New Republic Pictures

Transformers One (2024): One of the Most Human Transformers Stories Yet, Despite There Being No Humans in the Movie

Posted on by Jack Drees

“Transformers One” is directed by Josh Cooley (Toy Story 4, Inside Out) and stars Chris Hemsworth (Thor, Rush), Brian Tyree Henry (Eternals, Godzilla vs. Kong), Scarlett Johansson (Iron Man 2, Don Jon) Keegan-Michael Key (Toy Story 4, Keanu), Steve Buscemi (Reservoir Dogs, Miracle Workers), Laurence Fishburne (The Matrix, Man of Steel), and Jon Hamm (Mad Men, Baby Driver). This film is about the origins of robots Orion Pax and D-16, who eventually become Optimus Prime and Megatron. As a team, these two and several others are given the powers and capabilities to change their planet, Cybertron, forever.

I was born at the tail end of the 1990s, so I was alive at a time when Transformers was continuously shrinking in relevancy. Then a big bang happened in 2007 when the franchise’s first Michael Bay-directed film came out. That is when I first heard about the property, that is when I also started watching it. I had little to no experience with any of the toys beforehand. And no, I have not gone back to watch any of the “Transformers” material from the 20th century. I am somewhat familiar with it. I am aware of “Transformers: The Movie” killing off all the Autobots and that scarring several viewers. But I have not seen the movie myself. But even with my lack of experience of older “Transformers” material, I can confirm that my biggest problem with a number of the live-action “Transformers” films of this era is that they do not feel as character-based as they could be. Not to mention, despite having “Transformers” in the name, the movies are more about the humans than anyone else. Admittedly, I like the first Michael Bay “Transformers” film. I had some fun with “Dark of the Moon.” “Bumblebee” was fantastic. And while it is not the most memorable of the bunch, “Rise of the Beasts” definitely has its moments.

That said, “Transformers One” removes the humans and makes the movie about its titular robots, which is refreshing. The movie is entirely set on Cybertron and features zero scenes on earth. Despite these differences, this movie arguably has the most human story I have witnessed from the “Transformers” franchise yet. It is very much an underdog story about rising up, questioning authority, and embracing the power of friendship.

The main friendship we see is that of Orion Pax (lower right) and D-16 (upper right), played by Chris Hemsworth and Brian Tyree Henry. I bought every moment of their connection. The two come off as genuine friends. They have some admirable moments where they bond, they stand up for each other, exchange items. The two are best buds. Both of their respective actors do a great job in this film, which relieves me. After all, this is yet another animated project featuring a cast of mostly celebrity voice actors whose names and faces are known in popular live-action projects. These people may as well have been used as a selling point to adults who would be weary about taking their kids to a film like this. Granted, some of these actors have voiceover experience. Scarlett Johansson was in “The SpongeBob SquarePants Movie” as well as “Sing 2.” Keegan-Michael Key has several voiceover credits including “Toy Story 4,” the 2019 “Lion King,” “Migration,” and “IF.” He’s doing well for himself in the voiceover department. Everyone does a good job here and the story serves them well.

This movie is perfectly paced. Every action scene had my attention. The character moments are admirable. The humor stuck the landing. It is not the funniest movie I have seen in years, but it had quite a few laughs. The best part about the movie, it follows a paramount rule of show business, which is to leave the audience wanting more. By the end of this film, I was happy with what I got, but there was a point where I wanted to see where these characters would take their adventures next. I remember when I saw “Transformers: Age of Extinction,” which finished on a note where certain ends were not tied together, and I did not really care as much as I could have. This film has a balance in its journey and conclusion where I was satisfied by what was in front of me, but it also left me eagerly hoping to find out what is next.

The film also has a nice polish to its animation. In this age, having bad animation in a major motion picture is kind of a surprise nowadays. But this film, like some others I have been seeing recently, has an individualistic look to it. I cannot say its style offers the diversity of the “Spider-Verse” franchise. But “Transformers One” is stylized just enough to have an identity of its own. The way the movie plays around with some of its shots are fast-paced and immersive. Cybertron itself is sometimes a sight to to behold. This movie is based on toys, so of course the color palette is eye-popping.

Despite my recent positives, I have problems with the movie. For one thing, the storyline is a bit predictable. Sure, as someone who knows about “Transformers,” and the way certain characters are, I know how some characters will wind up by the end of the film. That is not my biggest problem. But there is one other character in the film who as soon as I saw him in the beginning and the way he was written, it was not that hard for me to speculate where exactly this character would be taken. Again, this is a character who has been used in the franchise previously, including one of the Michael Bay movies, all of which I have seen. But I am willing to bet if this was my first “Transformers” anything, I would have nevertheless found this character’s path to be utterly predictable. Maybe unless I was a young child because I have not seen enough movies.

Speaking of young children, I do think that “Transformers One” is a fine family film. Although I would not necessarily say this movie is entirely kid-friendly. At least for all ages that is. There are a couple instances of violence, granted, it is cartoon violence, that kind of push the line as for what you can see in a modern PG movie. Heck, even some of the language pushes the line. There are no f-bombs or s-words here, but Bumblebee repeatedly refers to himself as “Badassatron.” If I had kids I would not prevent them from watching this movie. Heck, part of me would want to put this on for them before “Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom,” which is rated PG and came out just before PG-13 was ever slapped onto a film. If my future children watch “Transformers One” say when they are 7 or 8, I have no problem with it. Ask me again if I become a father, but still… “Transformers One” is a good movie with solid action, a good story, and despite some moments that go a bit far, the movie manages to have positive lessons for its viewers to take with them. I would question taking a certain type of four year old for example to see “Transformers One” in the theater, but if they are a little older, things should be fine. Parents, if you are reading this, I say this as someone who is not a parent, so maybe I am just a moron, but use your own judgment. Despite being one of this year’s most attractive and colorful films, “Transformers One” might not be as well-rounded for all ages as say “Inside Out 2.”

In the end, “Transformers One” is an incredible time. Some people might be rejoicing right now and saying that this may be the first great “Transformers” movie in ages, or maybe even ever. For the record, I disagree. I think Michael Bay’s first “Transformers” is good. His third movie is good. Travis Knight’s “Bumblebee” might be my favorite of the live-action ones they have done. “Transformers One” is honestly up there with “Bumblebee” for me. If it were not for being one of this year’s more predictable narratives at times, that would probably be the one significant thing that could make a movie like this better. But “Transformers One” handles its material with excellence. It is great for both adults and kids. It might not be suitable for all kids, but I am sure many kids will enjoy this just fine. I am going to give “Transformers One” an 8/10.

“Transformers One” is now playing in theatres everywhere. Tickets are available now.

Thanks for reading this review! If you enjoyed this review, I have another animated movie to talk about soon, and that is “The Wild Robot!” That review will be available soon. Also coming up, stay tuned for my thoughts on “Joker: Folie a Deux…” The most divisive movie in ages. My goodness… That review is going to be fun. …Probably. If you want to see these reviews and more from Scene Before, follow the blog either with an email or WordPress account! Also, check out the official Facebook page! I want to know, did you see “Transformers One?” What did you think about it? Or, what is a movie about friendship that you enjoyed? Let me know down below! Scene before is your click to the flicks!

Mission: Impossible – Dead Reckoning Part One (2023): Another Epic Mission from Tom Cruise and Christopher McQuarrie

Posted on by Jack Drees

“Mission: Impossible – Dead Reckoning Part One” is directed by Christopher McQuarrie (Jack Reacher, The Way of the Gun) and stars Tom Cruise (Top Gun, Risky Business), Hayley Atwell (Agent Carter, The Duchess), Ving Rhames (Lilo & Stitch, Pulp Fiction), Simon Pegg (Ready Player One, Run Fatboy Run), Rebecca Ferguson (Dune, Reminiscence), Vanessa Kirby (Pieces of a Woman, Fast & Furious Presents: Hobbs & Shaw), Esai Morales (Resurrection Blvd., Bad Boys), Pom Klementieff (Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2, Oldboy), Mariela Garriga (Bloodline, Nightmare Cinema), and Henry Czerny (Ready or Not, Revenge). This film is the seventh installment of the ongoing “Mission: Impossible” movie franchise based on the hit television series of the same name. In this latest installment, Ethan Hunt and crew must track down a dangerous weapon before it is too late.

The “Mission: Impossible” franchise is, in some ways, the definition of irony. Because there is a general saying that a movie’s sequel is not usually as good as the original. If “Mission: Impossible” stopped at two movies that would be true, because I liked the first film quite a bit, but felt a significant dip in quality in John Woo’s “Mission: Impossible II.” Thankfully, “Mission: Impossible III” was better. Not perfect, but J.J. Abrams at least did enough to thwart the franchise in the right direction. “Mission: Impossible – Ghost Protocol,” directed by Brad Bird, not only ended up being really good, but revitalized the franchise. I still think about the scene set around the Dubai Tower on a regular basis. Then we get “Mission: Impossible – Rogue Nation,” directed by Christopher McQuarrie, which much like its predecessor, had incredible action sequences and stuntwork that define Tom Cruise’s career. That would have been my favorite “Mission: Impossible” movie, had it not been for the fact that Cruise and McQuarrie reunited to make the last “Mission: Impossible,” specifically “Fallout.” That film is the peak of what I consider to be one of the greatest action franchises. It was my favorite film of 2018, and I would put it right next to “Risky Business” as my favorite film starring Tom Cruise. The film is simple in plot, but has jaw-dropping action, likable characters, and a bone-chilling climax to back it up. It is everything a modern action movie should be.

This is also part of why I was excited for “Mission: Impossible – Dead Reckoning Part One,” which I put my as my #2 for my top 10 most anticipated movies of 2023. This franchise has a special talent. Specifically, a talent where almost each film ends up surpassing its predecessor. With how good “Fallout” was, this seventh installment had big shoes to fill.

Time for some good news and bad news. Bad news, the streak of these sequels surpassing their predecessors has ended. I think “Fallout” is a better film than “Dead Reckoning Part One.” Good news, “Dead Reckoning Part One” is all around, a great time at the movies. It contains the essentials I am used to seeing in these films between the quick pace, the character moments, the fun action sequences, and everything in between. If you are looking for summer blockbuster thrills, look no further. This film is an excellent outing for everyone involved, and it will make an excellent outing for you once you step outside your home and into the theater.

One of the reasons I, and I imagine many others, ended up looking forward to “Mission: Impossible – Dead Reckoning Part One” is because it is a continuation of Tom Cruise pulling off death-defying stunts. In fact, much of the marketing pushes the moment where Ethan maneuvers a motorcycle off a cliff and shortly thereafter removes himself from said motorcycle, allowing himself to fall through the air like an absolute moron. I can tell you, that stunt alone is worth the price of admission. When that scene came up in my auditorium, I could tell just about everyone felt a shiver through their body.

But what if I told you that is not even the most intense thing this movie has to offer? Because there are a couple of other scenes that continue to stand out to me. First off, there is a chase through Venice that will go down as not only one of my favorite sequences in the “Mission: Impossible” franchise, but also as one of the funniest action scenes I have ever watched in the history of cinema. I do not think I laughed this hard watching action either since “The Suicide Squad” or “Free Guy.” One of those two movies. When I say this action scene is funny, I mean it. There are a lot of visuals that caught me off guard in the best possible way. Although I must say, I apologize to the company because their car is prominently featured in said sequence, I do not think I will be buying a Fiat anytime soon. If there was any product placement involved, I think this action sequence basically told me to not spend my money on one of those cars. I will stick with my Ford for now.

Another standout sequence in “Dead Reckoning Part One” is set further into the movie, specifically on a train. First of all, the interior of the train, which was assembled for this movie from scratch, is stunningly designed. If the Oscars were tomorrow, I would consider putting this film amongst the Production Design nominations for how solid the inside of that train looks. Secondly, this movie may have the greatest train scene since “Spider-Man 2,” which is an impeccably high standard to match. But the reason why this train sequence will stick with me for a long time is because it does what “Mission: Impossible” does best. It does not only put our characters in danger from a story perspective, but as I watch the sequence, I am increasingly worried for their physical safety. Both the characters and the actors playing them. Anyone can do a train sequence in a film if they wanted to. I have seen boring train scenes before, just go watch “Solo: A Star Wars Story.” But this film does it in such a way that had me wondering how the heck anyone could make it out alive. Heck, there is a movie from last year called “Bullet Train,” and the train scene in “Dead Reckoning Part One” is arguably more thrilling than that entire movie. For the record, I liked “Bullet Train.” But my point stands.

If I had a problem with the film, it would be the opening scene. Sure, it is a homage to a respected title, “The Hunt for Red October,” but the dialogue during this scene honestly felt wooden. Maybe if I watch it again it would be better, but it felt more like a parody of “Mission: Impossible” rather than an actual “Mission: Impossible” movie. Which, quite frankly, is a dead on way to describe “Mission: Impossible II.” I said what I said. But other than that, there are not many flaws to point out about “Mission: Impossible – Dead Reckoning Part One.” If there is one, maybe the A.I. was not as threatening as it could have been, but maybe the crew is saving the good stuff for part two. Staying on topic though, I think the antagonist, Gabriel (Esai Morales), is a bit of a step down for the franchise. Especially when compared to August Walker (Henry Cavill) from the previous installment.

On the note of multi-part efforts, despite having part one in the title, I will contend that “Mission: Impossible – Dead Reckoning Part One” plays as a complete movie. It contains a full, concrete story. Sure, there are loose ends, but the main story ties itself up in a bow. It is a much better part one than what “Fast X” gave us a few months ago, which offered possibly the dumbest, most insultingly complicated cliffhanger in recent film. It did not feel like an end to a movie. It felt like the beginning of something much worse. I left “Mission: Impossible – Dead Reckoning Part One” feeling satisfied with what I saw. Maybe I overhyped it a little, but it does not change the fact that it is a solid option for the big screen this summer.

Going back to “Fast X,” when it comes to the big spy movie franchises out right now, the “Fast & Furious” and “Mission: Impossible” franchises are the two that immediately come to mind. This movie manages to get something right that the “Fast & Furious” movies do not. Characterization. Sure, maybe every once in awhile it is soothing to hang out with the “family,” but those movies fail when it comes to getting me onboard with the characters due to a lack of stakes. Once again, this film reinstates the notion that I am worried for everyone’s safety. Part of it is because a lot of the stuff on screen is done for real, but they flesh out the characters and treat them more like people as opposed to big muscular bodies moving from one place to another. Grace (Hayley Atwell) is layered and has an intriguing mysteriousness to her throughout the film. Additionally, Paris (Pom Klementieff) is another new character that stands out and brings a lot to the table. There continues to be genuine chemistry between Cruise, Rhames, and Pegg as friends. When I left this film, one of the thoughts in my mind happened to be that I cannot wait to see “Mission: Impossible – Dead Reckoning Part Two.” Not only to get back to a franchise that I adore, but to continue seeing cool characters like these. Here is hoping the upcoming sequel is a worthy entry to the franchise, much like this one.

In the end, if I had to rank the “Mission: Impossible” movies, “Dead Reckoning Part One” would not be my favorite, but it would be on the higher end. I would put it above “Ghost Protocol,” but I would put it below the last two. The more I think about it, I think I like it just a little more than the 1996 original, which is a great movie on its own. When it comes to pure summer action, “Mission: Impossible – Dead Reckoning Part One” delivers. It is exciting, thrilling, and I left the film satisfied, but still wanting to know what is next. While this may not make as much money as Tom Cruise’s last outing, “Top Gun: Maverick,” “Mission: Impossible – Dead Reckoning Part One” brings in some big guns of its own. I am going to give “Mission: Impossible – Dead Reckoning Part One” an 8/10.

“Mission: Impossible – Dead Reckoning Part One” is now playing in theaters everywhere. Tickets are available now.

Thanks for reading this review! My next review is going to be for “Oppenheimer,” the brand new movie from my favorite filmmaker, Christopher Nolan. Also, I will soon be dropping reviews for “Haunted Mansion,” “The First Slam Dunk,” and “Barbie.” 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 “Mission: Impossible – Dead Reckoning Part One?” What did you think about it? Or, what is your favorite “Mission: Impossible” movie? Mine is “Fallout,” but I want to know yours! Comment below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

Transformers: Rise of the Beasts (2023): Audiences, Roll Out!

Posted on by Jack Drees

“Transformers: Rise of the Beasts” is directed by Steven Caple Jr. (The Land, Creed II), and stars Anthony Ramos (In the Heights, A Star is Born) and Dominque Fishback (Judas and the Black Messiah, Project Power) in the latest adaptation of the Hasbro toy that has become a phenomenon. This time around, the story is set in the 1990s and features the Cybertronian Autobots and Maximals as the two transformative groups must unite to save the planet from Unicron.

“Transformers” was my childhood. Specifically the first Michael Bay movie. Keep in mind, I was born in 1999. I watched that film at least twice every month in 2008 until the earlier half of 2009. I still own it on DVD to this day. As far as CGI goes, the film continues to hold up and rival some of what has come out years later. I even think at times it looks better than its franchise successors. “Age of Extinction,” which kind of has a so bad it is good vibe to it, especially comes to mind. Michael Bay is not my favorite director. In fact, I thought his last film, “Ambulance,” is an atrocity against civilization. Therefore, I was glad to know that, like “Bumblebee,” Bay was not at the helm for this film.

For those of you who followed me long enough, you would know that I never got around to reviewing “Bumblebee.” But I ended up watching it for the first time this month and I thought it easily was the best “Transformers” movie we have gotten since 2007. I think it finally had a main human protagonist that actually exuded charisma and did more than just freak out or spew a one liner every time they saw a robot. I liked Hailee Steinfeld as the lead and thought the movie was a nice blend of “E.T.” mixed with hints of “The Iron Giant.” If that movie did not exist, this franchise may have remained on life support. Michael Bay ended up making too many movies and the further this franchise proceeded, the further the insanity proceeded. “Transformers: Rise of the Beasts” is not a straight up sequel to “Bumblebee” but appears to be set in the same timeline of sorts. Regardless of its placement in the grand scheme of things, I had a good time with “Transformers: Rise of the Beasts.” It is a slight step down from “Bumblebee,” but it is still a trek up from the past couple Michael Bay outings.

“Transformers: Rise of the Beasts” is not without its flaws. The film is about as predictable as movies like this can get at times, but as the old saying goes, it is not about the destination. It is the journey. Thankfully, the journey is quite good. But on the topic of predictability, one thing I was not able to predict was the end of the film. There is a certain event at the last minute that caught me off guard. Those of you who have seen the movie, know exactly what I am talking about. For those of you who are planning to see the movie at some point, fasten your seatbelts.

Speaking of predictability, one cliché this movie continues is that despite the movie being called “Transformers,” it might as well be called “Humans,” because it centers around a human protagonist. I kind of get why that is the case because the audience needs someone to relate to. It is a bit harder to relate to robots from Cybertron. But either way, it is a noticeable trend that has not stopped. That said, the humans in this movie are comparatively likable to the ones in Michael Bay’s later films. I do not think Anthony Ramos’s character of Noah Diaz has as much charisma as Sam Witwicky does, nor is he as likable of a protagonist as him, but Ramos is able to carry the film.

Also in the film is Dean Scott Vazquez as Kris Diaz. His character is so likable that I honestly wanted more of him. Every line out of him is perfect. The main two human leads in this film are Anthony Ramos and Dominque Fishback, who are both good actors. I have nothing against them as performers and I have enjoyed some of their previous work. This movie can keep Anthony Ramos in the lead role for all I care. But having seen some of Dean Scott Vazquez’s smile-inducing charm brought to the table, I kind of wish he was in Dominque Fishback’s spot. Granted, the movie they already crafted makes a lick of sense with Fishback in a greater spotlight, but it would have probably been more fun had Vazquez been there for more of the ride. It would have been a delightful brotherly duo. I got a sense of their chemistry from the beginning and the two actors honestly pair together like chocolate chips and ice cream. I wish I got to see more of that, but what I did see was sweet.

That said, there are plenty of Transformers in this film, including the Maximals in addition to the already commonly showcased Autobots. If you are looking for big screen summer action, look no further. This movie has it. When it comes to spectacle in this franchise, this might be the best that has been brought to the big screen since “Dark of the Moon.”

Speaking of “Transformers,” Noah does get a chance to bond with one in particular, specifically Mirage, played by Pete Davidson. Their chemistry is okay and I like what these two have to go through together, but I have slightly more mixed thoughts on the voice. At times, it blends perfectly with the character, but at other times, all I see is Pete Davidson. I have nothing against Pete Davidson as an actor, as a comedian. I enjoy some of his work on “Saturday Night Live,” “Big Time Adolescence,” “The King of Staten Island,” and as much as I hated “Fast X,” I think his cameo in the movie is one of the miniscule highlights. But my problem with “Transformers: Rise of the Beasts” when it comes to not just Pete Davidson as Mirage, but also Michelle Yeoh as Airazor, is that the actors’ voices are recognizable enough to the point where they become a bit distracting. Granted, it is not absurdly bad. Davidson and Yeoh do an okay job with their material, and when it comes to this problem, I do not think it is as blatant and annoying as say “DC League of Super Pets” when it comes to the leads of Dwayne Johnson and Kevin Hart. But having heard their voices in prior material, it makes me think they are just playing another version of themselves. Instead, I want a character. Live-action roles are a little different where you have the person in the room. I kind of want an escape from that person when they just use their voice sometimes.

Yeoh’s voice is one of a kind, which is both a compliment and a curse. Yeoh is not in the movie a lot, but when she is there, all I see is her sometimes. Thankfully, even though Pete Davidson is in the movie a lot so I pick out his voice more, the admirability of his character makes up for it. He is genuinely charming.

With this in mind, I know this is probably a personal issue that comes from watching some of the prior material from these actors. I imagine a lot of people discovering this film for the first time in the future may find this to be less problematic as other big names rise. Right now as I write this review in 2023, this stands as a flaw based on the events of these times which I have experienced.

Although speaking of voices, Peter Cullen returns as Optimus Prime. And as fantastic as he is here as usual, I picked up some noticeable ruggedness in the character’s voice. Peter Cullen is 81 years old, so obviously his voice is not going to be the exact same as it was years ago. But I wonder if Cullen is getting to the point where he may almost be done with the role. If there is any indication, Chris Hemsworth is going to voice Optimus Prime in an upcoming animation titled “Transformers One.”

The best way to describe “Transformers: Rise of the Beasts” would be to compare it to a trip to Burger King. I enjoyed what was on my plate, but it is sometimes inconsistent and I know what I am getting is not of the highest quality. I am not saying “Transformers: Rise of the Beasts” was not made with the intention to barely pass, but this is a case where negatives stand out, but the positives stand out just a bit more for me to have a good time. The film looks and sounds great. My theater shook on many occasions and the camerawork is honestly smoother compared to some of the other “Transformers” movies that have come out recently. The special effects are top-notch. The action is spectacular. The characters are fine, but could be better. I think Anthony Ramos as Noah Diaz is a better lead than Mark Wahlberg as Cade Yeager. The story has its cliches and predictability. But as far as summer blockbusters go, this is a solid entry in this movie season. I think between “Bumblebee” and this latest effort, the franchise is on a decent path. Maybe we will get more like these two along the way. And much like “Burger King,” I may end up coming back to “Transformers: Rise of the Beasts” despite its blunders.

In the end, “Transformers: Rise of the Beasts” is not quite a masterpiece, but far from a disaster. When it comes to big action movies, this is a good choice. I am not going to pretend that I will run down the streets begging for everyone to check it out, but I am glad I saw it. If you are on the fence of seeing this movie, give it a shot. You may not be disappointed. I would put this film in the same boat as “Godzilla vs. Kong.” It is noticeably entertaining as it is flawed. I am going to give “Transformers: Rise of the Beasts” a very high 6/10.

“Transformers: Rise of the Beasts” is now playing in theaters everywhere. Tickets are available now.

Thanks for reading this review! My next review is going to be for the brand new DC movie, “The Flash!” Also coming soon, I will share my thoughts on “No Hard Feelings,” “Elemental,” “Ruby Gillman, Teenage Kraken,” and “Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny.” 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 “Transformers: Rise of the Beasts?” What did you think about it? Or, what is your favorite “Transformers” movie? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

1917 (2019): Cinematographically Golden

Posted on by Jack Drees

“1917” is directed by Sam Mendes (Spectre, American Beauty) and stars George MacKay (The Boys Are Back, Captain Fantastic), Dean-Charles Chapman (Into the Badlands, Game of Thrones), Mark Strong (Shazam!, Kingsman: The Secret Service), Andrew Scott (Fleabag, Sherlock), Richard Madden (Game of Thrones, Bodyguard), Claire Duburcq, Colin Firth (Love, Actually, Mamma Mia!), and Benedict Cumberbatch (Doctor Strange, Star Trek: Into Darkness). This film takes place throughout, as the title suggests, 1917. Specifically, during events of World War I. The story follows two British soldiers, Schofield and Blake, as they are given a mission to deliver a message to the 2nd Battalion of the Devonshire Regiment to call off an attack on the Germans. If this mission fails, this would mean there would be a loss of 1600 men, including Blake’s brother.

First off, let me just say to all of you that this is my first review of 2020, and what a better way to start off the year than to talk about movie that is literally a year. This film came out Christmas Day in select theaters, but much to my dismay, not one theater in the Boston area was going to show the film until 2020, so I had no chance to see it until then. This year is also the earliest time in which I was able to catch an advanced screening of the film. So I trekked to the theater this past Tuesday with high expectations.

When I say high expectations, I mean that literally. Knowing some of the technical aspects of the film, which I will dive into later on, it makes me giddy just thinking about it. Plus, this week was also the airing of the 77th Golden Globes, where this movie was nominated for 3 awards, and ended up taking home 2, including Best Picture – Drama. Granted, the more I think about the Golden Globes as a whole, the less meaningful I find them to be (after all, their voting board is not that big and they have genre-specific categories), but to have some notable recognition definitely helps. But in life, I live by the philosophy to form my own opinions on any matter at all times. Because life is just better when I’m in control. So what are my thoughts on “1917?”

mv5bmjfmyjnmnmetytuzmc00mwi2lwflzmutzmm3ywjiy2e2ngqyxkeyxkfqcgdeqxvynjg3mdmxnzu40._v1_sx1777_cr001777739_al_

Let’s see… Oh! It’s better than “Cats!” But that doesn’t say much, now does it?

Let me try this again by asking you a question, because it sort of relates to my experience. How often has this happened to you? You go see a movie, and maybe you feel that what you just saw was wicked intense, and said intensity hits you to the point where your body just shuts down at a point. For me, that’s what “1917” felt like. I walked out of this movie nearly unable to feel my own legs. To help explain some of my thoughts on this film, I am going to remind you of another recent war film, specifically Christopher Nolan’s “Dunkirk.”

While “Dunkirk” and “1917” have their differences, one thing I cannot deny is that they both stand out in terms of how effectively they convinced me that I could have been in danger. I will say, “Dunkirk” had a slight undeniable advantage during my first viewing because I did see it in IMAX and I saw “1917” on a standard cinema screen, but regardless, “Dunkirk” emphasizes on sound more than “1917” does, which believe it or not, isn’t exactly a sign of this film lacking proper sound whatsoever. In fact, the sound editing and mixing in “1917” is great. I have no problems with any of that. But while “Dunkirk” emphasizes sound, “1917” emphasizes sight. Again, I’ll state that “Dunkirk” did a good job on that side of things as well. In fact, the movie received a Best Cinematography nomination, which it deserves. The way it utilizes 70mm and IMAX technology is undoubtedly impressive.

When it comes to “1917,” the technology used for this film, specifically the camera, is smaller. In fact, it runs on digital. The entire movie is shot using an Arri ALEXA Mini LF, which, if you don’t know much about cameras, the Arri ALEXA in general is often regarded as a current industry standard in filmmaking. This does make sense given what the crew behind this movie set out to do, which is film the movie with long takes, involving lots of movement. It’s not like this is one of those movies where the camera always sits still on a tripod, pretty much the entire movie tries to put you into the frame and take you along for the ride, and I’d say this was a pretty successful task. Because pretty much the entire time, even though I barely knew the two main characters, I was rooting for them to get out of whatever dire situation they were in. The long takes made me feel like I was transported in the movie, it made me feel like I was going to get shot, maybe debris would be flying onto my head.

The stellar cinematography in this film, which in fact, is without any argument whatsoever to be the best cinematography of 2019, is done by Roger Deakins, who also took on the job for iconic films including “The Shawshank Redemption” and “No Country For Old Men.” He also did one of my favorite films of the past few years, “Blade Runner 2049,” which he won his first Oscar for. There are several shots in this film that I can imagine myself wanting to hang in my living room if I had enough money for a big house and if I can find a good 5 panel canvas. And what really shocks me is a particular technique that is utilized during the film. I mentioned that the film is designed to look like it is one shot. Let me just tell you right now, it’s not. Without spoiling anything. There is a scene where the footage cuts to black, allowing for a slight break from whatever’s happening on screen. However, according to certain sources I have read, the film does cut but I didn’t even notice it on screen. According to the Hollywood Reporter, the longest shot in the movie is eight and a half minutes. This instantly brings a sense of hypnotization and eventually, a desire to look back at the film and try to guess when exactly the cuts happened. Plus, this film was shot on location, which brings a lot of challenges for the filmmaking process including an analysis on set design and the fact that lighting shots is perhaps an impossibility. And somehow, all of this was pulled off. This to me, cinematography-wise, may be in the top 10, maybe even top 5, all-time greatest achievements related to its category. I wouldn’t say it’s #1 at this point given how I still need time to marinate, but it does come close as of now, and if Roger Deakins DOES NOT win Best Cinematography this year at the Oscars, that award in all likelihood will be nothing short of a snub.

Another reason to consider how this movie is not #1 in terms of being the greatest cinematography achievement of all time is that this has been done before. Yes, this is sort of an upping of the stakes compared to Sam Mendes’ own long take shot experience from “Spectre,” a movie in which the cinematographer was Hoyte Van Hoytema, but that’s not the point. If you have followed 2014 in film, you may be familiar that the Academy’s Best Picture that year was “Birdman,” directed by Alejandro González Iñárritu (Babel, The Revenant). Having said that, I think the originality factor of that film helped me appreciate it. “1917” on the other hand is ultimately following in its footsteps. Story and concept-wise it stands on its own, but the intention when it comes to the visual aspects of the film is not completely different. Also, according to a quick Google search, the longest shot in “Birdman” goes on for fifteen minutes, compared to “1917,” which has a longest ongoing shot for eight and a half minutes.

In all seriousness though, this film, as a visual ride, is a tour de force, and I think this could be Roger Deakins’ best work just because of the daunting task at hand. And for that, I also have to give credit to Sam Mendes for helming this production. This is an experimental, ambitious film that I think will be looked back upon for years to come. In addition to all of the surroundings that make this film what it is, Thomas Newman’s score also does an effective job at adding something to the crazy experience on screen.

As for the characters, I wouldn’t say I didn’t care about them, but I am not gonna sit right here and tell you that they’re anything special. I did mention their names, but keep in mind that I glanced at them on Wikipedia as I write this review. In fact, I think the only name I recalled from the film is Colonel MacKenzie, maybe because I was paying enough attention. But at the same time, this movie is more about the journey, the effects throughout said journey, and this was one HELL of a journey. When I bring that up, part of me thinks that I almost don’t even need to know anybody’s name. In fact, I felt like *I* was a character experiencing this event alongside everyone else, therefore I am ultimately the one who should develop the most.

If I were a character in this movie, I’d say I’d start out curious, maybe a tad scared, but at the same time, I have to realize the consequences that can come from various actions. As the movie goes on, I would still be scared, perhaps even more so, but I would still tough out through whatever lies ahead. Eventually, I’d still be my terrified self, but I’ll have a feeling that I finally get to breathe. Seriously, whenever there is a moment of silence or calmness, it felt rewarding. I felt like I went through war with these characters simply because the camera’s eyes were almost like my eyes. Granted, it focuses a lot on these folks’ faces and I would probably never spend 2 hours almost continuously running backwards, but I think y’all get the point.

The film’s concept is simple, but it is also effective. Before I dive into the paragraph where I give my official rating, let me just say that this film, story-wise, is one I need to continue to think about. However, when it comes to various other aspects, it is one that I am pretty much set on. My rating could change, but anything is possible.

In the end, “1917” gave me pretty much everything I wanted. It is a beautifully shot, brilliantly directed, and solidly executed master work. It is just incredible to think about all the hard work and craftsmanship that went into this. There are a good number of war films out right now, but I’d say that this is 1,917 times as awesome as some others. I know some people who have seen a number of movies that will tell you that maybe whatever movie they saw at the theater is not worth the experience, maybe because there weren’t enough showman-esque elements in the movie or something. Let me tell you, and I’m not talking to everyone, because I understand that war films may not be everyone’s cup of tea, and that’s fine, but if you don’t go see this film in a theater, it’s a crime. A bad crime. Go see this movie on the biggest screen you can, with the best sound available. It’s out right now in Dolby Cinema, so if you’re willing to pay a higher ticket price, go there. Just see it! It’s an experience! As for the story, I mentioned that I have no problems with it, but it is one where I feel like I won’t remember anybody’s name. Maybe this is a movie to me that gets better the more I watch it. But we’ll just have to see. Also, the cinematography is PERFECTION. I’m going to give “1917” a 9/10. I wanted to give the film a 1917/10, but then I’d break the scale, so 9 it is.

Thanks for reading this review! I just want to remind everyone that this SATURDAY, JANUARY 11TH, will be the kickoff of my multi-part countdown event, “Top Movies of the 2010s!” I’m gathering all the entries, lining them up as we speak, and even though I am admittedly cramming at this point, I am hella excited to share my lists with y’all! If you want to see this and more content from Scene Before, give me a follow! If you have a proper account in place, feel free to leave a like and comment! Also, if you have a Facebook account, feel free to like my page to get notified about the latest goings on here at Scene Before through the place where you have friends, even those you probably haven’t talked to in five or so years. I want to know, did you see “1917?” What did you think about it? Or, what do you think is the better achievement in cinematography, this movie or “Birdman?” Let me know, you have one shot to impress me with your opinions! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

Rocketman (2019): Elton John: The Musical

Posted on by Jack Drees

mv5bmty0mzuwodc4n15bml5banbnxkftztgwmjmymjy0nzm40._v1_sy1000_cr006751000_al_

“Rocketman” is directed by Dexter Fletcher (Eddie the Eagle, Bohemian Rhapsody) and stars Taron Egerton (Kingsman: The Secret Service, Sing), Jamie Bell (Fantastic Four, Jumper), Richard Madden (Game of Thrones, Bodyguard), and Bryce Dallas Howard (Spider-Man 3, Jurassic World). This film is based on a portion of the life of music icon Elton John. It goes over his origins as an artist, as a person, and as someone who eventually must overcome various personal weaknesses or quirks.

I don’t know much about Elton John as an artist, and he’s not the first musician I go to when I need some music to soothe the mood. It’s not to say I hate him, but unlike other artists including AC/DC or Metallica, I just don’t think to myself, “Oh yeah, Elton John! I’ll leave myself on this station for him!” However, going into this movie, I did have some expectations. One of them, specifically the least important expectation, is that it would be better than “Godzilla: King of the Monsters.” Why? Because “Rocketman” came out the same weekend as that movie, I already saw “King of the Monsters,” and now I unfortunately can’t unsee it. As for other expectations, I did think that “Rocketman” would be rather fun and maybe not as much a downer type of film compared to other music-related biopics. For one thing as an example, unlike the main character of last year’s “Bohemian Rhapsody,” Freddie Mercury, Elton John is still alive. It’s not like we’re going to see a movie and feel like it is asking the audience, “Oh, remember him?” I’m not saying I’m bored of the whole “memory” thing, if you remember the movie “Ray,” I thought that was one of the best movies of the 2000’s and it showcased some serious downs of Ray Charles’ life. Even with that being said, I was still expecting this movie to go in a slightly different direction. “Rocketman” from the trailers looked vibrant, immersive, while at the same time, a true escape from reality. After all, one of the movie’s taglines is “Based on a true fantasy.” And I certainly did get a true escape from reality, almost a little too much. “Rocketman” is based on true events, and I know a lot of movies don’t have every detail of accuracy when it comes to basing them on reality. But “Rocketman” went into a direction that I for one did not see coming. The Wikipedia page for “Rocketman” describes the flick as a “biographical musical film.” I was expecting “biographical,” but not “musical.” In fact, this movie’s early attempts at being a musical kind of felt forced. It did become slightly more acceptable and a tad less cringeworthy as time passed, but due to my limited research on the film prior to seeing it, not to mention having certain expectations, this kind of came off as a surprise.

To put this in a short amount of words, if you went into “Rocketman” thinking you’re going to get a glimpse of what happened during Elton John’s life, I must point out that you are in fact going to get that. But it is all surrounded by tons of musical numbers, some of which kind of felt admittedly cringeworthy at first. It almost made me think I accidentally bought tickets for a Disney flick or something! Although that would be kind of amazing because this is rated R. And as the movie went on, the numbers actually almost became the biggest highlight. After all, while I am not a musical guy, one thing I can appreciate about certain musicals is the spectacle, which at times, this movie truly does have. It pulls you into the lively, flashy concerts, and takes an idea that I usually think would not fit in a biopic, but somehow the crew would manage to make it all work.

Also, Taron Egerton as Elton John? Hell yeah. I bought it completely. Definitely one of the best performances of the year so far. But it’s not even summer yet so I cannot confirm or speculate how many awards he’s going to win. And I have a feeling that part of why Egerton may have encapsulated the essential elements of Elton John is because the two have previously interacted with each other. If you remember 2017’s “Kingsman: The Golden Circle,” which to me was a fun, but slightly disposable action flick, Taron Egerton plays the main character. During that film, Elton John made an appearance as himself.

Don’t go breakin’ my heart? More like, “Go breakin’ some bones!”

Does Egerton have a shot at an Oscar from here? I dunno, we’ve still got time to wonder. But much like Bradley Cooper in “A Star Is Born” from 2018, one of the biggest praises I can give to Taron Egerton is that he does his own singing. I never saw Taron Egerton as a singer, and the fact that he even made the effort to sing on his own is magnificent. Big thumbs up from me!

I also admire the direction that this film tends to go, because the way it starts off, it’s almost glamorous, almost as if I went to see a movie that takes place in a cinematic universe where all the contestants from “RuPaul’s Drag Race” team up to fight crime. Then without going into spoilers, it turns out to be… well, not that. I mentioned that this movie isn’t really the most “downer-like” of biopics, but some serious stuff manages to happen in one overarching part of the story, not to mention other parts of the film. I’m not saying the film is having trouble knowing what it wants to be, in fact, I think the tone in its entirety works for a movie like “Rocketman.” It’s big, it’s exciting, but also at the same time, slightly grounded in some sort of reality here and there. I guess I am not that surprised to see an Elton John film. A lot of famous people will get their own movie if their story can be told while being interesting and profitable. But what I am somewhat surprised by is the fashion in which we managed to get a movie like this. Because for those of you who don’t know, Elton John himself has an executive producer credit for this film. While he didn’t direct or write the film himself, this almost must have been a glimpse back, not just for the audience, but for Elton John more than anyone else. I have seen some of the film’s marketing, but I can’t say I knew everything about it going in, so let me just say, consider my last statement and see how this movie is presented. Trust me.

And I do mean this, “Rocketman” has the flair of Elton John himself, whilst presenting some peaks and valleys from his youth. He had trouble living with his parents, not to mention getting care from both of his parents, especially his father, who is nothing short of a jerkface with an extreme lack of tact.

One last thing, I also really like some of the scenes where Elton John has to present himself and his musical talent to executives. I thought those were some of the better parts of the movie and there’s one scene where an executive just keeps criticizing every music-related choice Elton John is making. It’s kind chuckle-worthy, maybe even funnier than that.

In the end, “Rocketman” is not the best movie of the year, but it probably qualifies as the most interesting. It’s quirky, it has spectacular direction, and a stellar performance by Taron Egerton. It’s no wonder that Egerton likely had John’s blessing, and if they make another movie together, whether it is another “Kingsman” or something completely different, sign me up! I will say however, to me, this is probably going to be a movie that does not have much replay value. A lot of the movie’s standout scenes, at least to me, may make for good YouTube clips, but unless I needed something to watch on a big 4K TV, I probably wouldn’t go straight back to watching “Rocketman” this instant. It’s kind of a one-off, but it’s a good one-off. I’m going to give “Rocketman” a 7/10.

But before we go any further, I do have to bring one thing up, I went to see this movie with my mother and sister, and as far as I know, this is probably the most anticipated my mother in particular has ever been for a film. And she had a ball watching it. In fact, she brought up something I would have never expected to have ever heard from her. She mentioned the movie “brought her back to her childhood.” I don’t talk about my family life much on here, but this came off as a shock to me because my mother, at least when I’m in the room, NEVER gets nostalgic over anything. And out of all the nostalgia bombs arriving in theaters today, there are few, if any, that ever brought my mother back to her youth. I think only exception in my entire life when it comes to this sort of thing would have be 2015’s  “Pixels” because it inspired my mother to play an 80’s playlist. I’m just glad that in this postmodern era of media, it’s not just people like myself who obsess over “Star Wars” or “The Incredibles” can return to the days of being a kid. Even my own mom, who to my knowledge, never tends to go back in time, just experienced time travel.

Thanks for reading this review! I just want to let everyone know that I scored a couple of passes to go see “Men In Black: International” next week, which is the first spinoff in the popular “Men In Black” film franchise starring Chris Hemsworth and Tessa Thompson, who coincidentally, worked closely together in “Thor: Ragnarok.” I also want to remind you all that if you have not checked it out already, I recently released my 300th post on Scene Before, which is a glance at my Blu-ray collection. It features a YouTube video going over every single solitary copy I own including special editions like 4K, 3D, Steelbook, etc. To view the post, click the link right here! Be sure to follow Scene Before either with an email or WordPress account so you can stay tuned for more great content! I want to know, did you see “Rocketman?” What did you think about it? Or, what is your favorite song by Elton John? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!