “The Rock,” but you are like me, chances are you will stay for Emily Blunt, who has fantastic chemistry with her on-screen partner. This should not come as too much of a surprise because the two have previously starred alongside each other in Disney’s “Jungle Cruise,” so they probably have a feel for each other’s rhythm. Thankfully, unlike “Jungle Cruise,” “The Smashing Machine” dives more into each star’s chops in conversational, sometimes heavily physical scenes, rather than having them play a small part in a special effects-heavy adventure.

Going to back “Uncut Gems,” if you really enjoyed the style in which that movie was presented, “The Smashing Machine” is not exactly presented in the same manner, but the two projects feel very similar. I say this because both films are not always the most comfortable to watch. When I watched “Uncut Gems” I found the film to be fun and hilarious despite its constant chaos and ridiculous pace. However, fun is not a word I would use to describe “The Smashing Machine.” Sure, like usual, The Rock has charisma, but the story is often serious. Mark Kerr spends quite a bit of time making those around him uncomfortable, and it thereby made me uncomfortable. Both films’ protagonists also have their clear vices, whether its Howard Ratner’s gambling, or Mark Kerr’s substance abuse.

The scores also feel like cousins. I cannot confirm that is a good thing, because this film’s musical score felt very out of place. Personally, I would have preferred something a bit more rock and roll or on the traditional orchestra side. Some of the tunes sound like they belong in a nightclub from another dimension. Overall, it would be inaccurate to call the music in “The Smashing Machine” incompetent, but it feels like it belongs in something much more psychedellic. Maybe it would work if someone were to make a more low budget version of “2001: A Space Odyssey” and shot it in 16mm instead of 65mm.

Speaking of which, much of this film was shot on 16mm film. I cannot say much of “The Smashing Machine” is ingrained in my memory, but I will remember this film because of its vibe. Even during scenes where things are supposed to feel big, the camera often helps bring things down to earth. Never once does this film feel overly explosive. Sometimes it works and lets the film shine in its core character moments. But things do not always work in the rest of the movie.

“The Smashing Machine” barely had an IMAX release, which kind of shocks me. Sure, “One Battle After Another” and “Tron: Ares” came out at similar times, and both are notable films. “One Battle After Another” has prestige and is shot in VistaVision, and “Tron: Ares” is a big budget Disney flick. But “The Smashing Machine” literally contains a scene shot in IMAX, and I know that from behind the scenes info, as well as watching the movie itself. As the film enters its final scene, the aspect ratio changes, even in regular theaters. Traditionally, when an IMAX-shot film changes to its namesake ratio, I find it to be incredibly riveting. But not this time.

Much of the film was shot in 1.85:1, which is close to the traditional 16:9 widescreen seen on most modern programming. To see the film cover my theater screen in this ratio for a majority of the runtime and then suddenly jump to 1.43:1 was completely jarring. Maybe if I watched this film in a proper IMAX I would have felt different, because those screens are designed for scenes like the one at the end of the film. But the transition in my traditional AMC screen made this scene feel less satisfying, and to add another dose of disappointment, less immersive. It is a small thing to point out, and from a character arc perspective, I feel like the film’s technical specs played a part in describing Mark Kerr’s mood at the time. From that point of view, I get why the film was shot and presented the way it was, but it does not change the fact that the on-screen result of all this feels poorly executed.

In the end, “The Smashing Machine” is one of the biggest disappointments of the year for me. I am probably not going to remember much about this movie in the coming months. And that is kind of sad, because this film could have represented something else for me. It could have simply represented a shift in Dwayne Johnson’s career. In the realm of cinema, Johnson is well known as the big, buff, blockbuster guy. Should he stick to that? Judging by how much money this movie made, he might end up doing that. Although, if he wins an Oscar, that could change. “The Smashing Machine” is by no means an incomprehensible mess. But this movie was not for me. Benny Safdie is by no means on my hate list. I cannot wait to see what he can bring to the table as Bowser Jr. in “The Super Mario Galaxy Movie.” That said, this is not his best work. I am going to give “The Smashing Machine” a 4/10.

“The Smashing Machine” is now available to rent or buy on VOD.

Thanks for reading this review! My next review is going to be for a movie I have been looking to talking about for the past four years, “Shelby Oaks,” directed by first time feature director Chris Stuckmann. If that name sounds familiar, then chances are you have seen him through his film reviews on YouTube. Stuckmann played a part in inspiring me to write on this blog, so I look forward to finally talking about this film. Also coming soon, I will be sharing my thoughts on Guillermo del Toro’s “Frankenstein,” “Good Fortune,” and “The Running Man.” If you want to see these reviews and more from Scene Before, follow the blog either with an email or WordPress account! Also, check out the official Facebook page! I want to know, did you see “The Smashing Machine?” What did you think about it? Or, in the spirit of the Safdie brothers, are you looking forward to Josh Safdie’s “Marty Supreme?” The film looks as kinetic as can be and I am here for it. Let me know your thoughts down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

The Lost Bus (2025): Matthew McConaughey Gets Into Gear in This Engaging Disaster Movie

Posted on by Jack Drees

“The Lost Bus” is directed by Paul Greengrass (News of the World, The Bourne Supremacy) and stars Matthew McConaughey (Interstellar, Sing), America Ferrera (Barbie, How to Train Your Dragon), Yul Vazquez (Midnight, Texas, Russian Doll), Ashlie Atkinson (The Gilded Age, Mr. Robot), and Kate Wharton (Matty Paz Is a Noob, The Bold and the Beautiful). Inspired by Lizzie Johnson’s book “Paradise: One Town’s Struggle to Survive an American Wildfire,” this film tells the true story of school bus driver Kevin McKay, whose normal day on the job suddenly turns into an all out mission of rescue and survival when he comes face to face with the deadliest fire in California history.

In my daily life, I use Windows computers and an Android phone. Nevertheless, I am not too much of a scaredy cat to admit that Apple has made its presence known in the film industry. It is not a perfect presence, but I will note that they have a few fine feathers in their cap between their Academy Award Best Picture winner “CODA” as well as this summer’s smash hit “F1: The Movie.” The studio has made top talent a priority, having released projects made by directors like Joseph Kosinski, Martin Scorsese, and Ridley Scott. The end results of these projects had varying degrees of success, but it does not change the fact that these are typically trustworthy names. Another name on that list is “The Bourne Supremacy” director Paul Greengrass.

While I do not hold Paul Greengrass amongst my favorite filmmakers of all time, I will not deny his ability to make a great movie. In fact, one film I remember fondly reviewing was the western “News of the World,” a road film featuring an unlikely duo. I thought the story was captivating and has arguably become more relevant with time.

Finding out about Paul Greengrass’ role behind the camera got me in the door. Love it or hate it, I will admit, his shakycam techniques work here. There are several kinetic shots around the second half that added to the tension and atmosphere of what is ultimately a well done disaster film. While Greengrass may be behind the camera, those in front of it kept me engaged too, most especially stars Matthew McConaughey and America Ferrera.

There are some films that have star power and fail to stand out for any reason other than that. “The Lost Bus” is not one of them, because the film is a scary, exciting ride. I watched this film on the first day of October, and despite “The Lost Bus” not being a horror movie, it honestly set the tone for the month. Few things are scarier than seeing children enter imminent doom, and this film is not short on such nightmare fuel. “The Lost Bus” is based on true events, and while there are parts that definitely feel blown up for the sake of theatricality, the film works so well because of how intense it ended up being. “The Lost Bus” is basically this year’s “Deepwater Horizon.” It is a film revolving around an everyday white dude with black hair and a distinctive flair, who must go beyond the call of duty to save himself and those around him, even as the worst case scenario of a disaster comes to fruition. I do not think the film is as good as “Deepwater Horizon.” “The Lost Bus,” in a sense, takes some time to get going. I would argue that maybe the second half of the film is better than the first. That said, once it gets to said second half, it goes full throttle and never stops.

Matthew McConaughey’s character, Kevin McCay, is beautifully fleshed out, as he should be. We know a lot about him, his family, and the personal problems of his life and career. We see him having trouble maintaining relationships with loved ones, as well as a sense of work-life balance. He comes off as a genuinely likable guy, but one who is noticeably flawed. I also liked getting to know some of McCay’s family members. They all seemed to have lifelike chemistry, which makes sense because some of McConaughey’s real life family, including his son Levi and his mother Kay, have major roles in the film.

The film industry is no stranger to nepotism. It is a concept that has its ups and downs, but if the project works, I do not tend to care as much. That said, I do not have as much of a problem with McConaughey’s son and mother being cast because they perfectly play their roles. While their screentime is not as long as say America Ferrera, who does a great job playing a school teacher trying to make it through the fire, I thought both Levi and Kay McConaughey did a great job. If they were cast in another film down the line, I would be interested in seeing them again.

Unfortunately, with this being an Apple movie, this did not get the most proper of theatrical releases. I was lucky to catch this film while it was playing at my local Showcase Cinema, and I am glad I did not miss out because this film is, to my surprise, super effective with its camerawork and incredibly immersive. I am not the biggest fan of shakycam, but as I hinted previously, it works for this story. I can see some people watching this movie and maybe not being a fan of the way it was shot, but for me, I thought the rapid camera movement put me in the middle of several scenes. It gave me the illusion that there was fire spreading around me rather than watching a group of people simply trying to survive a fire themselves. This film is shot by Pål Ulvik Rokseth, a name I did not know that well, but I was impressed to find out he also filmed a short and chilling IMAX spot that I occasionally caught inside their theaters. I am glad to see he is getting more work.

In certain ways, “The Long Bus” is kind of like “The Long Walk.” Both films present the most basic premise where our characters are in seemingly never-ending danger and they must survive to the end. Only in the case of “The Lost Bus,” this is more of a man vs. nature tale rather than one of man vs. man. Is this film as good as “The Long Walk?” Not really. But that is also a bit of an unfair comparison because I can think of very few films released this year that are. If you want to see a compelling narrative that shows people doing everything they can to protect themselves, protect others, all while dealing with something as dangerous as a wildfire, then “The Lost Bus” may be your jam. The fire itself may be the main event of the film, but the story is surprisingly not short on characterization. Said characterization is probably enhanced by the fact that this film is based on a true story..

In the end, “The Lost Bus” is an engaging tale of survival. Matthew McConaughey and America Ferrera make for an excellent duo. From a visual perspective, this movie spares no expensive between the excellent shaky camerawork and the eye-popping fire effects. There are some liberties taken with this story. One teacher attached to the original tale declined to be involved with this film. However, this tale was beautifully adapted. It is one of those stories that shows the best of humanity. It shows the good people are willing to do in the worst of times. This movie is two hours and nine minutes. Frankly, it feels quite a bit shorter than that. It flies by. Especially in the second half. If you have Apple TV and you have a couple hours to kill, this is a good time. I am going to give “The Lost Bus” a 7/10.

“The Lost Bus” is now playing in select theaters and is available on Apple TV for all subscribers.

Photo Courtesy Warner Bros. Pictures – © Warner Bros. Pictures

Thanks for reading this review! My next review is going to be for “One Battle After Another.” Stay tuned! Also coming soon, I will be sharing my thoughts on “If I Had Legs I’d Kick You,” “Tron: Ares,” “Bone Lake,” “A House of Dynamite,” “The Smashing Machine,” and “Shelby Oaks.” 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 “The Lost Bus?” What did you think about it? Or, what is a film you enjoyed recently that is based on a true story? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

Eden (2024): Ron Howard Presents: Survivor

Posted on by Jack Drees

“Eden” is directed by Ron Howard (A Beautiful Mind, Apollo 13) and stars Jude Law (Sherlock Holmes, Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald), Ana de Armas (Blade Runner 2049, Knives Out), Vanessa Kirby (Mission: Impossible – Fallout, The Fantastic Four: First Steps), Sydney Sweeney (Euphoria, Anyone But You), Daniel Brühl (The Zookeeper’s Wife, The King’s Man), Felix Kammerer (All Quiet on the Western Front, All the Light We Cannot See), Toby Wallace (The Society, Pistol), and Richard Roxborough (Prosper, Moulin Rouge!). This survival film is inspired by true events and is about a group of people who hope to start a new life on an island, only to find that their greatest threat is each other.

Photo by Jasin Boland/Jasin Boland – © Courtesy of Vertical

Ron Howard is one of the most storied figures in Hollywood, from his humble beginnings as an actor on projects like “The Andy Griffith Show, “Happy Days,” and “American Graffiti,” to directing cinematic staples like “Apollo 13” and “A Beautiful Mind.” My question is, where is the hype for “Eden?” That is a serious question. After all, Ron Howard has a prolific resume, the stars of the film are well known, and it is based on a true story.

Instead of there being one answer as to why the hype for “Eden” feels relatively low, I would speculate that it comes down to multiple factors. Part of it could be due to Ron Howard’s more prominent projects being behind him. Also, this is from a lesser known studio, so it could not quite get as big of a push as it could have. And like the commercials or not, one of this film’s stars, Sydney Sweeney, has entered some recent controversy through her ad campaign for American Eagle.

Photo by Jasin Boland/Jasin Boland – © Courtesy of Vertical

We live in crazy times. Who knew we’d live in an era where a Ron Howard film did not sound like a big deal? Granted, I have heard about the making of this film through the internet. But I still wonder how many people have done the same. You also have Jude Law playing a lead role. He is just a small part of this movie’s talented ensemble, because you have three of the most prolific and picturesque actresses all in the same movie. One includes Sydney Sweeney as Margaret Wittner. While she may not have much to offer on the surface, Sweeney plays a surprisingly layered character. I ended up feeling bad for her in ways I did not expect. Ana de Armas is also a standout as Baroness Eloise Bosquet de Wagner Wehrhorn, an over the top actor who lives like every day is a cinematic adventure. Vanessa Kirby is also in the film as Dore Strauch. While she is not my favorite character in the film, she has a commanding presence and owns every line she is given. Every time she is on screen I cannot help but be immersed into each scene with her.

The film has a respectable cast. If I told you Jude Law and Vanessa Kirby were in this film, I would barely scratch the surface for how star-studded this movie is. For the most part, the cast is used wisely, but I will not lie, there are parts of this film that feel surprisingly staged. Granted, like most movies, just about everything here is written on a page. Of course it is staged. But when I watch certain films, there is sometimes an authenticity to a character’s performance that makes the experience riveting. While I find “Manchester by the Sea” to be a smidge overrated, I will not deny that the characters in that film came off as raw due to each actor playing their part to the best of their ability. On top of that, the film’s director did their job by unleashing the best vision they can. I am not an actor, although I have done acting in various short films, and sometimes the performances in “Eden” feel like they are made for a stageplay rather than a movie.

Photo by Jasin Boland/Jasin Boland – © Courtesy of Vertical

The performances could have been toned down a little. This is especially true for Ana de Armas. Yes, I did say she is a standout, but there are select lines where I thought I was watching someone who was trying too hard. Her performance is definitely not an easy one to capture. But at times I watched Ana de Armas and saw her as more of a villain figure on a modern reality competition like “Survivor” rather than a movie based on true events set sometime in the 20th century. Granted, the movie is set with a group of people alone on an island, so of course it is like a reality competition. At times, the cast does a good job with their material, but there is that occasional moment where it feels like the actor thinks they are in a completely different movie than their co-star.

“Eden” is not the year’s most memorable film, but it is one that kept me consistently engaged. It is a film where I liked getting to know the characters, their personalities, and their quirks. At one moment I would be watching a zany business opportunist. Then in another, I am watching a hermit writer trying to figure out what it means to be human. The film weaves in several stories at once, and for the most part, it flows naturally. Some portions of the plot are better than others, but it is hard to find a dull moment throughout the film. In fact, the story flies at a smooth pace. Prior to buying my ticket for this film, I was not aware of the tales it bases itself upon, but it makes for a fascinating narrative. There is only one scene that comes to mind that I found rather disturbing, but the final product does not quite go too over the top when it comes to gore and violence. This is not an easy watch, but it could definitely be more terrifying.

If I have anything else to say, this movie makes me wonder if Sydney Sweeney is going to be typecast sometime in the future. Between this film and “Immaculate,” Sweeney seems to be the current favorite for playing characters who deal with unique pregnancies. She is not horrible in either film, but nevertheless…

Photo by Jasin Boland/Jasin Boland – © Courtesy of Vertical

In the end, “Eden” is not a bad little movie, but it is one that does not have a lot of standout elements. On paper, to call this film intriguing would be an understatement between its cast, crew, and plot. But it is far from the best movie of the year. I cannot speak for every actor in this film, but a couple of the film’s big stars were also in a couple films that came out earlier this year, and I would prefer to watch those a second time over this one. Ana de Armas is much more convincing as an action star in “Ballerina,” and Vanessa Kirby plays a large role in Marvel’s exceptional “The Fantastic Four: First Steps.” I may be biased because I dig my action movies, but I think those films did a much better job at accomplishing their respective goals compared to “Eden.” I cannot wait to watch those films again. They have replay value. I cannot say the same is true with “Eden.” Maybe if I find it on cable I will put it on, but I do not see myself buying the Blu-ray. That is if it is even coming out on Blu-ray at this point. I am going to give “Eden” a 6/10.

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

Thanks for reading this review! My next review is going to be for “Splitsville!” Stay tuned! Also coming soon, I will be sharing my thoughts on “The Long Walk,” “A Big Bold Beautiful Journey,” “Him,” “Eleanor the Great,” and “The Lost Bus.” 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 “Eden?” What did you think about it? Or, what is your favorite Ron Howard movie? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

I’m Still Here (2024): Fernanda Torres Carries This Moving Drama

Posted on by Jack Drees

“I’m Still Here” is directed by Walter Salles (Central Station, The Motorcycle Diaries) and stars Fernanda Torres (Love Me Forever or Never, The House of Sand), Selton Mello (A Dog’s Will, Lisbela and the Prisoner), and Fernanda Montenegro (Sweet Mother, Central Station). This film is based on a memoir of the same name and is about a mother who deals with the forced disappearance of her husband, former politician Rubens Paiva, who opposed Brazil’s military dictatorship.

In an effort to catch all of this year’s Best Picture nominees before the Oscars, I had to find a way to check “I’m Still Here” off my list. One key difference when it comes to this nominee in particular compared to say “Anora” or “Wicked” or “Dune: Part Two” is that I went into this film knowing nothing about it. All that I really knew was that it was a Brazilian movie, the characters speak Portuguese, and it was getting a lot of critical acclaim. I went in completely blind, having barely come across as much as a poster. Safe to say, I did not know what to expect.

Thankfully, I came out of this movie feeling satisfied.

“I’m Still Here” is not an easy watch. Some of my audience might think I say such a thing because this is a film not made in the United States or a film where English is not the primary language used in the dialogue.. That is not my point. Though I can see why those two things could turn some people off upon a first impression. Instead, this film deals with a serious subject matter that I imagine would be tough for some viewers. The film is dramatic, yet grounded at the same time. It is perfectly balanced in its attempt to be both an inviting slice of life story and an engaging political thriller. The film is like life itself. It has its happy moments. It has its sad moments. And in the long run, it is worth seeking out.

One of my favorite things about this film is how it handles the importance of family, especially when you consider the protagonist’s point of view, as well as the many obstacles she must face just to be with them, or do what is best for them. We see her trying to protect them under their respective political landscape, as well as do anything and everything she can to uncover her husband’s whereabouts. The film shows what it means to stay connected even in the darkest of times.

The family itself is well written and decently cast. There is not a single person on the lineup I found to be out of place, and I thought everyone’s personality shone through. Honestly, the entire cast of the film serves their purpose and does a good job. I cannot name a bad apple on the tree. But Fernanda Torres is on another level with her performance here.

There is a reason why Fernanda Torres was nominated for an Academy Award. She is the film’s soul and I cannot see anyone else playing her. Every moment, every line, every facial expression, she sold me. Torres is commanding in every scene. The movie gives her a lot to do and she handles all of her material very well. I have been doing some research online to see what everyone is saying about this film, and just about every other person I am coming across is losing their mind over Torres. I may not be adding anything new to the conversation that has not already been said, but she is easily the best part of the movie.

This film is based on true events. On that note, the story features real life politician Rubens Paiva (left). I do not know a ton about the real events that inspired this film, but I did some research on Paiva following the film and I have to say kudos to whoever cast Selton Mello, because he looks the part. Granted, acting ability is arguably more important, and thankfully, he has that in spades.

One of the reasons why I have come to realize “I’m Still Here” has some of the best collective acting in 2024 cinema is likely because of the way the film was shot. If you know how movie productions tend to work, not every project is shot in chronological order. “I’m Still Here” is an exception to the rule. I think this move paid off, because it allowed the talent to experience the sense of immersion in their story that viewers like I did while watching it unfold.

On that note, “I’m Still Here” is quite an immersive movie. “I’m Still Here” has more in common with a slice of life tale than a large scale epic, but the movie sometimes feels as large as life itself. Whether I was at a family gathering, the beach, or the inside of a home, I felt like I was a part of this film’s world. Such a sentiment is also true for a prison, which does not emit the most pleasant feeling, but every scene in this film, like it or not, had a sense of verisimilitude. The film takes time to showcase the beauty of life, but also keeps things real by reminding people of the extreme obstacles our characters constantly encounter.

At times, this movie is the definition of the idea that life goes on. An integral part of your life may cease to exist, but as long as you are still around, it is up to you to decide how to navigate things going forward. You could remember your past, run from it, choose to reinvent yourself. Sometimes that integral part may leave you in a literal sense, but deep down, it will always be with you.

The movie ends on a satisfying note. The final scene is exquisitely acted and well directed. It also goes to show the power of silence. Filmmaking is a visual medium, and any opportunity that can be taken to let the visuals do the talking allows for great scenes like this one. I will leave the details undisclosed for now and let you see the proper craftsmanship for yourself.

In the end, “I’m Still Here” was kind of a last minute purchase for me. I probably would not have seen this film if it were not for the word of mouth it racked up during this awards season. And I am happy to have added to it. This film is full of great performances, gripping scenes, and solid chemistry amongst its cast. Of course, Fernanda Torres is the standout, but the supporting actors also add quite a bit to the final product. It is not an easy watch, but I think if you can handle the material, this movie could be worth your time. I am going to give “I’m Still Here” a 7/10.

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

Thanks for reading this review! I have reviews on the way for “Riff Raff,” “Nickel Boys,” “Mickey 17,” and “Locked.” Stay tuned!

And coming on March 30th, look forward to the 7th Annual Jack Awards! The most important awards show in the history of movie blogs! Why? Because I said so! This is a reminder that you have the power to vote for this year’s Best Picture! You can do so by clicking this link and choosing one of the ten nominees. And click this link if you want to know what films are nominated for this year’s ceremony! Unfortunately, “I’m Still Here” was not nominated for any awards this year, but if I were to add a sixth candidate for Best Actress, Fernanda Torres would probably earn that spot. It was a very close call. But rules are rules. I did see this movie before announcing the nominations last week, but Torres’ honestly goes to show how great acting has been across the board for several performers over the past year. If you want to see this upcoming show 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 “I’m Still Here?” What did you think about it? Or, what is the saddest film you saw in the past year? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

Elvis & Nixon (2016): Presley Meets the President in This Fun Amazon Studios Film

Posted on by Jack Drees

Hey everyone, Jack Drees here! It is time for the final entry to the Election Days review series! Every year I make an effort to do a weekly series of older releases. This year has been tough to fit one in due to work, travel, life, and so on. But I figured what better time to do a series like this one than during an Election Year in the United States. If you have not read my other reviews in the series so far, be sure to check out my thoughts on “The Campaign,” “W.,” and “On the Basis of Sex.” This week’s review is going to be for the film “Elvis & Nixon.” I have definitely heard of the film before taking on this review series. It came out in 2016, back when Scene Before started. It is one of the earliest films from Amazon Studios, which has now become Amazon MGM Studios. But for whatever reason, I never bothered to check it out. That said, I watched the trailer, I thought looked good, so I thought I would give it a shot. Here are my thoughts on the movie.

“Elvis & Nixon” is directed by Liza Johnson (Dead to Me, Silicon Valley) and stars Michael Shannon (99 Homes, Revolutionary Road), Kevin Spacey (Horrible Bosses, House of Cards), Alex Pettyfer (Endless Love, Magic Mike), Johnny Knoxville (Bad Grandpa, Jackass), Colin Hanks (Orange County, King Kong), Evan Peters (X-Men: Days of Future Past, Invasion), Sky Ferreira (Putty Hill, The Green Inferno), Tracy Letts (Wiener-Dog, Homeland), Tate Donovan (Hercules, Damages), and Ashley Benson (Days of Our Lives, Pretty Little Liars). This film is based on true events and is about a meeting between famed musician Elvis Presley and U.S. President Richard Nixon in 1970, an event that spawned the most requested photograph in the history of the National Archives.

The past couple years have given us some exposure to Elvis Presley on the big screen. Whether it is through “Elvis” in 2022, which I did not enjoy. Or “Priscilla” in 2023, which I thought was one of the best movies of that year. These two films are deep dives into of each of the titular individuals’ lives, but “Elvis & Nixon,” which came out years before both of those films, is a little different. This film specifically focuses on one point in time during Presley’s life, not to mention Richard Nixon’s life. It never strays away from its key event. There are no concert scenes. There’s not much of Elvis’s discography playing in the background. It picks a place in time and refuses to stray away from it. This leads me to some compliments regarding the film. It flies by. Not only because it has a short runtime, but so much fun is packed into said runtime. This film is based on truth, but even with that in mind, it does not mean it is a serious story. Sure, Elvis Presley appears to be motivated to tackle issues he finds to be serious, but the story itself is kind of light. It is literally about two people meeting. Of course, there is other stuff in between, but that is basically the gist.

That said, this also highlights a problem in the film. The film packs a decent amount of material in its short runtime, but I cannot say I was invested in all of it. Some of the threads in the story come off as a bit of an afterthought. It is not that they are boring or do not make sense. But they clearly play second fiddle to the main story. Though to be fair, it would probably be worse if the main story felt like the afterthought. That said, I do wish I were a little more invested in everything else surrounding the nucleus of the plot.

All the actors play their parts well, and despite him being a controversial name now, I even include Kevin Spacey as Richard Nixon in this sentiment. I thought of all the characters in the movie, Spacey’s take on Nixon may have been the biggest standout. He has a commanding voice and admirable presence. He brings a distinctive aura to every scene he is in. His performance definitely fits under a term that I have used previously in the Election Days series, Hollywoodized. There are definitely some exaggerative qualities to it on screen. But it does not change the fact that those qualities fit his character well.

As for Elvis Presley, I thought he was competently played by Michael Shannon. I think he does a good job with his material. Academy Award-worthy? Perhaps not. But he does a good job. While Shannon definitely evokes Presley’s often advertised charisma, I thought he was tamer than I would have expected. Granted, it is fair to say the tale behind this film itself is calm. There is a little more conversation, a little less action, so to speak.

Perhaps my favorite element of “Elvis & Nixon” has to do with Presley’s perspective upon entering the White House. We see the process to get Presley into the building and meet the President is rather complicated, as I imagine it would be for just about anyone else, I have not been to the White House to do such a thing myself. I have never even been to Washington, D.C. period. Crazily enough, I cannot say I ever really imagined what it would be like to meet a sitting U.S. President. But as I watched this movie, it clicked with me. Doing such a thing has to be one of the grandest of privileges. That is the feeling that this movie tends to project while it is set in the White House.

And on that note, perspective is something I think is not just nailed from the view of Presley, but also his fans. This movie has a scene where Elvis enters a room full of women and just about every one of them, whether they choose to display it excessively or not, lose their mind. In fact, we see men doing it too. The only person who we find not to be on the same page with all these people is President Nixon.

This movie has a beginning, middle, and end, like a lot of others do. This movie has a point a to b progression, like a lot of others do. But not every movie can do what “Elvis & Nixon” does because to some degree, it turns nothing into something. If this movie were not based on actual events, that is a description that would immediately come to mind for a movie like this. Again, one of the top goals as far as Nixon’s administration is concerned is to get a picture of the two titular characters, and even something as simple as that becomes complicated.

As someone who did not live in the time of Elvis Presley and Richard Nixon’s peaks in relevancy, I nevertheless can say I was fascinated by what this movie was trying to deliver. That said, I think people who lived during this time will appreciate this movie most because it does a good job at highlighting the prominence of both figures and establishing how mind-blowing it is that these two incredibly famous men ended up crossing paths. But even I, who was born towards the end of the 20th century, recognize the moment this meeting has on our culture. That said, I did not know that the photo behind this film is the most requested in the history of the National Archives. I am not sure how many history classes cover Elvis and Nixon meeting. It is definitely a notable moment in pop culture, but there is a reason why I did not learn about it in school. But this movie, unlike some others based on true events, feels less like a history lesson and more like a fun escape. I laughed quite a few times in this film, there are quite a few gags that are finely executed. If you are looking for something to watch, this movie will do the trick. Is it a masterpiece? No. But it is definitely a solid hour and a half.

In the end, “Elvis & Nixon” definitely has fun putting two notable people of their time in the same room, and results in a movie worth watching at least once. The subplot elements are almost distracting and feel like they are just there to fill an already short runtime, but I would issue a thumbs up to what we got in those 86 minutes including credits. I had a great time watching the movie. Overall, it is light and fluffy, but it does not mean it is not entertaining. The film is not Shakespeare, but definitely a fine time waster. I am going to give “Elvis & Nixon” a 7/10.

“Elvis & Nixon” is now available on DVD, Blu-ray, and on Prime Video for all subscribers.

Thanks for reading this review! I hope you all enjoyed this Election Days series! I have no idea what my next weekly series is going to be, but I do have a few in mind. If I think it is time to do another one, I will share it with you all. Until then, look forward to my reviews for “Here,” “Gladiator II,” “Red One,” “A Real Pain,” “Y2K,” “Juror #2,” and “Wicked.” If you want to see these reviews and more from Scene Before, follow the blog either with an email or WordPress account! Also, check out the official Facebook page! I want to know, did you see “Elvis & Nixon?” What did you think about it? Or, what is your favorite movie associated with Elvis Presley? It can be one where someone plays him, maybe there is a good use of his discography, or one he has been in himself. Personally, I thought “Blade Runner 2049” had a couple memorable, albeit brief, moments featuring the musician through a hologram. Let me know your picks down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

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

Posted on by Jack Drees

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Posted on by Jack Drees

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

W. (2008): No Review Left Behind

Posted on by Jack Drees

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Saturday Night (2024): Some of the Most Stressfully Exciting 90 Minutes in Cinematic History

Posted on by Jack Drees

“Saturday Night” is directed by Jason Reitman (Ghostbusters: Afterlife, Juno) and stars Gabriel LaBelle (Snack Shack, The Fabelmans), Rachel Sennott (Bottoms, Bodies Bodies Bodies), Cory Michael Smith (Call Jane, 1985), Ella Hunt (Dickinson, Cold Feet), Dylan O’Brien (Teen Wolf, The Maze Runner), Emily Fairn (Mary & George, The Responder), Matt Wood (Law & Order: Special Victims Unit, Difficult People), Lamorne Harris (Call Me Kat, New Girl), Kim Matula (LA to Vegas, The Bold and the Beautiful), Finn Wolfhard (It, Stranger Things), Nicolaus Braun (Zola, Succession), Cooper Hoffman (Licorice Pizza, Wildcat), Andrew Barth Feldman (No Hard Feelings, A Tourist’s Guide to Love), Kaia Gerber (Bottoms, American Horror Stories), Tommy Dewey (Casual, The Mindy Project), Willem Dafoe (Spider-Man, The Lighthouse), Matthew Rhys (A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood, The Post), and JK Simmons (Spider-/Man, Whiplash). This film is a showcase of the chaotic 90 minutes leading up to the production of the first episode of “Saturday Night Live.”

People look at “Saturday Night Live” today with a mix of opinions. Of course, when a television series of its notability has been around for several decades, chances are that not everyone is going to have the same thoughts on it, and there may be moments some find to be better than others. I often find myself going back and watching the series’ gutbusting “Celebrity Jeopardy!” bits with Norm MacDonald as Burt Reynolds and Darrell Hammond as Sean Connery. Those sketches are comedy gold and I find myself quoting it on a regular basis. I have even used one of those bits as part of my Film Improvements segment during the 5th Jack Awards. But the movie “Saturday Night” dives into a time long before that when the show had its humble beginnings. The film has a star-studded cast including Gabriel LaBelle as Lorne Michaels, Cory Michael Smith as Chevy Chase, and Rachel Sennott as Rosie Shuster just to name a few people. Audiences of all kinds know the names of these characters today, but this movie is kind of an underdog story about a bunch of nobodies. One of the most positive things I can say about “Saturday Night” is that it easily gets me to root for its cast to do anything and everything they can just to make it on the air by 11:30. The film definitely has a Hollywoodized feel to it at times, but I think it works because some of the hyped up situations definitely add to the entertainment of everything on screen.

For those who do not know, since 2023 I have worked in live television, particularly local news. So while I might say the film “Broadcast News” is sometimes more specifically reflective of my work environment, even though that movie came out years before I was born, “Saturday Night” also does a great job at encapsulating the vibe of working in a live production. This film dives into the first episode of “Saturday Night Live,” but I must say as someone who has been working in local news for almost a couple years now, even when the formula may be familiar, there have been times that feel as if we are making a live broadcast for the first time. After all, there is so much that has to be done for several shows in a single streak of hours. Therefore, something down the line is bound to screw itself up. It is unavoidable. Sometimes it is my fault. Sometimes it is someone else’s bad. Sometimes it is a technical problem. But one thing I will note about my job is that we are lucky that we have a schedule that is set in stone. Sure, not everything goes right, but there is a lot that does. We have a history of shows behind us, and planned broadcasts for the hours ahead. We have a good team of people who all do their job as best as they can and offer excellent results. But our crew in “Saturday Night” learns that they are potentially going to be sidelined by a rerun for “The Tonight Show Starring Johnny Carson.” They might not even have a first broadcast.

There are so many things that this crew has to deal with in just a span of 90 minutes… Making sure the entire cast is ready to go. Convincing John Belushi to tolerate being in costume. Figuring out what to cut for time. Standing outside the building and trying to get people to join a live studio audience. Trying to sell the show to various affiliates. This entire film is a stress streak from start to finish. It is anxiety-inducing. The movie contains a moment or two that allow the audience audience to breathe. There are slower moments in the movie, but even in those scenes there is a sense of everlasting tension. There is a wonder if certain wrongs will be made right.

I mentioned this film has a star-studded cast, so chances are you are going to recognize at least one name on the list. But my favorite performance in the film is from Cory Michael Smith as Chevy Chase. From the moment I witnessed this son of a gun fall to the floor, get back up, and so casually utter the words, “Sorry, tripped over my penis,” I knew we were in for something special. Even though he has a legacy, I have heard about some of the controversy surrounding Chase, such as when he was on “Community.” Having heard about that almost makes this movie, and this particular performance, just a tad funnier. Although that makes me wonder how this movie will sit with certain people, because it reminds me of how hyper-obsessively knowing about certain comic book movie news stories over the years made me appreciate “Deadpool & Wolverine” in a way that I imagine some people would not. It makes me question how well the movie will age.

Also, Gabriel LaBelle as Lorne Michaels is a superb pick. This is a young, fresh actor who I would guess not everybody knows at this point, and I think some people will still not know a few months later, but I hope this review helps a soul or two get to know him, because he is talented. Michaels is the center of this rollercoaster of a film, and you can tell that in every single frame, he is nervous about whatever crazy derailment could come up. And those nerves rubbed off on me. This is a young guy with a lot of potential. But the thing about potential is that not everyone has seen it. Even though this is based on events that happened and I had an idea of how things in this movie would go, I was rooting for Michaels and crew to unleash said potential by the end of the film.

I also want to bring up the ending of the film. It is one of those endings that had me perplexed, yet satisfied. Because it comes out of nowhere, but it also closes on a note where anything after it is practically bonus content. The main story finishes by the time we get to said ending, but it comes at me like a bullet. It feels jarring. Given time to marinate though, I love what they did with the ending. I will not go into detail for those wanting to see the movie, but between the timing of the dialogue and the credits music, I am having a hard time imagining this movie capping things off better than it did. On the note of the music though, Jon Batiste, who actually has some recent variety TV experience as the bandleader on “The Late Show with Stephen Colbert” for seven years, does the score for “Saturday Night,” and it is perfect. At times it is subtle, but it is almost a character of its own in the film. Just thinking about parts of it gives me chills and nerves.

One good question to ask is whether this movie is a good watch for people who for whatever reason, have not seen an episode or sketch from “Saturday Night Live.” I think this film will definitely land harder for those who have seen some of the sketches, some of the episodes. That is for sure. But I think those who have not seen “Saturday Night Live” can still get plenty of laughs out of this film. Because if you have not picked it up already, this is not “Saturday Night Live” in movie form. It is not like “Jackass” or “Impractical Jokers,” two shows starring real people that end up taking their show’s format and converting it into a feature film. This is not this generation’s version of “Movie 43” so to speak… This is instead a buildup into how “Saturday Night Live” became what it is. This is, again, an underdog story, and I think a lot of people can appreciate those. And of course, there’s laughs, there’s tension, there’s a lot of big stars. Heck, JK Simmons makes an appearance in this movie, which I was not expecting at all. And I really was not expecting him to be cast in the kind of role in which he was picked to play. At one point he is just dancing like a moron, and he plays it up so well that I am laughing not because of the physical movements, but the guy doing said physical movements. I often pick apart animated movies nowadays for an overreliance on star power, but this is a movie that uses star power like few others I have seen recently, and I would say it does a great job with it. The cast is stacked and everyone plays their part to a T.

Maybe you know the names Kaia Gerber or Willem Dafoe or Dylan O’Brien. But what makes this movie is not the stars, it is the compelling narrative, ferocious pace, and laugh out loud funny comedy that honestly could match the feeling of a watching a spectacular “Saturday Night Live” episode at home on your couch or on your bed.

In the end, “Saturday Night” is an utter delight. I absolutely loved this movie. Granted, I am a bit biased because I work in live television so it kind of reminded me of the environment in which find myself on a regular basis. These are for two very different programs, but when putting two and two together, I found some commonalities. This was a movie that from scene one takes you on a ride, and I did not want it to end. That said, when it did end, I was satisfied and infatuated with what I saw. Does it sometimes feel hyperbolic in its execution? Perhaps. That’s probably my biggest critique, but the movie still works with that feeling intact sometimes. “Saturday Night” has the vibe, filmmaking style, and comedic flair of “The Disaster Artist,” but it uses those ideas and presents them in a movie with the pacing of “Speed” starring Keanu Reeves. I am going to give “Saturday Night” a 9/10.

For those sticking around, I wanted to end on this note because what I am about to say was intended as a part of the review, but it ultimately become a bit of a tangent. Nevertheless, I am proud of it. So I kept it here for you all to read.

This film is led by Gabriel LaBelle, who is still in the early days of his career, but he is proving himself to be a fine talent. But I am impressed by his luck, if you can call it that, in terms of his resume. Because a couple years ago he starred as the lead of “The Fabelmans,” which is an excellent movie by the way. For those who did not see the movie, it is directed by Steven Spielberg and is loosely based on his life. In that film’s case, LaBelle ends up playing a version if you will of Spielberg in his youth. Now, he has gone from playing one of the most iconic filmmakers of all time to playing perhaps one of the most impactful TV creators of all time. I would not imagine people today know Lorne Michaels like they know the name Steven Spielberg, but it does not change the fact that Lorne Michaels has become one of variety TV’s staples over the years. Whatever your definition of variety TV is, I will leave that up to you. However, to this day, “Saturday Night Live” is still doing weekly episodes. NBC’s “Late Night” format is still kicking with Seth Meyers at this point, who I would say is doing a very good job. I particularly think his “A Closer Look” segments are well timed and always end on a high note. It makes me wonder what is next for LaBelle. Is he going to take on notable game show hosts next and play young Alex Trebek? I think he’d do an okay job with that. They’re both Canadian! Just an idea! Heck, he could probably play Bob Eubanks! Peter Tomarkan! I could even see him as Pat Sajak! LaBelle has chops, I am just saying!

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

Thanks for reading this review! My next review is going to be for Francis Ford Coppola’s “Megalopolis,” his passion project which has now been in theaters for several weeks. Also coming soon, I will be sharing my thoughts on “Venom: The Last Dance.” 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 “Saturday Night?” What did you think about it? Or, what is your favorite “Saturday Night Live” sketch? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

Reagan (2024): A Discombobulated and Dull Tale of an Actor-Turned-Politician

Posted on by Jack Drees

“Reagan” is directed by Sean McNamara (Soul Surfer, The King’s Daughter) and stars Dennis Quaid (Frequency, The Day After Tomorrow), Penelope Ann Miller (The Artist, Kindergarten Cop), Robert Davi (Showgirls, Profiler), Lesley Anne-Down (Sunset Beach, The Bold and the Beautiful), and Jon Voight (Midnight Cowboy, Mission: Impossible). This film is about the life of Ronald Reagan from his childhood to his acting work to his political career.

Of all the movies I could have seen this year, “Reagan” was not a movie I was genuinely anticipating. The marketing made it look unbearably generic. In a sense, it came off as if it was made for television. And the only reason why it got a theatrical release is because of the actors on screen like Dennis Quaid. But what do I know? I went to go see this film less than a month ago at my local cinema, on opening weekend. And while I do not recall the theater being full, it actually got quite a large audience. Granted, the auditorium was on the slightly smaller side. But it showed there may have been more interest in this film than I expected.

But as for the movie itself, it is, as I thought it would be, bad. It is not the worst movie of the year, but it is definitely one of the most discombobulated and convoluted.

In fact, would you like to know how convoluted this movie becomes by the very end? Well, you do not even have to watch the movie to find out. Just go to the Wikipedia page! If you are reading this page years down the road, I have no idea if anybody will make any dramatic changes to the page, but as of this writing, if you go to the “Plot” section, there is a warning that reads, “This section’s plot summary may be too long or excessively detailed.” Even Wikipedia says this movie is overstuffed! The most unreliable reliable source on the Internet agrees with me! And calling Wikipedia the most unreliable reliable source is not an error! It is not inaccurate! Much like Wikipedia, Scene Before is written by some random moron on the Internet, so you can trust me!

During my time in school, history was a mixed subject for me. There are times I would do well in history, but as I got into high school, that’s where things started to fall apart. But one thing I would remember about history is the textbooks. Remember how huge those things were? Granted, time is enormous. There is a lot to go over. I can gladly say that “Reagan” is slightly more entertaining than a by the numbers history textbook. Something that amazingly could not be accomplished with the ambitious Czech film “Medieval.” But despite the massive size of history textbooks, they cannot quite cover every minor detail of an event. Much like a history textbook, I learned something. Granted, I knew Reagan was an actor. But I did not know how much of an impact he had on the Screen Actors Guild. Knowing his background as that union’s president makes sense considering his future in politics. As someone who was not alive during Reagan’s time as president, I thought I would learn something from this movie. I did not think it would be that.

With that in mind, “Reagan” does remind me of a history textbook because it goes over a lot in such little time. And in the same way, you could also say “Reagan” reminds me of CliffsNotes, which if you are a teacher reading this, is something your students are probably using to pretend they read “King Lear.” It feels like we are flying faster than the speed of light from one important moment of Reagan’s life to the next to the point where the impact of whatever moment came before is less than it should be.

There is one particular moment in this movie, particularly during the 1976 RNC, where such a lack of impact is noticeable. Let’s just say it presents a moment involving Reagan’s political ambitions, where he cannot quite make it to the top, only to have a much more monumental moment be presented to us several minutes later. The pacing between these scenes is too fast and lessens the depth of the Reagan character. It does not give enough time to sympathize with him during his lowest low. The movie just says, bop-da-le-skiddly-bop, onto the next scene!

At times, this movie does not really know what it wants to be. I mentioned the marketing makes “Reagan” look generic. Having seen the film, I can confirm it is quite generic. But it is not all generic. If anything, the thing that sets this film apart, is probably its most bewildering element. On top of the mostly linear story that we get regarding the life of Ronald Reagan, we also get several scenes between two men in present day Moscow. Those two men are Russian agent Andrei Novikov and KGB agent Viktor Petrovich, both fictional characters by the way. The duo spend some time in the latter’s home discussing why the Soviet Union fell. Now I get it. The Soviet Union and Russia were a hot topic during Reagan’s life and his time as presidency. Despite that, I honestly do not see how the movie benefits from any of the scenes between these two. This movie is already over two hours long, and boy did I occasionally feel the runtime. Do we really need to see these two on screen? No we do not! In fact, one of those fictional Russian characters, Viktor Petrovich to be specific, is played by Jon Voight. Part of me is convinced those scenes were kept just so you could have Jon Voight’s name on the poster! As for the duo’s performances, while not quite as comedic as an “SNL” sketch, they lacked a certain authenticity. Although Voight’s accent in particular is not doing him any favors.

As for the lead performance, I will not deny that Dennis Quaid had a monumental task in front of him. He had to play a well-known world leader. He had to play said world leader during various portions of his life. But his performance to me was a bit of a mixed bag. At times, he embodied the nature of Ronald Reagan. At others, he overemphasized his accent and presence. And at others, he was somewhat unconvincing. Again, I recognize the challenge at hand, but it does not change the fact that watching this performance on screen resulted in Dennis Quaid trying a bunch of different things only to have them all combine into something average at best. If you want to see a more convincing lead performance by someone who plays the same character in multiple parts of their life, just go watch Zendaya in “Challengers.” I did not love the movie, but I will not deny Zendaya did a great job in her role. But most of the performances in “Reagan” range somewhere between overdone, unmemorable, or mediocre. There are no performances in this movie that I would imagine to be nominated for an Oscar. Maybe one or two will get nominated for a Razzie, but it is hard to know whether they are going to be nominated simply because the performances are bad or because it is funny to nominate performances in political movies. This is, after all, the same awards body that nominated several members of the Donald Trump administration for their “performances” in the 2018 documentary “Fahrenheit 11/9.” I try to avoid talking about my political views on Scene Before unless it is absolutely necessary, but if you must know my thoughts on “Reagan,” they are quite simple. Just say no.

In the end, “Reagan” is dull, bland, and all over the place. As fast as this movie moves, it oddly feels kind of slow. Occasionally, it gives you little time to take in one scene before quickly waltzing straight onto the next. The performances are nothing to write home about. You could literally take out all the scenes between the men in Moscow and dramatically improve the film’s substance. There are no positives in this film that stand out, but at the same time, I cannot say the film is incompetent. It is well shot, well lit, and the locations are okay. But the movie itself is kind of forgettable. It is almost kind of propaganda-like in its presentation. Some of the lines just feel oddly preachy and over the top at times. Maybe that was the intention. Maybe not. But again, if you want to know about my thoughts on “Reagan,” I wonder if my score of 5/10 will give you any hints.

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

Thanks for reading this review! My next review is going to be for “It Ends with Us,” the brand new film starring Blake Lively. Stay tuned! 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 “Reagan?” What did you think about it? Or, what is your favorite movie heavily involving a U.S. President? I’ll even count fictional ones. Shoutout to “Air Force One” for being totally awesome! Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!