“Jay Kelly” is directed by Noah Baumbach (White Noise, Marriage Story) and stars George Clooney (Gravity, Ticket to Paradise) and Adam Sandler (Happy Gilmore, Billy Madison) in a film about an actor who reflects on his career, choices, relationships, and legacy.
Throughout the years, there have been cases where I would point out that an actor plays themselves in a movie. This could be in a literal sense like Kumail Nanjiani did in the hilarious and heartfelt “Big Sick,” or in a figurative sense like Dwayne Johnson playing some variation of a character he has portrayed before, or some version of their off-camera personality.
While the character of Jay Kelly is not based on George Clooney or any particular actor, it is interesting to see an actor of Clooney’s caliber take him on, and it results in one of the best performances of the year. A good chunk of the performance is enhanced by the screenplay, crafted by Noah Baumbach and Emily Mortimer. The former is already an acclaimed name through his work on 2019’s “Marriage Story,” and Emily Mortimer is known for her acting career, but this is her first feature writing credit, and may I say it is a fine one to have.
It does not surprise me that Noah Baumbach would work on a film like this. Not just because it is great, which it is. But also because it appears to take slight threads from “Marriage Story.” If you go back and look at “Marriage Story” and some of the reasons why the main characters’ relationship falls apart, a lot of it has to do with their creative lifestyles. They were both artists, but happened to be after different goals. In “Jay Kelly,” we see the title character having a uniquely successful acting career, which ultimately puts a damper on the relationships between him and several people he knows. One of the movie’s most moving scenes happens between Kelly and one of his daughters. She reminds Kelly of one of his acting gigs as a loving father. She says she remembers watching that project in particular and did not understand how her actual father was not as caring and attentive as the character he played.
This scene furthers one of Kelly’s extended struggles. Kelly seems to find it easy and appealing to escape his own world and enter someone else’s. It is almost like Kelly has ADHD and constantly feels the need to daydream. Except in his case, he does not imagine himself in another world, he comes as close as he can to living it. In this sense, the movie seems to imply the importance of appreciating what you have. Kelly seems to love his job. So much to the point where it gets in the way of important people like those in his family.
“Jay Kelly” surprisingly sticks the landing, because this movie had the potential to make the main character look like a jerk. The screenplay instead does everything possible to make Kelly human. Kelly means well, but his flaws sometimes stick out like a sore thumb, either to the audience or to the rest of the cast. There are moments of unforgivable behavior, but the movie never once makes Kelly look like a complete psycho. Maybe it is because we spend much of the movie with Kelly’s manager, Ron Sukenick, played by Adam Sandler. While Sandler’s performance does not quite have the dramatic oomph of “Uncut Gems,” it is nice to see him continue to expand his range. Especially considering he just came off of “Happy Gilmore 2,” which I did not review, but if I had to say something quick about it, I thought it was, in a word, fine.
Sukenick plays a huge part in forwarding Kelly’s journey. Their relationship, and by extension, the movie, makes me think of Bob Sugar’s line from “Jerry Maguire,” specifically, “it’s not show friends, it’s show business.” I get the sense that these two people are close, but at times they feel more like partners than friends, if that makes any sense. That said, the two do seem to like each other and get along just fine.
Clooney and Sandler are not the only super-sized names in this film. Much like another recent Netflix feature, “Wake Up Dead Man,” the star power in this film is massive. For the most part, it is hard to pinpoint a bad performance in the film, but it is chock-full of talent including Laura Dern, Greta Gerwig, Isla Fisher, and Riley Keough just to name a few. Similar to how we see George Clooney playing an actor, the film’s director and cinematographer, Noah Baumbach and Linus Sandgren respectively, have cameo roles as, you guessed it, a director and cinematographer on one of Jay’s films.
I enjoyed getting to see Kelly’s work throughout various points of his career. One of these examples also happens to be the first scene of the movie, which does an incredible job recreating a backdrop of metro New York, particularly the area around the East River, Roosevelt Island, and Long Island City, complete with the Queensboro Bridge above it all. When I think of my favorite films this year in terms of production design, “Jay Kelly” would probably not be my first choice. But the way this set is laid out perfectly showcases the location itself, and when Kelly is on camera, it does a great job at maintaining an illusion. If I look hard enough at the backdrop, I can tell that I am not looking at the real New York, but the movie, as well as the movie within the movie, does a great job at making said backdrop feel as real as possible.
One of the film’s most memorable aspects is the relationship between Kelly and Timothy Galligan. The two start off as classmates in acting school. At one point, the two try out at the same audition, only for Kelly to steal his friend’s spotlight. It is at this point where everything changed for Kelly and his career essentially began. This is especially true when one particular storyline comes into play where Kelly is caught on camera doing something terrible to Timothy. If the footage of that moment is released, it could jeopardize his career. The way the film navigates this storyline is topsy turvy to say the least, but the way it closes out is surprisingly satisfying and carries some emotional weight for both Kelly and Galligan. “Jay Kelly” is some ways a comedy, some ways a drama, but those two genres mesh together to make something special. It is a fascinating character study and is likely to stand out in several regards this awards season.
In the end, “Jay Kelly” rules. I need time to marinate as to whether I like this more than “A House of Dynamite” but of the five Netflix films I have watched this year, “Happy Gilmore 2” included, “Jay Kelly” is easily my favorite. “Jay Kelly” showcases some of the finest displays of talent in any film released in 2025. Whether it is George Clooney in front of the camera or Noah Baumbach behind it. I am going to give “Jay Kelly” an 8/10.
“Jay Kelly” is now playing in select theaters and is also available on Netflix to all subscribers.
Thanks for reading this review! My next review is going to be for “Bugonia.” Stay tuned! Also coming soon, I will be sharing my thoughts on “No Other Choice,” “Fackham Hall,” “Scarlet,” “The Secret Agent,” “Hamnet,” and “Avatar: Fire and Ash.” If you want to see these reviews and more from Scene Before, follow the blog either with an email or WordPress account! Also, check out the official Facebook page! I want to know, did you see “Jay Kelly?” What did you think about it? Or, what is your favorite Netflix release this year? Heck, I’ll count TV. Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!
“Wake Up Dead Man: A Knives Out Mystery” is directed by Rian Johnson and this is the third film in his ongoing “Knives Out” franchise. This film stars Daniel Craig (Casino Royale, Logan Lucky), Josh O’Connor (Challengers, The Crown), Glenn Close (The Wife, Fatal Attraction), Josh Brolin (Avengers: Infinity War, Weapons), Mila Kunis (Family Guy, Jupiter Ascending), Jeremy Renner (The Avengers, The Hurt Locker), Kerry Washington (Scandal, Little Fires Everywhere), Andrew Scott (Sherlock, Ripley), Cailee Spaeny (Priscilla, Civil War), Daryl McCormack (Good Luck to You, Leo Grande, Bad Sisters), and Thomas Haden Church (Spider-Man 3, Wings). This film shows what happens as Benoit Blanc investigates the death of priest who passed during a Good Friday service.
“Wake Up Dead Man” is one of those films that I really should be more excited about. I did not make a most anticipated films of the year list this past January. Frankly, I do not know if I ever will make one of those lists again. But if I did do one for this year, chances are I would have put “Wake Up Dead Man” on it. I really enjoyed the last couple of “Knives Out” movies, especially the original. This film franchise comes off as a passion project for Rian Johnson behind the camera and Daniel Craig in front of it. That said, I kept forgetting that this third film was happening. I knew that a third film would happen at some point. But I feel like the hype machine for this film was miniscule compared to the previous ones. The first film, while definitely somewhat familiar as far as the mystery genre goes, was one of 2019’s freshest and most exciting originals. “Glass Onion” appeared to piggyback off of the first film’s success while still delivering something new and what I thought to be a solid sequel. It also surprisingly implements the COVID-19 pandemic quite well. There were quite a few 2020-esque callbacks that had me laughing. I did not see that coming. “Glass Onion” even got a wider theatrical release than most Netflix projects, as it should have. I could not believe I had the opportunity to watch a Netflix movie at an AMC, but it happened!
Meanwhile, “Wake Up Dead Man” also had a release in theaters, but it appears to have similar treatment to a lot of Netflix’s other movies that end up in cinemas. “Wake Up Dead Man” ended up playing a few locations, but none of the major chains. Not AMC. Not Regal. Not Cinemark. I took advantage of the limited opportunity to catch “Wake Up Dead Man” in cinemas, and part of me is thankful for it. Like the past couple films, “Wake Up Dead Man” has plenty of laughs. It was exciting to see this film play in front of an occasionally audible crowd. That said, of the three “Knives Out” films, I found this one to be the least funny.
One of the biggest positives I can give “Wake Up Dead Man” just so happens to be one of the biggest positives I’ve acknowledged through the last couple of “Knives Out” movies. Daniel Craig looks like he is having a ball in every single scene. Benoit Blanc is a perfect balance between being a voice of reason while also teetering to a point where he is practically a complete goofball. He has such a knack for theatricality and a lust for shenanigans all the while being in complete focus to simply solve whatever case is in front of him. This is Craig’s third outing as Blanc and he continues to shine. Of course, Craig surrounds himself with plenty of star power. This film’s ensemble cast includes big names like Mila Kunis, Josh Brolin, Thomas Haden Church, Kerry Washington, and Josh O’Connor to name a few.
“Wake Up Dead Man: A Knives Out Mystery” feels the most Netflix-esque of the “Knives Out” movies so far. Granted, this statement may be unfair, considering the first one is not a Netflix original. It was distributed by Lionsgate. But of the three movies, this is the one that feels the most disposable of the bunch. I hate to stereotype Netflix films, but when I think of Netflix’s filmography, much of what comes to mind is “content.” These are stories designed to be consumed as soon as it drops, only for them to be quickly forgotten. “Wake Up Dead Man” undoubtedly has some memorable moments, but I would not be lying to say it is the most forgettable film of the trilogy so far.
That said, there are some things that this film does to separate itself from the previous two. Like the last couple of films, the story revolves around a large ensemble cast. However, this story involves a group of people who are to a certain degree, constantly in a tight knot, but we also see them constantly separated. Specifically, people who work within and go to a specific church. Sure, we see the cast of first film split up through town, but much of the picture sees a large family gathering in one home. The second film sees a big group of friends coming together at an unusual abode. This film goes bigger and many of the crucial story moments happen from one place, followed by another. It is not like multiple people are dying in the same home similar to the second movie.
“Knives Out” so far has remained a consistent franchise for the most part. All three films are directed by Rian Johnson, and his touch has been exquisite with each go. Every film to a certain degree feels like a throwback set in modern times. All the films run at a smooth pace and have laugh out loud humor. That said, this film let off a particular vibe that the other two did not. As this film reaches the end, it felt draggy. There is a moment in this film where this huge revelation is unveiled. Of course, it is eloquently explained by Daniel Craig’s Benoit Blanc. The film’s timing with its edits, shot choices, and music also play a role in such mastery. While Craig seems to be having fun on set, I had less fun watching him and the surrounding characters during this scene. The revelation is incredibly drawn out, perhaps on purpose. Regardless of the intent, watching this scene occasionally felt tedious. The climax of this film felt rather underwhelming compared to the other two.
All of the “Knives Out” films exceed a two hour runtime including credits. While “Wake Up Dead Man” is the longest “Knives Out” film statistically, it is perhaps the only “Knives Out” movie where I could feel the runtime, almost to the point where I thought the movie was longer than what the runtime said it was. This is the first time I watched a “Knives Out” movie wondering it would end. I was far less invested in this film than I was the other two. Is the film clever? Sure. Is it well made? Sure. But it lacks the oomph that the other two movies have delivered. This may be because I found the screenplay or characters to be less compelling this time around, or perhaps that the formula is not as novel as it was in 2019. As much as I respect Rian Johnson, I would be curious to see what another filmmaker could bring to this franchise in the future. I feel like they could bring a breath of fresh air. This is not a horrible movie, but it is the least palatable of the trilogy so far and by its conclusion, I kept wondering when it would roll the credits.
In the end, “Wake Up Dead Man: A Knives Out Mystery” feels like a step down for the franchise. I walked out of the first couple of “Knives Out” movies buzzing. Even though I gave “Glass Onion,” a 7/10, which is good, not great, I found the film to be a memorable experience. The first two films had nonstop laughter, engaging plots, and likable characters. While there is still plenty of humor in “Wake Up Dead Man,” I found myself less attached to the story and cast. Sure, Jud is a solid protagonist, but I found the supporting cast to not stand out as much as those from the previous installments. There is no Chris Evans in the cast or Dave Bautista. I cannot name that one character who had one or two extremely quotable lines that I will be thinking about for a long time. Sure, this film gets plenty of big names, but I do not think they were used as well as the actors from the last movies. Maybe I will rewatch the film on Netflix one day and have a totally different opinion, but for now, I am going to give “Wake Up Dead Man: A Knives Out Mystery,” a 6/10.
Little sidenote, this is not sponsored, but if anybody wants to watch a really fun “Knives Out” parody, this is your chance. Netflix, who not only distributes “Knives Out,” but also airs new episodes of “Sesame Street,” released a new short called “Forks Out.” The 5 minute story features the cast of “Sesame Street” trying to figure out who ate the Cookie Monster’s pie, with some help from Detective Beignet Blanc, inspired by Daniel Craig’s Benoit Blanc from the movies. Go check it out. It’s a take on “Knives Out” with puppets. How can this not be funny?
“Wake Up Dead Man: A Knives Out Mystery” is now playing in select theaters and is available on Netflix for all subscribers.
Thanks for reading this review! My next review is going to be for “Jay Kelly!” Stay tuned! Also coming soon, I will be sharing my thoughts on “Bugonia,” “No Other Choice,” “Fackham Hall,” “Scarlet,” “The Secret Agent,” and “Hamnet.” 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 “Wake Up Dead Man: A Knives Out Mystery?” What did you think about it? Or, what is your favorite film in the “Knives Out” trilogy? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!
“Frankenstein” is directed by Guillermo del Toro (The Shape of Water, Pacific Rim) and stars Oscar Isaac (Spider-Man: Across the Spider-Verse, Star Wars: The Force Awakens), Jacob Elordi (Priscilla, The Kissing Booth), Mia Goth (X, Infinity Pool), and Christoph Waltz (Django Unchained, Inglorious Basterds). This film is based on Mary Shelley’s book “Frankenstein; or, The Modern Prometheus” and follows the titular scientist and his journey of bringing the Creature to life, as well as the consequences that ensue from his actions.
Guillermo del Toro is one of those names, kind of like Christopher Nolan or Damien Chazelle, that as soon as I see them attached to a project, my curiosity about said project doubles. That said, del Toro is not on the level of those two filmmakers for me in terms of being a priority, but it does not change the fact that he is a reputable name with a solid resume including the moving “Shape of Water,” the super fun “Pacific Rim,” and the 2022 animated gem “Pinocchio.”
As mentioned in previous posts, I am not much of a Netflix guy. But I do try to keep an open mind about some of their projects. After all, when they have the confidence to release a project in theaters, it immediately boosts my interest. So, as I was driving from Massachusetts to Connecticut for a brief stay at a casino, I stopped by a theater on the way to check out the film.
As for the film itself, I found myself having a pleasant time. It is not structured like a traditional film where you have one protagonist and their journey. Instead it seems to share alternate perspectives from Frankenstein as well as the Creature. The film takes its time to share both characters’ sides of the story.
As far as Guillermo del Toro films go, I do not think this has as much visual luster as “The Shape of Water.” I also do not think this film has as much engagement as I felt with “Pinocchio.” When it comes to this film’s future, I do not see it as much replay value as “Pacific Rim.” Do not get me wrong, “Frankenstein” is a good movie, but it is far from Guillermo del Toro’s best work. While this is nowhere near my favorite Guillermo del Toro outing, it is a film that feels distinctly Guillermo del Toro. There is a certain heart and soul to this film that I found right away. Guillermo del Toro’s worlds are so picturesque to the point where I want to step into them and never leave. The film’s color palette is almost like a Peter Jackson “Lord of the Rings” film had a baby with “La La Land.” When I look back at “Frankenstein,” I refuse to call it my favorite film of the year. In fact, it likely will not make my top 10, but this is a film whose use of color, special effects, costuming, and cinematography combine into something totally unique. I cannot recall the last time I sat down and watched a film that looked exactly like this one. While I cannot say that there is a shot in this film that is vividly sticking in my head, I will not deny that this film is consistent it comes to showcasing a plethora of spectacular imagery. That said, the film does teeter to a point where one could argue it has a pacing problem, but it is hard to say I found the movie boring. This is not the most engaging film of the year, but it makes the most of its two and a half hours.
The cast of “Frankenstein” is star-studded. You have Oscar Isaac… Jacob Elordi… Mia Goth… Not only does this film have a ton of big name actors, but all of them fit perfectly into their roles. The chemistry between these actors is immaculate at times. Elordi is compelling as the Creature. I cannot see anyone else but Mia Goth playing Lady Elizabeth Harlander in her respective context. And Oscar Isaac fires on all cylinders.
The more I think about Oscar Isaac, the more I love him. In my review for “Tron: Ares,” I talked about how Jared Leto has not had the best luck with geek-centric projects. Oscar Isaac is the opposite. Sure, “X-Men: Apocalypse” had some mixed reception. But between his excellent performance in “Moon Knight,” his charisma in “Star Wars,” his voiceover chops in “Spider-Verse,” and now arguably his best outing yet in “Frankenstein,” few people are owning the geek space like Isaac is at this point. Isaac is given a lot to do throughout “Frankenstein,” dominating the screen in just about every scene he is in. One of my favorite scenes of the film is set in a lecture hall where Frankenstein demonstrates his ambitions to revive the dead, to less than stellar reception. Throughout this presentation, he gave me a Gene Wilder Willy Wonka vibe, particularly the innocent, ambitious side of him that the public seems to know. That is not to say Isaac lacks range in his performance. When the movie hits its more emotional, heavier moments, Isaac gives the performance his all. It is not my favorite performance of the year, but it is up there.
If I had to name a favorite part of the film, it would probably be around the middle when we first see Victor and the Creature in the same room together. I really enjoyed getting to see the bond between the two, particularly as we see Victor trying to teach the Creature about everything he sees. It does not take long for the film to establish that the bond is not particularly the healthiest, but I thought the realization of that concept was perfect. The film clearly paints Frankenstein as something of a protagonist, but again, this film centers around both Frankenstein and the Creature to the point where we get their side of the story, so the film does a great job, especially when the perspective transitions from one character to the other, at giving the Creature material in which it is easy to sympathize with him. This is a “Frankenstein” story that goes beyond the surface level. The Creature is, well, a creature, but it humanizes the creature much more than Universal’s black and white classic.
In the end, “Frankenstein” is not my favorite Guillermo del Toro movie, but this is still a pretty good flick. It definitely lacks an oomph in certain regards, but the technical aspects stand out magnificently. The film has a great cast, fantastic use of color, and the production design is also worth writing home about. I do not know how well I am going to remember “Frankenstein” in the next five years, but in the moment I found it to be quite decent. Overall it is entertaining and well-crafted, especially for a Netflix release. I am going to give “Frankenstein” a 7/10.
“Frankenstein” is now available on Netflix for all subscribers.
Thanks for reading this review! My next review is going to be for “Good Fortune!” Stay tuned! Also coming soon, I will be sharing my thoughts on “The Running Man,” “Eternity,” “Wicked: For Good,” and “Sentimental Value.” 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 Guillermo del Toro’s “Frankenstein?” What did you think about it? Or, what is your favorite “Frankenstein” story? It does not have to be a movie. It can be anything. Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!
“A House of Dynamite” is directed by Kathryn Bigelow (Point Break, The Hurt Locker) and stars Idris Elba (The Suicide Squad, Pacific Rim), Rebecca Ferguson (Dune, Reminiscence), Gabriel Basso (Hillbilly Elegy, The Night Agent), Jared Harris (Mad Men, Chernobyl), and Tracy Letts (Homeland, Lady Bird). This film showcases different people’s perspectives as the U.S. tries to respond to an intercontinental ballistic missile.
If you know me in person, you know that when I hear the term “Netflix movie,” I automatically go, “NEXT!” When you are a studio dedicated to hiring some of the biggest stars and putting them in a paint by numbers or completely forgettable story like “Red Notice” or “The Gray Man,” I start to think your track record needs improvement. That said, Netflix can occasionally deliver a diamond in the rough. Like many of its competitors, Netflix will usually spend the end of the year delivering their prestige films. These are movies that are likely to get some awards contention like “The Irishman” or “The Power of the Dog.” This year, one of Netflix’s prestige films happens to be “A House of Dynamite,” directed by the first woman to win an Academy Award for Best Director, Kathryn Bigelow. Like some of her other movies, this one involves a serious subject matter and in some cases, might make for a tough watch.
Upon my first impression, “A House of Dynamite” is exactly what I just said. It is one of those films that as soon as I finished watching it, I thought to myself, I need to go home and find something comfortable to put on the television. As soon as the movie was over, I left the theater, got in my car, got takeout, went home, turned on my TV, as well as my 4K Blu-ray player, and popped in “A Bug’s Life.” I sometimes talk about certain films going for the emotions, but this one goes for the emotions in a different way. It goes for the emotions not so much to make you sad, but more so to make you hopeless on top of being sad.
“A House of Dynamite” is this year’s “Oppenheimer.” It is not as good as “Oppenheimer,” but the two are close in terms of quality. “A House of Dynamite” is presented in such a surprisingly brisk pace. I am gobsmacked on how intriguing they ended up making certain segments of this movie. On paper, the movie sounds like pure cinema, but that may depend on how much detail that paper contains. If I told you that this movie was about a bunch of people trying to deal with an intercontinental ballistic missile that is on its way to the continental United States, you might be sold. The concept sold me. But I was not expecting it to be done in the way the filmmakers’ decided to go about it.
The movie is a case of more talk than action. We never see the missile. The closest we get to seeing the missile is through detection screens indicating where exactly in the air it happens to be.
The film also seems to take a page from “Top Gun: Maverick,” because if you remember that film, it never names the enemy. I think this is actually a somewhat wise move, and the way the movie went about it is surprisingly effective.
If I had to look ahead months from now, I cannot see “A House of Dynamite” winning Best Picture at the Oscars. I can see it being nominated. However, winning seems to be off the table. This is not necessarily because it is a Netflix movie, which, like it or not, can come as a turnoff when your awards body is mostly dedicated to movies in theaters. The main reason why I cannot see this film winning is because if I had to name the film’s most significant imperfection, it would be that the characters do not appear to take center stage. The film appears to be more plot-driven than character-driven.
There is an extensive list of characters in the movie, but I could not tell you any of their names. In fact, in the case of Idris Elba, whose name appears first on the cast, he is credited as “POTUS.” Not to digress, I never imagined Elba playing the President of the United States, but I think on paper it is a great pick. In execution, he plays his part well. “A House of Dynamite” does not really have a central character, but the President is arguably the core of the movie.
The film, like many great stories, is presented in three acts, but it presents its acts somewhat similarly to “The Last Duel,” which shows the same story three times from alternative perspectives. The perspectives are packed with differences, but they all take place around the same time and involve the same incident.
Having seen the film, I would love to know how this movie was written. I want to know which perspective Noah Oppenheim started with, how long it took for him to mesh everything together, and how long it took for him to decide on the order of the three acts. For all I know, it could be a boring backstory, but it does not change the fact that this is one of the most unique screenplays of the year. As for the order of the acts that was chosen, I thought it was perfect. Each act seems to hint at things that become more relevant later, and the hints enhanced the acts that followed as they happened. If this film follows in the footsteps of other Netflix projects like “Roma” or “Marriage Story,” I would love to see a Criterion Collection physical copy of the film be brought to market, because I would kill to see a bonus feature on the process that went into putting the screenplay together.
I am curious to know how people will perceive the ending, because without spoilers, let’s just say that the film does not end in a way that I think a lot of people would expect. I do not outright hate how this film ends, but I cannot say it was satisfying either. It almost makes the film feel incomplete. Once again, the screenplay has such a unique layout, therefore the ending is also fittingly unique. But it does not change the fact that it is lacking an impact. It feels like the movie had more to tell but decided to forget about whatever was ahead. Does the ending take away from what made the rest of the movie good? Not really. Sure, the film does not stick the landing once it concludes, but by no means does it split its head open.
In the end, “A House of Dynamite” is one of the most thrilling pictures of 2025. Pardon my overuse of Christopher Nolan film comparisons, but the film somewhat reminds me of “Dunkirk.” This is due to the recently mentioned imperfection of the movie not exactly having a main character. Instead, the closest thing to it would be the main event itself. And it most certainly helps that the main event is quite exciting. The film overall is intense and nail-biting. And this is without getting to see the nuclear missile itself! Is this is Kathryn Bigelow’s best movie? No. I have such a soft spot for “Point Break.” Although if you are looking for another banger on her resume, look no further than “A House of Dynamite.” I am going to give “A House of Dynamite” an 8/10.
“A House of Dynamite” is now available on Netflix for all subscribers.
Thanks for reading this review! My next review is going to be for “The Smashing Machine!” Stay tuned! Also, look forward to my thoughts on “Shelby Oaks,” “Frankenstein,” “Good Fortune,” and “The Running Man.” If you want to see these reviews and more from Scene Before, follow the blog either with an email or WordPress account! Also, check out the official Facebook page! I want to know, did you see “A House of Dynamite?” What did you think about it? Or, what is your favorite Kathryn Bigelow movie? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!
“Maria” is directed by Pablo Larraín (Jackie, Spencer) and stars Angelina Jolie (Eternals, Kung Fu Panda), Pierfrancesco Favino (Night at the Museum, Angels & Demons), Alba Rohrwacher (The Wonders, Hungry Hearts), Haluk Bilginer (EastEnders, Halloween), and Kodi Smit-McPhee (Memoir of a Snail, X-Men: Apocalypse). This film is about opera singer Maria Callas, and is most prominently set during the week leading up to her death.
When it comes to film directors, if you were to ask me if I knew who Pablo Larraín was before this review, chances are I would say no. Although upon research after seeing this movie, it turns out, I have experienced his previous filmography. For the record, this is my first film of his I am reviewing. More than a year ago I watched “Jackie,” which I thought had stunning production design, killer camerawork, costuming, and a great lead performance by Natalie Portman. I ended up enjoying the film overall. Is it a masterpiece? No. But it is a compelling watch that I recommend checking out if the chance comes by. It also turns out that “Maria” is part of an unofficial trilogy. This is Pablo Larraín’s third film regarding notable 20th century women. 2016’s “Jackie” was the first, followed by 2021’s “Spencer,” which for the record, I did not see, and now “Maria.”
Having seen both “Maria” and “Jackie,” I can confirm that they contain similar positives. Both feature talented leads who give really good performances. The dialogue is particularly well executed and properly placed. There is not a line in the film that comes to mind that feels like filler. The sets and locations in both films feel noticeably extravagant. If I have one thing to say, I personally prefer the overall look to “Jackie” to “Maria.” The color choices between the on-set items feel more rugged and have more character, whereas I look at “Maria” and somehow the frames continuously emit a greater sense of perfection. It is almost to the point where some of the set design feels oddly artificial. But if I am going to remember one of these films within the next year, I think “Jackie” is the one. I recall it having more of an impact on me by the end than this film did. I am not going to pretend I remember that movie through and through, but whereas “Jackie” drew me in through its flair, “Maria” feels like a borderline snoozefest at times.
Despite what I said about the look though, there is no doubt that “Maria” at least provides a sense of immersion. Between the detailed costumes, excessive use of wallpaper, and extravagant sets, the film is easy on the eye, even if some of it looks somewhat unreal.
There is a good movie somewhere in “Maria,” but it is not doing the best job at unveiling itself. “Maria” feels less like a story and more like a series of events that are loosely connected together. It all amounts to a bit of a bore. As I write this review, I am having trouble naming what I found to be the best parts of the film. The events in this film are all wound properly and maintain a sense of consistency, but I am not going to pretend I was moved or compelled by all of them.
The one thing that is saving these moments are the performances. Angelina Jolie, again, does a good job with the lead role, though I am disappointed to know that a lot of her singing scenes were lip-synced. Her most prominent moments are simply driven through spoken dialogue. That is weird to say because this film has a pace to it where the dialogue is used rather sparingly. Interesting enough, this film is about an opera singer, and I would say that there is a bit less singing in this film than I probably expected going in. If you are looking for singing in this film, it exists. But if you take into consideration what this film is actually about, a woman who is essentially losing the ability to sing, then it would not be a surprise to realize that this film is not a a marathon of vocals.
I also liked a lot of the supporting performances. Haluk Bilginer does a good job as Callas’ partner, Aristotle Onassis. Pierfrancesco Favino is a standout as Callas’ servant, Ferruccio. That character plays a major part in the film despite the greatest highlight of his performance likely extends to him just being in the room.
This film is not a typical biopic as much as it is a short series of events with tons of flashbacks. The film does have some elements one might expect out of a biopic. A summary of a star’s success, an emphasis on the same star’s downward spiral, and a highlight into the star’s substance abuse. We see Callas taking drugs during the film and how it affects her down the road. What separates this biopic is not only its contained feel, as it primarily treks itself through a specific time period, but also a noticeable use of flashbacks. If you are not into non-linear stories, this film may not be for you. That said, the way this film is told, I would argue it would be worse if it were linear. That kind of says something though because the film as is failed to impress me.
If I have any other notable highlights I have not gone over yet, there is one scene that stuck with me because of how much it makes me think about our ongoing celebrity culture. There is one scene where Maria is in public and someone comes up to her that he was going to her show, but she never showed up. At this point, Maria firmly tells him she was sick. Looking back, maybe she was a bit harsh in her response to this individual. But I think it also taps into something I think we often forget about as a society. We expect so much from celebrities to the point where we forget that they are human beings. Some debate as to whether stars are just like us. But if there is a way they are like us, it is through the idea that stars are not perfect.
There is also a little Easter Egg in this film for those paying attention. As mentioned in the beginning, this film is from the same director who did “Jackie,” which is about Jackie Kennedy. Turns out this film has a rather noticeable Kennedy connection. You will know it when you see it.
In the end, “Maria” is a film that I could see being a highlight in certain aspects during this awards season, but it is not perfect. It is a film that I am probably going to forget by next year. I expect that from a Netflix title to be frank, but for something like this, this feels shocking to say. Angelina Jolie definitely carries star power in the lead role, but it is not the best performance I have seen in a 2024 film. If you want something pretty, this film will do. But if you are looking for something memorable, look elsewhere. I am going to give “Maria” a 5/10.
“Maria” is now playing in select theaters and is available to stream on Netflix for all subscribers.
Thanks for reading this review! My next review is going to be for the brand new horror film, “The Damned!” 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 “Maria?” What did you think about it? Or, what are your thoughts on Maria Callas as an artist? Let me know down below! Scene before is your click to the flicks!
“Maestro” is directed by Bradley Cooper (A Star is Born, Guardians of the Galaxy) who also stars in the film as Leonard Bernstein. Alongside Cooper is Carey Mulligan (She Said, Promising Young Woman) as his love interest, Felicia Montealegre. This film is about Leonard Bernstein’s journey through life as he spends it focusing on his greatest passions. Composing music and his relationship with his partner.
Actors who become directors is nothing new. In recent years we have seen it with James Franco, Jonah Hill, Olivia Wilde, Jordan Peele, and John Krasinski to name a few. The results have from these people have varied across the board, but another man on that list is Bradley Cooper. His previous outing was the 2018 remake “A Star is Born,” which became one of that year’s most celebrated titles that thrust a popular original song, “Shallow.” I thought the film was very good. Maybe a tad overrated as time went on, but I found it to be well done. And much like that film, Cooper’s directorial followup, “Maestro” also features him as the star. This film was not completely on my radar. Partially because Netflix is traditionally terrible at marketing their originals most of the time, but I at least knew about the film because the Internet has its way of feeding information to me. I was not completely sure what to think, but I was onboard with the concept. Bradley Cooper is currently 1 for 1 in the director’s chair, so I wanted to see if he could make it 2 for 2.
And he certainly scores here.
Overall, “Maestro” is a step down from “A Star is Born.” I don’t think I will be thinking about “Maestro” for as long or as heavily as I did after seeing “A Star is Born” back in 2018. I have not gone back to rewatch the film since, but I praised the film for its music, its acting, its screenplay, and display of what happens to creatives once they are given tools from big names. I still think the idea that people would make fun of Lady Gaga’s nose is unconvincing to the tenth degree, but the movie’s gotta movie.
If anything, Bradley Cooper almost directs this film better than he acts in it, and that is saying something because he is quite a good actor. There is a long orchestra scene more than halfway through that had me fully engaged. The entire film is set in the 20th century, but with that in mind, a lot of the film’s earlier scenes heavily immersed me. But I also think part of why he directs this film so well is because the acting in this movie is so good. One of the key aspects of directing is making sure your actors give the best performances possible. Given Cooper’s acting background, he uses that to his advantage as I felt several characters honestly could not be played by anyone else. Even if I was not a fan of some of the script choices or dialogue the characters had to utter, each character managed to make me escape from my chair into the screen. While this film is based on true events, it felt like a world that was different than my own.
Going back to Bradley Cooper’s acting, I think his acting here is also a slight step up from “A Star is Born,” because it is more chameleon-like here. Yes, factors like makeup, costuming, and others come into play here. But if I have one thing to say about this movie that makes his performance better here than “A Star is Born” it is that when I hear Bradley Cooper talk or look at his face, I see Cooper himself. In “A Star is Born,” he comes off as a movie star sometimes. It does not mean his performance sucked. Not one bit. It just means that felt like I was watching a variation of the actor as I also watched the character. Here, all I see is Bernstein. It is one of the best lead performances of the year and undoubtedly one of the finest of Cooper’s career.
The film is also one of the best edited pieces of the year, it starts kind of fast, but there are plenty of slower scenes to balance everything out. But as we get to the climax, there is a lot of breathing room that allowed the emotions of the scene to sink in. It allowed me to perhaps successfully feel the emotions this movie was going for.
The film is written by Bradley Cooper in addition to one of the finest screenwriters of this generation, Josh Singer (Spotlight, The Post). When it comes to the latter, this is one of his weaker scripts, but there is a lot to like about it. I think the first two acts have their off and on moments. Certain portions of the story worked better than others, but the third act made the film worth watching. The film is a slice of life piece to some degree and very much highlights both its beauty and misfortune. Once we find out a certain revelation about the character of Felicia, I was riveted. The way the scene plays out once the revelation kicks in is nothing short of emotional. I almost teared up. If I took one thing from this film, without going into spoilers, it is the idea that life is short so you should enjoy it however you can. Some of the happenings throughout the film cement that idea to a high degree.
The film is of course called “Maestro” meaning it is about Leonard Bernstein. But at its core, it is a love story. If anything, I think “Maestro” is quite a good love story. Bradley Cooper has a knack for romance between this film and “A Star is Born,” and part of that is because of the chemistry he maintains with his co-lead. This time around it is Carey Mulligan. Both actors and their characters have natural on-screen chemistry and this is shown in every era this film flies through. Speaking of the eras, the film manages to transition very naturally between each timeframe. Not once do I feel like we are spending too much or too little time in one place or another.
“Maestro” is unfortunately from Netflix. I say unfortunately because that means most theaters will not be playing it. I thankfully got to see it in a theater, and I have no regrets. This is a film that is worth seeing in theaters just to take in every little detail from the cinematography, the production design, and to hear the music perhaps the way it was intended. Again, going back to the orchestra scene more than halfway through the film, that was glorious to watch in a theater. It is the holiday season, meaning that there is a chance that you are with loved ones and may be looking for an excuse to get out of the house at some point. This is not a film for everybody, but if there is a theater near you playing this, take advantage of that opportunity and take your partner, take your spouse. take your parents, take your grown children. Have a night out on the town, get some food, and go see this movie. You might not regret it.
Or of course you could order takeout and watch Netflix in your pajamas, your call.
In the end, “Maestro” is a step down for Bradley Cooper’s directorial resume, but that is like comparing winning 200 bucks on a lottery ticket and then scratching another ticket moments later to win 150. Both clearly deliver a sense of satisfaction. One is just clearly greater than the other. That said even with “Maestro” being a lesser film than “A Star is Born,” I would not be against watching it a second time just to study it. The cinematography looks really good, it is well directed, and the editing is top notch. Technically, there is a lot to like about it. And as a love story, it is solid. Both leads are fantastic and make the movie worth watching. Overall, an easy thumbs up from yours truly. I am going to give “Maestro” a 7/10.
“Maestro” is now playing in theaters and is also available on Netflix to all subscribers.
Thanks for reading this review! My next review is going to be for “Wonka,” starring Timothee Chalamet as a younger interpretation of the iconic chocolatier. I just had a chance to watch the film earlier this month in IMAX, and I will have my thoughts on it soon. Also stay tuned for my reviews for “Migration” and “Aquaman and the Lost Kingdom.” 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 “Maestro?” What did you think about it? Or, which of Bradley Cooper’s directorial efforts do you like better? “A Star is Born?” Or “Maestro?” Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!
“Devotion” is directed by J.D. Dillard (Sleight, Sweetheart) and stars Jonathan Majors (Loki, Lovecraft Country), Glen Powell (The Dark Knight Rises, Hidden Figures), Christina Jackson (The Good Fight, Swaggers), Joe Jonas (Camp Rock, Night at the Museum: Battle of the Smithsonian), Thomas Sadoski (The Newsroom, Life in Pieces), and Daren Kagasoff (The Secret Life of the American Teenager, The Village). This film is based on a book by Adam Makos, and simultaneously inspired by true events during the Korean War. The story mainly centers around the bond between two naval pilots, Tom Hudner and Jesse Brown, as they navigate themselves through various periods during said war.
As a reviewer, it is hard not to compare one film to another. This is especially true considering how most of the movies I review are those that come out within the year of release, therefore I will sometimes say “x” film is similar to “y” flick, because “x” and “y” are at the movies at the same time or at similar times. It is a repetitive habit, but one I do not see myself quitting anytime soon because they involve movies that continue to be on people’s minds, including my own. “Devotion” is no exception to this rule because it released about a half a year after one of the most successful films in a long time, “Top Gun: Maverick.” I am not saying that “Devotion” is a carbon copy of “Top Gun: Maverick.” In fact, it is far from it. For one thing, “Devotion” is based on a true story whereas “Top Gun: Maverick” is a fictionalized sequel. “Devotion” is also comparatively dramatic to “Top Gun: Maverick” despite the latter having glimmers of emotion.
This leads me to my first positive of “Devotion,” which is that the narrative kept me compelled from start to finish. Due to my country’s supposedly mediocre educational system, I maybe do not think about U.S. history as much as I should. I was thrilled with the story of “Devotion” to the point where I felt somewhat sorry for myself that I did not think about these pilots all that much earlier. What really helps this movie is not just having a story as solid as this, but having a duo of actors who are clearly meant to be together. Glen Powell and Jonathan Majors are two fine actors on their own, but if you put them together in a movie like this, the formula is bound to deliver something special. While there are better lead and supporting performances I have seen this year, I cannot think of many acting duos that are as memorable or likable as this one.
And no, this does not mean that this film fails to do what a lot of other war-set films like “Dunkirk” and “1917” manage to do effectively, which is immerse me into the environment of the war itself. Now, unlike those films, this is more of a story where we get to know the characters themselves and less of a run to the finish line for survival. I would not call this a bad thing, but if you are looking for a certain type of film, now you know which one you are in for.
I would say when it comes to the immersion factor though, I would say “Dunkirk” and “1917” did it better because those films felt like technical experiments or feats whereas “Devotion,” again, is an extended tale perhaps putting story and characterization in the forefront. However, the sound mixing is quite good and the aerial shots are occasionally nice to see in action. The film does not appear reinvent the wheel with its technical aspects, but is also pretty looking enough to be worth checking out in whatever theater it is playing in near you. I should note, that this film has been out for a month and it is not playing in a ton of locations near me, but it was worth the 20 minute trek to a nearby town.
Speaking of immersion, I was also kind of impressed with some of the production design. Part of the movie takes place in a French casino and it was all sandy yet rugged. The interior of Brown’s home is also a standout. Many of the locations in this film are impressive to say the least.
My favorite aspect of the narrative behind “Devotion” is probably not even anything having to do with war itself, which is prominently featured in the film. However my favorite parts of the film simply come through the training, all the preparation that went into the events that followed. To be specific, there are scenes where we see the pilots trying to land their plane. Usually when it comes to these war stories and films, the first thing that comes to mind when it comes to the protagonist is how they deal with being on the battlefield. I love how effectively “Devotion” has not only brought stakes in terms of the fight itself, but all the work that leads up to it. We see Jesse Brown nervous not because he anticipates he is going to get killed by the opposition, but because he fears he cannot land his own plane. Going back to “Top Gun: Maverick,” much of that movie, like its predecessor, is about training to fight an enemy and less about fighting the enemy itself. What makes “Devotion” work is how effectively the training, which reminded me of “Top Gun: Maverick” at times but with a more serious vibe, was executed in terms of the story and how that made everything in terms of the actual conflict that lied ahead more exciting.
There are not many major problems I have with “Devotion,” although I do think a few of the supporting characters are somewhat unmemorable. The real highlights of the character lineup in “Devotion” are the two leads. Although I must also say Christina Jackson shines as Daisy Brown. Although on the military side, unless I went to IMDb to find out, I could not tell you anybody’s name or real descriptive aspects of their personality. Then again, the story is not about them, so this is somewhat forgivable. Although “Devotion” is a thrilling, entertaining story nevertheless, and it is one that if given the opportunity, you should check out.
In the end, when it comes to movies about the navy, “Devotion” is no “Top Gun: Maverick,” but if you are looking for a more serious take on the subject matter, this is a a story that is worth your time. I did not know what to expect with “Devotion,” but I left the film having had a fine experience. Glen Powell is solid, Jonathan Majors is excellent, and the story is one that kept me interested to the very last second. I am going to give “Devotion” a 7/10.
“Devotion” is now playing in theaters. Tickets are available now.
Thanks for reading this review! Within a matter of days, I will be going to see one of my most anticipated movies in history. For the record, when I did my most anticipated movies of 2021 list, this made the #2 spot. Did I say 2021? Yes I did. It was supposed to come out then, but it got delayed to the following year. That film my friends, is “Babylon.” I know the film is not making a lot of money right now, but it is the kind of film that can get me in the door. I just have to find the right day to enter that door.
Also, I want to remind everyone that the end of the year is almost here, and pretty soon I will be counting down my best and worst films of 2022! I want to give a little housekeeping in advance and note that this year’s set of lists is going to be a little different, and it is inspired by a tactic from one of my favorite YouTube personalities, John Campea. This year, instead of doing my top 10 best list first, which I have always done in the past, I am going to start with the worst list. The reason for that is because I often share my best list first, leave it up for a day, and then the next, I am onto the worst, which has sometimes left me a break in regard to posting new material. Within that break, I have the worst list linked to my Instagram (realscenebefore) because Instagram hates links for some reason, and that means my Instagram followers might end up seeing my worst list for a longer period of time than my best. And on Scene Before I want people to remember me for what I love and not what I hate. I love doing the worst lists, and I will still do them, but I do not want to be a monster. That said, if you want to see these lists 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 “Devotion?” What did you think about it? Or, what is an acting duo from a movie this year that you enjoyed seeing? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!
“Glass Onion: A Knives Out Mystery” is directed by Rian Johnson (Star Wars: The Last Jedi, Looper) and once again stars Daniel Craig (Casino Royale, Logan Lucky) as Benoit Blanc. This time around he is surrounded by castmates like Edward Norton (The Incredible Hulk, Fight Club), Janelle Monae (Antebellum, Hidden Figures), Kathryn Hahn (WandaVision, Bad Moms), Leslie Odom Jr. (One Night in Miami, The Murder on the Orient Express), Jessica Henwick (The Matrix Resurrections, Game of Thrones), Madelyn Cline (Outer Banks, Stranger Things), with Kate Hudson (Almost Famous, Fool’s Gold), and Dave Bautista (Blade Runner 2049, My Spy). This film centers around a group of friends who gather together at the Glass Onion, owned by tech billionaire Miles Bron. Joining them is detective Benoit Blanc, a man who Bron admires.
I loved the first “Knives Out.” When I did my top 10 of 2019, the film ended up making the best list and eventually got a Best Picture nom during the 2nd Jackoff Awards. It appears I am not alone because the film ended up making over $300 million worldwide, which is nothing to sneeze at given how the film cost $40 million to make. Naturally, a sequel was inevitable. Lionsgate even greenlit a sequel in 2020.
The following year however, they sold the rights to two upcoming sequels to Netflix.
Now, I get it. Money talks. $469 million for the rights to make two sequels is great if you are a producer asking for such a price and such a demand is met. However, what worried me about this shift is that the films, since they are now in the hands of a streaming-first company, is that they will not be put in theaters, and the overall quality of the content is going to decrease. I am glad to report that I have underestimated my happiness with the verdicts on both matters. First off, this film did get a theatrical release. Albeit a limited engagement There is a good chance that if you did not see this film in theaters already, then that chance might be gone because it was scheduled to be in theaters for a week only. Second, I am happy to announce that “Glass Onion: A Knives Out Mystery” is a solid addition to the franchise.
Rian Johnson is a talented director. I was not a fan of “Star Wars: The Last Jedi.” But his direction was never the problem. From that film, to the previous “Knives Out,” and even this one, I have always been an admirer of Johnson’s filmmaking style from the intricate shot choices to the showcasing of vast environments. His movies always have a clean look to them, even if it revolves around murder like this one. This movie was shot in Greece. The location choices, one after the next, showcased hypnotic glimmers of beauty. And like any solid director, Johnson tells this story in such a fashion that could not be more entertaining.
To showcase how well-crafted this film is, I want to talk about a specific cliché in movies. The use of guns. I have seen a lot of movies in my life, and therefore, I have seen a lot of movies with guns. Whether they are used by the protagonist, antagonist, or a side character. This is the first time in ages that I watched a film in a theater and I jolted because a gun went off. As someone who has practically seen lots of jumpy moments, with some better than others, this satisfied me like you would not believe. You know how many movies have guns? They are practically a dime a dozen. I have not heard a gunshot utilized this effectively in a film in perhaps the longest time. Part of it is probably because of the gun’s limited use and how well written the characters were. I cared about each one. All of them have their moment and I did not leave feeling the need to diss on a single character or the actors who played them. They all did a great job.
Daniel Craig is back as Benoit Blanc. I have seen all the Daniel Craig “James Bond” movies from “Casino Royale” to “No Time to Die.” All due respect to Craig, and I know he has no plans to play Bond again. But if I had to choose who I would rather see Daniel Craig play for the rest of his life, I think Benoit Blanc would be my pick between those two. He’s quirky, he’s fun, and if Rian Johnson kept writing him, I think he would have me right where he wants me. Right in front of the screen.
Much like the previous “Knives Out,” the characters here often have an over the top vibe but in such a way that they still feel like real people. One such performance where this shows is Dave Bautista, who I will not unveil all the details about, but he comes off as someone who will do anything to protect his masculinity whether it means keeping his girl or his gun by his side. I thought Bautista was perfectly cast in this film and I am glad to see he is improving his acting abilities. I am glad to see he has more range than just Drax the Destroyer in “Guardians of the Galaxy.” Other standouts in the movie include Madelyn Cline as Whiskey, Leslie Odom Jr. as Lionel Toussaint, and Kathryn Hahn as Claire Debella, who in this universe is the governor of Connecticut.
“Glass Onion: A Knives Out Mystery” is stacked with comedy. Thankfully, a lot of it lands. At times, it is almost funnier than the original. The crowd, myself included, gave plenty of audible laughter throughout the runtime. If you ask me, this is a film that is both great to watch at the theater and at home. Netflix, if you read this, I am sorry, the theatrical experience, is, AND WILL ALWAYS BE, superior to anything you can get on your television. However I was watching this movie and there were several shots where certain things that were either plot-specific, character driven, or important to the film in some way, but I occasionally found myself distracted by looking at the background. This movie has its fair share of background jokes, blink you’ll miss it jokes, and other various attempts at humor. Either way, there were a lot of laughs.
Much like the previous “Knives Out,” this sequel came out at a perfect time. The film is appropriate for Thanksgiving because people are gathering with friends and family they have not seen in forever. Similar to what these two films have shown themselves. And when the film hits Netflix on December 23rd, it gives friends and family the opportunity to watch another group of friends and family hang out. The film also happens to be reflective of the times and reminds me of what being in some social groups must be like. For context, this film acknowledges the existence of the COVID-19 pandemic. We see people wearing masks, there’s uncertainty of whether or not people can be in such close contact, and we even see Kathryn Hahn’s character, Claire Debella, talking on the news as to how she plans to navigate her state through the current situation.
The movie is great, although I think the laughs were slightly less ache-inducing than the original, despite there being plenty. If I had any other problems with the film, the third act gets incredibly unhinged. I do not mind unhinged storytelling, but for most of the movie, like the original, the characters feel like slightly heightened versions of people that could exist in everyday life. As soon as we get to the third act, we see things that feel less down to earth and it takes the realism out of the movie that previously existed. The movie ended up being a fun time, but if I had to pick a movie to watch again between this film and the original, I would go with the original. I have heard from others that this film is as good, possibly better, than the original, and I can see why. Both are good movies, but if I had to choose one, the 2019 film is the one I would choose. That said, “Glass Onion” is a killer time and if you need something to watch this holiday season either by yourself or with family, you might not be underwhelmed.
In the end, “Glass Onion: A Knives Out Mystery” is a hilarious follow-up to the original with some of the best direction of the year, terrific writing, and an admirable ensemble cast. Much like the first film, I had the privilege of watching “Glass Onion: A Knives Out Mystery” in a crowded theater, and I love that I got to see the movie firsthand with a community. I laughed, I jittered, I locked my eyes with the screen like I was trying to win a staring contest. This is what movies are about. As much as I would have loved for this movie to receive a full fledged theatrical release, I am thankful Netflix put this in theaters at all. There are problems, including one that almost threw me off, but the positives outweighed the negatives. Rian Johnson and Daniel Craig have delivered a nicely done sequel. I am going to give “Glass Onion: A Knives Out Mystery” a 7/10.
“Glass Onion: A Knives Out Mystery” is finishing up its advertised theatrical run. Who knows? Maybe it will be playing at a festival somewhere in the future, maybe Landmark might do a special screening. I am just holding out hope that people get to see this in the best way possible. But for those who want to wait for the home viewing experience, “Glass Onion: A Knives Out Mystery” will be available on Netflix on December 23rd.
Thanks for reading this review! My next review is going to be for the all new Disney animated feature “Strange World.” The film just hit theaters last week, and I managed to catch a screening of the film over the weekend. I will share my thoughts soon. If you want to see this and more from Scene Before, follow the blog either wtih an email or WordPress account! Also, check out the official Facebook page! I want to know, did you see “Glass Onion: A Knives Out Mystery?” What did you think about it? Or, which film did you like better? The original “Knives Out” or “Glass Onion?” Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!
“Slumberland” is directed by Francis Lawrence (The Hunger Games: Catching Fire, Red Sparrow) and stars Jason Momoa (Aquaman, Dune), Marlow Barkley (Spirited, Single Parents), Chris O’Dowd (Big Mouth, Bridesmaids), Kyle Chandler (Game Night, Godzilla: King of the Monsters), and Weruche Opia (Sliced, I May Destroy You) in a film where a young girl finds herself in the fantastical, larger than life dreamscape of Slumberland, where everyone’s dreams and nightmares are literally brought to life. With the help of Flip, a dazzlingly dressed outlaw, she attempts to navigate through a world beyond one’s wildest dreams with the hope to reunite with her recently deceased father.
This is one of the latest movies to come from the popular streaming service Netflix. Right now, the film is currently playing in California and I had the privilege of getting to see a screening of the film at a local theater for free. Despite the film mostly being targeted for streaming exclusivity, the budget is comparable to many theatrical features. “Slumberland” was made for $150 million. This is less than the studio’s recent feature, “The Gray Man,” which cost $200 million. Despite a scene stealing performance from Chris Evans, “The Gray Man” had a script that did not do it any favors. For the record, “Dune,” which Jason Momoa is also in, cost $165 million to make.
Unfortunately, this begs a question. Why does this film look occasionally off-putting? I know that one defense that could be made is that since the film is a streaming-centric release, it is inevitably not going to look as polished as a film that primarily releases in theaters. But as I was watching this movie, some of the green screen looked rather unfinished. Certain areas of the dreamscape feel dazzingly fantastical, but there are also moments that lacked verisimilitude even for something imaginary. It is as if this movie were helmed by Robert Zemeckis, he had limited tools, but still managed to create something with his trademarks. There is a segment in the movie with a ton of vending machines that is perhaps manufactured simply to advertise Twinkies, it kind of turned me off. Not only because it is forced product placement, but because of how artificial it looked. I know this is a movie about dreams, but I can tell you that in my dreams, even if what I am imagining has sparks of fantasy, the backdrop often delivers a hint of realism. It still feels lifelike when I am in it. Then again, what do I know? I am not in other people’s dreams. What can I say? Maybe Francis Lawrence dreams differently than me. Maybe he dreams about people taking 15 minutes to save 15 percent or more on their car insurance.
“Slumberland” is based on the comic strip series “Little Nemo in Slumberland.” Except in this case, the title is changed to match the dream fantasyland, and the main character is a girl. I am not familiar with the comic series, therefore I will not be comparing two and two together. That said, I do like the idea this movie is going for. When I saw the trailer for “Slumberland,” I thought, “Oh, so it is ‘Inception,’ but for kids.” It kind of is that, but there is a little more to it. I am not saying “Slumberland” is as complex or thought-provoking as “Inception” but much like “Inception,” I was intrigued by how “Slumberland” managed to imagine what happens when we dream. One of the things I remember most from “Inception” is when Cobb shows Ariadne the inner workings of dreams and reminds her to never imagine things exactly as they are in real life and instead imagine new places. It reminded me of dreams I remember from my childhood where I visualized going through a local mall. Much of the structure was the same except for the floor tiles, the elevators, and there was a weird-looking McDonald’s nearby. Similar to that, “Slumberland” plays around with dreams that are quite literally what they are. Imaginative. There is an entertaining sequence in the middle of the movie where we see a young woman dreaming she is dancing around all these people with leaves around them. I would never expect that to happen in real life, but when it comes to wild, crazy dreams, this checks some boxes.
I keep going on about the aesthetic of the film, which is sometimes a hit, sometimes a miss. But what about the story? Is that any good? Again, I like the concept. While it does blend some familiar hero’s journey elements, it does manage to at the very least, emit a vibe that could technically qualify as entertainment. Despite my gripes with the design of the movie, it is fun. I think if you have children, this might be an okay watch with them. There are other family friendly stories that came out this year I would flock to first. For example, “Lightyear,” which if we are doing Christopher Nolan comparisons, where in this case “Slumberland” is “Inception” for younger audiences, then “Lightyear” is “Interstellar” for younger audiences.
The highlight in “Slumberland” is the chemistry between the two stars. While this is not my favorite movie or performance from Jason Momoa, I must admit he looks like he a had a ton of fun on set and this gave him a chance to let loose. While “Aquaman” is a film that could easily be described as crazy stupid fun, his character never goes too off the rails. Here, Momoa is occasionally a lovable goofball to the point where I am surprised Dave Bautista or John Cena did not end up taking this role. Meanwhile Marlow Barkley shines as Nemo. She is charismatic, dynamic, and every scene between her and Momoa, and even Chris O’Dowd, had my attention partially because of how she played off of Francis Lawrence’s direction.
“Slumberland” is like a Roald Dahl story, or more specifically, a 99 cent Roald Dahl story. Momoa plays a Willy Wonka-esque character, both in terms of appearance and emotional delivery. Seeing how Nemo found herself in Slumberland and the journey she took throughout the world reminded me of “The BFG,” because you have this young girl discovering this strange place and her new best friend appears just as otherworldly but there is more than meets the eye. Unfortunately, unlike “The BFG” and some of Dahl’s other work, I do not know if “Slumberland” will be worthy enough to have staying power in children’s imaginations. This might be a movie that will remain relevant on Netflix for a short time. Although much like the many dreams we have during sleeps of our own, “Slumberland” will assumingly be forgotten as children and families move onto the next thing. Whether that next thing is “Black Panther: Wakanda Forever,” “Strange World,” “Avatar: The Way of Water,” or their holiday movie traditions this year. Maybe this will be the year the kids finally get to watch “Die Hard.”
In the end, “Slumberland” is not offensive, but not a masterpiece either. But if you want me to be real, despite its flaws, I had some fun. There are a lot of cool concepts in the movie, but with slight flimsiness in terms of execution. If I had to compare to this film to any other I saw this year, it reminded of Apple TV+’s recent animation “Luck,” which also follows a girl traveling through an unfamiliar world alongside someone she does not know. When it comes to these kinds of films, “Slumberland” is the better iteration of the two, but it is not saying much. Although when it comes to fantasylands, I would much rather immerse myself in the universe of “Slumberland” as opposed to the universe of “Luck.” The manufacturing of dreams is more palatable than the manufacturing of luck. The actors are serviceable in the movie, with Momoa being the standout. There are some occasionally neat sequences, but given that this movie is made for streaming, there are also sequences that highlight its lessened polish. Would I recommend the movie? Barely. I think if you go in with the right mindset, you could have some fun. This movie is not playing in many theaters, but if I were paying above matinee price to watch the movie, it would not be worth it. At the discount price, it might make for an okay experience with some popcorn by your side. I am going to give “Slumberland” a 6/10.
“Slumberland” is now playing in one theater in California, but if you are not in California or would prefer another option, the film is available on Netflix for all subscribers.
Thanks for reading this review! My next review is going to be for another brand new movie, “The Menu!” I got the chance to watch “The Menu” at a press event the other day, and I cannot stop thinking about it. I will reveal my thoughts on the film in the next couple days. If you want to see this and more from Scene Before, follow the blog either with an email or WordPress account! Also, check out the official Facebook page! I want to know, did you see “Slumberland? What did you think about it? Or, tell me about the craziest dream you remember having. Leave your comments down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!
Hey everyone! Jack Drees here! Ladies and gentlemen, we have a lot to talk about! I mean, wow! Before we dive into what has been happening lately at Warner Bros. Discovery, let me give you a recap of some of the events that went down during AT&T’s possession of Warner Bros..
If you asked me what I thought about the state of Warner Bros. a year ago, I would have said I was nervous. Warnermedia’s decision to put all of their big movies on HBO Max hurt most of those movies that already happened to be finished. This ultimately hurt their box office, not to mention potential word of mouth and longevity. Sure, it definitely seemed like a good idea to combat COVID-19 and certain titles like “Godzilla vs. Kong” and “Dune” had a halfway decent performance, but it does not change the fact that for the most part, the performance of most of these films were financially hindered. While some may argue that Warnermedia offered viewers a choice by putting their movies both in theaters and on streaming, they also had a long-term goal on prioritizing content for HBO Max, which was created through said ownership.
For the most part, HBO Max was not a bad idea. It contained a lot of the latest movies from studios like Universal, Fox, and Warner Brothers, the entire DC library, some of the shows from Turner networks like TBS and TNT. They had a good thing going. Then in 2020, it was announced that Warner Brothers’s entire slate of films for the next year would go to HBO Max in addition to theatres, as recently mentioned. This technically started with the 2020 film “Wonder Woman 1984.” The unexpected move led to the film’s star and director, Gal Gadot and Patty Jenkins respectively, receiving more than $10 million as a result. Alternate stars on the other hand were not favored.
“Representatives for major Warner Bros. stars like Denzel Washington, Margot Robbie, Will Smith, Keanu Reeves, Hugh Jackman and Angelina Jolie wanted to know why their clients had been treated in a lesser manner than Ms. Gadot. Talk of a Warner Bros. boycott began circulating inside the Directors Guild of America. A partner at one talent agency spent part of the weekend meeting with litigators. Some people started to angrily refer to the studio as Former Bros.” –The New York Times
Legendary Pictures, the production company behind “Godzilla vs. Kong” and “Dune,” noted that they, like others, were not given advance notice on the move. On a nearly dated “Saturday Night Live” episode, host and “Dune” star Timothee Chalamet ended the show by unveiling a Legendary sweatshirt, symbolizing his support for the company.
While one perk of HBO Max is the freedom for viewers to watch the new films as many times as they want for 30 days, the caveat for the studio is that the films are free as long as the viewers subscribe. In addition to hurting the movie theaters that work alongside the studios, movies like “In the Heights,” “The Suicide Squad,” “Reminiscence,” “King Richard,” and “The Matrix Resurrections” did not even make their budgets back.
You could make the argument that HBO Max benefited from this. Sure, they had some subscribers come aboard. In fact the service topped their projections (70 million) by the end of 2021 by earning 73 million paid subscribers. But that is not enough. Warner Bros. lost one of their key filmmakers, specifically Christopher Nolan, and has damaged their trust with others as they felt backstabbed by these recent events. Denis Villeneuve, while he ultimately finished and released “Dune” in October 2021, found out about his movie’s simultaneous HBO Max release on the news long before the film ultimately came out. It is the studio’s project at the end of the day, but it does not mean Warner Bros. and AT&T can ignore common sense and decency with their fellow creators. This was a multi-million dollar collaborative effort, and it is very much Denis Villeneuve’s movie as much as it is Warnermedia’s. When Villeneuve promises he will bring forth a franchise, his mouth cannot be kept shut in situations like this.
Now that David Zaslav is responsible for the position of CEO, a position previously held by Jason Kilar, many big changes have come about in such a short time. As of now, there are no more day and date Warner Bros. movies. “The Batman,” “Elvis,” and “DC League of Super-Pets” all released in theaters exclusively for a period of time. There are still movies that have been released on HBO Max exclusively, like the romantic comedy “Moonshot,” but without the day and date option. But for the most part, the new administration has allowed their few theatrical exclusive films to shine.
Now, as a fan of the moviegoing experience, this is great. I am glad to know these movies are being seen the way the filmmakers intended. I do not know if Warner Bros. is going to restore its relationship with Christopher Nolan, but that is probably going to depend on how well “Oppenheimer” does for Universal. Although as someone who has found streaming convenient and messy, this month has demonstrated the messier elements on the HBO Max side of things.
Recent events have shown my slight lack of trust from streaming providers. Last week, HBO Max removed six films. It is normal for a streamer to get rid of their film or television content. Maybe the deal has expired and a project needs to move somewhere else, or maybe a property is under new ownership. These are perfectly valid reasons to remove a film from a service, despite disappointing the fans of that movie. What is unusual however is that a set of “Max Originals,” meaning that these projects were exclusive to HBO Max, were removed from the service. I emphasize, not HBO the channel, HBO Max. Despite being intended and marketed as exclusives, they were removed. Although if you look around, they are not QUITE exclusive. This is probably why they were called “Max Originals” and not “Max Exclusives.” These films are available for purchase on platforms like Google Play and Vudu, therefore they are not unwatchable. Well, except “Superintelligence,” you should never ever watch that movie even in your sleep. And there is also good news for physical media collectors. These movies, like the recently mentioned “Superintelligence,” are also available on DVD. So while these films may be gone from HBO Max, you can pay to watch them in other ways.
Nevertheless, an event like this shocks me as the films are technically Warner Brothers movies, which HBO Max would perhaps most likely try to maintain as they are a part of the brand. It is the same reason why you never saw “The Irishman” leave Netflix. It is the same reason why you never saw “Manchester by the Sea” leave Prime Video. It is the same reason why you never saw “LEGO Star Wars: The Holiday Special” leave Disney+. With the exception of that last one, these titles are available elsewhere such as DVD and Blu-ray, but these are ultimately the studio’s and streamer’s projects to control and maintain on their respective services. Or so I thought. They can practically do anything now and it is kind of unreal to think about.
So HBO Max got rid of six “exclusive” films. Fine. They can do that. People can still watch them elsewhere? Okay, that’s wonderful. I think it is a bit weird to not at least leave them on the service for people to at least watch, although at the same time I do not think people subscribe to HBO Max nowadays to watch “The Witches.” These films, or more specifically, where they ended up, are partially the result of the previous administration. “Superintelligence” was once supposed to release theatrically, but it was eventually dropped exclusively on HBO Max through Ben Falcone’s pitch. “The Witches,” directed by Robert Zemeckis, was supposed to be released theatrically, but was ultimately moved to HBO Max. However, it was released theatrically in international markets. I can understand why a move like this was made. In addition to promoting HBO Max, COVID-19 was still somewhat new and prominent in late 2020. But if there is something I can say “The Witches” and “Superintelligence” have in common other than their release, it is their lack of longevity. When you release a movie in theaters, you ultimately do more than simply release it for the big screen. If the movie is successful on the big screen, there is a chance it could also succeed when it comes to VOD and physical media. It already has word of mouth, and if enough people are curious, it could have a second wind. This is a tried and true method that works almost every time.
Despite my confidence, and we will dive more into that, in regard to David Zaslav as CEO, this is perhaps the one big conundrum that has come up during his time as the head of the company. If there is an outside force that is making these movies disappear, I wish I knew about it. But for now, this makes no sense.
Speaking of movies you will not be seeing anymore, let’s talk about “Batgirl.” During Jason Kilar’s run as CEO, it was announced that we would be seeing an HBO Max exclusive “Batgirl” movie set in the DCEU. The film was previously in development, partially under the creative juices of Joss Whedon, but he left the project a year after its 2017 announcement. The film would star Leslie Grace (In the Heights) and similar to “The Flash,” which we will be talking about later, viewers would be treated to Michael Keaton as he returns to play Batman. Before Zaslav became CEO, another DC film once set to hit HBO Max, “Blue Beetle,” was officially no longer an HBO Max exclusive and would instead play in theaters. This is how every other DCEU film, including the day and date-specific “Wonder Woman 1984” and “The Suicide Squad,” released.
“Batgirl,” both before and after Zaslav’s beginning as CEO, was never announced to receive the same treatment. In fact, one more announcement in this crazy week is that the release of “Batgirl” would be cancelled. Nobody in the viewing public would ever get to see the movie, no matter what. Not in theatres, not on HBO Max. No bat time, no bat channel.
Obviously this came as a shock given how the film finished shooting and happened to be in post-production. And not to ignore Leslie Grace’s titular character, who wouldn’t want to see Michael Keaton as Batman again? This could have been a good movie. But after seeing more information, I had my doubts as to whether it was actually good to begin with.
“Batgirl” was originally intended for HBO Max, and when you do not have to worry about the stakes of the big screen, there is, theoretically, less of a vision that encapsulates quality. I am not saying straight to streaming movies cannot work, but it comes with a major price tag from a viewer’s perspective as being “inferior.” “Batgirl” had a $90 million budget. In DC speak, this is about the same as 2019’s “Shazam!” although about half as much as Matt Reeves’s “The Batman.” While Leslie Grace may not have carried the star power of Robert Pattinson, the movie had plenty of big names alongside her including J.K. Simmons, Brendan Fraser, and as mentioned before, Michael Keaton. The directing team behind the film, Adil El Arbi and Bilall Fallah had experience with action films before, not to mention 2020’s biggest picture (not that there was much competition), “Bad Boys for Life.” The two even have experience at DC’s competitor, Marvel Studios. While they never made a Marvel film, the duo handled directing duties for two episodes of the Disney+ original series “Ms. Marvel.”
For all I know, these people gave 110% to every part of the production. Leslie Grace could have given the performance of the year. Michael Keaton could have given his best portrayal of Batman yet. And this would be a movie that could establish Adil El Arbi and Bilall Fallah as future in-house names at DC kind of like the Russo Brothers were to Marvel for some time. But given how “Batgirl,” is cancelled as a tax write-off as of last week, I, and the viewing public as a whole, will never know for sure.
There is a saying that actions speak louder than words, but given how I have never seen “Batgirl,” I unfortunately can only rely on words at this point. However, other people have seen the movie through test screenings, and the results are reportedly not great. While the movie is said to have scored similarly to “Shazam!: Fury of the Gods,” which is still set to release this December, one source says the consensus led to a verdict that indicated “Batgirl” is not big enough for theaters, nor appropriate enough for a platform like HBO Max, as revealed by Hollywood insider Matthew Belloni on an episode of his podcast, “The Town.”
“This is someone who was in the test screening a couple months ago where they were trying to figure out what to do with this movie and I called him and we chatted and he said that after the screening, the executives Walter Hamada of DC and some of the others there ask the audience, “Did this feel big?” and clearly they were trying to figure out whether it felt like it deserved a theatrical release and the consensus was absolutely not. He said it played like a TV pilot, the stakes were very small… He said it felt a little like Dark Phoenix.” -Matthew Belloni
Why are they releasing “Shazam!: Fury of the Gods” and not “Batgirl?” That is a great question. If you ask me, I think it is a somewhat marketable film that could do well around the holiday season, or in this case, well enough to compete with “Avatar: The Way of Water,” but nevertheless. Although “Shazam!: Fury of the Gods” was planned as a theatrical release this whole time, and may have been executed as such during the production. And the first trailer of the film promises some neat treats for those looking for a big screen experience. I reiterate, I have not seen “Batgirl,” but I think there is a reason why I am seeing material for “Shazam!: Fury of the Gods,” and nothing for “Batgirl.” While I genuinely feel terrible for everyone behind the film, I stand by David Zaslav’s decision to cancel “Batgirl.” I would rather have a genuinely great movie that will win over audiences as opposed to a terrible movie that could cause people to compare it to “Batman & Robin.” People are going to literally have to say that the best Batgirl movie is somehow “The LEGO Batman Movie!” Who thought we’d be saying that in this day and age?! And Zaslav cancelled the film for this reason. During a recent conference call, Zaslav was asked about the cancelation of “Batgirl,” which he stated was part of a restructuring of DC through a 10-year plan. This plan would be similar to what Alan Horn and Bob Iger established with producer Kevin Feige over at Disney’s Marvel Studios. In addition to that, Zaslav wants to make sure that audiences are not only getting good movies, but happen to be getting their money’s worth at the cinema similar to the studio itself through the box office as it releases its newer content.
“We’ve seen luckily by having access now to all the data, how direct-to-streaming movies perform. And our conclusion is that expensive direct-to-streaming movies in terms of how people are consuming them on the platform, how often people go there or buy it or buy a service for it and how it gets nourished over time is no comparison to what happens when you launch a film in the motion – in the theaters. And so this idea of expensive films going direct-to-streaming, we cannot find an economic case for it. We can’t find an economic value for it.” –David Zaslav
However, I am not saying the axing of “Batgirl” is not unfortunate for the audience. I was looking forward to potentially seeing the movie. This is also an unfortunate cancelation in terms of diversity. Because Leslie Grace is Afro-Latina, giving a fresh look to the DCEU’s main heroes. This means that most of the studio’s upcoming lineup, like “Shazam!: Fury of the Gods” and “The Flash” will continue to center around white male characters. While these films are likely to be successful, it avoids giving a particular audience a film they can call their own. While “Wonder Woman” and its vastly inferior sequel obviously happen to be anthems for women, it does not change the fact that there are still some audiences who probably have not seen themselves in the heroes DC is providing. Sure, the “Suicide Squad” movies feature two different African-American leads, but as far as non-team movies go, diversity has some ways to go. Superman is a white male. Shazam is a white male. The Flash, while played by an actor who currently identifies as non-binary, is as far as we know, a white male. Harley Quinn, while not a male, is more of an anti-hero as seen in projects like “Birds of Prey.” This could have been DC’s chance to give the audience a different kind of hero. And while this may be towards the villain or anti-hero route, DC is lucky that the Dwayne Johnson-starring “Black Adam” is set to come out as the iconic movie star happens to be Black and Samoan.
At the same time though, while this is unfortunate, I will reiterate, I agree with Zaslav’s decision to cancel the film. It is not a pleasant decision to make, but as a business move, it makes sense. I am not saying people are not interested in seeing a Latina superhero, but I think that if people want a character like Batgirl, such a character should receive better treatment than what she is getting at the moment. I have to remind everyone reading this that I am a straight white male, therefore it is my responsibility to acknowledge that a lot of the movies that have come out in the superhero genre revolves around people like me. Some are great like “Iron Man” while others are not so great like “Morbius.” This is the same thing I have said about “Ghostbusters” since I watched the 2016 Paul Feig-directed reboot. You cannot just remake the movie with women and call it a day. You have to have a good script, great chemistry amongst the cast, and solid humor. Now obviously every movie has its fans, but I saw the movie and felt that it failed on those recently mentioned objectives. Pitching and selling a “Batgirl” film to the audience is half the battle. The other half is delivering a great story or experience that will stand the test of time, and I can only assume that “Batgirl” did not meet certain standards to make that happen.
According to The Hollywood Reporter, the cancelation of “Batgirl” has more to do with the reset plan in regard to DC and not as much to do with the talent behind the film like Leslie Grace.
“Leslie Grace is an incredibly talented actor and this decision is not a reflection of her performance. We are incredibly grateful to the filmmakers of “Batgirl” and “Scoob! Holiday Haunt” and their respective casts and we hope to collaborate with everyone again in the near future.” -WB Insider (The Hollywood Reporter)
On that note, I will remind you that “Batgirl” is not the only upcoming Warner Bros. film that was announced to be cancelled last week, as the quote suggests that “Scoob!: Holiday Haunt,” a Christmas-themed “Scooby-Doo” film, was also part of the chopping block. The film was set to come out on HBO Max this year, which does not surprise me as 2020’s “Scoob!” skipped theatres and went straight to VOD due to COVID-19. While I watched “Scoob!” a couple years ago and thought it was a trainwreck, I will note one thing that was not a problem was the look of the film or the animation style. Overall, it looked very polished. Once again, I can only use assumptions here, but I would not be surprised if this streaming-mindset affected production in terms of how polished the film could turn out. Once again, I feel bad for the crew, but I think that this is a proper business decision.
Although if I must be real, I find it shocking that “Batgirl” was cancelled at the time it was. I am less shocked after finding out that it probably was not that good. Although what I am saying is that there is another DC film that based on public outcry, probably should have been cancelled first. In fact, recent events further indicate the complications behind this film’s existence. That film being… “The Flash.”
The Flash is one of the more well-known DC superheroes, and the hero’s popularity has only jumped due to the success of CW’s original series that is soon to enter its final season. Although on the movie side, there has been extensive development in regard to bringing the red speedster to the big screen but for several reasons, they could not quite get it out before the end of the previous decade. Having seen both “Justice League” and its eventual “Snyder Cut” on HBO Max, I think Ezra Miller did a fine job bringing Barry Allen to life and I would not mind seeing more of the character. Unfortunately, if Miller continues to play the character, I may have second thoughts.
After seeing Ezra Miller’s shenanigans of choking a woman in a bar, assault, restraining orders, harrassing a woman in her own apartment, and most recently, burglary, this only makes Zaslav’s final decision on “The Flash” that much harder to make. You could say that releasing “Aquaman and the Lost Kingdom” is also hard because Amber Heard is in it, but that’s a cakewalk compared to this. For one thing, the public is divided on whether Heard is innocent or guilty after her recent trial with Johnny Depp. And not to undermine the events prior to or of said trial, many of Ezra Miller’s crimes or arrests have happened after they finished shooting “The Flash.” As time has shown, I believe in redemption. Since joining Marvel, James Gunn held back on making inappropriate jokes over the Internet, and even after his firing and rehiring, he kept his cool. But at this point, when Ezra Miller has already been cast, the movie is shot, and it is set to release next year. This is a dilemma if there ever was one. As a viewer who is not in charge of a substantial company or its products, it is easy for me to say that they should cancel the movie or recast Ezra Miller and reshoot every scene with the character of Barry Allen. But the film already has a budget of $200 million, and this requires a massive return of the crew, the actors, everybody.
…But in my own little fantasyland, I also think it is worth it. …Kind of. It’s not my money, and if it were, for all I know, I might not have said this.
Similar to “Spider-Man: No Way Home” where there were three Spider-Men on the lineup, “The Flash” is a movie where we are seeing the return of Michael Keaton as Batman, making “Batgirl” one of the two films where the iconic actor dons his cowl. That, alongside another Batman appearance from Ben Affleck, will obviously get butts in seats. This is certainly a film that people will want to see in theaters before streaming, making HBO Max a concept that must be left out of the equation. But this involves potential delays, recasting, and so on. The other alternative I can get behind at this point is releasing the film as is and announcing Ezra Miller’s firing beforehand. I could almost see there being a disclaimer before the film starts stating the wrongdoings of Ezra Miller and a note that Warner Bros. does not condone or approve of his actions. While it may not be comfortable to provide in a public setting, it is better to condemn this consistently inappropriate or incorrect behavior rather than continue to enable it. There is a good chance Ezra Miller is already canned and such a thing has not been announced, but I think this is a message that should be announced before the public starts a trend claiming Warner Bros. “defends assaulters” or something along those lines. They say there is no such thing as bad publicity, but this is exhibit A as to why that is not true. On the bright side, reports have surfaced that “The Flash” is apparently a good movie. Obviously, film is subjective, so if it comes out, we will see if that statement holds true. But it is nice to hear Warner Bros. Discovery has confidence in the film’s quality, unlike “Batgirl.” Some of the general audience more than likely will not care about what Ezra Miller has done in the past, but it does not change the fact that word gets around. Plus Miller is getting into trouble on a consistent basis. They have already been the subject of multiple negative events as of this year. My confidence in Miller or their image’s ability to change by next year, or even 2024, is quite low. What if they end up in prison for a year? What is Warner Bros. Discovery going to do then? Imagine if Ezra Miller shows up at the premiere and how awkward that could be given everything they have done. This is not exactly my idea, but one alternative is finding a way to remarket the film as a “Batman” movie. I do not know how much the script would warrant such a thing, but given the marketability of the “Batman” IP and the fact that there are two Batmen in the movie, it theoretically makes sense.
Until then, there is no easy answer to this ongoing problem. “Batgirl” may have had its reasons to be cancelled, but this only makes me wonder what is going to happen with “The Flash.” If the movie gets cancelled because of Ezra Miller, it is a solid publicity move in the short term, but this also ends up being a disservice to the rest of the people behind the film who had nothing to do with Ezra Miller other than working with them. But at the end of the day, filmmaking is a business. And if Ezra Miller keeps doing what they’re doing, or worse, the business of the film is only going to trickle bit by bit. “The Flash” is still set to come out, and I am glad to hear it is good. But is it worth it? Much like “Batgirl,” but for completely different reasons, “The Flash” at this stage is probably going to hit some landmines if the studio wants it to be released theatrically. But at the same time, the movie is too big, not to mention too expensive, for HBO Max.
Sticking with HBO Max, let’s ask a question… WHAT ON EARTH IS HAPPENING TO HBO MAX?!
Remember how HBO Max was supposed to be Warnermedia’s big streaming service? It was the thing that was going to make HBO Now look like HBO Then. Some not so surprising news that came out of last week’s events was the merging of HBO Max and Discovery+ into one streaming service. Now, that has not happened yet. You will not find “Property Brothers” on HBO Max, nor will you find “Last Week Tonight with John Oliver” on Discovery+.
This is not the first time in recent years that Warner had one of its streaming services fold into another one, as DC Universe gradually dissolved in 2020 and all of its film and television content like “Titans” and “Harley Quinn” ended up on HBO Max, with the latter now airing its third season.
Now if you ask me, I like the fact that all of this content is merging. I am probably not going to watch all of it. But it is nice to know that the options are there. For all I know, there could be a new show that I could put on in the background one day. I think one big problem consumers face is that there are too many streaming services out there. I do not have Discovery+, as it is one of the few services I do not consider a priority. Slimming two services into one is not necessarily a bad concept. My one concern is how much more I’d be paying, that is if there is a price hike. I will revisit this issue later, because I need to talk about one of the most poorly guided comparisons I have seen in this day and age.
Remember how I said actions speak louder than words? Well, words are pretty powerful. Some people tend to take them seriously.
A breakdown of how Warner Bros. Discovery are differentiating between the HBO Max and Discovery+ brands.
I understand that this may be an exaggeration, but it still must be pointed out. When talking about the differences between HBO Max and Discovery+, this was done through a side-by-side chart indicating that HBO Max’s content was male-skew and Discovery+’s content was female-skew. Now to be fair, I am a man and I have never watched Discovery+ on my own time. I rarely turn on any of Discovery’s channels. But this is a loose and stereotypical assumption to make in this day and age. Because this declares that gendered content is put into boxes. HBO is one of the most sought-after cable networks of all time by all genders. “Game of Thrones” was a huge hit over recent years. Recent series like “Scenes From a Marriage” have been met with acclaim. And APPARENTLY, women don’t watch “EUPHORIA?!” If anything, they’re the target audience! Literally every woman on this planet wants to be Zendaya! She is good-looking, she has an Emmy, and she is dating Spider-Man! You think women do not watch “Euphoria?”
I am not saying that some of these classifications do not make sense. HBO has a lot of scripted content, and that is their forte. Although HBO Max has plenty of unscripted or reality content like the original show “Legendary,” truTV’s “Impractical Jokers,” and the TBS reboot of “Wipeout.” It is very much a service for everyone in same way that Netflix or Prime Video is. Discovery+ is very much a comfort food network. Most of their content is within the reality genre like “90 Day Fiancé,” “Diners, Drive-ins, and Dives,” and “Chopped.” Again, I am a man, and I do not know of many men, but I know they are out there, who lean into Discovery’s content more than they do with the type of content HBO provides, so Zaslav and the infographic are technically onto something. But it does not mean that this is the best analogy to give to the public.
Also, you are telling me “The Bachelor” is a male-skewed show?! Again, I imagine there are some men who watch. Although if you want to talk about HBO Max strictly having male-skewed content, I raise you “The Bachelor,” “The Bachelorette,” “Bachelor in Paradise,” “The Bachelor: Winter Games” and “Bachelor Pad!” The only guys watching these shows are those who are trying to impress their significant other that this show specifically targets! Obviously, there are others, but you get my point! What man turns on the television, looks at that night’s lineup, and thinks, I’m gonna pour myself some wine, and watch young women fight over a guy?! The majority would flip the channel in a heartbeat.
There are also plenty of HBO or HBO Max scripted shows that do not mainly target men. In addition to the recently mentioned “Euphoria,” look at shows like “Big Little Lies,” “Gossip Girl,” “Insecure,” “The Sex Lives of College Girls,” “Love Life,” and let me just remind you that HBO has a show literally called “Girls.” HBO and HBO Max apparently suggests that women do not watch shows like “Succession,” “Silicon Valley,” “Divorce,” “The White Lotus,” or “Mare of Easttown.”
The men/women analogy would have probably worked in the 1920s. More so in the 1820s. But definitely not in the 2020s. This was probably delivered with the best intention in mind, but it does not change the fact that the delivery was terrible. The infographic itself is helpful and for the most part, an accurate representation of both streaming services. HBO Max is definitely more lean in and Discovery+ is certainly more lean back. Those are good comparisons. Plus, while I did address that HBO Max is not short on unscripted content, it is no doubt that scripted content is their bread and butter in the same way that unscripted content is to Discovery+.
Now let’s go back to the price concern. While it is nice to know that I would not be paying for two different streaming services at the same time, one of the nice things about HBO Max is that while it is not the cheapest service out there, it offers a lot of great, sometimes award-winning content, for a reasonable price. HBO Max has two tiers, an ad-included tier at $9.99 and an ad-free tier at $14.99. Discovery+ also offers two tiers. An ad-included tier at $4.99 and an ad-free tier at $6.99. These prices make some sense given how Discovery+ is more of a niche service in the same way that the horror-based Shudder would be to a certain degree. Should we see these two services combine, I think it is perhaps likely that the service to be offered will have an increased price from HBO Max’s current price. If it increases by $1, I do not see much of a problem. $2? Okay, whatever. $3? Now you are pushing it. I understand that adding more content can justify a price increase, but there comes a tipping point. If I find out that this new streaming service costs $19.99/month or more, which is the current price for Netflix’s top tier, I would have to debate on ignoring the service and worry about my other subscriptions for the time being. There is plenty of great content being offered through services like Hulu and Prime Video that I’d rather flock to for a better value. I especially worry for those who have Discovery+ and not HBO Max, because their increase could be worse.
There is no official word as to what the name of the combined service is, and this presents a problem if they come up with a new name. The beauty of HBO Max is that the name HBO is one of the most coveted television brands ever conceived. No offense to Discovery, but when most people think of “television,” HBO is often seen as the gold standard nowadays. They could come up with a new name, let’s just use Warner Discovery as an example, but this could result in brand confusion. This could be HBO’s most bewildering matter since trying to explain the difference between HBO Go, HBO Now, and HBO Max. What makes HBO Max different? I don’t know, it’s purple! This could be a short term confusion once the audience collectively realizes where their preferred content ended up, but nevertheless.
Phew. We made it to the end. Just to recap, I still use and enjoy HBO Max. The third season of “Harley Quinn” is great fun and I cannot wait to see the rest of it. I am excited to see where David Zaslav takes the Warner Bros. brand in the future. I am curious about movies like Olivia Wilde’s “Don’t Worry Darling,” which looks like a trip if there ever was one. I just hope that Zaslav realizes within the mistakes that have been made recently, that this Warner Bros. Discovery ship remains as tight as possible. While I remain saddened for the crews behind the films, I think cancelling “Batgirl” and “Scoob!: Holiday Haunt” were the right moves. If the movies were not up to a certain standard, then why should they be put out to begin with? The main basis of the movie business is profit. This is part of why “Batgirl” was cancelled, but I am also glad to know that we will not potentially be seeing the next “Superman IV: The Quest for Peace” or the next “Catwoman” or the next “Morbius.” It is still NOT Morbin’ time! I don’t care who says it! Why is “The Flash” not cancelled? Sure, I hear it is a good movie, but the closer we get to its release, the more I worry about the film itself in addition to its star’s ability to not cause chaos. Is there a weird move will we see next from Zaslav and crew? Who knows? Until then, all I can do is sit back and wait for movies like “Shazam!: Fury of the Gods” and go back and watch the many hit movies and television shows on HBO Max like “Peacemaker,” “The Carbonaro Effect,” and “The Bachel–” Hahaha, never mind that last one.
Thanks for reading this post! If you liked this post and want to see more, follow the blog either with an email or a WordPress account! Also, check out the official Scene Before Facebook page! If you are interested in more of my long-form content, check out my five-thousand word analysis as to why I cannot stop watching “Belle,” the recent anime from Mamoru Hosoda. This is a movie which is by the way, as of this post’s debut, NOW STREAMING ON HBO MAX! Until then, I want to know your thoughts! What do you think about the recent events at Warner Bros. Discovery? Do you think the brand is in a good direction? Do you think cancelling “Batgirl” and “Scoob!: Holiday Haunt” was a wise decision? What do you think they should do with “The Flash” at this point? Also, about those six movies that were taken off HBO Max, did you watch any of them? Tell me your thoughts. If you ask me, I think “An American Pickle” is one of the most overlooked comedies in recent times and a hilarious parody on modern society. Leave your thoughts down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!
Scene Before 