“The Ballad of Wallis Island” is directed by James Griffiths and is based on a short film he helmed by the name of “The One and Only Herb McGwyer Plays Wallis Island.” Frankly, I am glad they went with a different title. Saying that out loud is kind of a mouthful. Nevertheless, the film stars Tom Basden (Plebs, The Wrong Mans), Tim Key (See How They Run, Mickey 17), and Carey Mulligan (Promising Young Woman, Maestro). This film is set on island and follows a quirky lottery winner who successfully brings two formerly coupled musicians to said island, so they could perform for an audience. That audience being himself.
“The Ballad of Wallis Island” snuck up on me last minute. If you have read my reviews before, you may know that I often go to see movies with my mom and grandma, so I have to find some sort of equalizer for the three of us. “The Ballad of Wallis Island,” which was not playing in a ton of places in my area, is the latest example. Having not seen any trailers, I was sold by this film’s basic premise alone. This film sounded bonkers, and having seen it, it is. But I was also surprised by how raw it feels at times. “The Ballad of Wallis Island” immersed me in its environment and I did not want to leave. Not only was I captivated by this film’s serene location, but I was constantly engaged with its characters.
Tim Key and Tom Basden play off each other very well in their off and on relationship. And speaking of Tom Basden, I thought he and Carey Mulligan made for a cute former couple. Every cast member is great in this film. I have no complaints. No one feels out of place.
In the world of Screenwriting 101, it is often best to write characters who stand out because of their problems. For example, in some of the Tobey Maguire “Spider-Man” movies, we see Peter Parker in situations where he must fight tooth and nail to make a quick buck and pay rent, making him easy to root for. The protagonist in “The Ballad of Wallis Island” appears to have much better luck, and financial stability, than Parker. We find out early on in the film that Charles wins the lottery. Not many people can say that. Winning the lottery is one of the least relatable and most envy-inducing events that one can experience.
Amazingly, I was able to find some relatability in Charles. The character lives on an island, which again, is not exactly relatable, but it also presents a problem that even some “normal” people run into, like limited communication. I also felt bad for the character, as it is also established he lost his wife, so he lives by himself. Tim Key does a really good job at delivering Charles’ eccentric charm and wit. We quickly learn he is a master of puns. There is an early one involving a famous actress that had me in stitches.
“The Ballad of Wallis Island” is a fine line between the impractical and the buyable. This movie goes out there in terms of its concepts but somehow manages to make each one work. This film has everything from Charles’ lottery backstory, to getting two people who dissolved their band as well their partnership to somehow reunite on an island and play together again, to letting this reunion not only respark their interest in each other, but as well the idea of doing bigger and better things. The breakdown of this movie is like an extended sitcom episode, where people are precisely where they need to be at the most convenient, but nevertheless understandable times.
“The Ballad of Wallis Island” has plenty of laughs. Aside from the recently mentioned out there situations and admirable puns delivered by this film’s lead, I thought Tom Basden, who plays Herb McGwyer, did an excellent job handling his character’s bewilderment in a series of situations. There is a problem McGwyer runs into early on in the film regarding his phone, and I found the solution to not only be fitting, but also amusing. The film’s humor also comes from Charles’ lack of connections. While is not entirely lonely on his island, he is not close to friends or family. There is a funny scene where we see Charles and Herb playing tennis. Again, going back to that fine line between impractical and buyable, we find out Charles usually plays tennis, a sport usually played by multiple people, by himself. Therefore, we find out he has a killer serve.
On occasion, “The Ballad of Wallis Island” sort of reminds me of “The Banshees of Inisherin.” And no, nobody’s fingers come off in this film. But both films take place on islands, center around quirky leads, and feature limited casts. I think “Banshees” is the superior movie, but both films do a great job when it comes to implementing stories about music. “The Ballad of Wallis Island” seems to be slightly more music-centered than “Banshees,” so if that is something you are looking for, this film seems to have you covered. That said, despite this film being about music, I cannot say I walked out of it thinking I would need to buy the soundtrack or listen to the songs again on YouTube. The songs were not bad. Maybe with a rewatch that could change. When it comes to the context of each song, I cannot say there are any that were not used wisely. The songs were good, but to me that is probably the highest praise I can give to them. None of them floored me or left me gobsmacked. That said, I cannot say I outright hated any of them, so there is that.
Without spoiling anything, I really enjoyed the film’s conclusion. It ends on a solid, upbeat note. In fact, this whole movie, even with its characters having their own ups and downs, is a consistent delight. This is a solid flick to watch if you want a dose of joy. It is funny, charming, and lots of fun. Additionally it is sentimental, and I can see a story like this triggering the feels for select viewers. Would I watch it on a Friday night? I do not know if it is my first choice if I am by myself. But I could see it being an okay date movie perhaps.
In the end, “The Ballad of Wallis Island” is a thumbs up. It is not my favorite film of the year so far, but it is one I do not regret watching. It is a solid British comedy with a likable cast that rides a fine line between fantasy and reality. The film has its fair share of laughs. I am not sure if the humor will be for everyone, but I would say it was for me. I am going to give “The Ballad of Wallis Island” a 7/10.
“The Ballad of Wallis Island” is now playing in theaters and is available to rent or buy on VOD.
Thanks for reading this review! My next review is going to be for a film that I am very excited to talk about. It is on a story I have heard a bit about ever since I was a kid. The review is for a documentary called “Secret Mall Apartment.” Stay tuned! Also coming soon, look forward to my thoughts on “A Minecraft Movie,” “Sinners,” “Thunderbolts*,” and “The Ruse.” If you want to see these reviews and more from Scene Before, follow the blog either with an email or WordPress account! Also, check out the official Facebook page! I want to know, did you see “The Ballad of Wallis Island?” What did you think about it? Or, what is a movie that you feel is a perfect balance between reality and fantasy? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!
“The Brutalist” is directed by Brady Corbet (The Childhood of a Leader, Vox Lux) and stars Adrien Brody (King Kong, The Pianist), Felicity Jones (Rogue One: A Star Wars Story, On the Basis of Sex), Guy Pearce (Memento, Iron Man 3), Joe Alwyn (The Favourite, Billy Lynn’s Long Halftime Walk), Raffey Cassidy (Tomorrowland, Vox Lux), Stacy Martin (Vox Lux, All the Money in the World), Emma Laird (Mayor of Kingstown, A Haunting in Venice), Isaach de Bankolé (24, Black Panther), and Alessandro Nivola (Jurassic Park III, Amsterdam). This film is about a Hungarian-Jewish Holocaust survivor’s struggle to achieve the American dream.
“The Brutalist” was a movie that I have been trying to get to for nearly a couple months at this point. Unfortunately, I just never had the time to sit down for three and a half hours and commit to it. Thankfully, an opportunity opened up recently, and I went out of my way to a theater further away from home, because I wanted to get this movie under my belt before the Academy Awards. After all, despite the body’s questionable practices and relevancy, the film did win Best Picture – Drama at another awards show, the Golden Globes. Well that, and quite frankly, I was in much more of a rush to watch “The Brutalist,” instead of “Emilia Perez,” which won Best Picture – Musical or Comedy in the same show. That movie seems to have gotten a lot of praise during the 2024-2025 awards season. However, I have not seen as many people outside the core voting bodies share the kindest words about the film.
When you make a commitment to any movie, it has to be worth your money and time. That last part is extremely emphasized with a more sizable runtime. Thankfully, “The Brutalist” is worth both of those things.
Most of the movies I have reviewed on Scene Before are from the 2010s or 2020s, therefore I have not had the opportunity to talk about many titles that include intermissions. “The Brutalist,” released at the end of 2024, is one exception. An intermission itself is not a core part of a movie experience if you break it down, but in this case I thought it added to a nice, throwback feel.
That said, having an intermission introduces a problem that stood out to me, which is that if I had to pick one half of the movie to watch over the other, I would pick the second half almost every time. Granted, I understand why the first half exists. Without it, the movie would not work the way it does. But I found the second half to be better-paced. I found the characters to be at their most compelling. I thought the acting and atmosphere was upped a notch. I felt more passive watching the first half and more active in the second.
The movie was shot on 35mm, which for the record, is still a format used in modern movies. Last year’s “Twisters” is one such example. The film also used VistaVision, which I arguably did not experience to the fullest given how I watched the movie on digital projection. But the film itself, kind of like another Adrien Brody project, “The Artist,” has all these little touches of older cinema. The movie had all sorts of imperfections from frame to frame.
This movie also makes great use of color, or lack thereof in some cases. The film is not necessarily the most vivid, but despite the film’s grainy, dusty look, there are certain colorful objects in the film that stood out to me. There is a shot where two characters are hugging in front of a green bus that pops. This film also has really effective use of beige. There are some shots inside of a home where that color stands out. It is the little things that catch my attention in this picture. Speaking of shots, the opening of this film is one of the trippiest I remember seeing in recent memory, where we see an upside down shot of Lady Liberty. That part of the movie is ingrained in my memory not only for its unconventional yet immersive shot choice, but it is just the start of what “The Brutalist” stands for as a work of art.
When you break down “The Brutalist,” it is a representation of one’s journey and struggle to achieve the American dream. The movie starts off with a staple of that dream with the main character, László Tóth, a holocaust survivor and an architect, coming into Ellis Island, set for a better life. His journey comes with obstacles, such as leaving people he knows behind or sometimes taking jobs one can consider painstaking or filth-inducing.
I also find it interesting how the film is set in the 1940s to the 1980s. I did not see this at a festival or a special screening, but if I had a chance to talk to the film’s writers, Brady Corbet and Mona Fastvold, I would want to know if they think the idea of “the American dream” is still alive. This film does represent the continued aspirations of the American dream in regard to seeking a better life, but it begs the question as to whether the American dream is a thing of the past, or if it is still obtainable in the 2020s.
Pacing-wise, this film sometimes reminded me of “Blade Runner.” The film is very much a slow-burn. Combine that with a three and a half hour runtime, you have a recipe for a movie that I imagine will turn off a fair amount of the general audience upon their first impression. I say this because there are a lot of pauses between the characters’ utterances of dialogue. Very rarely do the characters actively respond to another individual right away. I thought this direction choice sometimes worked and tied into the film’s atmosphere, but at other times, was a bit distracting.
I liked Felicity Jones before watching “The Brutalist,” but she is a different kind of great in this film. She is not in the entire movie. But she ends up taking the spotlight in every scene towards the end. As the film culminates, she unleashes the most unhinged supporting performance I have seen in a 2024 film. I have not seen “Emilia Perez” so I cannot comment on Zoe Saldana’s performance. I am aware Saldana won the Best Supporting Actress category at the Oscars, but if I had to cast a vote, it would be for Felicity Jones because of not only how she represents her own pain, but also her urgency to relieve the pain of those around her. By the end of this film, I left thinking that I would do anything to avoid a screaming match with this individual. I did not know Jones had that kind of power in her.
In the end, “The Brutalist” is not my favorite movie of 2024, but it is one of the more well-crafted films of that year. Part of it has to do with the production design, but also the solid direction from Brady Corbet that has also led to excellent performances from actors like Adrien Brody and Felicity Jones. Breaking this film down, I found the film to pick up a bit in the second half compared to the first, but I still found the film as a whole to be worth watching. I know an Adrien Brody-led three and a half hour movie with an intermission set decades prior to its release shot on VistaVision sounds like the most pretentious movie that has ever pretentiated in the history of pretentiousness. Trust me, if you give it your time, you might enjoy it. The acting is great. The directing is even better. The story is one I think many people, especially those living in the United States, can relate to. I am going to give “The Brutalist” a 7/10.
“The Brutalist” is now playing in theaters and is available to rent or buy on VOD.
Thanks for reading this review! Coming soon, I will be sharing my thoughts on “I’m Still Here,” “Riff Raff,” “Nickel Boys,” and “Mickey 17.” If you want to see these reviews and more from Scene Before, follow the blog either with an email or WordPress account! Also, check out the official Facebook page! I want to know, did you see “The Brutalist?” What did you think about it? Or, should more movies coming out today have intermissions? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!
“Love Hurts” is directed by Jonathan Eusebio (300, The Fall Guy) and this is his directorial debut. The film stars Ke Huy Quan (Everything Everywhere All at Once, Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom), Ariana DeBose (West Side Story, Wish), Daniel Wu (American Born Chinese, Into the Badlands), Mustafa Shakir (The Deuce, Luke Cage), Lio Tipton (Warm Bodies, Two Night Stand), Cam Gigandet (Reckless, The O.C.), Marshawn Lynch (Bottoms, Westworld), and Sean Astin (The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring, Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles). This film is about a realtor whose past comes back to haunt him when he receives a message from his former partner-in-crime.
Everyone loves a comeback story, although in the case of Ke Huy Quan, I am going to channel LL Cool JJ and say that he has been here for years. The reality is, whether we knew it or not, Ke Huy Quan has remained the slightest bit active behind the scenes leading up to his big return in front of the camera, “Everything Everywhere All at Once.” If it were not for the deserved success of that movie, chances are we would never get a film like “Love Hurts,” which I was looking forward to. It kind of had a mainstream, 2010s, 2020s-esque action flick feel that you would get out of a film like “John Wick” or “Nobody” with some twists and turns, but like those movies, the choreography and scenes looked stellar in the marketing.
As off and on as I am about “star power” in a movie, Ke Huy Quan is the reason why I watched “Love Hurts.” But how could he not be? The actor played a significant role in my favorite film of 2022, won an Oscar, and when he is not busy taking names, he is taking selfies with every star he can find. This is part of why I am disappointed to say that “Love Hurts” is not that great.
“Love Hurts” is not horrible, but if I have any real highlights for the film, they certainly would not be for the characters. Some could argue that since this is an action movie one does not always come for the characters, but the way I see things, the less engaged I am with the characters, the less engaged I am with the action. I will defend the action scenes from a technical perspective. I do not think there was a single bad sequence. In fact, there are a couple that I am still thinking about and find to be incredibly creative. But this film seems to be more concerned in showing off what its talent can do, as opposed to what its characters can do.
If you are seeing this movie solely for Ke Huy Quan, then he is probably not going to disappoint you. Other parts of the movie might, but I do not think Quan is going to be one of them. Not only does Quan solidify himself as a buttkicking action star with his role of Marvin Gable, but he is charismatic. He brings a unique energy to this genre of filmmaking. A lot of our modern action stars like Jason Statham, Keanu Reeves, and Liam Neeson tend to have this obviously masculine aura to them both in terms of the way they look and act on screen. Ke Huy Quan very much screams cute, but not cuddly. I think the movie was smart to make him a dedicated real estate agent. Even if his character was not hiding something underneath, I think Quan is a good fit to play someone working in that industry.
This is a movie that I cannot see myself revisiting in its entirety, but instead rewatching certain clips on YouTube. Because there are a couple cool scenes where we see Marvin Gable either trying to defend his award, or dodge some baddies while trying to keep a house together for example. The movie goes at a brisk pace, and with an 84 minute runtime, that should not be a shocker. For the most part, the film is simple and effective in terms of progressing the narrative. It is not a unique narrative. But does have a soft flair one does not typically find in these types of action movies. As the film continues, however, things get more convoluted, and therefore, unmemorable.
Also, Ariana DeBose is in this film, a great actress in her own right, but I am convinced she needs a new agent. Yes, she was fantastic in “West Side Story.” But just about everything afterwards was critically panned or unmemorable. Between “Argylle,” “Kraven the Hunter,” and now this… She is not on the hottest of streaks. Yes, I liked “Wish.” I stand by that opinion. Yes, I liked “I.S.S.,” but not a lot of people thought it was worth seeing considering it failed to make its budget back. As I am writing this paragraph, I forgot the name of her character. That is not the best of signs. Granted, I have also forgotten the names of characters for movies I enjoy, but I bring this up because you might as well just name this character “the love interest” or “the girl.” The movie could have fleshed out this character more and individualized her to a better degree. It does however do okay when it comes to establishing Ke Huy Quan’s infatuation with her, but sometimes the film tells such a concept when it really should just show it.
Interesting enough, for those who do want to know the name of DeBose’s character, that, my friends, is Rose. For the record, I know people named Rose, and I am aware it is not the most uncommon name. But that has to be on purpose. It reminds me of a theory my dad has about Cliff Booth in “Once Upon a Time in Hollywood.” He thinks the character, who is accused of killing his spouse, has the last name Booth, just so the script can allow for someone else to refer to him as “John Wilkes Booth” in a scene.
The film is centered around Valentine’s Day, and this presents a potential problem for rewatchability in the same way I look at Christmas movies. I have nothing against watching “Fred Claus.” But I would not watch it outside of November or December. Unfortunately, “Love Hurts” is barely good enough for February. If you want a good Valentine’s Day-centric action movie, there is one already, and it is called “Deadpool.” Heck, it could even be a good watch around Christmas. Or literally any day of the year, it is perfect.
“Love Hurts” is the directorial debut from Jonathan Eusebio. I do not think he should automatically give up directing based on this one lackluster product. Although if he were to continue, I hope his sophomore outing is better than this. On the bright side, Eusebio at least has some credibility in the industry. He has shown his talents helping coordinate stunts and choreography in films like “The Fall Guy,” “Pirates of the Caribbean: At World’s End,” and the first three “John Wick” installments. Some of this film’s strongest elements are the action scenes, and it comes as no surprise knowing who helped direct said scenes.
In the end, “Love Hurts” neither left me infatuated or brokenhearted. If anything, the movie is just okay. If you put the film on silent, I would still pay attention to the visuals. But as I said before, this movie packs a lot in it by the time it is over that I did not really care about the film’s substance. I would love to see Ke Huy Quan in more projects. I am glad he is voicing a character in the upcoming “Zootopia” sequel, but I would also be open to more live-action roles as well. I think he is talented and would not be a surprise if he puts another Oscar on his shelf in the future. However, I do not think anyone will be winning any Academy Awards for this film. I am going to give “Love Hurts” a 5/10.
“Love Hurts” is now playing in theaters. Tickets are available now.
Thanks for reading this review! My next reviews are going to be for “The Brutalist” and “I’m Still Here.” 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 “Love Hurts?” What did you think about it? Or, who is an actor that has not done any work in a while that you think has a pretty good chance of making a comeback? Is there anyone you would like to see who has not been on screen in a while? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!
“Dog Man” is directed by Peter Hastings, who also provides a few voices in the film, including the titular character. Joining him is a casting including Pete Davidson (The King of Staten Island, Big Time Adolescence), Lil Rel Howrey (The Carmichael Show, Get Out), Isla Fisher (Tag, Now You See Me), Poppy Liu (No Good Deed, Sunnyside), Stephen Root (Office Space, Finding Nemo), Billy Boyd (The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring, Outlander), and Ricky Gervais (Night at the Museum, The Office). This film is set after an event so nonsensical it might just work… Sewing a dog’s head onto a man’s body so both sides can live on as a singular being. The film follows Dog Man’s mission to bring a halt to Petey the Cat’s desire to stop all do-gooders.
My interest in “Dog Man” was almost next to none. There was no way I saw myself paying my hard earned money to see something like this. The trailers barely did anything to motivate me to go see it. I enjoy a good animated flick, but there was nothing about “Dog Man” that made me think it would be worth my time. The humor did not seem to land with me. The general tone felt overly silly for my taste. That said, I ended up watching the film at a free screening a week before it came out. They say the best things in life are free right? Well, that is not always true. Because “Dog Man” is just okay.
“Dog Man” is the latest DreamWorks animated movie. I am rather fond of DreamWorks. I grew up watching several of their animated titles. In fact, I recently rewatched one of my childhood films, “Kung Fu Panda,” and found more layers to unpack from it that I probably did not realize were there when I was watching it for the first time at eight years old. Not every DreamWorks movie hits, but “Kung Fu Panda” packs a mighty punch. Similar to that movie, I can see kids watching “Dog Man” when they are young, revisiting it at a later age, and unpacking more of the film’s lessons. The problem is, I am wondering if they will enjoy the movie as much as they did when they were growing up. This film definitely has material that adults can appreciate, but I think the kids will end up latching onto this film more.
The film cleverly handles Dog Man’s communication. A lot of animated movies will personify animal characters, including dogs. Dog Man is an exception to the rule. Despite having man in his name, the communication style is strictly canine. He does not speak English. He only communicates through barks and howls. Sometimes it is a little over the top, but there are also times where it works. As for the character himself, he is a decently fleshed out center of the film. The story does a good job at meshing the personalities of the two characters we see during the first few minutes as they merge and become one.
You can kind of say this about other major studios too, but I feel like we are experiencing an era in DreamWorks history where each film delivers a different animation style than the previous one. Sure, “Kung Fu Panda 4” felt rather familiar to its predecessors. But if you look back at “The Bad Guys” or “The Wild Robot,” you would probably get a sense that you are looking at something that could only exist in its respective universe. Granted, those two properties are also based on books that have a distinctive style of their own. “Dog Man” is no exception. I saw one review that compared the animation style to “Captain Underpants,” another book series that also became a DreamWorks movie. Turns out, both book properties are by the same author, and “Dog Man” was originally teased in a “Captain Underpants” book. It only makes sense that the two productions look alike.
For the record, I did not watch the “Captain Underpants” movie. If I had to pinpoint something “Dog Man” reminds me of, and I do not know how many people would actually agree with me, the first thing that comes to mind is the “Backyard Sports” series of video games. Remember those? You had the animated characters with the crazy thin eyes? Every time I look at a character’s eyes in this film, I am convinced they were borrowed from a “Backyard Sports” game.
If you go into this movie expecting realism, you are going to be severely disappointed. I mean, come on. The movie is literally about what happens following the stitching of a dog and a man. The movie has a fast-paced, TikTok sort of style to it, to the point where just about every line of dialogue is incredibly piped up and quickly edited. It throws a lot of information in such a short runtime. The film does poke fun at certain tendencies we see in everyday life, especially from pets. We see Dog Man on the chase, completing his task, but he gets distracted by a squirrel. The main rivalry of the film is between a dog and a cat. The cat has a variety of evil plans to capture his rival, including the use of a vacuum cleaner. What is this, “Spaceballs?” The movie reminds me a bit of “The Mitchells vs. the Machines.” Because upon my first watch of both projects, I got the sense that there were so many blink you’ll miss it details to the point where you would have to watch the movie a second time to see what flew over your head. Thankfully, I understood the film’s basic plot, structure, and character motivations. It is not like the film is broken. The film is paced like “Run Lola Run” and contains perhaps a thousand times more instances of dialogue.
That said, even if I did have any interest in picking up on details I missed the first time, I simply do not see myself watching “Dog Man” again. The film is not for me. I do not have a lot of younger children in my social circles, but I have heard from people either in conversation or online that they know kids who love the books on which this film is based. Maybe they will enjoy the movie, but I am not sure how the film will age. The film has good lessons about being a role model and how some people emulate their parents, but it is surrounded by a visually obnoxious series of scenes that almost overwhelm the senses.
Speaking of details, that is also where the devil seems to lie. By that I mean, the devil probably came in and fiddled with them. Because there are parts of this film that are genuinely funny. In fact, there is one gag involving characters exchanging money that had me in stitches. It makes no sense but that is why it works. But going back to this film’s TikTok pace, that can most definitely apply to the humor as well. Forget a mile a minute, the humor in “Dog Man” flies at a kilometer per minute! Having so many jokes could be a good thing. Again, going back to “The Mitchells vs. the Machines,” that film had me laughing nonstop and uncontrollably. That is a film where if I watched it with the windows open, I would probably get a noise complaint from a neighbor. They would probably think I’m a madman. But in the case of “Dog Man,” the movie shoves so much comedy into its script that a lot of it inevitably fails to stick the landing.
The film also has a noticeable amount of news exposition. This is common in a lot of movies and television, but I will give credit to the news sequences in this film having a unique flair to them. Granted, they did add to the film’s overall obnoxiousness, but I will not deny that Isla Fisher does a good job in her role as Sarah Hatoff, a news reporter with tons of screentime.
In the end, “Dog Man” is just fine. I am not a dog person, and I am barely a people person. But I can say, as a movie person, this is as middle of the road as animation gets. There is nothing remotely offensive about “Dog Man.” At times it is undoubtedly creative, but the film ultimately prioritizes quantity over quality. This is particularly noticeable when it comes to comedy. Having a lot of jokes is great, but it is better when all of them land. A noticeable number of them did not do that for me. This is not my least favorite DreamWorks film, but I am still going to give “Dog Man” a 5/10.
“Dog Man” is now playing in theaters everywhere. Tickets are available now.
Thanks for reading this review! My next review is going to be for “Love Me,” the brand new sci-fi film starring Kristen Stewart and Steven Yeun. 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 “Dog Man?” What did you think about it? Or, do you have any experience with the “Dog Man” books? Are they any good? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!
“Nosferatu” is directed by Robert Eggers (The Lighthouse, The Witch) and stars Bill Skarsgård (Barbarian, It), Nicholas Hoult (Juror #2, The Menu), Lily-Rose Depp (The Idol, Voyagers), Aaron Taylor-Johnson (Avengers: Age of Ultron, Godzilla), Emma Corrin (Deadpool & Wolverine, The Crown), and Willem Dafoe (The Lighthouse, Spider-Man). This film centers around a married couple, and the events they go through in connection to a vampire.
When I reviewed “Kraven the Hunter” last week, I said that at this point, I go to see Sony’s Spider-Man Universe Movies out of obligation. I love the genre “Kraven” falls into, but I cannot pretend that movie or any films closely related to it are the best representations of said genre. In addition to both of these movies featuring Aaron Taylor-Johnson, that is something “Kraven the Hunter” and “Nosferatu” have in common.
If I were to name a director who I do not particularly admire, even though many people say they are really hot right now, Robert Eggers is the one that comes to mind. I am not saying he is a bad person, nor am I saying he is incapable of making something great. But I think my tastes have not aligned with what he has delivered so far. It is not because I find all of his films to be too out of left field. In fact, “The Lighthouse” is a movie I find to be delightfully weird. I have not watched the film from start to finish since the theater, but I often go on YouTube just to watch the clip of the two main characters dancing to “Doodle Let Me Go.” It is one of the most oddly memorable pieces of cinema I have witnessed in my life. But I did not like “The Witch,” and if you read my review for “The Northman,” you would know I gave the film a barely passable score, but looking back, I have no real plans to watch the movie again and since watching it, I found the film itself to be quite forgettable. I remember it more for its quirks than anything else. If I were to review it again, my score might not be as generous. Admittedly, I was rather conflicted when I put my initial score down.
But as they say, nothing ventured, nothing gained. With that in mind, I ventured through “Nosferatu” at a surprisingly packed screening. I was shocked to find out how many people were going to see this movie at 1 p.m. on a Friday at an AMC located inside of a dying suburban mall. Granted, it was also two days after Christmas and there are a good amount of people who had time off from school and work, but still, I am happy the movie is doing well business-wise. That said, I do wish the movie itself impressed me more.
I am not going to pretend “Nosferatu” is a terrible film that should be avoided at all costs. But in terms of script and directorial choices, there are some things that did not stick the landing for me. My experience with this film kind of reminds me of “Malignant.” That film’s contains a serious vibe, but also feels unpleasantly campy. While definitely less campy, “Nosferatu” also falls into the same boat. I say this as someone in a state of shock. Because I watched the trailers for this film and even though this was not my most anticipated release of the year, there are parts that legit looked like nightmare fuel. However, there are some choices that are made in the film that I found to be questionable at best, most notably regarding Lily-Rose Depp’s character, Ellen Hutter. The more I thought about this movie after seeing it, and this character is perhaps the biggest testament to this, this felt like a live-action cartoon. There is so much over the top acting, line delivery, and random motions to the point where the film feels like it belongs somewhere on Fox’s Animation Domination lineup.
I almost think “Nosferatu” would make for a good video game. Maybe that would be the case if they added a little more to the story or world, but I say this because this film has some over the top characters like the recently mentioned Ellen Hutter and Bill Skarsgård’s Count Orlok, AKA Nosferatu. I say this because one of the film’s main characters, Thomas Hutter, played by Nicholas Hoult, is easily the most down to earth individual in the story. This is noticeable by a significant margin when you consider the other characters in the cast. I think as a center of the film, if you can call him that, Thomas works because he feels the most like an everyday man. So in a sense, it makes the rest of the movie feel extraordinary, even if it occasionally results in something that feels tonally inconsistent. Hoult’s character has dialogue in the movie, but he reminds me of a typical video game protagonist because if you play certain titles like “The Legend of Zelda” or “Portal,” you would notice that the protagonists in those games never talk. Similarly, Thomas Hutter is definitely the quietest character on this film’s roster.
While this film is not the best for me in terms of its substance, I will compliment it in terms of its style. If I were to watch “Nosferatu” with the volume off, I would be okay with it. Because the film has astounding production design that took me back in time to 19th century Germany. All the architecture and streets looked stunning. The color palette for this film is on the darker side, and it works completely. There are moments of the movie where there is more vivid color on display, and those moments feel all the more appealing when they happen. It comes off as a breath of fresh air.
Similarly, the cinematography is also very good. This film is shot by Jarin Blaschke, who also shot all the previous Robert Eggers-directed films. The two have proven to have a loyal partnership and seem to understand each other. As much as I do not love Eggers’ work, the cinematography is by no means offensive. It is actually a standout element in each of these projects. The film, like Eggers’ others, has some immersive closeups and shots where we center on the characters’ faces. There are some cool looking dolly techniques. There is one shot that caught my attention where a hand’s shadow is flying in the air. Even if I forget about some things in “Nosferatu,” and that is honestly looking like it is going to be the case. That shot is probably going to be something I will remember. Robert Eggers, like many directors, has his consistencies. If there is one that I could call a favorite, it is his continued collaboration with cinematographer Jarin Blaschke. I hope these two continue to work together as much as possible, even if their next film ends up not being great.
In the end, “Nosferatu” is yet another point as to why Robert Eggers is not my favorite filmmaker. I know he has his fans, but I am not one of them. While “Nosferatu” is far from the worst horror title I have ever seen, I did find it to be rather dull. Additionally, it is also the worst thing that a horror title can be. Not scary. I do not recall a single moment where I felt terrified during this entire film. The scare attempts range anywhere between lazy to overdone. There is no goldilocks zone in between these extremes. Is the film pretty to the naked eye? Sure. But I do wish the narrative compelled me just a little bit more. I am going to give “Nosferatu” a 5/10.
“Nosferatu” is now playing in theaters everywhere. Tickets are available now.
Thanks for reading this review! My next reviews are going to be for “Babygirl” and “A Complete Unknown.” Once those are done, it is time to talk about my best and worst movies of 2024! If you want to see more from Scene Before, follow the blog either with an email or WordPress account! Also, check out the official Facebook page! I want to know, did you see “Nosferatu?” What did you think about it? Or, what is your favorite horror movie released in 2024? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!
WARNING: Review MAY contain spoilers depending on your point of view.
“Wicked” is directed by Jon M. Chu (Crazy Rich Asians, In the Heights) and stars Cynthia Erivo (Genius, Widows), Ariana Grande-Butera (Victorious, Scream Queens), Jonathan Bailey (Fellow Travelers, Bridgerton), Ethan Slater, Bowen Yang (Awkwafina is Nora from Queens, Saturday Night Live), Marissa Bode, Peter Dinklage (Game of Thrones, Pixels), Michelle Yeoh (Crazy Rich Asians, Everything Everywhere All at Once), and Jeff Goldblum (Jurassic Park, Thor: Ragnarok). This film is based on a book that inspired a popular Broadway musical and centers around the connection between two students at Shiz University… A misunderstood green woman named Elphaba and a popular girl named Galinda.
“Wicked” is a property that I have heard by name for years. Obviously, I am familiar with some Oz stories, so I know that “Wicked” is connected to that universe. I have seen commercials on television promoting the play when it arrives in my local area. My earliest memory regarding the play has to do with one episode of “Deal or No Deal” I watched when I was 10 years old, when the contestant received an offer from the banker revolving around the play. But I cannot say I have seen the play, nor have I listened to the soundtrack. I have heard decent things about it, I know it is popular, I know people enjoy it. But I have never bothered to check it out. Safe to say, there is a first time for everything.
Perhaps the biggest movie phenomenon in terms of marketing in 2024 so far would have to be “Deadpool & Wolverine.” That film has pushed itself rather hard, gotten so many people looking forward to it, and gotten rather creative with its advertising leading up to its release. Though I say that with a supposed bias because I am definitely the target audience of “Deadpool & Wolverine.” “Wicked” on the other hand, not really. Like any genre, I can appreciate a great musical, but I would not say musicals are my first choice. Nevertheless, I am seeing more than enough promotion for “Wicked,” and I do not think I am alone in this. Though I will admit, like “Deadpool & Wolverine,” there are creative approaches I like regarding “Wicked’s” push. At AMC Theatres, where I usually flock to if I am seeing a movie, they made a reminder for audiences watching whatever film they paid for to follow the traditional rules of moviegoing. As this happens, Jeff Goldblum, who plays the Wizard in the film, says each rule, after which a completely fitting clip of “Wicked” plays.
In fact, this PSA played before my “Wicked” screening as well, which I saw at a Dolby Cinema auditorium at AMC. The video also comes with the rule, “NO SINGING,” which thankfully, my audience followed. Shoutout to my fellow moviegoers for maintaining a respectful atmosphere. But I could tell that I was part of a passionate crowd. There were some enthusiastic responses to certain parts of the film when they came up, I even remember seeing someone below me wearing a witch’s hat. I love when people embrace their inner fan. This is why I often go to conventions because I love those kinds of atmospheres.
Sadly, while “Wicked” clearly has fans, I cannot say I am one of them. I was not one before watching this movie, and I cannot say it turned me into one. This is genuinely one of the most middle of the road movies of the year. One can even argue it is disappointing. Because even as someone who was not the target audience, I could clearly see craftsmanship, love, and effort put into the picture. But there are also some things that have turned me off.
Once again, I am not the target audience for musicals, though I have enjoyed some. In recent years, I have raved about Steven Spielberg’s “West Side Story” remake time and time again. That said, the songs in this movie, while there are highlights, for the most part, did not really do anything for me. There are some tolerable pieces like “No One Mourns the Wicked,” “Popular,” and of course, “Defying Gravity.” But for the most part, the movie failed to impress me. I thought from the concept, the marketing, and the fantastical universe in which this movie was going to be set, we would get an incredibly vibrant film, but that is not the case.
When it comes to the color palette, that is a spot where “Wicked” falters. The color grading in this film feels pale and wooden for a place that is clearly supposed to be otherworldly. If anything, it kind of looks like a rushed Marvel movie. Do not get me wrong, I love my Marvel movies. But there are a couple titles I where I think the color grading should have been cleaned up a little bit. It looks kind of empty. That said, the film’s look is not all bad. The production design feels grand and epic at times. Oz looks great. The interiors look great. There’s a shot early on showing a massive field of flowers that captivated me. That also leads me to say that I like the film’s camerawork. The framing feels wide and vast, trying to fit as much information as possible from one side of the screen to the other. This film is shot by Alex Brooks, who is no stranger to shooting musicals. In 2021, she shot “Tick, Tick…BOOM!,” which I adored. Months before that movie came out, she was credited for the less enjoyable but still fun “In the Heights,” also directed by Jon M. Chu. Brooks has a good eye for framing and definitely knows how to make shots feel grand, even if there are other aspects that drag such grandeur down.
Although if I had to name my favorite aspects of the film, there are two that come to mind… The leads. The entire film revolves around the relationship between Elphaba and Galinda. Thankfully, this movie casts both of these parts perfectly. For Elphaba, you have Cynthia Erivo, who not only plays her part well, capturing the uniqueness of her character that goes far beyond her looks, but boy can she sing. There is a lot of singing in this film, and admittedly, some of the singing in this film, particularly from multiple characters, sometimes feels out of place. Though it is not “Joker: Folie à Deux” bad. Some of it just feels tacked on if anything. I imagine some would say all of the singing in the film has a point. From my point of view, maybe it fits better on Broadway. I do not know. There are a lot of scenes within the context of a musical that I happened to buy. But there are other songs that either feel slapped together almost unnecessarily, or just plain annoying. But thankfully, Erivo sings all of her songs well, and the same can be said for Ariana Grande, who practically steals every scene she is in. She plays the popular girl type to a tee. She is fantastic. Dare I even say Oscar-worthy. I hope she gets a nomination. Whether it will be for Best Lead Actress or Supporting Actress we will have to see. I know Universal probably does not want Erivo and Grande competing against each other for the same award. The Golden Globe nominees just came out and both performers are in different categories. Even so, Grande is a knockout. There is an otherworldliness to her character that I bought into. She is funny, charming, and perhaps gives one of the best physical performances of the year. There are plenty of other actors in this film that play their individual parts well. I thought Jeff Goldblum was a great choice to play Oz. Michelle Yeoh is commanding as Madame Morrible, and Jonathan Bailey does a good job playing Fiyero Tigelaar.
As said earlier this review MAY contain spoilers depending on your point of view… This where is where we get into those potential spoilers. You have been warned.
Kind of like “Dune,” there is one thing “Wicked” hides in its marketing that I would have never gathered from trailers and ads alone. I knew about this before going into the film, because other people dropped the news beforehand. But for those who do not know, “Wicked” is a part one. Early on in the film, the title card of this movie shows up, we see “WICKED” in huge letters, and shortly after, the words “PART 1” shows up. And BOY does this movie feel like a first half of a two part story. You can say the same for “Dune,” a movie that for the record, I happen to fall within the target audience… My point is, I feel like “Dune” does a good job at not only getting me invested in a universe that aesthetically leaps off the screen ten times better than this one does. But I care more about the journey our lead character goes on. In fact, we see him during the start of the film in a certain way, and he fully develops as a character, giving a solid end to his arc in the story. There are questions regarding the character that are left unanswered, but I am intrigued enough to find out how things would unfold in a future chapter. Elphaba develops somewhat in this film, but her development feels slightly incomplete. “Dune,” despite being a book split in half, comes off as a full story. At least to me it does. I would not be surprised if some people disagree. It leaves the audience with questions. But as far as Paul Atreides is concerned, I think the movie gives him a solid progression. It left me knowing enough about the world of Arrakis. It left me knowing enough about Atreides. It left me wanting more. I left “Wicked” feeling as if I was watching an unfinished story that barely kept me awake. I remember last year when “Spider-Man: Across the Spider-Verse” came out. Like “Dune,” I happen to be in the target audience for that film too. I loved the movie, and I could tell that like “Wicked,” it was made with love. But also like “Wicked,” if I had a complaint about the film, it definitely feels like a setup movie at times. It is a great setup movie. But there is a reason despite me giving the film a 10/10 for its many positives during my review, I ended up sliding it down a spot on my Top 10 BEST Movies of 2023 list, where “Godzilla Minus One” just so happened to be my number one pick for the year.
Sticking with “Across the Spider-Verse,” I enjoyed all the characters, the animation, the production value, everything that particular movie had to offer. They do way more than enough to make the part one worthwhile. As for “Wicked,” there are decent characters but they are in an off and on story. The world is not as interesting as I hoped it would be. A few songs are okay, but I cannot say I am raving about them. In fact, some of the song sequences gave me a headache. Part of it may do with me seeing the movie in Dolby, but still. If I were to watch the movie a second time either at home or in a regular theater, hopefully that does not happen again. The pacing of this movie is as slow as snail. The movie is two hours and forty minutes long. It honestly almost feels like three or even longer. I found myself rather invested in the second half at times, but the first half? I found myself wanting to fall asleep. But I could not do that, because I was in a Dolby Cinema, and the songs were so loud they were giving me a headache!
As the film was ending, I will be real, despite my many negatives, I was rather riveted by Erivo’s take on Defying Gravity. This is not a song I would listen to on my own time, but within the context of the story, she puts on a good show. There is also, again, really good camerawork in this sequence. There are a couple shots that are so immersive you feel like Erivo is singing right in your face. For many people, I would imagine this would be the reason why the movie is worth seeing. Unfortunately for me, I was immensely tired after the first half to the point where the movie barely redeemed itself by the conclusion. This was a good sequence. I just wish it were in a movie that had more of my attention.
In the end, I left “Wicked” rather unfulfilled. I will remind everyone, this is a part one. Unfortunately, this film failed on an important objective, which is getting me excited for part two. I am probably going to see it, because I know a lot of people will be talking about it. But if I were not reviewing movies, chances are I might skip it unless someone I know invited me to see it as their plus one. Again, I am not the target audience for this movie. It was likely made for someone who was not me. But the same can be said about other movies I reviewed like “Barbie,” “On the Basis of Sex,” and “Hope Gap.” I liked all of those movies! I cannot say the same about this one. If you like “Wicked,” good for you. I am glad you had fun. But I found the soundtrack to be mediocre, the overall look of the film to be slightly unappealing, and the world to lack my overall investment. I have to give credit to certain groups in this movie. A lot of the actors do a good job. The costumes are really nice. The sets definitely have effort put into them. This movie comes with plenty of good, but I nevertheless found an equal amount of bad. You could even say there are things that make “Wicked” watchable, but it is done in a package that failed to win me over. I like Jon M. Chu as a director, and when it comes to unleashing good performances out of his cast, that is where he excels here. But when it comes to creating an enjoyable musical atmosphere, I think he does better job with that with “In the Heights.” I do not love “In the Heights,” but I think it is a slightly better film than “Wicked.” If someone were in the room with me and they put it in on, I would not leave. I would watch it again. As is the case “Killers of the Flower Moon” last year and “Elvis” the year before that, “Wicked” is probably going to be a huge awards contender. But like those two other films, I am definitely in the minority with my negative opinion when it comes to “Wicked.” I mean, I liked the movie more than “Challengers…” Go ahead, punch me in the face. I do not care. I said what I said. All I can do is give my honest opinion. I am going to give “Wicked” a 5/10.
One last thing I want to bring up… I do not know if this was a studio choice or a directorial intention or if this was just my screening, but I want to know if anyone else experienced this. When I saw this film for the first time, I noticed that there was a tint attached in my presentation that was pink and green. It stayed that way during the entire film. You might think I am just seeing things because those are the two consistent colors throughout the picture. Although I must point out that this tint was also present during the trailers. When the MPA warning flashed, I noticed hints of pink in the font. I am not sure what the purpose of that was, but it was kind of distracting. Did anyone else see that too or was it just me?
“Wicked” is now playing in theaters everywhere. Tickets are available now.
Thanks for reading this review! By the way, a lot of people appear to be seeing “Wicked” as part of a double feature with another film, “Gladiator II.” Be sure to check out my review for that movie as well! Also on the pipeline, I have reviews coming for “Smile 2,” “Nightbitch,” “Kraven the Hunter,” and “The Lord of the Rings: The War of the Rohirrim.” 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 “Wicked?” What did you think about it? Or, what is your most unpopular movie opinion regarding this year in cinema? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!
Hey everyone, Jack Drees here! It is time to continue Scene Before’s Election Days review series. Unusually, this review is being posted on a Monday! I intended this series to be updated weekly on Tuesdays, but to be frank, I have a commitment tomorrow. I am not sure if my schedule would allow me to finalize this post then, so I thought I would get it out today. Speaking of unusual, unlike the last two movies I reviewed, “The Campaign” and “W.“, this review regards a movie about someone whose seat is determined by elected officials, not necessarily by the people of the United States on Election Day. Today we are going to focus on the prominent Supreme Court Justice, Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Having joined the Court of Appeals in 1980 during the Jimmy Carter administration, not to mention appointed to the Supreme Court in 1993 during Bill Clinton’s time as the U.S. President, she has maintained a reputation as a trailblazer. This film focuses on a time in her life before all that happened. Is the movie worth watching? I will share my thoughts below and you can find out for yourself.
“On the Basis of Sex” is directed by Mimi Leder (Deep Impact, Pay it Forward) and stars Felicity Jones (Rogue One: A Star Wars Story, The Amazing Spider-Man 2), Armie Hammer (Cars 3, Nocturnal Animals), Justin Theroux (Mulholland Drive, The Girl on the Train), Sam Waterston (Law & Order, The Newsroom), and Kathy Bates (The Waterboy, Misery). This film is about Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who must overcome various obstacles to help herself, her family, all the while trying to establish a career in a competitive, everchanging climate.
Despite coming out more than half a decade ago, I missed “On the Basis of Sex” when it came to theaters. After all, there were so many films coming out at the time that I could only get to a certain number of them. I was mainly focused on what insiders were projecting to be the major awards contenders at the time and “On the Basis of Sex” did not seem to be one of them. I was intrigued by the premise, but I had a bit on my plate. My motivations even caused me to miss “Bumblebee,” a blockbuster I was curious about at the time. By the way, I do not have a review for it, but it is a good movie! I eventually ended up buying a used copy of “On The Basis of Sex” on Blu-ray for $3.99, so I thought it would be worth checking out some time. And worth checking out, it is.
I knew “On the Basis of Sex” would be good, but I did not expect it to stand out the way it does sometimes. I want to quickly address the pacing of this movie. I am not surprised when I watch say an action movie or a comedy movie and find myself immersed in those environments to the point where time moves at supersonic speed while watching those. There was a point where I checked how far the movie was into its runtime and to my surprise, we were almost halfway through and I thought to myself, “Wow! I guess I’m really enjoying this!” It reminds me of when I watched “The Post.” It is shocking and delightful to know how immersed you can get in a story from time to time that is almost non stop talking.
“On the Basis of Sex” starts off on a high note. Perhaps literally. Partially because the song choice in the beginning perfectly sets the tone for the movie. It is loud and grabs your attention, kind of like the fight for equal rights this film often tends to highlight. But not only does the movie start well from an audio perspective, but the opening sequence set at Harvard is finely edited and shot. The movie starts off with this gigantic sea of men, therefore illustrating how there is a lack of women in Ginsburg’s position. The men are also all wearing suits and jackets. Each jacket looks almost like the other. They’re grey, they’re black. It is a limited and somewhat uninviting color palette. Then you look at Ginsburg in her light blue outfit. I am sure if she were wearing similar colors to the men surrounding her we could identify Ginsburg just fine. But her outfit, most notably due to its vibrant color choice, easily grabs your attention. I thought the costuming is top notch here, as it is for the remainder of the film.
Felicity Jones plays Ruth Bader Ginsburg in this film. Jones does a decent job portraying a rather commanding figure. When I think of RBG, I think of someone who is motivated, someone who takes charge. This is not her most notable lead role in the last decade, but I must say between this and the much more popular “Rogue One: A Star Wars Story,” Jones does a decent job playing strong women while also gracefully showing the weaknesses of said characters. When I watched “Rogue One,” I thought Jones did a good job at highlighting Jyn Erso’s uncertainty on screen. I remember when she was leading people into battle and I could feel her timidness, even though she was not showing it. In the case of RBG, I could tell Jones was showing more confidence this time around. After all, the movie shows she is still learning new things, but she is mature and certain as to what she wants. As to how to get it, that is occasionally the obstacle. At times, the obstacle exists just because of how other people see her.
The film dives into the sexism that women deal with, even today. We see a man telling RBG to smile more, change her tone. There is a moment where we see Ginsburg and her daughter walking through the street and some construction workers are catcalling them. We see Ginsburg, reservedly tell her daughter Jane, played by Cailee Spaeney, to just keep walking. But the daughter is not having it, she yells at them, signaling their actions are not okay, and then hitches a cab. This leaves her mother surprised and impressed, showing the progression of how women are opening up as to how they prefer to be treated. It is a memorable scene and does a good job at highlighting how far women’s rights have come generation after generation, even if it is shown through something as small as this.
The film also shows Ginsburg, despite being a star student in law school, struggling to find work. And while the job market can prove to be competitive in a number of contexts, for Ginsburg, she struggled to find work because of her identity. Multiple law firms turned her down because they did not want to hire a woman. We find out Ginsburg ends up taking a position as a professor at Rutgers Law School, which initially tends to bewilder her husband, Martin Ginsburg. Through the tone of the dialogue and various visual cues as Ruth reveals such news to her husband, it is emphasized that maybe this is not the outcome both sides were expecting. Even so, the two recognize the small victory. It is a decent scene showing the bumpy road that it is life. Once several doors close, another one may open that you were least expecting.
Despite how much I enjoyed “On the Basis of Sex,” it is not without its flaws. “Hollywoodized” is a term I have used on Scene Before in the past, and it fits here too. At times, this movie’s dramatization is rather obvious and almost distracting. While the movie is based on true events, there are certain moments during the showcasing of said events that feel like they would only exist in the context of a dramatized film.
Although if there is one thing that pipes itself up throughout the movie that really kept me interested, it is Mychael Danna’s score. Having watched lots of films over the years, I have had my fair share of scores I liked, but there are a certain amount that I would revisit on my own time. “On the Basis of Sex,” to my surprise, seems as if it could end up being one of those scores. Maybe I will eventually play it while writing my reviews.
As far as biopics go, I am not going to pretend “On the Basis of Sex” reinvents the wheel. There are moments where we see Ginsburg’s life play out that were beyond fascinating to learn about but the structure of the film does have a been there done that feel at times. If you can handle some predictability, cliches, and overdramatization every once in a while, you might like this movie.
In the end, “On the Basis of Sex” surprised me. I mean, I was not surprised the movie played out the way it did in parts. There is definitely a noticeable formula that I thought was met. But Felicity Jones carries this film as the lead. Although that does not mean there are no other standouts in the cast. Some include Armie Hammer, Kathy Bates, and even Cailee Spaeney as Ginsburg’s daughter, Jane. What did surprise me was how fast time flew as the movie progressed. I cannot say I felt bored or uninterested, so I have to give credit to the movie for keeping me awake. I am going to give “On the Basis of Sex” a 7/10.
“On the Basis of Sex” is now available on DVD, Blu-ray, Digital, and VOD. As of this writing, the film is available on Netflix for all subscribers.
Thanks for reading this review! I have one more review coming up next week in the ongoing Election Days series and it is going to be for the Amazon Studios film, “Elvis & Nixon.” I have not seen this film before. I just watched the trailer. It seems to promise a lot of fun. I figured after a couple of heavier films, and yes, I include “W.” as an example even though it has comedic elements, I thought it would be fun to maybe end with something on the lighter side. Stay tuned for that review. As for newer releases, stay tuned for my thoughts on “The Apprentice,” “Anora,” “Here,” “Gladiator II,” “Red One,” and “A Real Pain.” If you want to see these reviews and more from Scene Before, follow the blog either with an email or WordPress account! Also, check out the official Facebook page! I want to know, did you see “On the Basis of Sex?” What did you think about it? Or, what is a movie you watched that you feel went by much faster than you were expecting it to? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!
“The Wild Robot” is directed by Chris Sanders (How to Train Your Dragon, The Croods) and stars Lupita Nyong’o (Star Wars: The Force Awakens, Black Panther), Pedro Pascal (The Mandalorian, The Last of Us), Kit Connor (His Dark Materials, Heartstopper), Bill Nighy (Emma., The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel), Stephanie Hsu (Everything Everywhere All at Once, Joy Ride), Mark Hamill (Star Wars, Kingsman: The Secret Service), Catherine O’Hara (The Nightmare Before Christmas, Beetlejuice), Matt Berry (The SpongeBob Movie: Sponge on the Run, What We Do in the Shadows) and Ving Rhames (The Garfield Movie, Mission: Impossible). This film is about a robot who goes by its product name, ROZZUM Unit 7134, or “Roz” for short. The story dives into Roz’s adventures in the wild, including an unexpected encounter with a baby goose, which leads to her becoming said goose’s parent. Now she must do all she can to master something that goes beyond her programming.
“The Wild Robot” is one of my most anticipated movies of the year. It is easily my most anticipated animated film of the year. I have been super excited for this film ever since I saw the teaser trailer before watching “Kung Fu Panda 4” in the theater. The footage contained tons of beautiful shots, an interesting color scheme, and even though it did not give a lot the story away, I had a strong feeling this movie was going to be deep. It was going to make the audience think. I had a feeling that “The Wild Robot” would be the 2020s version of “Wall-E,” both in terms of material and quality. Before I get into my thoughts about the movie, I can say the movie has some similarities to “Wall-E,” it has the same DNA, but it is a much different animal.
“The Wild Robot” is what you get when you strip certain parts of “Wall-E” and insert them into a movie whose story is primarily about parenting. Whereas “Wall-E” is about a robot finding love with another robot and saving a plant, this film is about a robot finding out who she is while also dealing with what some would argue is one of the hardest tasks you can ever be given.
While this movie’s protagonist is dealing with a hard task, it is easy for me to say that “The Wild Robot” is one of the best movies of the year. As far as animated movies go, it is hard to say it gets better than this. As much as I am happy for “Inside Out 2” becoming the biggest animated film of all time, “The Wild Robot” clicked with me more. That said, you cannot go wrong with watching either film. But if I had to pick one, “The Wild Robot” would be my choice.
“The Wild Robot” is perhaps an answer for the parents who are forced to take their children to the theater to watch these kinds of movies. Of course, animated movies often appeal to children, but it should not be forgotten that the parents are probably the ones paying for their tickets. I want to know how parents will view this movie by the time it is over. Because I believe this is a story that will appeal to a lot of them.
I see movies as escapes from reality, so if I were to pitch a movie like this to a parent and tell them that this story is perhaps an encapsulation of something you are already dealing with, there could be a better way to sell it. I do not know. But some of the best movies are those that relate to the audience, that speak to them. They are movies that people can identify with containing characters whose personalities and experiences are similar to their own. I think a lot of parents will find something to relate to when they see the character of Roz and everything she goes through. Now you may be wondering, will kids enjoy this movie? Of course they will! It is funny, it is action-packed at times, and it contains characters that easily appeal to that demographic. The main character is a robot and by her side are a variety of wild animals. Kids love those! For all I know, for some younger viewers, this is going to be one of those movies, kind of like “The Incredibles” was for me, that I enjoyed watching as a kid because of its adventure and action elements, but rewatched as an adult with a greater appreciation for how it handles its characters’ struggles of getting older. I honestly would want to know if parents will have more fun with this movie than their own children. But I can say I saw this movie in a theater full of children on a Sunday morning. They seemed to be positively interacting with it for much of the runtime, so it definitely has their appeal.
I would also like to talk about the voicework of “The Wild Robot.” I have seen the trailers for this film, so I did see the typical casting list where they flash a ton of celebrity names. This movie continues the cliche where we use celebrity voice artists as opposed to certain people who primarily do voicework. Although to be fair some of the cast has some notable voiceover experience, like Mark Hamill. With that in mind, not only does everyone do a good job here, I could not tell that they were voicing their own characters. I almost forgot these actors were in the movie. Sure, I knew Lupita Nyong’o was the lead. But as I heard her voice, it sounded more hyperactive than what I used to hearing from her. I am not sure if she piped herself up or if there is a filter being applied to her recordings in post. But it works. I have seen Pedro Pascal in a number of projects, and I not tell he was Fink the fox. Ving Rhames was also in this movie, and I guarantee many of you reading this recognize his voice. From “Mission: Impossible” on the big screen to the current Arby’s commercials on the small screen, Rhames always has a commanding presence. And his character, Thunderbolt the falcon, is also a great example of such a presence. He sounds bold and god-like with every line. But even then, I could not tell that was Ving Rhames. This is not a dig, if anything it is the highest of compliments.
Even though this movie’s cast is recognizable, most, if not all of these cast members put on a disguisable performance. The movie does a much better job at masking the actors doing these voices than say “DC League of Super Pets,” whose leads’ voices I could recognize and become distracted by in a heartbeat. When the credits rolled, I whispered to myself, “Wait, Mark Hamill was in this?!” Looking back, I believe I knew that in advance. But for one thing, I did not see the trailer in awhile. And again, it goes to show how good these voice performances are. These are characters, not celebrities playing themselves.
Going back to what I said about this film being like “Wall-E,” “The Wild Robot” never specifies when exactly it is set. But I was able to pick up that like “Wall-E,” this movie was set in the future. Both films tend to highlight the mistakes we have made as humans. Whether it is not solving climate change or trying so hard to find a new home to the point where we may have forgotten to preserve the one we have. Also, the central protagonists of these movies are robots, which you could argue we are over-relying on for our many conveniences as we speak. Both “The Wild Robot” and “Wall-E” feature several robots created by large corporations. Both robots who we know as these films’ protagonists serve their respective purposes, but they are also tasked with making people’s lives easier. In the case of “The Wild Robot,” we see that Roz’s attention extends to other animals. Although to be fair, “Wall-E” mostly had human characters. I remember there being a cockroach in the movie, but that may be it.
This film also reminded me of “The Iron Giant.” By that I mean the movie is in a sense an edition of that movie where the roles are reversed. Kind of… If you have ever seen “The Iron Giant,” you would know the robot is the fish out of water character, and the main protagonist, Hogarth, helps him adapt to being on earth. In this film, we see Roz go from adapting to her environment on earth, to teaching a gosling everything she knows. There are plenty of animated movies out there featuring robots. Heck, my last review was for “Transformers One,” and that movie has plenty of them. But I am proud to say that “The Wild Robot” is just as masterful as “Wall-E” and “The Iron Giant,” two movies featuring robots that deserve every ounce of praise that they can possibly get. If you want me to be real though, of these three movies, I think “The Wild Robot” is the weakest of the bunch.
This leads me into my problems with the movie. For one thing, the animation style, while definitely creative, sometimes feels unfinished, perhaps on purpose. Sometimes it works, other times it feels cheap. There are several environments that caught my eye. The design of the robot is well done. I loved seeing how this movie represents foliage in certain scenes, which makes it a proper release for this time of year. But there are also certain places or effects that come off as less textured than others. Part of me also questions the way this movie addresses communication between Roz and the animals. We see Roz spending time translating the animals’ language, so we learn after some time that Roz can understand the animals. But we are seeing Roz communicate and have full-fledged conversations with these animals in English. I get that a lot of movies tend to personify animals and have them speak English. But I am surprised on how well both the robot and these animals understood each other. Perhaps all the conversations were in English for us, the audience. It is a minor complaint, if that. Maybe with a rewatch that complaint will go away. Besides, the movie has good dialogue. It has a lot of funny lines from several characters, even those who barely appear in the film at all.
The script itself is an impressive look at what it is like to be a parent. I say this as if I have kids. I do not. But from what I have heard and seen about parenting, this movie presents parenting as a concept that no one really understands until they try it, until they do it. There is a moment where Roz finds out she is the first point of contact of a newborn gosling. Pinktail, a possum played by Catherine O’Hara, explains to Roz that she is now said gosling’s mother. Roz responds by saying she does not have the programming, to which Pinktail tells her “No one does.” I was a first-born child. I can only imagine what my parents were thinking when they first had me. I am sure they were happy, but also in a neverending state of asking questions. I probably presented them with situations that they did not see coming. Even if I was a second-born child, chances are I could have done the same thing. But I recognize that raising me was a learning curve. I can only imagine how hard it is for Roz, who is not only of a different kind than the gosling, who we eventually know to go by the name Brightbill, but is programmed specifically for helping humans. Did she ask for something like this to happen? No she did not. But she handles it as best she can because while parenting is not in her programming, as a robot she is designed to complete tasks, and to her, this is just the latest one she has been given.
It is also rather refreshing to see an animated movie about a parental figure like this. When I look back at DreamWorks’ animated slate for example, the movies are normally about younger or childless characters. Sure, Shrek and Fiona have children, but they progress to that point after multiple movies. Yes, you can say Hiccup from “How to Train Your Dragon” is parent-like, but his relationship sometimes presents itself somewhat similarly to that of an owner and their pet as opposed to a parent and child. That, and the first film spends time showing complications between Hiccup and his own father. Although in “How to Train Your Dragon: The Hidden World,” the movie ends on a note that is perhaps reminiscent of what it must feel like for a child to leave the nest after so many years. Age is not the biggest topic or concern in “The Wild Robot,” but whereas we have seen several movies of this nature where there is a mentor figure hanging somewhere in the background, maybe as a prominent supporting character, Roz, our main hero sort of becomes a mentor figure herself. Yes, she is a fish out of water, and you could also argue that Fink the fox and other characters are helping Roz in her journey. But it is nevertheless refreshing to see a movie of this kind where we focus on Roz’s concern on whether her goose will be able to fly, as opposed to one where the goose must learn how to fly no matter the cost.
And it is not like the movie refuses to give depth to Brightbill the goose. The movie decently highlights his journey and his individualities. This movie represents a journey that many parents can relate to, but also does a great job at showing Brightbill’s struggles of fitting in. He is kind of an outcast. Not only did I see his struggles that came with being different, but in the case of a character like Roz, I could only imagine her struggle realizing how others treat her child times. But this is ultimately not Brightbill’s movie, it is Roz’s movie. And I can guarantee, Roz’s movie is a fantastic one.
In the end, “The Wild Robot” is one of the year’s finest films. The animation is sometimes iffy, and the climax feels oddly bigger than I would have expected out of a film like this, but it does not change the fact that this is one of DreamWorks’ most unique movies. Is it my favorite DreamWorks animation? Probably not. Given time to marinate over the past week I thought of a few movies I enjoyed more. The first two “Kung Fu Panda” movies come to mind. “Puss in Boots: The Last Wish” has gotten a few watches out of yours truly since its release nearly two years ago. “How to Train Your Dragon: The Hidden World” is one of those films that came out at a perfect time for me and I find it to be a marvelous story. But if I had to round out my top 5 DreamWorks Animations, “The Wild Robot” would probably be up there at this point. And it deserves to be. It is a deep story showcasing both the beauty and the struggles of parenting. It is about a robot who learns to become more than what it was designed to be. It is a movie that kids will probably enjoy when they are younger, but will probably see in a different way as they age. If there is one movie in theaters you should see right now, this might be it. I am going to give “The Wild Robot” a 9/10.
“The Wild Robot” is now playing in theatres everywhere. Tickets are available now.
Thanks for reading this review! My next review is going to be for the brand new sequel, “Joker: Folie a Deux,” which I will give some credit, the movie is prompting conversations. As far as whether my addition to the conversation is positive or negative, you will find out about that soon enough. 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 Wild Robot?” What did you think about it? Or, what are your favorite DreamWorks Animations? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!
“Twisters” is directed by Lee Isaac Chung (Minari, The Mandalorian) and stars Daisy Edgar-Jones (Normal People, Under the Banner of Heaven), Glen Powell (Top Gun: Maverick, Anyone But You), Anthony Ramos (In the Heights, Transformers: Rise of the Beasts), Brandon Perea (Nope, The OA), Maura Tierney (NewsRadio, ER), and Sasha Lane (Loki, American Honey). This is a standalone sequel to the 1996 film “Twister,” and is about a former tornado chaser who comes to Oklahoma with a meteorologist to scan tornados.
While there are a fair share of original movies being made, it is also accurate to say that franchise continuations tend to stand out more nowadays than said originals. This even includes “Twisters,” a movie I have been looking forward to since the first trailer came out. Between the aura of Glen Powell, the energetic vibes, the riveting tornado shots, and a pinch of that summer blockbuster feel, I was stoked. But here’s the thing, at the time, I have still yet to watch the original “Twister.”
I may have heard “Twisters” was happening prior to the Super Bowl, but chances are I did not care about it. Why? Well, it is the same reason why I have yet to see “Kingdom of the Planet of the Apes.” It is the same reason why I am probably not going to see “Alien: Romulus” in the theater. As good as those movies look, I have some catching up to do when it comes to those properties. Thankfully, unlike the several movies both of those franchises offer, “Twister” only has one film for me to worry about. And as for that 1996 original movie, I thought it was rather fun. It had some immersive camerawork, a decent cast, a good amount of tornado action, and at times, an incredible score by Mark Mancina.
How does this standalone sequel compare to the original? I mean… It is fine I guess. It has its moments. I would not exactly rave about it, but I do not hate it. “Twisters” is kind of like Sbarro pizza. It is not the best of its class, but if it were one of the only options, I would tolerate its existence. Did I have fun with “Twisters” while watching it? Of course I did. And I would say that I am glad I watched this film in a theater as opposed to my house for the first time. This is definitely the kind of movie you would want to see on a giant screen, perhaps with a few friends. I cannot completely confirm or deny as I saw the film by myself, but still, that is the vibe I got.
“Twisters” pays respect to its predecessor. This was something I heard going into this movie, and was honestly quite worried about. Part of me was worried that this would be a beat for beat remake. While it is not quite as beat for beat as the 2019 edition of “The Lion King,” “Twisters” has a lot of similarities to its 1996 counterpart. There is a scene in a movie theater, kind of like how the original had a scene in a drive-in. The line in this film, “We got twins,” is very much a tribute to 1996’s “We got cows.” It’s little things like those that can easily be picked up along the way if you pay enough attention. Speaking of repeated techniques, “Twisters” is shot entirely on 35mm film. The average viewer is probably not going to care about a detail like that, but as I watched the movie, it definitely had a rugged palette in every frame. Even if the frame looked clean, it still had a sense of character to it that put me into each scene. With that in mind, I would still claim “Twisters” has enough material in it for the movie to stand on its own. It definitely feels like it belongs in the same universe as its predecessor, but by no means is it a complete ripoff despite some degree of copy and pasting.
One of the differences between this film and the original however, is the cast. This time around, there is, by complete coincidence, only one cast member from the original movie who returns for this follow-up. And they do not even play the same character. Instead, we have room for new stars including Daisy-Edgar Jones, who is finely cast in the lead role of Kate. You have Anthony Ramos, who brings a lot of energy to the screen as Javi. But if you see this movie yourself, chances are you are going to agree that there is one true star of the show…. Glen Powell as Tyler Owens.
Some argue that the movie star is dead, but if there is anyone who could potentially defeat that argument, Glen Powell is honestly a contender. As much as I hated “Anyone But You,” I thought Powell was far and away the best part of the film. Much like that movie, he oozes an endless stream of charisma. Every line out of him is perfectly delivered. His presence is incredible. If I had to come up with a word or two to describe Powell in “Twisters,” it would be “rockstar.” The moment he steps on screen, it is almost like this movie finished its opening act, and now he comes out and unleashes a sense of star power that is almost indescribable. I have no desire to ride a tornado. It is not my thing, but if anyone were to convince me I should, Tyler Owens might be the guy. Of course, there are still movie stars out there who have developed their career to a high like Dwayne Johnson, Tom Cruise, Ryan Reynolds… They have been on the scene for years and to some degree, they are all able to get butts into seats. After seeing “Twisters,” I am convinced Glen Powell is going to be looked back on years from now as one of this generation’s most adored talents. If there is a movie coming out that doesn’t exactly look great, I am sure it will get a boost at the box office if you simply put Powell’s face on the poster.
I also like the background behind Powell’s character. The movie establishes that Tyler Owens is a successful YouTuber. Owens has built a channel documenting his storm chases, earning him the nickname, “Tornado Wrangler.” He definitely delivers the energy you would expect out of a popular YouTuber or vlogger, I think Powell did a good job at channeling the traits I am used to seeing from some of my favorite personalities. The one thing though I would note is that Owens probably needs to work on his copyright game. Now, on YouTube, you can probably have some videos with copywritten material fly depending on the circumstances. There are times they can go unacknowledged or the owner of such material may not even care. But typically, it is wise for creators, especially for those trying to make money on their videos, to use royalty free music in their content, unlike Owens, who is making a video while blasting a copywritten song in the background. Just something that I noticed during the film that I probably would have changed if I were in control. I think it would have been funny to have Owens playing some fairly often used Kevin MacLeod song. It would have caught me really off guard in a good way.
Though I have to be real, much like the original “Twister,” this movie is probably not going to have much replay value for me. Am I glad I saw “Twisters?” Yes. Especially considering I saw it in the theater. But compared to the original, while “Twisters” is definitely equal in its own right when it comes to star power, feels a tad weaker when it comes to characterization. But at the same time, the characters do to a degree feel fairly fleshed out. The script is not really anything to write home about. The biggest thing this movie has going for it is Glen Powell’s personality. Honestly, his aura stands out more than the tornados themselves. That said, the sound is quite immersive. The film is decently shot. And it definitely has a fun factor to it. It is a fine movie to watch in order to kill a couple hours and maybe never watch again. You will not have any regrets watching this movie, but maybe not a ton of fond memories in the years down the road depending on your viewing experience.
In the end, “Twisters,” as a theatrical experience, is definitely one you would not want to miss. If it is playing in a theater near you, I would totally justify going to watch it. But this might just be a one and done film. There is not a ton of flair to it. It is not the best film of the year, nor is it the worst. For me, it is somewhere in the middle. I think the original is a slightly better experience, but if you do enjoy the original, you might enjoy this one to some degree as well. I am going to give “Twisters” a 6/10.
“Twisters” is now playing in theaters and is available to buy on VOD.
Thanks for reading this review! My next review is going to be for “Deadpool & Wolverine,” the latest entry to the MCU and one of my most anticipated movies of the year. You will have to find out next week if it lives up to the hype. Also coming soon, I will have reviews for “Kinds of Kindness,” “The Instigators,” “Sing Sing,” and “Borderlands.” 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 “Twisters?” What did you think about it? Or, which is your favorite of the “Twister” movies? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!
“Back to Black” is directed by Sam Taylor-Johnson (A Million Little Pieces, Fifty Shades of Grey) and stars Marisa Abela (Industry, She is Love), Jack O’Connell (Unbroken, Money Monster), Eddie Marsen (Ray Donovan, Atomic Blonde), and Lesley Manville (Maleficent, Phantom Thread) in a musical biopic chronicling a large segment of the life of Amy Winehouse and her journey to creating one of the most successful albums of the 21st century.
While they may not be my goto genre, musical biopics are often a type of movie that manages to garner my attention when it comes out. Not only do they tell stories about famed artists people have come to know and love like Elton John in “Rocketman” or Freddie Mercury in “Bohemian Rhapsody,” but those movies often get a lot of attention around awards season. In addition to these actors getting attention during shows like the BAFTAs or the Oscars, if you have ever checked out the 1st or 5th Annual Jack Awards, you would know that some of the acting awards went to lead roles in biopics based on a musician’s real life. One of my favorite lead performances that comes to mind in all the movies I have seen is Jamie Foxx as Ray Charles in the 2004 movie “Ray.” While Foxx’s singing in the movie is limited, he did all of his piano playing. Not to mention, there is a certain physicality to his performance. Same goes for Rami Malek in “Bohemian Rhapsody.” Much like Foxx as Ray Charles, Malek did not do all of his own singing as Freddie Mercury. But looking back at some of the real Live Aid concert and the one they make for the movie, it is insane how close of a resemblance Malek is to Mercury himself in terms of physicality. If I have to be real, “Bohemian Rhapsody” was above average, but Malek’s performance carries the film.
Similarly, that is how I feel about “Back to Black.” Do I think the story is good? Yes. Do I like all the characters? I would say so. I think everyone in the movie has their moment. But what sells this movie for me from start to finish is Marisa Abela as Amy Winehouse.
One of the best compliments I can give an actor, is that I cannot imagine anybody else in their role. And when it comes to Marisa Abela as Amy Winehouse, that thought came across my mind a couple times. Maybe Jenna Ortega could play the role just because she has a certain look to her that personally sells me. But when this movie was shot, she was not even of legal drinking age in the U.S.. That said, I am fairly happy with what we got here. To be real though, it is not my favorite lead performance in a biopic. There is not as much of an oomph factor here to the performance that I have seen from say Austin Butler as Elvis Presley. Some of Abela’s performance feels played up and almost in the realm of fantasy, but there are also a fair share of grounded moments to balance out those exaggerated ones. The performance is not perfect, but there is a lot of good to it.
I also really liked the movie’s attempt to show the chemistry between Winehouse and her love interest, Blake Fielder-Civil, played finely by Jack O’Connell. If anything, I thought the scenes between these two were some of the best parts of the movie and I honestly wouldn’t mind seeing these actors on screen again in another project.
One of the things I will remember most about “Back to Black” is that from start to finish, there was always this consistent tone to the movie, and it seemed to match the tone that comes to mind when I think or talk about Amy Winehouse herself. I do not listen to her music. Frankly, I do not care for her music. Having seen this movie, I do not think I am going to go back and listen to her music. But as I watched the movie, even in its lighter moments, there was always this bittersweet nature to it. If you were to ask me to talk about Amy Winehouse, I will probably say what a lot of other people say and note that her life was taken too soon. We likely missed out on someone who could have built a humungous legacy. Similarly, as I watched this movie, there seems to be this lingering gloom. Granted, there are several moments where that feeling is minute, but it is still there. I must also add the movie’s greyish and bleak color grading, which is practically noticeable in almost every scene, may have an effect on said gloom as well.
When it comes to these musical biopics, I often seek these movies out with my mom. These are some of her gotos. This one is no exception. When she walks out of these films, she often talks about how much she liked hearing the artist’s music as shown in the final product. Knowing the title of this film, we get to hear a good portion of Winehouse’s discography. My favorite of the songs brought to life would be “Rehab.” Again, much of this movie is about not just Amy Winehouse’s rise as an artist, but it also dives into her personal life, and her struggles with drugs and alcohol. This song, not to mention its performance in particular, connects the movie’s ideas together beautifully. The scene in the film is beautifully timed, edited, and as highlighted already, portrayed by Marisa Abela herself.
If I have any real negatives with “Back to Black,” I would say there are parts of the film that are more memorable than others. I would not be able to tell you the name of every character that is in the movie, perhaps some minor details that are in the movie, or every song that is in the movie. Then again, I already mentioned I am not the biggest Amy Winehouse fan. The movie itself, while it is really good, does not have many moments where I am going to look back and label it iconic, or some similar degree that would indicate prestige. As a biopic, this is a decent look into Amy Winehouse’s life with a good amount of tonal consistency. And even though I will say the movie does have an everlasting glimmer of gloom throughout, the gloom never gets to a point where I feel truly heartbroken as a viewer. There are tragic, unfortunate things happening throughout this movie. Sadly, I don’t think I am feeling the melancholy this movie wants me to feel at times. It’s not like when I watched “Priscilla” and was unspeakably riveted by Cailee Spaeny as Priscilla Presley. Here’s an analogy my fellow “Django Unchained” fans would understand, “Back to Black” had my curiosity, but when it comes to keeping my eyes and ears glued, “Priscilla” had my attention, if that makes any sense. “Back to Black” is not going to end up in my top films of the year. If anything, it will wind up somewhere in the middle. But there are plenty of pros to this film that could potentially make a one time watch justified should you decide to check it out.
In the end, “Back to Black” is engaging, but there is not much to it that truly individualizes it. It feels wrong to call a movie like this ordinary, even though you can say it has some familiar beats from other titles of its kind. “Back to Black” has neat production value, good acting, and a fine pace to it that rarely had me disinterested. It’s good, but not great. Now if you are an Amy Winehouse fan, it is hard for me to say whether or not I recommend this film, partially because, again, I do not listen to her music. For the record, going back to Abela’s performance, she does all of her own singing. From a straight up commitment perspective, I admire Abela’s efforts here. As for whether her singing translates well for the average Amy Winehouse fan, that is for them to decide. I must also note that I was 11 when Winehouse died. I was not as in touch with trends, culture, and goings on at the time as I am now. But as a pure movie and story, it gets a thumbs up from me. Not a strong one, but a thumbs up nevertheless. I am going to give “Back to Black” a 6/10.
“Back to Black” is now playing in select theaters and is available to rent or buy on VOD.
Thanks for reading this review! My next review is going to be for the new comedy “Summer Camp.” Stay tuned! Also coming soon, I will be sharing my thoughts on “Young Woman and the Sea,” “Inside Out 2,” “Furiosa: A Mad Max Saga,” and “Thelma.” 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 “Back to Black?” What did you think about it? Or, who is someone whose life you feel was taken too soon that you would have like to have seen live longer? For me, Chadwick Boseman. Between his time in the MCU, an Oscar nomination, and his ability to put on killer performances, I would like to see what other projects he would have done had he not passed in August 2020. Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!
Scene Before 