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!
“Megalopolis” is directed by Francis Ford Coppola (Dracula, The Godfather) and stars Adam Driver (Star Wars: The Force Awakens, Marriage Story), Giancarlo Esposito (The Mandalorian, Abigail), Nathalie Emmanuel (Furious 7, Game of Thrones), Aubrey Plaza (Parks and Recreation, Dirty Grandpa), Shia LaBeouf (Transformers, Eagle Eye), Jon Voight (Reagan, Midnight Cowboy), Laurence Fishburne (The Matrix, John Wick: Chapter 2), Kathryn Hunter (Poor Things, Andor), and Dustin Hoffman (Lenny, Kramer vs. Kramer). This film is set in the city of New Rome, which is basically an alternate version of New York City. The story is about architect Cesar Catilina as he aspires to rebuild his city into a utopia, much to the opposition of New Rome’s mayor, Franklyn Cicero (Esposito).
Francis Ford Coppola’s resume is one to behold. If you go on the IMDb top 250, you will notice that several of his titles make the list. Heck, as of this writing, “The Godfather” and “The Godfather Part II” literally take up the #2 and #4 spots. “Apocalypse Now” is also at #56. Coppola has no doubt cemented his legacy in Hollywood as one of the icons. Heck, even though it is not talked about as much, I have to say that I really liked “The Outsiders.” It’s a solid movie inspired by a pretty good book. Kind of like Clint Eastwood, it is somewhat mind-blowing to know that Coppola is still making films at his age. “Megalopolis” has become something of a passion project for Coppola. He has been developing it off and on for many years. He’s talked with several actors for an opportunity to appear in the film. He’s even sold part of his winery so he could self-finance the film. But was this movie worth all that time and effort? As much as I champion Francis Ford Coppola for bringing the movie he wants to cinemas, I simply wish I liked it more. “Megalopolis” is not my least favorite movie of the year, but it is certainly one of the most boring.
I will be honest, I almost did not go see this movie, because I heard about the bad reviews this movie was getting some time before checking it out. And I had already dealt with the abomination against humanity that is “Joker: Folie à Deux.” I did not know if I had it in me to sit down and dedicate time to this controversial flick. Unfortunately I hate myself enough to do just that. After two hours that honestly almost felt like two and a half, maybe three, I can say that this film is one of the most unmemorable I have seen all year. That honestly says something. I am sure a lot of people put effort into the films they are crafting. But in the case of “Megalopolis,” I already knew this was a labor of love from the start. Having seen this film come to life, I almost cannot see anyone else doing this film in the style that Coppola did. That said, I cannot say I found the style entirely appealing.
Now, this film is a feast for the naked eye. The lighting in this film offers a variety of color. This one shot of Adam Driver’s face that continues to be ingrained in my memory. From a production value standpoint, this film gets top marks. “Megalopolis” is kind of like, well, here comes another mention of that stinker… “Joker: Folie à Deux.” There is no doubt that the look of the film is worthy of praise. It goes without any debate that it is nicely shot, contains good costumes, and has marvelous set design. There are times where I feel the film gets a little too far-fetched in terms of how fantastical the look comes off. But there are others where I can buy what the film is selling and I like what I see.
The film is set in New Rome, which as I mentioned earlier is basically New York City with some minor changes. The structure is the same, it contains tons of tall buildings, there’s the Statue of Liberty. The Madison Square Garden even exists in this film, and I kind of like what this film has done with the place. In Ancient Rome, people flocked to the Colosseum for events like gladiator fights. And in a sense, MSG is basically a modernized version of the Colosseum. This movie tends to present a stadium with the old school glory of the Colosseum with the modern day wonder of the Madison Square Garden people still flock to today. A good portion of the movie is spent there, and while there are some clips set within the arena which contain select editing choices I honestly found to be mind-numbing, I think the film nails the atmosphere of that venue to make it as Colosseum-like as possible while still factoring in what makes it what it is today. There is very much a blend of old meets new throughout the execution of such an iconic venue.
“Megalopolis” as a film somewhat reminds me of “The Boy and the Heron,” made by another visionary director, Hayao Miyazaki. For the record, I think that film is significantly better than this one. But I say this because I thought the best part of that film is its world-building. That said, the story and characters appear to play second fiddle in comparison. While “Megalopolis” contains a decent cast, most of the characters are missing a spark of some kind. In fact, I would almost argue none of the performances are really that great. There are definitely some that are okay. But some are over the top while others are forgettable. Adam Driver seems to try his best, but it is no “Marriage Story.” If you want a better outing from Aubrey Plaza, go see “My Old Ass.” As great as Laurence Fishburne’s voice is, seeing him in this movie makes me think I would rather be watching “The Matrix” right now. If anything, even though New Rome is a city and not a person, I would almost argue it is a character of its own and is more interesting than any of the people in this film. Then again, that is not saying much.
Although if I had to name one character I surprisingly enjoyed on screen it would be Vesta Sweetwater (top), played by Grace VanderWaal, and if you somehow remember that name from almost a decade ago, then you probably watched season 11 of “America’s Got Talent.” VanderWaal plays a pop star who the film establishes to maintain her purity and remain a virgin until marriage. It is a whole thing. But I thought VanderWaal carried an incredible screen presence whenever she played this character. When she came on screen, she commanded my attention. While her screen time was brief, it made for one of the film’s few highlights, and that says a lot considering I wanted The Clairvoyants to win “AGT” the year she was on by a clear mile. Just one moron’s opinion. That said, VanderWaal is great here. She plays her part well.
In the end, “Megalopolis” is one of those movies that the more I look at it, the more I am transfixed with the images on screen, but not so much the substance within them. When I walked out of “Megalopolis” I started to forget about the film’s context, story, and characters, but there is one thought that stuck in my mind. This could be a decent tech demo. It is colorful, bright, and offers a lot of detail frame by frame. I could clearly tell that Francis Ford Coppola put his heart and soul into this project, but sadly it is kind of a mess. It also comes off as rather pretentious and overly cartoony, which is not the finest combination. Is it the worst film of the year? No. In fact, threepeat alert! It is not as bad as “Joker: Folie à Deux!” So… Yay? I am going to give “Megalopolis” a 4/10.
“Megalopolis” is now playing in select theaters. Tickets are available now.
Thanks for reading this review! If you like this review, I have more coming! Stay tuned for my thoughts on “Venom: The Last Dance,” “The Apprentice,” “Anora,” “Here,” and “Gladiator II.” If you want to see my reviews for these films 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 “Megalopolis?” What did you think about it? Or, what is your favorite Francis Ford Coppola film? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!
Hey everyone, Jack Drees here! It is November and it is finally time for another monthly review series. Welcome to Election Days! Speaking of which, today is November 5th, or as the U.S. knows it, Election Day. I try not to talk about politics on Scene Before, sometimes if I am talking about a political movie, such a thing is unavoidable. But all month long, I will be discussing movies that center around U.S. politics, and we are going to start this review series by talking about the 2012 comedy, “The Campaign.” This is my second time watching the film. I checked it out once a couple years ago. So, here is my second impression of the movie.
“The Campaign” is directed by Jay Roach (Meet the Parents, Dinner for Schmucks) and stars Will Ferrell (Megamind, Step Brothers) and Zach Galifianakis as two candidates running for a seat in the 14th Congressional District in North Carolina.
(L-r) ZACH GALIFIANAKIS as Marty Huggins and WILL FERRELL as Cam Brady in Warner Bros. Pictures’ comedy “THE CAMPAIGN,” a Warner Bros. Pictures release.
As I mentioned in the intro, this is my second time watching “The Campaign,” that is unless you count other times I overheard the film in the background when it was airing on cable. That said, this is my second committed viewing of the film. Truth be told, when it comes to my first time watching “The Campaign,” I was not in love with the film by the end of it. Yes, it certainly has a good cast between Will Ferrell, Dan Aykroyd, John Lithgow, and even Thomas Middleditch. There’s no shortage of likable actors in the movie. But it does not change the fact that I have seen them do better things. That said, I thought some people were well placed in their respective roles. I thought everyone did okay with the material given to them. My biggest problem with the film though is perhaps also my biggest problem with “Killers of the Flower Moon,” particularly the protagonist. Having seen the movie a second time, I can confirm that problem continues to linger.
(L-r) WILL FERRELL as Cam Brady, KATHERINE LaNASA as Rose Brady, MADISON WOLFE as Jessica Brady and RANDALL CUNNINGHAM as Cam Jr. in Warner Bros. Pictures comedy THE CAMPAIGN, a Warner Bros. Pictures release.
I do not need all my protagonists to be the same, but I found Will Ferrell’s character, Cam Brady, to be a bit of an egotist, kind of jerky sometimes, and somewhat hard to root for. My distaste for Brady does not have as much as to with his policies or political views in comparison to his personality. I am not in love with the way he presents himself. Granted, Will Ferrell has previously played Ron Burgundy in “Anchorman,” who is also kind of jerky and an egotist. However, I believe Burgundy crosses that line to where he is not exactly a butthead, but rather a lovable moron. Also, I found “Anchorman” to be much more quotable, much funnier. I barely remembered the dialogue from “The Campaign” once the movie was finished. Now that the movie is fresh in my mind, I can say that even after the second time, the film is still nowhere near as quotable as “Anchorman.” That said, there are a lot of decent comedy gags.
A couple of my favorite parts of the movie include one moment where we see Zach Galifianakis’ character, Marty Huggins, having dinner with his family, and they all confess personal sins or mishaps to which they have connected themselves recently. And the further we get into the conversation, the crazier the sin. We hear confessions from Huggins’ wife, Mitzi (Sarah Baker), and their two boys. It was one of the funnier scenes of the movie. I want to know how much of it was improvised by the actors themselves or how much of it was written in advance, because a lot of what was revealed in this particular scene is pretty clever.
I think I would like this movie better if Cam Brady was not the main character. Again, I do not find him to be particularly likable. Honestly, I found myself more interested in the story behind Marty Huggins, an everyday North Carolinian who does tours of his town. Sure, the movie sort of stereotypes the character and basically makes him a live-action Ned Flanders to an overwhelming degree, but I thought the character was charming. But I also think this kind of gets into the nitty gritty of general politics where something as simple as getting to power becomes a competition where people have no choice but to fight dirty. Sometimes an ego can help you make your way to the top. Sometimes people like that. There is a saying that nice guys finish last and that saying could perhaps apply to politics from time to time.
I am reviewing this movie during the U.S. election season of 2024, and one of the most prominent things I can say about the film is that there are parallels to said season. I do not want to highlight my political views, but Cam Brady as a character reminds me a bit of Donald Trump. They are not the same guy by any stretch of the imagination. But Trump seems to do well with males. There is a scene where we see Brady and crew watching a concept for a campaign ad and it paints Brady as a “REAL AMERICAN MAN,” and spends lots of time hyping up how his partner is a flexible, attractive cheerleader, and the ad shows her off like she is auditioning for Playboy. Unsurprisingly, that ad tested very well with men, but not so fantastically with women. Without spoiling anything, Brady relationship with said partner sort of reminds me of what some people speculate about Trump’s current relationship with his wife, Melania. Specifically as to whether Melania genuinely loves her husband as opposed to being by his side for an unrelated reason. But you could also say this movie does a good job at drawing parallels to typical behavior we see in politics nowadays, more than what we are just seeing in this election season. Whether it is putting words in other people’s mouths, finger-pointing, politicians pretending to be more interested in a subject or topic than perhaps they actually are. The movie shows how much the opponents try to one up each other to the point where they will be okay with issuing the most public of humiliations. The rivalry comes off like “Impractical Jokers” if instead of it being between a group of friends, it is between two enemies who have no chance of making up and making out at the end of the day.
Also, Joe Gatto, I miss you… If you want to come back, please do. You’re an icon.
(L-r) JOHN LITHGOW as Glenn Motch and DAN AYKROYD as Wade Motch in Warner Bros. Pictures comedy THE CAMPAIGN, a Warner Bros. Pictures release.
One particular highlight of the movie for me, or more accurately, two highlights, are John Lithgow and Dan Aykroyd as Glenn and Wade Motch. These men are a couple of money-hungry brothers who end up playing a role in the race between the two candidates. From a casting perspective, I think both actors are well placed and they do a great job with their material. I also want to know if it was on purpose that whoever cast these two or the director wanted the two brothers to look like real-life variants of Statler and Waldorf from “The Muppets.” I mean look at them! The resemblance is there! They also have some of the better lines in the film. There is one exchange towards the final minutes of the runtime that got a good laugh out of me. As I said, this is not the funniest movie I have ever seen, but when it sticks the landing, it does so very well.
This movie also features its fair share of news reports. Most of the time when news reports come up in movies, they do not really add that much to the film other than an instance of exposition or drama. But in the case of “The Campaign,” this film delivers perhaps one of the funnier anchor reads I have come across in the history of cinema, particularly from MSNBC’s Chris Matthews.
“This is likely to hurt him (Brady) with the Christian right, social conservatives. Really any group that opposes baby-punching.” -Chris Matthews
And yes, this is one of those major incidents we see come up in connection to our main protagonist. He accidentally punches a baby. This happens during the first half of the film, but it is not how it starts. I kind of wonder how much more I would have enjoyed the film had this particular incident been the first controversy the protagonist had to deal with. We see him in the first few minutes with his team dealing with the aftermath of sending a lewd voicemail to a family and it honestly just made him look like an imbecile. If we supposedly start with Brady punching the baby, it could have humanized him a bit more and maybe given me a more positive first impression. I get that this film is satirical, and therefore occasionally far-fetched, but I believe that there are moments of the film where the line is crossed a tad too far.
(L-r) WILL FERRELL as Cam Brady and JASON SUDEIKIS as Mitch in Warner Bros. Pictures comedy THE CAMPAIGN, a Warner Bros. Pictures release.
In the end, “The Campaign” is not going to get a lot of repeat viewings from me. It is not the best movie I have ever seen by any stretch of the imagination. And at times, it is rather predictable. But it is also perhaps more than meets the eye. Maybe if I revisit this movie in 2028 I will feel different about it, but if I can find some parallels between this movie’s script and the 2024 presidential race, then maybe this movie is aging just fine and could be something more than a middle of the road comedy. But unfortunately that is also what this movie is. A middle of the road comedy. It definitely has laughs. But I also have seen much funnier movies, especially from both Will Ferrell and Zach Galifianakis. I did not hate myself after watching “The Campaign,” but it could be better. I am going to give “The Campaign” a 6/10.
“The Campaign” is now available on DVD and Blu-ray and is available to rent or buy on VOD.
Thanks for reading this review! Stay tuned for more reviews in my ongoing Election Days series. My next “Election Days” review is going to be for “W.,” which stars Josh Brolin as former U.S. President George W. Bush. 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 Campaign?” What did you think about it? Or, if they were to make another election race movie starring two comedians as opposing candidates, who would you like to see as the stars of that film? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!
“Piece by Piece” is directed by Morgan Neville (20 Feet from Stardom, Won’t You be My Neighbor?) and stars Pharrell Williams in his own biographical documentary comedy entirely told though a LEGO animation style. The film centers around Williams’ life, how he grew up, how he created his music, and how he became the star people know him to be today.
I will be real… Modern music is not my forte. I have often distanced myself from the material in the past number of years that winds itself up in the “top 40.” I find that a decent amount of the biggest hits that come out nowadays are not my cup of tea. But one of the advertising points of “Piece by Piece” was the song “Happy,” which is performed by Pharrell Williams, the film’s lead. Turns out I never knew who did the song despite it playing everywhere in 2014. Yes, it was featured in “Despicable Me 2,” but those films are not the most intriguing to me. I never cared enough to watch the credits and see who did the song. But when they advertised this movie, my first thought was not, “Oh, Pharrell Williams!” Before that thought even popped in my head, I had another one and that was… “Oh great, I have to hear ‘Happy’ for the six-thousandth time…” I despised the song when it came out. Despite sounding peaceful and cheery, I found that aspect of the song to be overdone to the point of annoyance. It felt overly cartoony. But despite my lack of knowledge on the artist, I was curious to see how this film handled Pharrell Williams’ story. I knew almost nothing about Bob Marley, but I cannot say that turned me away from the movie centered around him that came out earlier this year, specifically “Bob Marley: One Love.” If anything, the overplaying of that film’s trailers when I went to the cinema almost did. And then the movie turned out to make that streak of trailers all the more irritating.
But I found out about “Piece by Piece” just as the film was coming out. I wanted to see this movie because I thought the idea was original and creative. Yes, we have seen theatrically animated “LEGO Movies” in the past, and those have been great. There is a decent amount of LEGO content done for home viewing, and the same can be said for stop motion LEGO videos. But this was something that I have never seen. A LEGO-style documentary… This is also likely the first notable “LEGO” movie of sorts that has been done since Warner Bros. gave Universal the rights to make new ones. If you want to get technical, in this case, Universal is distributing the film internationally, but in the United States, this is a Focus Features movie. For those not in the know, they’re both owned by Comcast.
I really should not say I am surprised I like this movie, but I am nevertheless surprised at how much I enjoyed it. I say that because this film comes from Morgan Neville, who also helmed the wonderful documentary “Won’t You be My Neighbor?“, centered around television’s Fred Rogers. This film is not as good as that one, but I can definitely say this is one of the most unique animated features I have ever come across. Although one thing “Piece by Piece” does better is that it fantastically lets us see the world through Pharrell Williams’ eyes. To be fair though, he was alive during the making of this project whereas Fred Rogers died more than a decade before “Won’t You be My Neighbor?” came out. But “Piece by Piece” clearly dives not only into the life of Pharrell Williams, but the mind of Pharrell Williams. This film may as well prompt an argument that almost whenever Williams dozes off, he imagines whatever comes into his head in a LEGO artstyle. Like a lot of great stories, this is about someone who sees themselves as “different” from the rest of his peers. If this were Tatooine, Williams would clearly be some variant of Luke Skywalker. This film effectively captures Williams’ one of a kind personality early on. The film is autobiographical, so there is some bias that comes with a story like this, perhaps even when it comes to admitting personal flaws. But one thing I can say about this film is that in many cases, it is a nice, easy watch. It can be a good pick for a family movie night, that is as long as everyone in the household is okay with the occasional expletive despite the film’s PG rating. That said, this is a creative, animated take on how a documentary can be done. It has recognizable music I think some children and adults would want to dance to. But as a story it is also compelling. You can tell that Pharrell Williams is passionate about his music, and how he got to his position. The documentary shows he does not forget his roots either, even if he mentions he felt out of place at times within said roots. When it comes to drama, this film does not come with a ton of it. But sometimes a lighthearted story is all you need, and this is exactly that. But for the most part, this film has something for everyone.
Kind of like the Warner Bros. LEGO features starring Chris Pratt for example, there is a colorful, glossy tone to the whole picture. The film may present itself with blocky physical limitations but manages to use those blocks in order to give a spectacle that you could only get out of a project like this one. One example is done with water. There are plenty of moments in the film where we see water. After all, this film is set partially on Virginia Beach, and we learn about Williams’ fascination with a concept that he just so happens to see every day.
Not once does the film feel gimmicky or overdone. I think doing this documentary in LEGO is not just a good idea, but having seen the final product I can confirm it is absolutely brilliant. The way they integrate the visuals with the music is very well done. I even like what they did with “Happy!” I thought that sequence was fun. Even the buildup to the song was clever, where they clearly reference “Despicable Me 2.” I am sure the head honchos at Universal were very happy to have an excuse to shove the minions in another one of their films because lord knows they do not have several thousand projects with them already… Again, despite the blocky limitations, LEGO is all about imagination. LEGO as a concept and brand has a history of allowing children, adults, families, whomever to build anything their heart desires for several years. Yes, they have many projects that are based on things that already exist, but there is no doubt a creative spark to the overall concept.
“Piece by Piece” is quite funny. The film has a really good pace to it in general and the humor that does come up got some laughs out of me. It is not as funny as the Warner Bros. “LEGO movies” which gave me some of my hardest laughs ever as a moviegoer, but it has its laughs. One of my favorite parts of the film involves an earlier moment in Pharrell Williams’ career when he gets his first paycheck. And it is not a small paycheck. It turned out to be $10,000! Not bad for an early payday. But of course, Pharrell Williams was a teenager, so he did what a lot of people who have not fully grasped the concept of financial responsibility would do and quickly blow through the entire paycheck. Also, Snoop Dogg is in the film as himself, as are most of this film’s cast, and I thought it was a step up from his previous animated outing this year, “The Garfield Movie.” Seeing him smile at one point was kind of fun too.
“Piece by Piece” is undoubtedly a unique film, and it makes me wonder if we are going to see more projects like this. Part of me is curious to see another documentary done like this but at the same time, I somewhat would not like this to become a continued trend because I enjoyed this film partially for it being one of a kind. This movie is evidently going to end up nowhere near as successful as some of the other movies we got this year. Heck, during its opening weekend, it was not even the most successful animated film at the cinema. Despite it being out a week earlier, “The Wild Robot” managed to make more money during “Piece by Piece’s” opening weekend. But if you are looking for something fun and light, “Piece by Piece” is a great pick. Is there drama? Sure. But nothing over the top. If you want to forget your troubles for an hour and a half, this is quite a good escape.
In the end, “Piece by Piece” is a great time. It is one of those movies that I will probably be thinking about at the end of the year. I do not think it is going to make my top 10, but right now it is probably in my top 20. If you love animated movies, this is a good time to go to the cinema. “Transformers: One” is a really fun adventure. “The Wild Robot” is one of the best films of the year.” “Look Back” is a captivating and moving story. For the most part, I am going to remember “Piece by Piece” more for its style as opposed to its substance. The very idea of doing this film in LEGO is clever enough, but to have it look as polished as it is, I can say that is even better. This is not to say “Piece by Piece” is a bad narrative. It is actually quite fascinating, but when it comes to style and substance, the style edges out the substance to a certain degree. This is one reason why I think “The Wild Robot” is a slightly better film because I will remember “The Wild Robot” for its characters and the stakes that build as their journeys play out. The animation sometimes has an unfinished look to it, but like “Piece by Piece,” it is also creative in its design. But I think if you are going to pick a film between these two to watch on a movie night with the family, neither one is a bad choice. I think these can make for a great animated double feature with the family. I would suggest starting with “The Wild Robot,” which is a bit heavier, a bit more emotional. And once that is over, keep the night going with “Piece by Piece,” which contains less drama and some dance-worthy music. Of the two movies, I would call it the palate cleanser. Whether you decide to watch “Piece by Piece” with the family, by yourself, or as part of a double feature somewhere, you are doing yourself a favor. I am going to give “Piece by Piece” a 7/10.
“Piece by Piece” is now playing in theaters everywhere. Tickets are available now.
Thanks for reading this review! My next reviews are going to be for “Saturday Night” and “Megalopolis.” Stay tuned! 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 “Piece by Piece?” What did you think about it? Or, what is your favorite LEGO project? It can be a movie, a video game, a toyset, anything! What is your favorite LEGO creation? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!
“Look Back” is directed by Kiyotaka Oshiyama (Devilman: Crybaby, The Boy and the Heron) and is based on a manga of the same name. This film adaptation is about two girls who could not be more different. Fujino (Yumi Kawai) is a confident student who goes to school every day and Kyomoto (Mizuki Yoshida) is a shut-in, but the two end up sharing a connection through their love for manga and form an unlikely bond.
I am not exactly what one would call famous for my last minute purchases, but I can confirm that I have a history of making them. And this even goes for some of the movies I watch. I had not even heard of “Brian and Charles” until maybe an hour before watching the film when I popped on the first trailer from my home. But I found it to be a solid movie, and therefore a good use of my time even if I did not take much of it to consider watching the film. I remember going to see “Captain America: The Winter Soldier” on opening Thursday because my party and I had tickets to see “Noah” around the same time, but the showtime was canceled. Moments later, one thing led to another and we ended up seeing “Captain America: The Winter Soldier,” which continues to reign as one of my top titles in the MCU. While not as last minute as those two, I was prompted to check out “Look Back” after seeing something something about it online. I booked a showtime the same day on the AMC app, and took my car to the mall to go watch the movie. I did not watch a trailer, or any other marketing. I knew almost nothing about the movie other than it being of the anime medium and the project being connected to someone who also created “Chainsaw Man,” which for the record is a property to which I have personally not given any of my time.
I am proud to say that not only is this one of the best last minute, barely researched purchases I have ever made, but this is one of the best films of the year. And I say this knowing about a chunk of this year’s animated slate. I know that “Inside Out 2” is getting tons of praise and making lots of money. I know that just a couple weeks ago, I have come onto this blog to sing praises about “The Wild Robot,” which is now in my top 5 DreamWorks animated projects. Despite seeing this film a couple weeks back, part of me still needs time to marinate and decide if I like this movie or “The Wild Robot” more. To be completely honest, those two are neck and neck for different reasons. While I think “The Wild Robot” is uniquely animated and offers an excellent take on parenting through the unlikely bond of a robot and a goose, I love this film for different reasons, and you could argue these reasons have bias attached to them. But while you could argue there is bias, it could also indicate that the people making the movie enormously understand their audience.
This film is about two young, passionate manga artists. They are not famous professionals. In fact, they are still in school. But they knew about each other sometime before having an encounter that goes in an unexpected direction. These characters have a common interest, but their personalities and lifestyles are not a match. Despite that, they find themselves in a situation where they end up bonding further and even working together. As someone who dedicates myself so heavily into various crafts such as this blog, my short films over the years, or some of my more professional endeavors. I found traits from both of these characters that I also have seen in myself over the years.
Fujino represents me by highlighting one of my personal flaws. That being perfectionism. In a way, perfectionism should be a good thing. After all, I am dedicating myself so heavily to doing something so well that such efforts should be rewarded. Only problem is, perfectionism is not great when you want to keep your mind sane. This leads me to another aspect that comes into play for this character, particularly jealousy. Fujino starts off the film as the best manga artist of her peers. Her works are published in the school paper on a weekly basis. Everything is going great until she has competition in said paper. She sees the work of Kyomoto, a student who does not leave her home. This pushes Fujino to work harder and create something better than she feels she has donw previously. But we also see moments where Fujino’s envy gets the best of her. It prompts her to take a certain action that some would say is uncalled for.
Kyomoto is representative of myself as an introvert. Do I leave my house? Oh, of course. But I do not have many close friends. And I often go to events alone, many times with the most absolute of intentions. If any of my friends are reading this, I love you, but sometimes I need to be alone. It is nothing against you, I just like my space. I also sort of feel that way as an artist and a storyteller. Through my time working at a news station and making short films, I understand that projects like those often require collaboration and teamwork. But I also love making art because there are times where said art is directly based on something I came up with. Something I have imagined. I will start making something from scratch and finish it in a similar fashion all by myself.
This film also reminded me of another anime, Mamoru Hosoda’s “Belle,” because that film dives deep into how we see other people. But whereas “Belle” dives deep into the mystery of how people represent themselves online, we see the story throw a curveball of sorts when our main duo first meet. While we see Fujino channel her envy against Kyomoto, we find out Kyomoto is obsessed with Fujino’s work. It is quite poetic to be frank, because yes, Fujino may have doubted herself as an artist because of how she viewed Kyomoto’s work, but the moments leading up to the duo’s first encounter shows that Fujino’s work paid off. Not only was she flattered that someone appreciates her material, but that flattery came from her own rival.
Seeing these two together was one of this film’s many highlights. Every scene between them was believable and played a part in the film’s overall emotional touch. I enjoy stories where we see two different people somehow click by the slightest of miracles. But of course, the two people have to emit chemistry, and these two have it in spades. I watched the film in Japanese, and both voice actors play off each other perfectly. I believed every exchange.
The movie is also a beast when it comes to its technical aspects. It gets rather creative with its animation style. While the animation style takes a traditional 2D approach, it contains moments that have a manga feel to them. You can tell that there was some love dedicated to the medium in this film’s story. In fact, one of my favorite sequences of the movie from a technical standpoint is where we see Fujino draw a yonkoma, or a four-cell manga for those not in the know. We see the sequence play out from one cell to the next in a limited color spectrum. I thought the way that was done was clever. It kind of reminded me of the “Diary of a Wimpy Kid” movies, where we see the footage transition from live-action to the diary drawings. It is a nice visual despite its limited effort.
By the way, I listened to the film’s soundtrack while making this review. It is excellent. Haruka Nakamura’s score is quite powerful. If “Look Back” is in a theater near you, I would by a ticket just to hear the music in all its glory. It was definitely a standout.
That said, if you are looking for an animated film to watch that can make you jump for joy, this is probably where I would instead recommend “The Wild Robot.” That film too has its teary moments, but perhaps not to the degree of this one. “Look Back” takes a riveting turn in the second half. I do not want to get into spoilers, but there is a moment that I could have not have predicted coming even from a mile away. The more I think about it, the more I look at the title of this film, “Look Back,” the more I maybe should have foreseen an emotional gut punch at such a point. But regardless, when this moment comes, the rest of the film is something that I cannot say made me sob my eyes out, but it is pretty sad to watch at times. Some could argue “Look Back” is an easy watch because of its short runtime, quick pace, and likable characters. But I will warn you that if you are someone who easily cries during more emotional films and wants to resist that feeling, then “Look Back” might not be your first choice. But if you can handle some tears, you are in for a film that pays tribute to the love of art, why people dedicate themselves to their passions, and explores an unlikely friendship between two characters who I came to adore by the film’s conclusion.
In the end, “Look Back” is one of those movies that reminds me of my love of art, my dedication to creativity, and how important it is to have other people by your side. It shows that we all have a story to tell, and sometimes those stories have their challenges. “Look Back” is one of my biggest surprises of the year. I had no idea this movie was coming out. And unfortunately, right now, it is only playing in one theater near me. But if it is playing somewhere near you, give it a chance sometime. This film is near perfect. I am going to give “Look Back” a 9/10.
“Look Back” is now playing in theaters. Tickets are available now.
Thanks for reading this review! My next review is for another animated movie, “Piece by Piece,” an all new documentary entirely presented in a LEGO artstyle. Is it a gimmick? Is it creative? You will find out soon enough. Also coming soon, I will be sharing my thoughts on “Saturday Night” and “Megalopolis.” 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 “Look Back?” What did you think about it? Or, what are some of your creative passions? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!
“Joker: Folie à Deux” is directed by Todd Phillips (The Hangover, War Dogs) and stars Joaquin Phoenix (Don’t Worry, He Won’t Get Far on Foot, Gladiator), Lady Gaga (A Star is Born, House of Gucci), Brendan Gleeson (The Banshees of Inisherin, Troy), Catherine Keener (Being John Malkovich, Capote), Zazie Beatz (Deadpool 2, Atlanta), Steve Coogan (Percy Jackson & the Olympians: The Lightning Thief, Philomena), Harry Lawtey (Industry, You & Me), and Leigh Hill (Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them, Game of Thrones). This is the sequel to the 2019 film “Joker” and once again follows Arthur Fleck who this time around meets the love of his life, Lee Quinzel, while incarcerated at Arkham State Hospital.
Comic book movies this year have been a fascinating ride. If you told me that we would be getting only one Marvel Studios film this year, multiple prominent R-rated titles, and another movie from the same writers who did “Morbius,” I would have you called you crazy. Just to recap, I loved “Deadpool & Wolverine” and I hated “Madame Web.” Those movies are on two opposite sides of the spectrum. The former might be my favorite movie of the year, while the latter might be my least favorite movie of the year. And for those asking, I did not see “The Crow.” Going into “Joker: Folie à Deux,” I assumed that this movie would fall somewhere between “Deadpool & Wolverine” and “Madame Web” in terms of quality because those are on two extreme ends of my quality scale. Statistically, it makes sense. But I also realize that there is a lot of potential that could be fulfilled with a “Joker” sequel.
I say there is a lot of potential that could be fulfilled with a “Joker” sequel while also realizing there is just as much of a chance that nothing good could come from it either. After all, we got this sequel for the same reason we get sequels to lots of other movies. Money. The original film made history by being the first R-rated title to make a billion dollars at the box office. And one can argue it deserved to make a lot of money. It was a well made film that not only differentiated from other comic book movies at the time, but it was a well-crafted, well-directed, well-acted story that highlights how some of society tends to look at mental health. In addition to its praise from other bodies during awards season, “Joker” was nominated for 11 Oscars and took home two. If you are an executive at Warner Bros. and you are looking at the financial success and extended conversation that came about because of “Joker,” chances are you would want to greenlight a sequel. Personally, if I were there, I would be a bit hesitant. The first film ends a on satisfying note and I am not sure where I would want to take the story next. But I do admire the sequel taking a big swing with the idea that there were going to be musical elements attached. That is something we do not see in stories based on comic books. Forget “La La Land,” I want to know more about “Ha Ha Land!”
There is no doubt that “Joker: Folie à Deux” takes big swings, and because of how much money the last one made, it is likely that this sequel could get away with a lot of them. But it misses on each one. “Joker: Folie à Deux” is a movie that does not really understand its own identity. I think there are times when movies can be a bunch of different things at once, but “Joker: Folie à Deux” does not stand out positively in regards to any of its disciplines. When it comes to being a jukebox musical, it is annoying. That is if it technically is a jukebox musical. We will get to more on that later. As a courtroom drama, it is a bore sometimes. There are select moments that kept me interested, but it is kind of off and on. As a sequel documenting Arthur Fleck’s progression as a character, there is almost no progression to be seen. Yes, we see him meet Lee and that plays a part in the story. But a good portion of the sequel is a reflection of what happened in the first film. There is nothing wrong with referencing consequences in a case like this, but the movie spends so much time reflecting on its past that it forgets to live in the present. Yes, the story is about the aftermath of its 2019 predecessor, but the movie does not do a ton to explore this character any deeper.
I enjoyed the first film. I found it to be a fascinating study on how a broken man like Arthur Fleck transformed into someone who became a face of chaos. I was invested in his story, his journey. I was not invested in Arthur’s arc this time around. Sure, there are moments that had my attention. But again, these are moments in an otherwise excruciating film. When you spend an extended period of time in court hearing about and reflecting on the events of a successful first movie, all that comes to mind is the idea that if I had time on my hands, I would probably rather go back and watch that movie again instead of this one.
It is kind of like what I said about “Furiosa” earlier this year, which was not horrible, but it ended in such a way where I thought I should go back and watch “Fury Road” again as opposed to the movie I just watched, which I found to be inferior.
“Joker: Folie à Deux” plays very much like the finale to the popular TV series “Seinfeld.” Much like that finale, “Joker: Folie à Deux” piggybacks off the success of its predecessor and fills so much time referencing said predecessor. Both projects spend a lot of time in court where said references come to life. But they are both missing a spark of what made the older material click. Both projects tend to put its main characters in uncomfortable positions. Not just in the story, as many projects should. But as a viewer, I can say I watched both of these feeling a bitter taste in my mouth. The “Seinfeld” finale goes out of its way to spoon-feed to the audience that its regular cast just so happen to be morons. “Joker: Folie à Deux” centers around someone who has a criminal history, which we have seen before. Without going into specific details, I do not need to watch “Joker: Folie à Deux” with the need to “root” for somebody who did what they did in the previous movie. But at minimum, I want to be engaged. And the film does not allow me to do that much.
I would like to talk about the film’s musical elements, that is if you can call them that or if the crew can actually confirm if this movie is a musical to begin with. Again, we will discuss more on that soon… Because the way I see things, this film fails miserably as a jukebox musical. Yes, there are no original songs. Did I recognize any of the songs in the movie as they were being performed? Sure. Could I tell you what the songs in the movie were if you ran into me on the street? Probably not. The lead duo’s singing in this film is kind of off and on. But when it is off, it is off. Never once was I watching these two and felt a complete sense of immersion. This is also really sad because I saw the movie at my local IMAX, which just so happens to be one of the few locations showing the movie in the brand’s coveted 1.43:1 aspect ratio, which is often used when shooting and presenting Christopher Nolan’s movies. When we get to the musical sequences, the screen goes from scope to IMAX and personally, I notice it. But not once do I “feel” it. This movie does not do anything to make its musical or singing sequences exciting. The ideas represented in each song do not change much. They are often a distraction from the story as opposed to a part of the story. Can Lady Gaga sing? Of course she can. But I am not going to pretend she does her best work here. If you want to see Lady Gaga sing like a champ on screen, just go watch the 2018 edition of “A Star is Born.” She is incredible in that.
Although if there is one thing I like about the musical sequences, there is some cool set design. There is one sequence where we see the leads together in front of a clearly fake night sky with a “Hotel Arkham” in the background. I thought that set in particular was atmospheric. It looked nice. But the sequences themselves are sometimes a drag or simply outright unmemorable.
You might think I am not satisfied with these sequences because I have an agenda against musicals. To me, musicals are like any other genre, if there is a project in it that appears to be done decently, it has my interest. If you want a review for a musical that I think needs more attention, than check out my thoughts on Steven Spielberg’s “West Side Story.” I was looking forward to seeing what “Joker: Folie à Deux” can do with its musical elements. I knew that these elements were in the movie before I watched it. But I looked back at the marketing, and part of me wonders how good of a job the marketing team did at implying that this movie was going to be a musical. Every time I watched the teaser trailer and I saw the shot of the spotlight shining on Arthur and the scene with Hotel Arkham, I realized those moments were musical-like. I thought people would pick up on that. But I watched with this movie with my dad. In fact, we went to see “Beetlejuice Beetlejuice” together last month and the “Joker: Folie à Deux” teaser played in front of it. Maybe my dad’s trailer retention is not the greatest, but we ended up seeing this movie together too and he was not expecting a musical out of a film like this. For the record, he told me straight up, he does not like musicals. He made that clear when the film ended. Kind of like the first “Joker,” I respect this sequel for putting things in it that we do not usually see in a comic book-based film. I wanted all the musical shenanigans to work. But the singing was not the greatest. The songs were not that good. The movie kind of reminded me of “Dear Evan Hansen,” which did not work for me as a musical partially because the transitions to the numbers themselves did not come off as seamless as maybe they could have. They felt very out of place. There is one, maybe two numbers in the movie that feel natural in terms of that movie’s atmosphere. But that is about it.
Some of you might be reading this with the urge to ask several questions. For those who had no exposure to this movie, you may be wondering how musical elements got into the project to begin with. And others may wonder why the heck I am calling “Joker: Folie à Deux” a musical at all. Because if you ask one of its stars, Lady Gaga, or its director, Todd Phillips, they will say this film is not as much a musical, as opposed to a movie with a ton of music in it. If you ask me, “Joker: Folie à Deux” is simply a bad attempt at a musical. It is a musical that places its songs as an afterthought. I would like to use a quote from YouTuber Jeremy Jahns’ “Transformers: The Last Knight” review. This quote has more to do with that film’s pacing, but hear me out. “In the end, it’s how long a scene feels, not how long it actually is.” The same principle applies to this film’s identity and genre. Lady Gaga and Todd Phillips can try to sell me on the notion that “Joker: Folie à Deux” is not a musical as much as they want. But even though I sometimes think the phrase “the customer is always right” can sometimes be overused and presents cases where that is not always accurate, as a customer who bought a ticket to this movie, all I saw was a bad musical. That is what my dad who went with me saw too.
But let us say that “Joker: Folie à Deux” is somehow not a musical, and instead just a movie with plenty of singing. I do think there is a place in cinema for non-musical movies where the characters do a lot of singing. One example that comes to mind is Mamoru Hosoda’s anime, “Belle,” which is about someone who develops a virtual singing career. The moments where the lead character in that film sings occasionally play out like a musical. They’re visually creative and are presented in a massive scale, but those moments are not straight up musical sequences per se… Though there is one moment that takes a lot of inspiration from Disney’s “Beauty and the Beast.” But unlike “Joker: Folie à Deux,” each song in “Belle” effectively furthers the story and just so happen to be presented in sequences where not once did I have the illusion that a gun was locked right next to my head. Additionally, the soundtrack to “Belle” itself contains banger after banger after banger. I have found myself not just rewatching “Belle” at home more times than I would like to admit, but also listening to the songs from the movie in my spare time such as when I am in the car or when I am doing reviews like these.
Now that such an overblown, elongated, supersized rant about whether or not this movie is actually a musical is over, you might be thinking… Did I like anything about the movie? Well, yes.
For starters, the film does carry a few consistencies from the previous installment that also work the second time around. Joaquin Phoenix does a good job in the lead role. I do not think he is going to win an Oscar this year unlike he did in the first movie. But he puts on a captivating performance. Although to be fair on that “no Oscar this year” comment, I think the material this time around did him fewer favors than what he had in front of him for the first movie. Lawrence Sher also returned to do the cinematography, which like the first film, is really good. In fact, you could argue it was improved from the last movie. This film feels slightly bigger than the last one in terms of its scale. I do not know if I saw $200 million brought to the screen like the budget suggests, I would assume Joaquin Phoenix and Lady Gaga got a good chunk of that money. But as I mentioned earlier, I like how the movie uses IMAX technology. Judging by everything I said so far, you can probably tell I am in no rush to buy the Blu-ray. But I hope if they do put one out, Warner Bros. allows the release to show an expanded aspect ratio during the IMAX scenes. Another consistency that I love in this film is the score. Like Joaquin Phoenix did for Best Actor, Hildur Guðnadóttir won an Oscar for her work on the original film in the category of Best Original Score. Personally, it was not my favorite score of the year. I think Alan Silvestri’s music in “Avengers: Endgame” was that year’s winner for me. That and Michael Abels’ work on “Us” was quite good too. But I remember hearing the “Joker” score and it captured the dark tone the film carried at times. It is not exactly depressing, but can easily induce a sense of discomfort. And “Joker: Folie à Deux’s” score does the same thing. It really shows how good your score is when an image or scene of the movie from which it originates comes to mind, and when you are thinking about said image or scene, you hear a glimmer of that score in your head at the same time. When I think about “Star Wars” sometimes, I will think of a certain moment and easily attach John Williams’ music to that thought. Hildur Guðnadóttir’s work has that power in both the original film and this sequel.
There is also one scene in the movie that I will not go too heavily into because it does involve potential spoilers, but there is a moment where Arthur is asked to sign someone’s book. While the autograph is being written, the person who gave the book says something that prompts a certain reaction out of Arthur. “Joker: Folie à Deux” is a movie that unlike many other comic book-based projects, does not have many laughs. But knowing what this movie entails, it does not need them. This one moment in particular though was hilarious. If you somehow drag yourself to the theater to check this monstrosity out and remember this part of the review, you will know which scene I am talking about when it comes up. It was a highlight of the movie for me.
The film also tends to maintain consistency with other stories about Joker and Harley Quinn, or in this case, Arthur and Lee. In the story, these two, as much as they like each other, show signs that they may not be the best match. I thought the film at times does an okay job at highlighting that. But at the same time, whether it was trying to highlight that or not, as I watched Joaquin Phoenix and Lady Gaga together on screen, those two actors honestly could have played off each other a little better. Watching these two together felt awkward at times. Was discomfort the point when it comes to this film’s lead couple? You can definitely make that argument. But the discomfort was exactly as it sounds. Straight up uncomfortable. I was not marveled by the two leads of “Joker: Folie à Deux.” If anything, they were missing a spark. Yes, they are played by recognizable people with talent, but their talents do not lend themselves to this movie.
For the record, “Joker: Folie à Deux” has been out since early October, so chances are some of you reading this have seen the movie, but for those who have not, I will not spoil the ending. That said, we are going to talk about it. First off, it comes out of nowhere. Second, unlike the first movie, it does not feel satisfying. It is one of those endings that when you see it, you are left wondering if they forgot to finish the movie. Sure, it is somewhat conclusive, but there is a feeling of emptiness that comes with it. Is the ending bold? Perhaps. But again, this is another swing and a miss. Having seen this ending, it is a final note that would have honestly worked better if it were attached to the first movie. Knowing the climax of the first movie and how that all goes down, I think that if the climax of that first movie, as it was, came to an end, we see Arthur in jail, and a particular chunk of the second movie’s ending were implemented into the first, I think it would have been a better fit. In fact, as I said, I do not have anything against the first movie’s ending. But I think if that recently mentioned chunk were used to cap off the first film, it would have made for something incredible. It might be an ending that I would be talking about on a positive note for years to come. It would have been clever. The ending to “Joker: Folie à Deux” is a slap in the face. It left me speechless, confused, and a bit broken. The movie could have been a continued progression of the title character, or at least his alternate identity, but almost refuses to give any interesting expansion to him at all. And it culminates with maybe the most baffling ending I have ever seen in a movie based on a comic book.
This is one of those endings that tries so hard to be clever, but it fails to get any raw reaction out of me. It is the below freezing icing on the heavily wax-induced cake that is “Joker: Folie à Deux.” It is a contender to be the most controversial film I have reviewed in years. It is a film that seems to be confused in what its audience is. I found a decent number of people on the Internet who enjoyed this movie, but there is a reason why if you look at the box office, another clown-centered film, “Terrifier 3,” which for the record I do not plan to see, is currently finding its people and “Joker: Folie à Deux” is not. It appears to understand its purpose and who it is for. At the box office, “Joker: Folie à Deux” had the biggest second-weekend drop in comic book movie history. Clearly, I am not alone when it comes to adding to this film’s bad word of mouth. While this movie has some okay parts in it and looks nice, it is nowhere near enough to outweigh the pile of garbage that toppled me throughout its poorly paced runtime.
In the end, “Joker: Folie à Deux” just so happens to be a joke itself. But am I laughing? Absolutely not. There is a common consensus about sequels that they are usually not as good as their predecessor, but rarely do I recall seeing a step down as massive as this one. If anything, “Joker: Folie à Deux” reminds me of say my transition from “Star Wars: The Force Awakens,” one of my favorite films in the franchise, to “Star Wars: The Last Jedi.” If you read my review for “The Last Jedi,” you would know that I gave that film a positive grade when it came out. But the more I thought about the movie, and after rewatching it, the less I liked its story choices. And “The Last Jedi” and “Joker: Folie à Deux” are kind of similar in some ways. Both films look beautiful. They have good scores. But I am not a massive fan of the directions they took the story and certain characters. I wish we got something different with them. “Joker: Folie à Deux” only manages to support my thoughts that this property would have been better had the timeline just been one and done. I did not see the point of this movie other than to make a quick buck. Going into the movie, I would have argued it could have garnered some awards talk because of the previous film’s success, but this film is not receiving the best word of mouth. If I were to picture this movie’s fate at next year’s Oscars, I think it will have a chance it being nominated for several technical categories. But I do not know if it will get any of the big ticket ones like screenplay, director, actor, or picture. “Joker: Folie à Deux” is not even the worst comic book movie of the year. This sequel has the abomination against humanity known as “Madame Web” to thank for that. But “Joker: Folie à Deux” is probably the biggest disappointment I have seen in a long time. I was looking forward to this movie. I thought it had potential. But all I saw was an iffy courtroom drama with bad musical and singing sequences, an underuse of Lady Gaga, a series of unmemorable events, and a big fat dumb ending. I am going to give “Joker: Folie à Deux” a 2/10.
“Joker: Folie à Deux” is now playing in theaters everywhere. Tickets are available now. Plenty of seats are available, I guarantee it!
Thanks for reading this review! My next reviews are going to be for “Look Back,” “Piece by Piece,” “Saturday Night,” and “Megalopolis.” 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 “Joker: Folie à Deux?” What did you think about it? Or, what is the biggest step down in a franchise you have seen from a certain installment to the one that came after it? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!
“Transformers One” is directed by Josh Cooley (Toy Story 4, Inside Out) and stars Chris Hemsworth (Thor, Rush), Brian Tyree Henry (Eternals, Godzilla vs. Kong), Scarlett Johansson (Iron Man 2, Don Jon) Keegan-Michael Key (Toy Story 4, Keanu), Steve Buscemi (Reservoir Dogs, Miracle Workers), Laurence Fishburne (The Matrix, Man of Steel), and Jon Hamm (Mad Men, Baby Driver). This film is about the origins of robots Orion Pax and D-16, who eventually become Optimus Prime and Megatron. As a team, these two and several others are given the powers and capabilities to change their planet, Cybertron, forever.
I was born at the tail end of the 1990s, so I was alive at a time when Transformers was continuously shrinking in relevancy. Then a big bang happened in 2007 when the franchise’s first Michael Bay-directed film came out. That is when I first heard about the property, that is when I also started watching it. I had little to no experience with any of the toys beforehand. And no, I have not gone back to watch any of the “Transformers” material from the 20th century. I am somewhat familiar with it. I am aware of “Transformers: The Movie” killing off all the Autobots and that scarring several viewers. But I have not seen the movie myself. But even with my lack of experience of older “Transformers” material, I can confirm that my biggest problem with a number of the live-action “Transformers” films of this era is that they do not feel as character-based as they could be. Not to mention, despite having “Transformers” in the name, the movies are more about the humans than anyone else. Admittedly, I like the first Michael Bay “Transformers” film. I had some fun with “Dark of the Moon.” “Bumblebee” was fantastic. And while it is not the most memorable of the bunch, “Rise of the Beasts” definitely has its moments.
That said, “Transformers One” removes the humans and makes the movie about its titular robots, which is refreshing. The movie is entirely set on Cybertron and features zero scenes on earth. Despite these differences, this movie arguably has the most human story I have witnessed from the “Transformers” franchise yet. It is very much an underdog story about rising up, questioning authority, and embracing the power of friendship.
The main friendship we see is that of Orion Pax (lower right) and D-16 (upper right), played by Chris Hemsworth and Brian Tyree Henry. I bought every moment of their connection. The two come off as genuine friends. They have some admirable moments where they bond, they stand up for each other, exchange items. The two are best buds. Both of their respective actors do a great job in this film, which relieves me. After all, this is yet another animated project featuring a cast of mostly celebrity voice actors whose names and faces are known in popular live-action projects. These people may as well have been used as a selling point to adults who would be weary about taking their kids to a film like this. Granted, some of these actors have voiceover experience. Scarlett Johansson was in “The SpongeBob SquarePants Movie” as well as “Sing 2.” Keegan-Michael Key has several voiceover credits including “Toy Story 4,” the 2019 “Lion King,” “Migration,” and “IF.” He’s doing well for himself in the voiceover department. Everyone does a good job here and the story serves them well.
This movie is perfectly paced. Every action scene had my attention. The character moments are admirable. The humor stuck the landing. It is not the funniest movie I have seen in years, but it had quite a few laughs. The best part about the movie, it follows a paramount rule of show business, which is to leave the audience wanting more. By the end of this film, I was happy with what I got, but there was a point where I wanted to see where these characters would take their adventures next. I remember when I saw “Transformers: Age of Extinction,” which finished on a note where certain ends were not tied together, and I did not really care as much as I could have. This film has a balance in its journey and conclusion where I was satisfied by what was in front of me, but it also left me eagerly hoping to find out what is next.
The film also has a nice polish to its animation. In this age, having bad animation in a major motion picture is kind of a surprise nowadays. But this film, like some others I have been seeing recently, has an individualistic look to it. I cannot say its style offers the diversity of the “Spider-Verse” franchise. But “Transformers One” is stylized just enough to have an identity of its own. The way the movie plays around with some of its shots are fast-paced and immersive. Cybertron itself is sometimes a sight to to behold. This movie is based on toys, so of course the color palette is eye-popping.
Despite my recent positives, I have problems with the movie. For one thing, the storyline is a bit predictable. Sure, as someone who knows about “Transformers,” and the way certain characters are, I know how some characters will wind up by the end of the film. That is not my biggest problem. But there is one other character in the film who as soon as I saw him in the beginning and the way he was written, it was not that hard for me to speculate where exactly this character would be taken. Again, this is a character who has been used in the franchise previously, including one of the Michael Bay movies, all of which I have seen. But I am willing to bet if this was my first “Transformers” anything, I would have nevertheless found this character’s path to be utterly predictable. Maybe unless I was a young child because I have not seen enough movies.
Speaking of young children, I do think that “Transformers One” is a fine family film. Although I would not necessarily say this movie is entirely kid-friendly. At least for all ages that is. There are a couple instances of violence, granted, it is cartoon violence, that kind of push the line as for what you can see in a modern PG movie. Heck, even some of the language pushes the line. There are no f-bombs or s-words here, but Bumblebee repeatedly refers to himself as “Badassatron.” If I had kids I would not prevent them from watching this movie. Heck, part of me would want to put this on for them before “Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom,” which is rated PG and came out just before PG-13 was ever slapped onto a film. If my future children watch “Transformers One” say when they are 7 or 8, I have no problem with it. Ask me again if I become a father, but still… “Transformers One” is a good movie with solid action, a good story, and despite some moments that go a bit far, the movie manages to have positive lessons for its viewers to take with them. I would question taking a certain type of four year old for example to see “Transformers One” in the theater, but if they are a little older, things should be fine. Parents, if you are reading this, I say this as someone who is not a parent, so maybe I am just a moron, but use your own judgment. Despite being one of this year’s most attractive and colorful films, “Transformers One” might not be as well-rounded for all ages as say “Inside Out 2.”
In the end, “Transformers One” is an incredible time. Some people might be rejoicing right now and saying that this may be the first great “Transformers” movie in ages, or maybe even ever. For the record, I disagree. I think Michael Bay’s first “Transformers” is good. His third movie is good. Travis Knight’s “Bumblebee” might be my favorite of the live-action ones they have done. “Transformers One” is honestly up there with “Bumblebee” for me. If it were not for being one of this year’s more predictable narratives at times, that would probably be the one significant thing that could make a movie like this better. But “Transformers One” handles its material with excellence. It is great for both adults and kids. It might not be suitable for all kids, but I am sure many kids will enjoy this just fine. I am going to give “Transformers One” an 8/10.
“Transformers One” is now playing in theatres everywhere. Tickets are available now.
Thanks for reading this review! If you enjoyed this review, I have another animated movie to talk about soon, and that is “The Wild Robot!” That review will be available soon. Also coming up, stay tuned for my thoughts on “Joker: Folie a Deux…” The most divisive movie in ages. My goodness… That review is going to be fun. …Probably. 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 “Transformers One?” What did you think about it? Or, what is a movie about friendship that you enjoyed? Let me know down below! Scene before is your click to the flicks!
“It Ends with Us” is directed by Justin Baldoni (My Last Days, Five Feet Apart) who also stars in the film as Ryle Kincaid. The film also stars Blake Lively (The Shallows, Gossip Girl), Jenny Slate (Everything Everywhere All at Once, Marcel the Shell with Shoes On), Hasan Minhaj (Babes, The Daily Show), and Brandon Sklenar (The Big Ugly, 1923). This movie is about a woman whose relationship with her neurosurgeon becomes upended when someone she previously dated reenters her life.
If there is a duo that ruled this summer for movies, it would have to be Ryan Reynolds and Hugh Jackman for their blockbuster hit “Deadpool & Wolverine.” But Ryan Reynolds is not the only one in his family making dough at the box office this summer. While not quite up to the $1.3 billion “Deadpool & Wolverine” has raked in so far, Blake Lively’s “It Ends with Us” is doing very well for itself. So far, it is past the $300 million mark on a $25 million budget. Frankly though, I am kind of surprised, because this is a movie that if I were an executive, I would second guess myself before letting it into theaters during mid-summer. Not that such a thing could be impossible, but it deals with a subject matter as serious as domestic violence. While there is romance, humor, and a recognizable name like Blake Lively, August would not have been my first choice when it comes to an appropriate time to release this film.
The fact is, I am not a woman. Instead, I am, not that it matters, as straight and white of a male as you can get. But I was nevertheless intrigued by the buzz this movie seemed to be getting, even if some of it seems to be due to its controversial marketing campaign. Having seen the movie, I can say that it was a decent watch. Was it perfect? By no means. In fact, a lot of the dialogue is cheesy, though nowhere as bad as a by the numbers romcom like “Anyone But You,” a movie that strictly made money because it was a rare film released at the year’s end that put stylistic sex appeal over substantive Oscar bait. In fact, even the movie’s characters know how cheesy its own script is at times. The film’s main character literally says so when she is introducing herself to the love interest! For those who have not seen this movie or read its respective source material, the main character’s name is Lily Bloom, and interesting enough, she is a florist! But there is also a balance when it comes to the script’s tones that just so happens to bind together. At times, the movie is cute. At others, it is funny. At others, it is serious. All of these elements are handled with care.
As for that last element, that is where this movie’s issue of domestic violence comes in.
I would like to make another thing clear, and maybe this will once again make me the last person you’d want to be talking about this movie, I have never had a girlfriend. I have never been in a relationship. I have, thankfully, been on neither end of a domestically violent relationship. I am not going to pretend I am an expert on the subject, nor should I tell others how to handle such a matter. All I can lend is my opinion on how the movie handles it. As for how the matter is handled in “It Ends with Us,” I was surprised to find that it comes off as kind of tame. Now do not get me wrong, domestic violence is a serious issue. And the movie, effectively, presents it as such.
The MPA has officially rated this film PG-13. Not the lowest rating of the bunch, but certainly not the highest. There is a lot that you can get away with in a PG-13 movie. Though like many other PG-13 flicks, the movie does only limit itself to one f-bomb. But as I watched the scenes where the relationship becomes dangerously physical, the violence is never over the top or graphic. I honestly do not mind this choice because I am trying to think about this from the perspective of someone who has dealt with a relationship like the one this movie presents. Would over the top violence or a little extra blood be too much for some people? Chances are that could be the case. This is a movie that gets its message across by showing people the wrongs of this couple’s relationship without overplaying said wrongs for a horrid, disturbing dramatic effect.
Even though we have war movies that tend to use bloody and gory scenes to captivate the audience and immerse them into the environment, I think “It Ends with Us” made a smart choice to hold back on its handling of domestic violence to make the movie a bit more user-friendly. If anything, part of me is also glad the movie turned out to be PG-13, because while a number of adults have probably witnessed domestic violence themselves, it is something that teenagers and young adults should probably learn about because depending on the person, they are at the point where they may be starting to think about dating, or relationships. It is something that they would perhaps need to know. Whether it means detecting certain behaviors from their partners or preventing people from becoming violent themselves.
I cannot name a single character in the movie I did not admire. Not only do I think the entire cast does a good job with their roles, but I buy into the chemistry between everyone. Whether we are talking about Blake Lively and Justin Baldoni as the two leads, or even Lily Bloom’s relationship in high school where we get to see Isabella Ferrer and Alex Neustaedter play sweethearts. Looking back, the scenes between those two young high school students are some of my favorite parts of the film. For the most part, they are wholesome. I appreciated some of Lily’s actions. And it did a good job setting up these two characters for the events that play out in the rest of the film. On that note, Brandon Sklenar stands out as an older Atlas much like Alex Neustaedter does playing the younger interpretation.
As a Bostonian, I would say this film does an okay job masking the fact that despite the story taking place in Boston, this movie was in fact shot in New York. Of course, the movie has an obligatory shot of the Zakim Bridge before it hides any sense it was shot somewhere else. There is one concept that I thought was pretty funny where there happens to be a bar that plays Bruins games, and encourages people to wear onesies to get free drinks. I do not know of a bar in Boston that does that. I should note this concept is also in the book. But I would not be surprised if someone sees this movie, or based on said movie’s growing popularity, reads the book, and starts this tradition somewhere in Boston.
I am not going to pretend that “It Ends with Us” is the must see title of 2024. But kind of like “Barbie” last year, it is probably one of the more important watches. It is a movie that I probably would not have selected as my first choice. Heck, I watched “Oppenheimer” two weeks before I watched “Barbie,” but I think it is a movie from which people will take something with them, while also still being quite entertained. And boy, am I surprised at the entertainment value this movie offers. It has its laughs, it has its smiles. It has its feel good moments. Yet at the center of it all is an issue that I can gladly say I never had to face, but I think could serve as a decent learning experience for those who have never seen it. As for those who have dealt with it, or those with more expertise on this issue than I, this begs me to ask… Is this movie’s depiction of domestic violence rightfully executed? Do you think they should have done it differently? I know this issue is not comfortable for everyone to talk about. I am not trying to pressure anyone. But as someone who does not have a ton of experience with this topic I am never against learning something new.
In the end, “It Ends with Us” surprised me. I almost ended up not seeing this movie. To be real, I went because my mom wanted to check it out and I thought I’d go with her. And I am glad I did. Also, considering how Blake Lively’s spouse, Ryan Reynolds has a big movie out, I wanted to see what Blake Lively herself had up her sleeve. Safe to say, it was something worth checking out. Regardless of how it was marketed, “It Ends with Us” is a good movie. Sometimes the dialogue is not the greatest and some moments feel oddly hokey. But I can forgive that. The film has a great cast of characters and I found the pace flying at times. This is not a movie that I would recommend to everyone, but I think it is one that should you decide to watch it, you will leave it thinking you have not wasted your time. I am going to give “It Ends with Us” a 7/10.
“It Ends with Us” is now playing in theaters everywhere. Tickets are available now.
Thanks for reading this review! My next review is going to be for “Beetlejuice Beetlejuice,” the long-awaited sequel starring Michael Keaton. Stay tuned! If you want to see this upcoming 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 “It Ends with Us?” What did you think about it? Or, what is a movie you saw this year that surprised you? It could be a good or bad surprise. “It Ends with Us” ended up being one of my positive surprises, so if you would like to know a negative one, check out my review for the colossal disappointment known as “Argylle!” I like Matthew Vaughn, I like the cast, but the movie? Cast it into the fire for all I care! Let me know your surprise movies down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!
“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!
“My Old Ass” is written and directed by Megan Park (The Neighbors, The Secret Life of the American Teenager) and stars Maisy Stella (Nashville, Spirit Riding Free), Percy Hynes White (The Gifted, Wednesday), Maddie Ziegler (Music, The Fallout), Kerrice Brooks (The Prom, How We Roll) and Aubrey Plaza (Parks and Recreation, Dirty Grandpa). This film is about a young girl who gets a chance to talk to her older self. Once the younger self receives advice from her older self, the story showcases the younger self’s journey as she takes or leaves said advice.
There are some ideas that make you go “Why didn’t I think of that?” As someone who is heavily into film, I find myself saying that sometimes about the movies I watch. The more I think about “My Old Ass,” that is a film that fits within that sphere. The only thing is, I am 24. But as someone who watched this movie at such an age, I think it probably would have been a good idea years down the road. Then again, as a 24 year old, I would still say some things to my younger self, telling them my regrets, the things to look forward to, maybe to invest in GameStop for a short time in 2021. By the way, read my review for “Dumb Money” if you want to see people do things in 2021 that I probably should have… Stupid brain.
But I love this idea of an older self and a younger self communicating with each other. And I have to say the way it was executed was very well done. First off, while these two are not dead ringers of each other, I buy Maisy Stella (right) and Aubrey Plaza (left) as the same person, specifically Elliott. They seem to carry a number of mannerisms that make them come off as the same individual, but differentiate enough to the point where they feel like they are not the same age. Aubrey Plaza’s character is giving Maisy Stella’s character advice, including one piece at which she seems to scoff at first, particularly hanging out with her brothers. I bought into the execution of the advice, I bought into the younger self’s reaction. I think the way the movie goes about its concept is hypnotizing and clever.
I also have to say that I came very close to having an enormous complaint about this movie. I thought the way this movie was handled in terms of its structure, in terms of its characterization, and the end results of certain character arcs, would amount to something rather predictable. As we got to the movie’s end, the movie takes a sudden turn that I could have never seen coming. It is arguably the most positive out of left field moment I experienced watching a film this year.
I kind of like the way this movie handles its relationship between the two main selves, and the way the story progresses between them. If you are a teenager reading this, if you look back at your current time in life with no problems or regrets, then you probably have lived a different life than the vast majority of the world’s population. I would say I was smart as a teenager, but I would also say that there are moments in my life where my older self would tell my teenage self to go in a different direction. In a perfect world, my teen self would listen to my older self because, well, that is me. I might as well be my own best teacher, or perhaps more appropriately, my own worst critic. But this movie shows the moments where the teen self has trouble listening to or acknowledging the advice of the older self, but it makes sense. After all, let’s face it, I think everyone can agree on this in regards to any point in our lives, but it is especially true in the teen years. We might not agree on every single piece of advice given to us. We might think we have everything down, but the reality is we might not know what exactly is down the road. Short term we might think something is good for us, but long term? Maybe it is not as good as we think, at least from a certain point of view. There is one particular relationship that plays out where we see this come to fruition.
This movie also shows how we hold our entire time on this earth near and dear to ourselves. While this movie shows how stupid or clueless we can be as teenagers, it also shows us that our choices make us who we are. It shows us that everything happens for a reason, and maybe if we make one stupid or clueless choice, maybe it is worth it because something better lies ahead or there is something else in life to look forward to. There is one quote in the movie, it is also in the trailer, specifically from young Elliott, that I love. Specifically, “If you weren’t young and dumb you wouldn’t be brave enough to do anything.” I adore this quote because not only is it true that many of us tend to become more calculated as we age, perhaps we play things safer. But it also implies that sometimes big risks can lead to big reward. What may seem like an unlikely or dumb decision could also turn out to be a life-changing moment. When we are young, we have our entire lives ahead of us. There is room for error. It never hurts to try something new, take a chance, open our minds. Granted, we should also use logic in our decision-making. But it does not mean we should not be open to risk every once in a while.
Will I watch “My Old Ass” a second time? If we are talking tomorrow or the next week, maybe not, unless someone requests to see it at the theater with me. That said, I probably would not go watch it alone as there are plenty of other movies I need to get around to watching. As far as replay value goes though, I think it would be fun to maybe check out “My Old Ass” again in 15, 20, maybe 25 years. Because I watched this film as someone who is closer to the younger self’s age, but I am curious to know, given the life experience I would have in the coming years, what commonalities I would have to the older self. I would watch “My Old Ass” again for that reason. Well that, and the fact that the movie is in fact quite entertaining.
In the end, “My Old Ass” is a movie that makes you laugh and think. It makes you ask questions about the choices you have made in your life and whether they were worth making. As someone who is still on the younger side, it got me thinking about my future and what kind of path I would like to make for myself moving forward. The chemistry between Maisy Stella and Aubrey Plaza is perfect. A lot of the supporting characters are likable. And I honestly left the movie wanting more. I am going to give “My Old Ass” a 7/10.
“My Old Ass” is now playing in select cities, and will be available in more theaters later this month. For my viewers near me in the Greater Boston area, you can catch the film in select cinemas starting Thursday, September, 19th. Tickets are available now.
Thanks for reading this review! My next review is going to be for the biopic “Reagan.” Stay tuned! Also look forward to my thoughts on “It Ends with Us” and “Beetlejuice Beetlejuice!” 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 “My Old Ass?” What did you think about it? Or, what is something you would tell your younger self, or even ask your older self? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!
Scene Before 