Imperative Entertainment

A Big Bold Beautiful Journey (2025): Colin Farrell and Margot Robbie Deal with the World’s Strangest GPS

Posted on by Jack Drees

© Sony Pictures

“A Big Bold Beautiful Journey” is directed by Kogonada (Pachinko, After Yang) and stars Margot Robbie (The Wolf of Wall Street, Suicide Squad), Colin Farrell (The Banshees of Inisherin, Total Recall), Kevin Kline (Cyrano de Bergerac, Bob’s Burgers), and Phoebe Waller-Bridge (Fleabag, Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade). This film is about two people who meet at a wedding and eventually go on a journey that leads both of them to revisiting their pasts.

The trailers for “A Big Bold Beautiful Journey” did very little to excite me. I had the feeling the flick was going to either be too corny, overly sappy, or uneventful. In some ways, the final product falls in line with those expectations, but not exactly in the way that I thought they would. I am here to tell you that this movie is much better than I could have imagined, even if it is not perfect.

“A Big Bold Beautiful Journey” is not my kind of movie. When it comes to the many genres moviegoing has to offer, romantic dramas, in fact, even romantic comedies, are typically at the bottom of the list for me. I have nothing against the concept of romance, but as stereotypical of a guy thing as it is to say, I like my action. If I were not as open-minded about movies, chances are I would probably buy a ticket to “A Big Bold Beautiful Journey” solely to impress a date. That said, I do not live in that reality, and I took my single behind and put it in a Dolby Cinema chair. Because who needs a date when you have shaking recliners?

© Sony Pictures

Few things are as pleasing as a tremendous surprise, and “A Big Bold Beautiful Journey” was in fact, a surprise. This film immersed me from the very beginning and refused to let me leave. They say not to judge a book by its cover, but this film proves that it is not about the destination, it is, in fact, about the big bold beautiful journey.

The film finds itself in this peculiarly fulfilling middle ground where it does not quite feel real, but there is a certain level of belief that I am willing to suspend in what is ultimately a grounded world. Yes, much of the film features a self-aware GPS that takes its characters to places that make them think about their lives. But the film is ultimately about the human condition. The experiences that shape us. The places that make us. The people that define us. It is about the unpredictable mess that is life. Judging by everything I am telling you, it sounds like I am hyping this up to be the movie of the year. That would be a bit of an overexaggeration, but I do appreciate how much the movie made me think.

© Sony Pictures

I buy both of the leads in their respective roles. You have Colin Farrell as David… A reserved, hopeless romantic, trying to make it from one day to the next. Then there is Margot Robbie as Sarah, who has a bit more experience when it comes to the dating scene. Together you have a star-studded pair in a film that sounds too crazy to work, but somehow it does.

I am not going to pretend that everything works. One can make the argument that the film is too convenient. It is a film that relies heavily on something happening at the right place at the right time, or at the wrong place at the wrong time. I mentioned I am able to suspend my disbelief to a certain degree, but I think that is something I think not every viewer is going to do. The movie often feels fantastical and I see how select viewers would find that to be a turnoff. In fact, one thing that turned me off at times were the moments we spend at a rental car facility. That’s when we see a cashier and a mechanic played by Phoebe Waller-Bridge and Kevin Kline, who are honestly not as whimsical and charming as this movie wants me to think they are. Also, this film maybe has one of the most obvious product placements of any film I’ve seen in 2025, with its inclusion of Burger King.

Yes, I know “War of the Worlds” is a big Amazon commercial, but would you really call that a movie?

The restaurant ends up playing a somewhat substantial role in the plot as both lead characters go there, bond, share what they have in common, and once the leads are done there, that’s where the real fun begins for them. Nothing ignites romance like Whoppers!

Years ago, I reviewed a movie, if you want to call it that, by the name of “Superintelligence,” and this film reminds me of that one, as the protagonist’s journey is heavily guided by a computer, but there is a key point that this film gets right that “Superintelligence” does not. As I watched the film’s protagonist, David, I got the sense that he was often hesitant or second-guessing himself at each point of his journey. Despite some of his actions being determined by a computer, it often feels like he is presented with constantly engaging dilemmas. Should he go where the computer is taking him or should he go elsewhere? Should he perhaps go home?… As I watched the film, I wanted to know how these dilemmas were resolved.

You may be under the impression that the film’s biggest selling point would be one of it’s stars, like Colin Farrell. He is a great actor, but no. You might think it is Margot Robbie. Despite being a straight white male, she did not sell me either. Instead, what got me in the door was this film’s composer, Joe Hisaishi.

Some of you might be wondering who the heck I am talking about. And I would understand that reaction because this is Hisaishi’s first Hollywood feature he’s ever composed. That said, if you have watched Japanese film, or every film from anime director Hayao Miyazaki, you have heard his music, and each piece is often as inviting as his last. His compositions in this film are not exactly the most booming or epic pieces, nor do they need to be. Just about each one comes with a cozy vibe. Hisaishi delivers the goods here with several soothing tunes.

One last note, the GPS in this film is voiced by Jodie Turner-Smith. The role does not require a lot of pizazz or physical work. It is ultimately just a voiceover, but Turner-Smith gives it her all. The two most prominent characters are those of David and Sarah, but if this film had one character just below them in terms of importance, it would probably be the GPS, and Jodie Turner-Smith does her best to allow the character to ooze personality. It puts the film in the right direction.

…

I said, it puts the film in the right dire–(some dude tackles me to the ground and slaps me in the face)

© Sony Pictures

In the end, “A Big Bold Beautiful Journey” is surprisingly solid. Margot Robbie and Colin Farrell have enough star power to keep an entire solar system running by themselves, but together, they have solid chemistry. I buy these two as they revisit various points of their lives. I thought they were cute together. Is this a film I plan to watch again anytime soon? Not immediately, but this is not a bad flick by any means. It is also a decent pick for a date movie. I am going to give “A Big Bold Beautiful Journey” a 7/10.

“A Big Bold Beautiful Journey” is available to rent or buy on VOD.

Photo by Universal Pictures – © 2025 Universal Studios

Thanks for reading this review! My next review is going to be for “Him!” Stay tuned! Also coming soon, look forward to my thoughts on “Eleanor the Great,” “The Lost Bus,” “One Battle After Another,” “If I Had Legs I’d Kick You,” “Tron: Ares,” and “Bone Lake.” 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 “A Big Bold Beautiful Journey?” What did you think about it? Or, what two actors would you like to see play a couple on screen together? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

Killers of the Flower Moon (2023): Three and a Half Hours of Kills, But Few Thrills

Posted on by Jack Drees

“Killers of the Flower Moon” is directed by Martin Scorsese (The Irishman, The Wolf of Wall Street) and stars Leonardo DiCaprio (Inception, Titanic), Robert De Niro (Meet the Parents, Joker), and Lily Gladstone (First Cow, Billions). When oil is discovered on Osage land, its people are murdered one by one. As this continues, the FBI steps in to unravel the mystery.

Martin Scorsese is undoubtedly one of the most notable names in Hollywood. He is one of the most influential directors of all time who still happens to have a respectable track record today. His older films continue to hold up and his newer titles do not seem to miss either. I have to say when it comes to his recent work, “The Wolf of Wall Street,” while I did not find it to be perfect, is one of the better movies I have seen to have come out in the past decade. In fact, to know that Scorsese is once again reuniting with Leonardo DiCaprio only serves as a boost of confidence. And of course, alongside them, is Robert De Niro, another acting legend who cannot do any wrong. Both Scorsese and De Niro were coming in hot with their recent work together, “The Irishman,” so to have a couple of Scorsese’s top players come back only helped build the prestige of what was to come. Now if I have to be frank, “The Irishman” to me was a movie of moments. There are a lot of decent parts of the film, but I feel like the parts I enjoyed more were less significant to the plot and more likely to be described as random sprinkles in the background. And to be honest, it was too long.

I can sit through a three plus hour movie. In fact, speaking of Leonardo DiCaprio, I very much enjoyed “Titanic.” The “Lord of the Rings” films are around the three hour mark and for the most part, they all serve their runtime beautifully. “Seven Samurai” is a wonderfully shot, exquisitely told revenge tale. “RRR,” which I reviewed months ago, is one of the most chaotically fantastic three hour escapes I’ve had in my entire life. If you want to go for something very recent, with a runtime that clocks at just around three hours, “Oppenheimer” is a compelling, haunting drama that I did not want to end. And if you are wondering why I had less of a problem with those movies than “The Irishman,” it’s not necessarily just that they were more entertaining. But everything in those movies felt essential, and they used those few hours in a way that had me engaged from scene one to the end credits. “The Irishman” honestly ends up feeling rather tiresome by the end, and maybe a little self-indulgent. I gave the movie a 7/10 when I reviewed it, but the more I think about the movie, I often think about how the runtime bogged my mind by the time it was concluding.

And that’s why I was worried when I found out that instead of “The Irishman’s” three hour and 29 minute runtime, “Killers of the Flower Moon” was only three minutes shorter at three hours and 26 minutes. If I have to be honest, this movie somehow feels longer than “The Irishman.” I cannot even believe I am saying that. For the record, I ended up seeing this movie in IMAX, and somehow I still felt overwhelmed with what was happening. When it comes to the look of the film, I will not deny that in many instances, it looks gorgeous. It honestly looks more pristine and captivating than a good number of films that came out this year. The cinematography is some of the best of the year. The locations are beautiful. The color palette, while definitely symbolic of the movie’s not so happy go lucky tone, is perfect for the story at hand. I will not deny it, “Killers of the Flower Moon” is a well made, well crafted, well acted, well directed piece of art. Or cinema, as some would prefer to call it. It’s just too long.

They size does not matter, it is what you do with it. And what they did with it, was kind of boring. By the second half of this movie, I kept asking myself when it was going to end, and that is never a good sign.

I must reiterate that “The Wolf of Wall Street” is a banger of a flick. From start to finish it is a wild trip with this one guy who by definition, should be beyond unlikable, and yet they utilize him in such a way that makes him one of the most charming protagonists in that year’s slate of films. Leonardo DiCaprio killed it in the lead role and while I did not always identify with the character, DiCaprio did such an excellent job at making a character like Jordan Belfort as palatable as possible. He is the kind of character that part of you wants to be, but then that sane part of your mind kicks in and rejects that thought. Jordan Belfort is a moron. No doubt about it. But he is a pretty likable one at that. DiCaprio manages to play, personality-wise, a similar character in this film. Specifically, Ernest Burkhart. He is clearly does not really have the best morals. I honestly find it hard to link alongside or root for this character sometimes. Overall, he is kind of self-centered. What kept me interested about Jordan Belfort is that in every scene, even in ones where he clearly came off as a posh prick, I found the character himself to be charming. My ability to admire Ernest on the other hand, was flying up and down like a see-saw.

Was I at least intrigued by this character’s arc and journey? Sure. In fact, one of the highlights of “Killers of Flower Moon” for me would have to be Ernest’s love connection with Lily Gladstone’s character. Everything involving this relationship, from early on all the way through the long runtime felt genuine. I really like these two together. In fact, it goes to show that Lily Gladstone not only gives a knockout performance as the character of Mollie Burkhart, but she may have been the bright spot in a film where everything around her feels comparatively brooding or a bit of a downer. She stands out as an angel in a dark alleyway.

The whole balance between Ernest’s connection to his uncle, in addition to the established motivation against the Osage people, in kahoots with his own relationship with Molly, serves as “Killers of the Flower Moon’s” biggest point of intrigue. It is, likely by design, supposed to induce discomfort. And if that is the case, the film certainly did its job. Because I am watching everything going down, and it is not really much of a mystery as to who is doing all the killing in the movie. There is the old saying that it is not about the destination, it is the journey. To be frank though, when it comes to this journey, I probably ventured off a few stops early.

When it comes to the movie’s cast, it is pretty stacked. Not only do we have Leonardo DiCaprio and Robert De Niro, the two big names carrying the film together. By the way, De Niro is quite good as William Hale, and delivers my favorite line of the film.

It may sound better with context, but those who must know, the line is “The front is the front, and the back is the back.”

But in addition to these names, the entire Osage ensemble happens to be really good in this film. I bought into all of them. We also have Jesse Plemons, who is given a meaty supporting role as an FBI agent with a lot to like. But I must admit, as much as I like Brendan Fraser and John Lithgow as actors, they almost feel out of place in this film. They feel distracting. Their appearances are not cameos, but they are almost executed in ways that feel cameo-like. They are not giving monumentally bad performances by any means, they do okay with the material given to them. But when you put them against say the recently mentioned Jesse Plemons, they feel more like stars than characters. That’s the best way I can sum it up.

Speaking of things that feel out of place, the ending of this film, when it finally happens, rubbed me the wrong way. I am sure it was well intentioned. If you asked me if Martin Scorsese and crew inserted everything into this film believing each increment would feel necessary, I would say yes. That said, the second to last scene in this film comes off as inconsistent and abrupt. When the movie finally ended, I was glad, because it was already long enough, but it does not change the fact that I waited over three hours for something that was lacking in satisfaction. When it comes to movies, I like weird. I like different. And I admire when filmmakers try stuff that are out of the ordinary. This is one of those times where it did not stick the landing.

If I had to name another positive, this film nails its atmosphere. Again, going back to its overall look, everything in the frame feels magnificently crafted. But there is also more to it than sight. Because the film is scored by Robbie Robertson (rest in peace) and he brings forth one of the most hypnotic and unique scores of the year. It is totally fitting for the movie at hand and almost comes off as a character of its own. While I may hesitate to watch “Killers of the Flower Moon” a second time, I could see myself going on YouTube and searching up the official soundtrack for the film to listen to in the background. It might be my favorite part of the entire film.

In the end, “Killers of the Flower Moon” is a magnificent effort that is not quite my cup of tea. There are things to like about it, but I do not know if I can say it was worth my time. I am honestly having trouble recommending this movie. If you asked me if I would watch it again in the next couple days, my answer would be no. Though I imagine a there are a surplus of people who would say yes. There is always that one movie every year that is likely going to not only get Oscar consideration, but also has a legit shot at a Best Picture nomination that I do not agree with. In 2020, it was “Mank.” In 2021, it was “Licorice Pizza.” In 2022, it was “Elvis.” In 2023, I think “Killers of the Flower Moon,” depending on how the rest of the year goes, will end up being that movie. Despite the marvelous camerawork, occasionally neat characterization, and atmospheric glory, it also reveals the painfully slow editing and pace that remains consistent throughout the movie. It is unfortunate because it is based on events that actually happened and it is an important story to tell. I just wish it were told in a way that made me more likely to run down the streets raving about it. It pains me to do this, but in a thumbs up, thumbs down world, this movie is a thumbs down. So, this score is going to reflect that. I am going to give “Killers of the Flower Moon” a 5/10.

“Killers of the Flower Moon” is now playing in theaters everywhere. Tickets are available now.

Thanks for reading this review! My next review is going to be for “Freelance,” the brand new movie starring John Cena as an ex-special forces operative. I will also have reviews coming soon for “The Persian Version,” “Priscilla,” “The Tunnel to Summer, the Exit of Goodbyes,” and the one movie on this list I am certain Martin Scorsese is most excited about, “The Marvels.” If you want to see more from Scene Before, follow the blog either with an email or WordPress account! Also, check out the official Facebook page! I want to know, did you see “Killers of the Flower Moon?” What did you think about it? And if you saw the movie, do you think the runtime is justified? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks

All the Money in the World (2017): Ridley Scott’s Mildly Thrilling Work Featuring Captivating (Non Kevin-Spacey) Performances

Posted on by Jack Drees

Hey everyone, Jack Drees here! Welcome to the third installment of the Ridley Scottober review series! It is a series where I will be talking about four Ridley Scott-directed films throughout the month of October. If you are interested in my first two reviews of the series, feel free to check out my thoughts on “Body of Lies” and “Gladiator.” The movie I am talking about today shares something in common with the last two I talked about. The fact that I have never seen it until now. That film in particular is “All the Money in the World,” whose name I have ton when it came out for a number of reasons. Now that I have finally gotten a chance to see what everyone is talking about, it is time to share my review.

“All the Money in the World” is directed by Ridley Scott (Alien, The Martian) and stars Michelle Williams (My Week with Marilyn, Manchester by the Sea), Christopher Plummer (Up, Beginners), Mark Wahlberg (Transformers: Age of Extinction, Patriots Day), and Romain Duris (L’Auberge Espagnole, The Beat That My Heart Skipped). This film is based on the events surrounding the kidnapping of John Paul Getty III, whose grandfather is the world’s richest private citizen, J. Paul Getty Sr.. When the kidnappee’s mother is unable to hand over $17 million for her son’s freedom, she does what she can to convince Getty Sr. to provide the money.

When it comes to Ridley Scott, he is usually a name that would get me in the theater. If he were sitting in the director’s chair, there is a good chance I am there. Granted that is not always true as I did not have a ton of interest in “House of Gucci” when it came out, but nevertheless. One of the reasons why I am very much looking forward to his next film, “Napoleon,” is because he is helming it. But when it comes to “All the Money in the World,” there is a particular name that was on my mind, even years after this film came out. But maybe not for the reasons the people behind this movie would desire. That name, is Kevin Spacey.

Ah… Kevin Spacey. How the mighty have fallen. A couple wrong moves in life and here you are. Your relevance is about as tiny as bacteria. Now this review is being done as part of a Ridley Scott series, and I will not deny that I was partially intrigued by this film because Scott’s name was attached to it. But if I were in the general audience months before this film’s release, there is a solid chance that Kevin Spacey would have gotten me in the door. I thought he was good actor with a decent resume. In fact, he just did “Baby Driver” earlier in the year, an incredible action flick with pristinely executed sequences and a killer soundtrack. Before this movie came out, all of his footage was shot, and he was going to play J. Paul Getty Sr.. Sounds interesting, right?

Well, fast forward to October 2017. News comes out reporting Kevin Spacey’s sexual misconduct allegations, and therefore “All the Money in the World” is in a world of hurt. Kevin Spacey was supposed to be a centerpiece of the film’s campaign, especially considering the arrival of awards season. AFI Fest was around the corner, and the movie was supposed to premiere there. That premiere was canceled, and everyone went back to work on the film. Kevin Spacey was recast with Christopher Plummer, and they shot his scenes over the course of nine days. I think this whole behind the scenes aspect is the highlight of the film. I am a production junkie. I work in production so I may be biased. But I know a thing or two about how hard it is to do something last minute, but if done right, the results can present themselves as fantastic.

Now if you pay close attention to the movie, and I did not know this upon my watch, there is one shot in the film that features Kevin Spacey getting off a train. The reason for that is because it would have been too expensive to redo. All the rest are of Christopher Plummer. I was amazed at this movie’s quick turnaround, even if the people behind it admit they could not achieve perfection.

I do not know what Kevin Spacey’s performance was like in this film, and frankly I do not care. What we got from everyone onboard was great. The recently mentioned Christopher Plummer, Michelle Williams, Mark Wahlberg, and Charlie Plummer (no relation to Christopher) all knocked their portrayals out of the park. All of them bring something exciting to the table with their characters and I cannot see anyone else, including Kevin Spacey, playing them. One of the reasons why Ridley Scott himself is a solid director is because he always manages to bring the best out of his talent. My favorite performance of 2015, and I sincerely apologize to the great Academy Award-winning Leonardo DiCaprio of “The Revenant” when I say this, is Matt Damon as Mark Watney in “The Martian.” Damon not only highlighted a constant survival instinct within his character from scene one, but did so with a sense of humor that I could only describe as irreplaceable. “All the Money in the World” clearly delivers different vibes, it is more dramatic, more serious, and LITERALLY more down to earth. “All the Money in the World” does a superb job at putting me into a world where we have all these people who would be hard to relate to 100% of the time, and yet I could sit in a room with them as a fly on the wall, intrigued by their actions.

But just because I am jumping up and down about the acting in “All the Money in the World,” does not mean it captivated me from beginning to end. There are moments of the movie that are more thrilling than others. There are moments where I had to struggle to pay attention. And there are also moments where I almost tuned out entirely. The movie is not bad, but much like “Body of Lies,” there is a certain spice that I wanted out this film that I could not quite achieve. It feels like I am going back to my watch of another thriller of his, “Body of Lies.” I think “All the Money in the World” is a better film with a more compelling story, fewer cliches up the wazoo, and more interesting characters. But if there is one thing both films have in common, there are select scenes in the film that had that had a greater span of my attention than others.

If there is another thing to note about “All the Money in the World,” it looks beautiful. The production designer for “All the Money in the World” is Arthur Max, who has worked a ton with Scott in the past on films like “Gladiator,” “Black Hawk Down,” and even as recent as “The Martian.” The two go hand in hand. Speaking of Scott’s usual suspects, the cinematography is done by Dariusz Wolski. He previously worked on “Exodus: Gods and Kings,” “The Martian,” and even “Alien: Covenant” which released months before this movie hit theaters. The lighting and framing make for a consistently perfect pair throughout “All the Money in the World.” There is a wide shot in Rome from the first few minutes that I wanted as a desktop photo. It is that good.

As a story, despite the film’s pacing issues, some characters standing out more than others, and select scenes not having as much of a pop as I would prefer, I am glad we got to see it. I think the movie presents a fascinating moral about wealth, and how even when you are rich, you feel that there is no breaking point. There are probably more people out there than we think that will put their riches before their family. I will not deny that having money is nice. And I am not going to pretend that I have as much as Christopher Plummer’s character. I found it fascinating, and kind of depressing, how his character seemed to think saving someone in his family was not worth even just a small portion of his wealth. J. Paul Getty Sr. stands out way more than he should as a character given all the controversy surrounding this film, but I guarantee that regardless of who is playing him, he is probably the character that would stand out most in the story, for good reason. But of course, at the risk of beating a dead horse, Christopher Plummer does an excellent job in the role.

In the end, “All the Money in the World” is not my favorite of Scott’s works. But much like “Body of Lies,” it stands as a film that I think a lot of people would kill to make. But if I have to be real with you, I think the history of this movie is more interesting than the movie itself. If it were not for all the controversy, this would just be a lesser film in Ridley Scott’s library. But with the way things are, it is a lesser film in Ridley Scott’s library with notable complications that came up around its release. It is not something I plan on watching a second time, but it is a film that I do not regret putting on. The performances are all standouts, the camerawork is some of the finest of its year, and when it comes down to it, it is an intriguing study of how wealth can affect people. Yes, at times it is a chore to watch, I will not deny that. But I think you would not be doing yourself any harm if you decide to check it out. I am going to give “All the Money in the World” a very high and generous 6/10.

“All the Money in the World” is now available on DVD, Blu-ray, and on various streaming services.

Thanks for reading this review! My final Ridley Scottober review arrives next week, and unlike the ones I have done so far, it is for a film I have seen.

Many times, actually.

For the final Ridley Scottober review, I am going to be talking about “Blade Runner,” the 1982 science fiction classic! It is a film that I have mentioned and talked about many times on Scene Before, but after many years of blogging here, I finally get to do a proper review of it. Stay tuned! If you want to see this and more from Scene Before, follow the blog either with an email or WordPress account! Also, check out the official Facebook page! I want to know, did you see “All the Money in the World?” What did you think about it? Or, if you could replace any actor or actress in any movie in the history of time with Christopher Plummer, which one would it be and why? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

The Last Vermeer (2019): A Carefully Crafted, Yet Forgettable Portrait of an Artistic WWII Conspiracy

Posted on by Jack Drees

“The Last Vermeer” is directed by Dan Friedkin, a producer of films including “The Mule,” “Hot Summer Nights,” and “All the Money in the World.” This film in particular is Friedkin’s directorial debut. It received positive reactions at festivals, and now it is getting a long-awaited theatrical release.

“The Last Vermeer” stars Guy Pearce (Memento, Iron Man 3) and Claes Bang (The Girl in the Spider’s Web, The Square) in a story about an artist who is suspected of selling a valuable painting to the Nazis during World War II.

Going into this movie, this was a rare case where I was fairly blind in regard to the goings on. I did watch a trailer prior to leaving my house, and I do think I have caught said trailer at the theater once or twice during other presentations. But this is a film that I went into knowing very little. One of the questions I am constantly asking myself as I type this review is how vague I should be in regard to my overall thoughts. I will do my best to give a summary of my experience.

Let’s start with the easy part. This movie kicks off and maintains a pace that does not feel quite satisfying. However, it is also a story that becomes more investing of my time and attention as it progresses. It has been some time since I watched this movie, but I would not be surprised if this goes down the route of say “Bloodshot,” which coincidentally also has Guy Pearce playing a character, to become one of my most forgotten movies of 2020. Although based on how it concludes, it is not all bad.

They say that bad endings can ruin good movies. Personally, that is a phrase that I have not continuously realized myself. Whenever I watch a good movie, it is usually consistent from start to finish. This year however, I will admit that I did catch one movie that started horribly but ended up being one of the most charming experiences I have sat through in recent memory. That movie by the way, is “Summerland,” starring Gemma Arterton, and it is available on DVD and for rent. While “The Last Vermeer” is not on the same level of “Summerland” in terms of quality for me, it plays out in a similar manner. “The Last Vermeer” starts off rather dull. In fact, as of writing this review, it has almost been a couple weeks since first experiencing “The Last Vermeer” and I almost barely even remember the beginning. Where it picks up is around the second half, because we get into the nitty gritty of the story and we get to witness quite the court case. Towards the end of the film, I was hooked, and it made this true event worth telling on the screen. The journey to get there however might end up being forgotten.

Let’s talk about Claes Bang (left). Claes Bang is not the most well known actor working today, but I want to emphasize him in this review partially because he’s one of the two leads, and this movie may signify a rabbit hole for the actor. One of the concerns I have for this movie is how it could outline Bang’s future. Claes Bang is not a bad actor by any means. I say this despite having only seen him in one other project aside from this one, specifically “The Burnt Orange Heresy.” Now, “The Burnt Orange Heresy” for those of you who do not know is a film about an art critic (Bang) recruited by a dealer to steal a painting. Now I do not know Claes Bang personally, and maybe he enjoys doing these art-centered movies, but I feel like if he continues having roles like the ones he’s getting, he could risk getting typecast in the future. Granted, we have examples of typecasting that work. Samuel L. Jackson often gets cast in roles that encourage him to shout the word “motherf*cker” so all the people of Uranus can hear it. Maybe I am overreacting, but as solid of an actor I think Claes Bang is, I think it would be interesting to see him take in another type of project. Yes, he’s done stuff like “The Girl in the Spider’s Web” in the past, and he’s even played Dracula in the BBC/Netflix series “Dracula.” I just wonder what Bang’s future holds because for all I know, it could continuously involve art movies. But if you want me to be frank about Bang’s performance in “The Last Vermeer,” I liked his character at times, I think he did a good job as his respective role, and he has great chemistry with Guy Pearce.

Speaking of Guy Pearce, I think the makeup and costuming department did a phenomenal job at making Pearce’s character jump off the screen. I have not seen all of Guy Pearce’s work, but I have witnessed some of it like “Memento,” “Iron Man 3,” and “Bedtime Stories.” This is not Guy Pearce, it is another… guy.

*rimshot*

Guy Pearce in this film feels less like Guy Pearce and more like an artist trying to pull of a lifelong Albert Einstein impression, and he does a pretty good job with it. Again, major props have to go to the costuming and makeup departments for pulling off how the character looks. Guy Pearce portrays the art dealer known as Han van Meegeren, and having searched for older photos of him, he looks the part. The Oscars, should they happen next year, is probably going to take place during April. We still have some time to determine whether this performance will hold up, but I would not mind seeing Pearce get an acting nomination.

Unfortunately, however, this movie is probably going to suffer from a lack of replay value, at least from me. It will probably get more than one watch from others, but this feels like a one and done flick, despite how there are some good things in it. But a barely investing beginning and exciting climax did not do it for me. I will say, this is a fascinating story, but I wonder if I would have had more fun researching it through Google as opposed to watching it in a film like this. This is Dan Friedkin’s directorial debut, so I am curious to see what he does in the future in regards to directing, but I just hope it has a greater oomph factor than “The Last Vermeer.”

In the end, “The Last Vermeer” is not half bad. You can watch it, but I would say there are better options out there if a theater is open near you. Go watch “Freaky.” Go watch “Honest Thief.” These may not be the best movies ever, but they are fun times. I liked “The Last Vermeer,” but I just wish it had a greater impact on me. Pearce and Bang are great actors and I would not mind seeing them collaborate on another project in the future, but I hope it is more investing than this one. I am going to give “The Last Vermeer” a 6/10.

“The Last Vermeer” is now playing exclusively in theaters wherever they are open.

Thanks for reading this review! I have some more reviews coming your way including for “Half Brothers,” now playing in theaters, and “Mank,” which is available in select cinemas and Netflix. I am also planning on watching “The Midnight Sky,” directed by George Clooney, which is now in theaters, but will be available on Netflix starting December 23rd. Also, I have obtained a pass to an online screening of STX’s upcoming film, “Greenland,” starring Gerard Butler. That film will be available on premium VOD starting December 18th, and I plan to have my review up sometime around the film’s release. If you want to see all this content and more, follow Scene Before either with an email or WordPress account, and give my Facebook page a like! I want to know, did you see “The Last Vermeer?” What did you think about it? Or, what is your favorite example of typecasting? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

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

Posted on by Jack Drees

MV5BMTc1OTc5NzA4OF5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTgwOTAzMzE2NjM@._V1_SY1000_CR006741000_AL_

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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