“Gladiator II” is directed by Ridley Scott (Blade Runner, Alien) and stars Paul Mescal (Normal People, Aftersun), Pedro Pascal (The Mandalorian, The Unbearable Weight of Massive Talent), Joseph Quinn (A Quiet Place: Day One), Fred Hechinger (Thelma, Eighth Grade), Lior Raz (Hit & Run, Fauda and Segev), Derek Jacobi (Last Tango in Halifax, Vicious), Connie Nielsen (Wonder Woman, Nobody), and Denzel Washington (The Equalizer, The Siege). This film is the sequel to the 2000 film “Gladiator” and this time follows Lucius, a slave who seeks revenge against General Acacius after his army invades his home. Doing what he can to avoid death, Lucius must survive in the Colosseum while his mentor plans to overthrow twin emperors Geta and Caracalla.
To this day I have only seen the original “Gladiator” once. As for the one time I saw it, I found my experience to be quite positive. In fact, it is one of Ridley Scott’s better films. When “Gladiator II” was announced, a couple thoughts ran across my mind. My first thought was “Why?” Not just because it is the latest in an endless barrage of sequels, but of all the stories people could have done, “Gladiator” is not one that I would have imagined needed to be continued. In fact, if you remember how the first film ends, it made me question if the franchise would have to defy logic in order to keep going. But in the case of the “Gladiator” franchise, whereas I previously imagined the name pertaining to one person, particularly Maximus from the first film. This sequel proves that “Gladiator” is more than just Maximus. The “Gladiator” name is more of an idea than anything else. Because this time we are focused on Lucius, who also appeared in the original film in the form of an eight year old boy.
If anybody remembers “Star Wars: The Force Awakens,” chances are you or someone you know has said the movie is a copy paste of the 1977 franchise original. For the record, “The Force Awakens” is still my favorite film of 2015, partially because while it gets back to basics, it utilizes those basics really well. The film does a great job fleshing out its characters while also delivering action and flying sequences that are much more epic to look at than what we got in the 70s. “Gladiator II” is in a somewhat similar boat. For the record, I do not think the first “Gladiator” is as good as both of those “Star Wars” installments, but I do recognize the Academy Award Best Picture winner for its technical achievements, stellar action scenes, and killer lead performance from Russell Crowe.
Structurally, “Gladiator II” is much like the original, where the film is about a slave fighting for their own freedom. A lot of the steps and challenges our protagonist has to face is similar to the ones Maximus faces in the 2000 predecessor.
That said, while I was invested in Lucius’ journey in this second film, I think Maximus’ journey in the first installment is more compelling. Part of it is because the journey, despite some differences, is like watching the first movie all over again. I would not call it the Dollar Tree version of that journey. It has more pizzazz than that, maybe Five Below would be a halfway decent retail equivalent to use in this case. Part of why I was not as compelled by this sequel compared to the original may be because of Paul Mescal’s performance.
For the record, do not think I am dissing on Paul Mescal as an actor. Mescal does not just a good, but a great job in this film. His performance is commendable and he fits the role he is given. But the thing about Maximus from the first movie, I almost cannot see anyone other than Russell Crowe playing him. On the other hand, I can probably imagine a few other people filling Lucius’ shoes. In fact, not only can I imagine it, I have concrete evidence to prove it! We have already seen Lucius in the first “Gladiator” as a young boy! And that actor did not even come back for this sequel. The guy was not even asked if he wanted to return in the first place! I know Paul Mescal is like a decade younger than Spencer Treat Clark, but still, age comes after everyone in Hollywood these days.
While Mescal’s portrayal as the film’s lead is no Russell Crowe, if the Oscars were tomorrow, I think one performer in “Gladiator II” would have my vote for Best Supporting Actor, and that is Denzel Washington. One thing I noticed about some of the performances in “Gladiator II” is that they would sometimes be delivered with some hyperactivity. Sometimes it works, sometimes it does not. In the case of Denzel Washington, it not only works, kind of like Russell Crowe in the original “Gladiator,” I cannot see anyone else playing Washington’s character. And the more I watched him through the movie, the crazier he became. There are some things this character does in this movie that elevate his already commanding presence in certain scenes. I would like all of you reading this to find out what some of those things are yourselves. No spoilers. But Washington easily gives one of my favorite performances of the year.
Other than Washington, perhaps the biggest highlight of “Gladiator II” should come as no surprise, the action. The action takes a lot of what is good in the original and puts its own spin on it. It is brutal, smoothly shot, and sometimes tries to fit as much information onto the screen as possible. I knew the action in this film was going to be exciting as soon as it began. There is a sequence in the first few minutes that almost looked like a fun third person video game.
As for the fights in the Colosseum, those do not disappoint. That said, if you are looking for historical accuracy, that is where this movie may not be for you. I am not going to spoil the sequence in the arena that caught me off guard, but if you like your movies to be representative of practical events in history, you may not be a fan of this sequence. That said, I was a fan. A big one at that.
That is not the only historical liberty this movie takes. There is a moment where we see one of the characters reading a newspaper. Only problem, the printing press had not been invented until 1200 years after this film takes place. The more I think about “Gladiator II” and the glorious experience it gave me, I recognize that some of my positives regarding the film require me to bend logic and what I know about history. If I watch this film at home, chances are I could have a different opinion, a different mood perhaps. But from the second row in a crowded auditorium, I was onboard even during the more flawed moments. If anything, I will use the “Tenet” philosophy… “Don’t try to understand it, feel it.” And felt it I freaking did.
In the end, “Gladiator II” is a thrilling, captivating movie that takes you on an exciting ride through ancient Rome. It is not Ridley Scott’s best movie, but much like the original he directed more than two decades ago, the movie nails its atmosphere and delivers a completely riveting experience. The movie is chock full of different kinds of performances ranging from grounded to hyperactive to downright demented. I believed in all of them. Despite what I said about Paul Mescal, do not get me wrong, he truthfully kills it in the film. I cannot wait to see what he does next. As far as action goes, the movie has some cool kills and bloody finishes, but as far as this year for cinema goes, “Dune: Part Two” is still significantly superior in that department. But if you are looking for a fun time at the cinema, this is a solid option. I am going to give “Gladiator II” a 7/10.
“Gladiator II” is now playing in theaters everywhere. Tickets are available now.
Thanks for reading this review! Some of you reading this post might be asking if I took part in the Glicked, Wickedator, Wickedglad double feature whatchumacallit. To answer that, I can tell you I did watch both “Gladiator II” and “Wicked,” but not back to back, but I did see “Wicked.” That review is going to wait awhile. As for my next review, that is going to be for the brand new holiday-themed action flick “Red One,” starring Dwayne Johnson and Chris Evans. You can also expect reviews soon for “A Real Pain,” “Y2K,” “Juror #2,” and THEN you will see my review for “Wicked.” Hope that is not too terribly long of a wait. 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 “Gladiator II?” What did you think about it? Or, which of the “Gladiator” films do you prefer? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!
“Napoleon” is directed by Ridley Scott (The Last Duel, House of Gucci) and stars Joaquin Phoenix (Gladiator, Joker), Vanessa Kirby (Mission: Impossible – Fallout, The Crown), Tahar Rahim (A Prophet, The Mauritanian), and Rupert Everett (My Best Friend’s Wedding, An Ideal Husband). This film is about the rise and fall of French Emperor Napoleon Bonaparte, diving into many aspects that define the individual, in addition to his relationship with his wife, Josephine.
I was looking forward to “Napoleon” as I am a fan of Ridley Scott. The trailers undoubtedly looked epic and it delivered a similar vibe to another historical epic Scott mastered in his time of making it, “Gladiator.” And of course, with a prominent, talented thespian like Joaquin Phoenix at the forefront, I thought we could be in for something special. Unfortunately, when the reviews started coming out for this film, that is when I decided to lower my expectations, as it seemed to stray away from historical accuracy. But as someone who looks for entertainment in his movies, I can live with a little bending of history as long as you can make a good movie out of it so I tried not to get too concerned. Unfortunately, I walked out of “Napoleon” almost half asleep. And that is really weird to say because one of the positives I have about this movie is the immersive sound mix. It is an enormous aid during the battle scenes. As much as I love Ridley Scott, I think this film is quite a dud.
This film feels rushed, and yet, it somehow managed to bore me with a two and a half hour runtime. I can sit through a two and a half hour movie. Some of my favorite movies are longer than that. But this was painful. I think the one redeeming quality of this movie was watching the uncomfortable relationship between Napoleon and Josephine. But when I say that is a redeeming quality, I must also note that it is like watching a car crash at times. There are certain moments between these two that are intriguing, but there are others where the intrigue comes in, but in a such a haphazard manner that I would feel as if I am doing myself a disservice if I look away. Now to be fair, the chemistry between Joaquin Phoenix and Vanessa Kirby is admirable in regards to how their characters are written and performed.
As we age, there is a tendency that people define themselves over who they surround themselves with, their legacy, how things will be carried on after they’re gone. And when it comes to displaying Napoleon’s desire to keep things afloat and continue his legacy to the next generation, these traits are emitted with passion on Joaquin Phoenix’s part. My favorite parts of the movie, or at least the ones I cannot stop thinking about, all involve Napoleon’s burning desire to have a child. I think the way the movie handles this segment of the story is surprisingly decent, even if it does get a little over the top.
Speaking of over the top, that is one of my biggest negatives of the film. Phoenix and Kirby shine in their individual roles, but there are plenty of other individuals on screen, and their acting ability has me questioning whether I was actually watching something from a director as renowned as Scott. There are select lines from certain characters that feel like they came out of a high school TV production class. Sometimes those lines are delivered with passion, but they are delivered with a certain passion that would probably be best used in an animation or a comedy as opposed to a somewhat grounded drama. In fact, the movie sort of crosses a line at times into comedy that I have no idea if it was actually intended. There are select scenes that play out in a much funnier manner than I would have imagined them. It almost spirals into a “so bad it’s good” territory, which is a phrase I was not expecting to use when reviewing a Ridley Scott movie.
Even with my issues, I must admit, “Napoleon,” like many of Ridley Scott’s films, is easy on the eyes. Dariusz Wolski’s cinematography, like usual, is beautiful, even if some of the shots feel a tad rushed in the final edit. The locations are excellent, fit their scenes, and bring life to the production. The production design from one of Scott’s regulars, Arthur Max, is outstanding. The costumes have notable detail. The film is a crisp step back in time. But just because “Napoleon” nails its style, does not mean the same can be said for its substance.
I was bored immensely with the film’s pacing, its story. Everything. There are several moments where I kept asking myself if the movie was over. And the worst part is knowing that this is not a complete product. This is just a lackluster Cliffs Notes edition of a larger tale, because it has been revealed that this production will have a four hour extended version. I kind of get why you would not want to release a four hour movie in theaters, but I would sit through one if I had the time if it meant the pace and story would bring more appeal. Here, it kind of feels rushed and it lacking in engagement.
When it comes to my time studying history, I was off and on as a student. In my opinion, “Napoleon” feels like reading a history textbook. And I do not use that comparison lightly. Basically this whole movie is one giant chapter or unit that I have to go through, and I am passively taking it all in to the best of my ability due to of my lack of interest. I cannot tell you everything that happened in the movie, so if you were to hand me a quiz I would probably not do so hot. And much like reading a textbook, I failed to find any entertainment value in what was in front of me. If I wanted Ridley Scott to entertain me with a slice of history, I will just go back and watch “Gladiator.” I will go back and watch “The Last Duel.” “Napoleon” just doesn’t do it for me. And I think a big part of it is because of how much the movie dives into. It feels like we are hopping from one place in time to another lickety split. With a movie like “The Last Duel,” one of my new favorites from Ridley Scott, there is a central idea the characters have to deal with that remains consistent. In fact, we see it play out a few times in different ways, which makes for a compelling narrative. The film is digestible despite being drawn out. So much happens in “Napoleon” that I would almost argue you need a longer runtime to actually appreciate it. Maybe this would be a good miniseries, but I think the spectacle aspect that is best witnessed in a cinema is probably what could have kept it from going in that direction. And if you are asking, no, I do not have plans to check out the extended cut of this movie. I have better things to do with my time.
In the end, “Napoleon” is a massive disappointment. This movie takes one of the most talked about historical figures of all time and wastes him in a dull, uninteresting, downtrodden mess that nearly put me to sleep. It is much less a story than it is a series of events that failed to capture my interest. The only real shining spot of the film are the performances given by Phoenix and Kirby as Napoleon and Josephine respectively. In fact, part of me wanted to see more of the Josephine character, I feel like she at times offered a more compelling presence than Napoleon did. I have seen movies like “Bill & Ted’s Excellent Adventure” and “Night at the Museum: Battle of the Smithsonian” handle Napoleon Bonaparte from a much more comedic angle. Somehow I continue to think about those attempts at showcasing the character in a much more positive light than I do with this two and a half hour historical so-called “epic.” Yes, it’s technically glorious. You know what was also technically glorious? “Jupiter Ascending!” But you don’t see me raving about the characters of that movie every now and again. I am going to give “Napoleon” a 4/10.
“Napoleon” is now playing in theaters everywhere. Tickets are available now.
Thanks for reading this review! If you want to see more of my Ridley Scott movie reviews, I just did a themed month called “Ridley Scottober” where I discuss four Ridley Scott films in depth. That said, feel free to check out my reviews for “Body of Lies,” “Gladiator,” “All the Money in the World,” and “Blade Runner.” My next review is going to be for “Godzilla Minus One,” and boy, I cannot wait to share this one with you all. But, I am going to have to wait. Because my next post is going to be an update on Blu-ray Movie Collection! Stay tuned! If you want to see this, and more from Scene Before, follow the blog either with an email or WordPress account! Also, check out the official Facebook page! I want to know, did you see “Napoleon?” What did you think about it? Or, what is your favorite movie about a historical figure? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!
Hey everyone, Jack Drees here! And welcome one and all to the final entry to the Ridley Scottober review series! If you want to check out my reviews for the other films in the series, such as “Body of Lies,” “Gladiator,” and “All the Money in the World,” click the provided links and have a ball! Today we will be talking about one of my most rewatched movies in recent years, “Blade Runner.” Also, if you want to see a less professional, perhaps crappier example of my writing, I reviewed “Blade Runner 2049” back when it came out in 2017. I was less experienced, but still had a sense of a writing style of sorts. Check it out! Before we begin this review, I want to make something clear. On this blog, when I review a movie, it is typically of the initial version released in theaters or whatever platform it was designed for. With “Blade Runner,” this is no exception. For this review, I will be using the theatrical version of the film as a baseline. Maybe one day I will do my thoughts on “The Final Cut” as a separate post, which I have seen. But I am treating this movie the same way I treat just about every single other one I watch. That said, if you choose to stick around and read this review, enjoy your stay, make yourself at home, and let’s dive into one of Ridley Scott’s most talked about films.
“Blade Runner” is directed by Ridley Scott (Alien, The Duellists) and stars Harrison Ford (Star Wars, Raiders of the Lost Ark), Rutger Hauer (Nighthawks, Inside the Third Reich), Sean Young (Jane Austen in Manhattan, Stripes), and Edward James Olmos (Wolfen, Zoot Suit). This film is based on the Philip K. Dick novel “Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?” and centers around LAPD detective Rick Deckard as he is tasked with hunting down and retiring four Replicants who come to earth on a stolen ship in order to find their creator.
“Blade Runner” is one of those films that has had an impact on me since the first time I saw it back in 2017. In fact, this is not my first time talking about the film on this blog as I once did a post weeks after my initial viewing, talking about what the film got right about the future. Again, much like my “Blade Runner 2049” review, my quality of writing may have been a bit different at the time. Just a fair warning.
Little to my knowledge, “Blade Runner” would have a major influence on my academics. If you knew me in high school, there is a chance that you were with me in a film studies class. “Blade Runner” was the first and last feature film I ended up watching in the class given how much of the curriculum tended to use that film as a backbone of sorts. In college, I ended up choosing to study “Blade Runner” for a final project in my Television & Film Studies class. I have developed a passion for this movie, this property, and if the right people are involved, I would not mind seeing more of it. Judging by what I just said, you already know that this is going to be a positive review. If “Blade Runner” had a personality and made an effort to describe my relationship with it, it would probably channel Michael Corleone in “The Godfather Part III” and say “Just when I thought I was out, they pull me back in!”
Sorry, “Blade Runner,” my days of discussing you are not over just yet.
But I cannot help it, because “Blade Runner” is a master class effort. I think it is a particularly unique film. And it has done a lot to influence many stories that came after. The film is based on Philip K. Dick’s novel “Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?,” which a number of claim is the earliest example of cyberpunk. This sub-genre has remained popular over the years with titles across various mediums like “Akira,” “The Fifth Element,” “Ghost in the Shell,” “Altered Carbon,” and “Cyberpunk 2077” just to name a few. It is easy to get lost in a good movie with proper atmosphere, and when it comes to the cyberpunk nature of “Blade Runner,” getting lost in 2019 Los Angeles, or at least what this movie makes it out to be, is as easy as pie.
One of the basic rules of filmmaking is to show, not tell. And that is going to be an ongoing theme in this review. Because everything this movie shows is remarkable. There are tons of practical effects that are beautiful to the naked eye. The production design for this film is off the charts. There are very few films that are like this one aesthetically, and I say that knowing how much cyberpunk has evolved over the years. This film released in the 1980s, a time where cars looked quite different than they do today. And when I look at the vehicles in “Blade Runner,” they definitely have a look at the time that screams futuristic, but I admire how they seem to carry a vintage charm to them. I could totally buy the design of Deckard’s spinner in the film, even if it seems to look a bit like something from the time this movie came out.
Framing-wise, this is one of the coolest-looking films I have ever seen. Despite the film claiming it is set in Los Angeles, it feels like a different kind of environment. This film, at least at the time it came out, is science fiction. There is also a bit of a film noir undertone as well. This movie’s use of the color blue throughout is vivid in my memory. The color palette always packs in a blue tone. You can see hints of bluish lighting throughout the film. And one nice little touch in the background during various scenes are the many umbrellas going about the streets. Their handles have a bluish neon glow to them, almost like Luke Skywalker’s lightsaber in the early “Star Wars” installments. Speaking of “Star Wars,” one of my favorite Easter eggs about “Blade Runner,” if you pay close attention, is that there is a building in the film that resembles the look of the Millennium Falcon, Han Solo’s ship. And to top it off, Han Solo’s respective actor, literally plays the main character of this movie!
Sticking on the topic of things that look cool, one of the most intriguing designs in the whole film is the Tyrell Skyscraper. This building is utilized throughout multiple portions of the movie, and every time I look at it, I cannot help but stare in awe and wonder. The inside is enormous and carries a robust flair to it. From the outside with the help of lights shining through the windows, it looks screensaver-worthy. I also admire how the pyramid design allows for tons of incline elevators to be put in place throughout the premises. If you know me in real life, I am a bit of an elevator geek. If I were in the “Blade Runner” universe, one of the first things I would do is go into the Tyrell Skyscraper just to ride the elevator.
But just because this movie shows all sorts of cool things, does not mean it tells all sorts of cool things. Now to be fair, the dialogue in this film is minimalistic and it is perfect. There are plenty of scenes where the characters are completely quiet or there are inklings of silence. If you watched other versions of the movie, this will not matter, but if you watch the original version, there is a chance you may remember Harrison Ford’s character, Deckard, not only serving the film as a protagonist, but as a first-person narrator. While there are moments where the narration is not that much of a big deal, there are some that overexplain what is happening, and others that ruin the visual experience of this movie. One of the highlights of this film for me, from a visual perspective, is the scene where we see Deckard and Gaff inside the spinner, flying through a darkened Los Angeles. The aerial shots really help encapsulate the beauty of the city, even with a supposed sense of gloom in its people. The problem is, the scene, which has no dialogue from the characters, also features narration from Harrison Ford that sort of overembellishes the idea of cityspeak, a mix of pre-established languages. It is not really something I would need to know or care to know on my first viewing. It honestly reminds me of when I watch certain broadcasts of “New Year’s Rockin’ Eve” on ABC, and Ryan Seacrest is talking up a storm as I am trying to take in the first moments of the new year. I am basically trying to hear the crowd, listen to Frank Sinatra’s “New York, New York,” and feel like I am there with everyone. But much like Seacrest’s voice on those occasions, Harrison Ford’s voice is nothing more than added noise. At the end of the day, it does not do much to benefit the film. There are a couple voiceovers that do not colossally damage the experience, but there are plenty that are better left unused. This is especially true for one used towards the end of the film where a crucial character’s arc is fulfilled. We are seeing this moment play out, and I am enjoying every second. Then it is suddenly interrupted with voiceover lines from Harrison Ford that basically spitballs what is happening for the audience, instead of allowing them to take in the lesson from the narration themselves. It is kind of insulting the more I think about it.
That said, I watched a documentary on the making of this movie, “Dangerous Days: Making Blade Runner.” And if you have the Blu-ray edition of “The Final Cut,” you can watch it yourself. Harrison Ford revealed not only that he thought the narration, which was added due to poor test screenings, was awful, but he ended up doing it with reluctance. Ford was contractually obligated to complete the lines, so he did what he had to do. He tried his best with the material, but he did not think it was necessary.
Though speaking of Harrison Ford giving his best effort, his performance as Rick Deckard is perfect. The character easily blends into his increasingly depressing environment. He is the kind of guy who will not take any nonsense from anyone, but also kind of has a softer side on occasion. There is nothing overblown about this character, especially when you compare him to some of Harrison Ford’s earlier performances, like those he previously gave as Han Solo. In fact, much of what makes Ford’s character believable in his environment is his tendency to remain quiet during certain scenes, which is balanced perfectly by the mannerisms of this film’s antagonist, Roy Batty.
While Harrison Ford may be the most iconic face in the movie, I think the award for best performance in this film easily goes to Rutger Hauer as Roy Batty. I have no idea if Hampton Fancher and David Peoples, this film’s writers, wrote this character with any particular actor in mind, but Hauer is one of the best castings for an antagonist perhaps in the history of cinema. There is a ton of range in a character like this one. When we first see him, his execution of the film’s dialogue is quite direct and to the point. It is almost kind of robotic, which should play into the fact that he is a Replicant. But as we go through the film, there is a continued sense of humanity that develops within this character. You can hear it in his voice, and even his physicality. I said there is a balance between Batty and Deckard, and I mean that wholeheartedly. It is perfectly displayed in the film’s climax, which is not particularly the most epic of climaxes, but it is one that serves the movie to perfection. That said, while I am ultimately rooting for Deckard, I cannot help but admire Batty throughout the climax because every other line out of him sounds like a grounded cartoon. This may be weird to say, but having rewatched this film for review purposes, the dynamic between these characters in the climax almost reminds me of a father and son playing tag or chasing each other around the house. It almost feels carefree even though there are higher stakes involved. Well, that, and there are moments where Batty twists Deckard’s fingers to get revenge.
The movie also kind of ends on a weird note. Again, this is the original cut we are talking about. There is a final scene, which believe it or not, uses footage that was originally made for Stanley Kubrick’s “The Shining,” it is unbelievably rushed, and kind of uneven when consider how most of the film is paced. “Blade Runner” is kind of a slow burn, and by the time we get to this scene, it kind of kicks things up a gear or two. It is really weird. Overall, it is an abrupt scene. And while I definitely prefer the more open ending offered in future versions, I think if this movie were trying to go for a more upbeat ending, they probably could have gone for a longer scene. This scene is too quick, too in your face, and appears to be the result of a last minute decision that likely was not even on Ridley Scott’s mind while making his way through much of the film’s production.
Doing this review in 2023, I realize that some of the problems I have with the movie are those that tend to bog down the original cut and eventually get changed in later versions. That said, there is one problem I have with this movie that has lingered with me for years. While I think Sean Young and Harrison Ford have fabulous chemistry together as Rachel and Deckard, and every scene delivers the best out of each actor, I am not a fan of how their love blossoms. If you can call it that. This movie is written by two men, and I am sure that if a woman were credited with the screenplay, the scene where Rachel and Deckard first embrace their love for each other would have been handled differently. Basically, Rachel is trying to leave Deckard’s residence, but before she can get out, she is barricaded by Deckard, preventing her from making an exit, and pushed to a window. The two do end up embracing each other and confirming their love for each other, but the way it happens feels for starters, unrealistic, but also, kind of unsettling. It reminds me of another movie I have rewatched several times over the years, “Revenge of the Nerds,.” In that movie, sure, Betty and Lewis end up confirming their love, or perhaps more accurately at the time, lust, for each other. But the way that initiates is from Lewis basically assaulting her if you break it down. And much like “Revenge of the Nerds,” I will not deny that “Blade Runner” has reminded me of my love for movies in one way or another. But if I had to name a standout flaw with both films, and it is a monumental one, it would be a central love connection that may seem believable in the end due to proper chemistry, but is initiated in a way that can described as off-putting and erroneous.
As mentioned, “Blade Runner” is an example of cyberpunk, which likely takes inspiration from large cityscapes, but in a way, puts them on steroids. That said, even with a somewhat over the top nature provided throughout this movie’s interpretation of Los Angeles, everything around the city in terms of the environments and characters felt completely grounded. There is rarely a moment of this movie that I could not buy. This movie also manages to insert, for the most part, believable product placement. After all, it is set in a major city, so tons of advertising is to be expected. But from the very beginning, the frame is often bombarded with neon, noise, or product acknowledgments from companies like Budweiser or Coca-Cola. Ridley Scott manages to deliver an atmosphere with “Blade Runner” that not only emits realism, but for the entire runtime, makes me feel like I am there.
Though if I had to finish this review with one thing, it is that few movies, in fact few franchises for that matter, tend to answer the question, “What is human?”, like this one. I think Roy Batty, despite being an android, is perhaps one of the greatest encapsulations of that question in the history of film. We see him from the very start of his journey wanting more life. It is established that Replicants tend to have a four-year lifespan. Obviously, most humans live a lot longer, and that is something that he is trying to achieve. But if anything, this movie shows that life is not something you should take for granted. I am 23 years old. In fact, as I am writing this review, I am going to be 24 in just over a week. This movie reminds me to enjoy the moment, even in the darkest of times. Even in a city where the rain never stops, there may be one or two moments of sunshine. This movie may be set in a depressing future, but it is one where beings tend to find inklings of joy to keep themselves busy, whether that inkling can be defined as enjoying some noodles, playing chess, or fiddling with a piano. The beauty of “Blade Runner,” despite coming off as a slow burn and a thinker film, is its simplicity. At its core, “Blade Runner” is about a cop trying to stop a group of targets before it is too late. Everything else is just a bonus, and a mighty bonus it is. Because as far as I am concerned, there is a reason why I have rewatched this film so many times over the years, because it is that good.
Oh, and to answer the often debated question amongst fans, Deckard is a Replicant.
In the end, “Blade Runner” is one of Ridley Scott’s best films, even with its flaws. Again, a lot of the flaws I have in this review did get resolved, but I imagine if I did watch “Blade Runner” back in 1982, I would be having a ball with it. Unfortunately, the film did not do too well when it came out. It polarized critics, made an underwhelming amount at the box office, and possibly suffered from studio notes. Having to compete with another excellent and successful film, “E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial,” probably did not make things any easier. Even with that in mind, the film has a lot to offer. Exciting action, likable characters, incredible story arcs, life lessons, captivating writing, stellar direction, brilliant lighting, and stunning effects that make a number of modern movies that rely on CGI pale in comparison aesthetically. I must add, Vangelis’s score is also an absolute banger. “Blade Runner” is one of the best-looking movies I have ever seen, and it is hard to believe it looks this good over forty years later. But these looks are supplemented by a narrative that did nothing more than grabbed my attention and kept it for a couple of glorious hours. I am going to give “Blade Runner” a very high 8/10.
Again, if I were reviewing “The Final Cut,” I might honestly give a higher score. But I am treating this review the same way I am treating the other ones I typically do. And if you want me to be honest with you, as much as I love the original “Blade Runner,” it feels odd to say because I have not watched it in a while, but I honestly think “Blade Runner 2049” is the superior installment. It has all the positives of the original movie, but does some things to improve on it as well. Much like the original, that is another film that I have watched incessantly. In fact it finished as my runner-up for best movie of the 2010s. And if I could go back and do my review of it again, I would give it a 10/10 if I had the chance. Few films made me escape my reality and bring me to another world like that one did. I highly recommend if it is a rainy day, do a “Blade Runner” double feature. Both movies are absolutely worth your time and are two of the finest examples of what sci-fi can be.
“Blade Runner” is now available on VHS, Laserdisc, DVD, HD DVD, Blu-ray, and 4K Blu-ray. The film is also available through various streaming services.
Thanks for reading this review! And I hope you enjoyed my entries to the Ridley Scottober review series! I had a lot of fun doing these. I got to check out some films I have never seen before, in addition to watching one for the umpteenth time. I had a blast doing these and I hope you had fun reading them. If you want to see more reviews, good news! I have more coming soon! I will soon share my thoughts on “It Lives Inside,” “Dicks: The Musical,” and “Killers of the Flower Moon.” 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 “Blade Runner?” What did you think about it? Or, what is your favorite science fiction movie? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!
Hey everyone, Jack Drees here! Welcome to the third installment of the Ridley Scottober review series! It is a series where I will be talking about four Ridley Scott-directed films throughout the month of October. If you are interested in my first two reviews of the series, feel free to check out my thoughts on “Body of Lies” and “Gladiator.” The movie I am talking about today shares something in common with the last two I talked about. The fact that I have never seen it until now. That film in particular is “All the Money in the World,” whose name I have ton when it came out for a number of reasons. Now that I have finally gotten a chance to see what everyone is talking about, it is time to share my review.
“All the Money in the World” is directed by Ridley Scott (Alien, The Martian) and stars Michelle Williams (My Week with Marilyn, Manchester by the Sea), Christopher Plummer (Up, Beginners), Mark Wahlberg (Transformers: Age of Extinction, Patriots Day), and Romain Duris (L’Auberge Espagnole, The Beat That My Heart Skipped). This film is based on the events surrounding the kidnapping of John Paul Getty III, whose grandfather is the world’s richest private citizen, J. Paul Getty Sr.. When the kidnappee’s mother is unable to hand over $17 million for her son’s freedom, she does what she can to convince Getty Sr. to provide the money.
When it comes to Ridley Scott, he is usually a name that would get me in the theater. If he were sitting in the director’s chair, there is a good chance I am there. Granted that is not always true as I did not have a ton of interest in “House of Gucci” when it came out, but nevertheless. One of the reasons why I am very much looking forward to his next film, “Napoleon,” is because he is helming it. But when it comes to “All the Money in the World,” there is a particular name that was on my mind, even years after this film came out. But maybe not for the reasons the people behind this movie would desire. That name, is Kevin Spacey.
Ah… Kevin Spacey. How the mighty have fallen. A couple wrong moves in life and here you are. Your relevance is about as tiny as bacteria. Now this review is being done as part of a Ridley Scott series, and I will not deny that I was partially intrigued by this film because Scott’s name was attached to it. But if I were in the general audience months before this film’s release, there is a solid chance that Kevin Spacey would have gotten me in the door. I thought he was good actor with a decent resume. In fact, he just did “Baby Driver” earlier in the year, an incredible action flick with pristinely executed sequences and a killer soundtrack. Before this movie came out, all of his footage was shot, and he was going to play J. Paul Getty Sr.. Sounds interesting, right?
Well, fast forward to October 2017. News comes out reporting Kevin Spacey’s sexual misconduct allegations, and therefore “All the Money in the World” is in a world of hurt. Kevin Spacey was supposed to be a centerpiece of the film’s campaign, especially considering the arrival of awards season. AFI Fest was around the corner, and the movie was supposed to premiere there. That premiere was canceled, and everyone went back to work on the film. Kevin Spacey was recast with Christopher Plummer, and they shot his scenes over the course of nine days. I think this whole behind the scenes aspect is the highlight of the film. I am a production junkie. I work in production so I may be biased. But I know a thing or two about how hard it is to do something last minute, but if done right, the results can present themselves as fantastic.
Now if you pay close attention to the movie, and I did not know this upon my watch, there is one shot in the film that features Kevin Spacey getting off a train. The reason for that is because it would have been too expensive to redo. All the rest are of Christopher Plummer. I was amazed at this movie’s quick turnaround, even if the people behind it admit they could not achieve perfection.
I do not know what Kevin Spacey’s performance was like in this film, and frankly I do not care. What we got from everyone onboard was great. The recently mentioned Christopher Plummer, Michelle Williams, Mark Wahlberg, and Charlie Plummer (no relation to Christopher) all knocked their portrayals out of the park. All of them bring something exciting to the table with their characters and I cannot see anyone else, including Kevin Spacey, playing them. One of the reasons why Ridley Scott himself is a solid director is because he always manages to bring the best out of his talent. My favorite performance of 2015, and I sincerely apologize to the great Academy Award-winning Leonardo DiCaprio of “The Revenant” when I say this, is Matt Damon as Mark Watney in “The Martian.” Damon not only highlighted a constant survival instinct within his character from scene one, but did so with a sense of humor that I could only describe as irreplaceable. “All the Money in the World” clearly delivers different vibes, it is more dramatic, more serious, and LITERALLY more down to earth. “All the Money in the World” does a superb job at putting me into a world where we have all these people who would be hard to relate to 100% of the time, and yet I could sit in a room with them as a fly on the wall, intrigued by their actions.
But just because I am jumping up and down about the acting in “All the Money in the World,” does not mean it captivated me from beginning to end. There are moments of the movie that are more thrilling than others. There are moments where I had to struggle to pay attention. And there are also moments where I almost tuned out entirely. The movie is not bad, but much like “Body of Lies,” there is a certain spice that I wanted out this film that I could not quite achieve. It feels like I am going back to my watch of another thriller of his, “Body of Lies.” I think “All the Money in the World” is a better film with a more compelling story, fewer cliches up the wazoo, and more interesting characters. But if there is one thing both films have in common, there are select scenes in the film that had that had a greater span of my attention than others.
If there is another thing to note about “All the Money in the World,” it looks beautiful. The production designer for “All the Money in the World” is Arthur Max, who has worked a ton with Scott in the past on films like “Gladiator,” “Black Hawk Down,” and even as recent as “The Martian.” The two go hand in hand. Speaking of Scott’s usual suspects, the cinematography is done by Dariusz Wolski. He previously worked on “Exodus: Gods and Kings,” “The Martian,” and even “Alien: Covenant” which released months before this movie hit theaters. The lighting and framing make for a consistently perfect pair throughout “All the Money in the World.” There is a wide shot in Rome from the first few minutes that I wanted as a desktop photo. It is that good.
As a story, despite the film’s pacing issues, some characters standing out more than others, and select scenes not having as much of a pop as I would prefer, I am glad we got to see it. I think the movie presents a fascinating moral about wealth, and how even when you are rich, you feel that there is no breaking point. There are probably more people out there than we think that will put their riches before their family. I will not deny that having money is nice. And I am not going to pretend that I have as much as Christopher Plummer’s character. I found it fascinating, and kind of depressing, how his character seemed to think saving someone in his family was not worth even just a small portion of his wealth. J. Paul Getty Sr. stands out way more than he should as a character given all the controversy surrounding this film, but I guarantee that regardless of who is playing him, he is probably the character that would stand out most in the story, for good reason. But of course, at the risk of beating a dead horse, Christopher Plummer does an excellent job in the role.
In the end, “All the Money in the World” is not my favorite of Scott’s works. But much like “Body of Lies,” it stands as a film that I think a lot of people would kill to make. But if I have to be real with you, I think the history of this movie is more interesting than the movie itself. If it were not for all the controversy, this would just be a lesser film in Ridley Scott’s library. But with the way things are, it is a lesser film in Ridley Scott’s library with notable complications that came up around its release. It is not something I plan on watching a second time, but it is a film that I do not regret putting on. The performances are all standouts, the camerawork is some of the finest of its year, and when it comes down to it, it is an intriguing study of how wealth can affect people. Yes, at times it is a chore to watch, I will not deny that. But I think you would not be doing yourself any harm if you decide to check it out. I am going to give “All the Money in the World” a very high and generous 6/10.
“All the Money in the World” is now available on DVD, Blu-ray, and on various streaming services.
Thanks for reading this review! My final Ridley Scottober review arrives next week, and unlike the ones I have done so far, it is for a film I have seen.
Many times, actually.
For the final Ridley Scottober review, I am going to be talking about “Blade Runner,” the 1982 science fiction classic! It is a film that I have mentioned and talked about many times on Scene Before, but after many years of blogging here, I finally get to do a proper review of it. Stay tuned! If you want to see this and more from Scene Before, follow the blog either with an email or WordPress account! Also, check out the official Facebook page! I want to know, did you see “All the Money in the World?” What did you think about it? Or, if you could replace any actor or actress in any movie in the history of time with Christopher Plummer, which one would it be and why? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!
Hey everyone, Jack Drees here! Happy to have you all tune into this latest film review as we continue Ridley Scottober! A month-long event where I talk about four Ridley Scott-directed films, all for your reading pleasure. This is the second entry to the series, and it is an exciting one. “Gladiator.” I assure you, I was looking forward to watching this movie, and now I equally look forward to talking about it. And if you want to check out the first entry of Ridley Scottober, feel free to read my review for “Body of Lies.” But if you plan to stick around, please enjoy my thoughts on Ridley Scott’s 2000 Academy Award Best Picture winner.
“Gladiator” is directed by Ridley Scott (Blade Runner, Alien) and stars Russell Crowe (The Insider, L.A. Confidential), Joaquin Phoenix (Clay Pigeons, 8MM), Connie Nielsen (The Devil’s Advocate, Rushmore), Oliver Reed (The Three Musketeers, Oliver!), Derek Jacobi (Hamlet, Dead Again), Djimon Hounsou (Deep Rising, Amistad), and Richard Harris (Unforgiven, Patriot Games). This film is set during the glory of Rome, and centers around General Maximumus Decimus Meridius, a general who becomes a slave who intends to seek revenge against those who brought him there in addition to killing his family.
I have a soft spot for Russell Crowe, but part of me does not know if I can legally say that, as I have not watched “Gladiator” until this review. Why? It is for the same reason I mentioned for “Body of Lies” in that review. I bought the Blu-ray years ago. In fact, I bought “Gladiator” almost a year before “Body of Lies,” but I just never got around to it until now. I had no vendetta against either of these movies, but one of the complications of being a movie collector is being able to sit down and watch the new films I buy because I have so many and sometimes want to revisit some favorite titles. One of the silver linings of this series and other review marathons I have done in the past like the “Mortal Kombat” films and some of the “Pirates of the Caribbean” movies like “At World’s End,” is that it helps me get around to titles that I have never seen before. In fact, “Gladiator” is one of those movies, much more so than “Body of Lies,” that when you bring up the fact of never seeing it, there is a chance someone will ask if you are a real movie fan.
I am a real movie fan. In fact those of you reading this questioning my moves for years should be jealous, because I am getting experience this film for the first time. Some may call it being late to the party, I call it a long-awaited ounce of excitement.
About 23 years after its release, “Gladiator” is still in many conversations as a master class film. It is #36 on the IMDb top 250. The film won five Oscars, including Best Picture. Over in Britain, it snatched four BAFTAs, including Best Film. There is plenty of proof to show how much the film has stood as a testament to the industry and the sword-and-sandal genre. But these are just the opinions of other people. There is only one opinion that matters here, and that is the one of the Movie Reviewing Moron. So, what did I think of “Gladiator?”
Sorry in advance… I am “glad” I saw it.
“Gladiator” goes to show the power of first impressions, because from the beginning, the film completely immersed me. The film has a story that showcases the glory of Rome, and the film itself carries a similar glory unto its own. There is so much going on inside the screen that it is insane. Between the humungous cast, with who knows how many extras, the beautiful showcasing of wides, and the magnificent on location sets, “Gladiator” is pleasing to the naked eye. I understand that at the time, “Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace” was kind of a big achievement in visual effects in terms of how deep they go with certain concepts, how real certain things looked for the time, but if I had to look back on both of these films now, I think “Gladiator” is the clear winner in terms of which is more attractive to the eye. I look back at “The Phantom Menace” and it sometimes looks like a video game. There have been worse looking effects, but still.
In fact, speaking of effects, there was one fight in particular that involves the use of tigers. It is easy to say because I am not the one making the film, but I kind of appreciated the film’s tendency to use real tigers. Now, I did question if the tigers were CGIed, which they partly were. They used bluescreen to make the tiger appear closer to the characters. That said, I admire how making “Gladiator” was probably about as dangerous as being a gladiator. I would have completely understood if this movie went down the full CGI route for the tigers, but the fact that they decided not to is a risk that paid off.
What also carries “Gladiator” are the performance. This is most notable with Russell Crowe as Maximus Decimus Meridius, an admirable protagonist. On the other hand, we have Joaquin Phoenix as Commodus, an equally admirable antagonist. These two deliver two completely different vibes and mannerisms into their individual performances, but it does not change the fact that their work in this film are goldmines. Both of their deliveries are incredibly convincing. Even just their physicality, just having them stand around had me staring in awe.
But this film is much more than big fights and larger than life sets because I found myself immersed in the drama between the characters. Obviously there is the main story of Maximus trying to get his revenge, but in addition to that, I also found the family drama on Commodus’s side to quite compelling. Between how he gets his power, his relationship with his nephew, I found all of it intriguing. The film does a really good job at balancing various family, political, and personal dramas.
I will admit, having watched the film, there are parts of it that drag a little. It is not a huge dealbreaker, but in the scenes where people are talking, it is not necessarily that engaging. For the record, I can handle talking, I have no problem. But the scenes where people talk in this film are not as compelling as others, but there are select moments that positively stand out.
In fact, “Gladiator” as a film sort of reminds me, story-wise, of “Braveheart,” as it follows a someone trying to obtain their freedom, not to mention the freedom of others, within a backdrop of large sets and incredible violence. But much like “Braveheart,” as I watched the film, specifically the first 40, 45 minutes, I found myself getting bored and needing to pause the film to take a breather. For the record, I would contend that every minute of “Braveheart” is essential to the film. Much like how every minute of “Gladiator” is essential to it. But I would not deny that both films have pacing issues. Only difference, once I get past the first 45 minutes of “Braveheart,” the movie throttles heavily and gets good fast. “Gladiator” is very off and on with the pacing, but even in the slower moments, I still found myself the tiniest bit engaged. That said, having finished this film, this is one of those movies that if it were playing in a theater near me or if it got the IMAX treatment, I would go check it out. It looks like a magnificent theatrical experience. The cinematography is beautiful. The sets, again, are stunning. The sound editing and mixing are beyond powerful. Maybe if I watch this film in a theater, where I am less likely to be distracted, I would feel different than I do here. That said, the film is worth watching regardless and you absolutely should check it out if given the chance.
In the end, I get the hype for “Gladiator.” I had a good time with it. It is not my favorite of Ridley Scott’s films, and it is not even my favorite film of the early 2000s with huge sets and epic on location action. Peter Jackson’s “The Lord of the Rings” trilogy started a year later. That said, it is one that if you asked me if I would watch it again, the answer would be an instant “yes.” I would probably put it on again at home, or again, if there were a chance to watch it in theaters, I would give it a chance. The cast is fantastic, the story is fascinating, and I must add that Hans Zimmer and Lisa Gerrard’s score is mighty fine. I am going to give “Gladiator” an 8/10.
“Gladiator” is now available on VHS, DVD, Blu-ray, and 4K Blu-ray. The film is also available on streaming and is free on Netflix for all subscribers as of this writing.
Thanks for reading this review! If you enjoyed my thoughts on “Gladiator” and want more Ridley Scott in your life, I have two more reviews coming in the Ridley Scottober series! One next week, followed by another the week after. Stay tuned. Also, be sure to check out my review for “The Last Duel,” Scott’s epic drama from 2021. 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 “Gladiator?” What did you think about it? Or, what is your favorite sword and sandal movie? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!
Hey everyone, Jack Drees here! Happy October! Or should I say, Ridley Scottober! What is Ridley Scottober? Well, throughout the month of October, I will be reviewing four movies directed by Ridley Scott! I wanted to do this because in addition to getting one themed review done this year, I might as well prepare myself for Ridley Scott’s upcoming feature, “Napoleon,” which so far has won me over with the marketing. I cannot wait to see it. Let’s kick things off with the first review in the series, “Body of Lies,” Scott’s 2008 spy thriller.
“Body of Lies” is directed by Ridley Scott (Black Hawk Down, Gladiator) and stars Leonardo DiCaprio (Titanic, The Aviator), Russell Crowe (Gladiator, A Beautiful Mind), Mark Strong (Stardust, Babylon A.D.), Golshifteh Farahani (M for Mother, Half Moon), Oscar Isaac (The Nativity Story, Law & Order: Criminal Intent), and Simon McBurney (The Golden Compass, Friends with Money). This film centers around a CIA agent named Roger Ferris, who attempts to track down a terrorist leader in Jordan.
I owned the Blu-ray for this film for almost six full years, and yet I have not watched this film for the first time until only last month. On the cover, there is a lot to like. Between Ridley Scott’s name behind the scenes, in addition to DiCaprio and Crowe’s names standing out for the talent on camera. All of these people, not just today, but even back in 2008 have proven their worth. In fact, “Body of Lies” is not the first rodeo between Scott and Crowe, as the two have worked together multiple times before, therefore it shows they have a solid business relationship. The same cannot be said for Leonardo DiCaprio, but I am sure both individuals brought plenty of promise to each other at the time of production. When you have these three names together, it equally brings a lot of promise to the audience.
Unfortunately though, while the promises of this film do not appear to be empty, they do not feel like they were entirely met. Now, these three individuals do an okay job in the film. But I cannot say that this film comes off as the pinnacle of any of their resumes. Whether we are talking about a collective or individual effort. All three have done better things before, all three have done better things after. In fact, of the Ridley Scott pictures I have seen, this is one of the more pedestrian ones he has made.
The movie is shot well, like many other Ridley Scott pictures. In fact, this was shot by Alexander Witt. This is the first proper cinematography credit in a feature film. Much of his work prior, not to mention after, was as a part of a second unit, but this time around he is on the front lines. The way the camera is used in “Body of Lies” for the most part provides for a bit of an uneasy vibe. After all, that is what the film should be beyond its surface, it is a soldier vs. terrorist sort of rivalry. “Body of Lies” is a film that at times puts you in the middle of the action, but it does not have enough oomph to make me run out on the streets and recommend this film to others. Although if there is one additional positive to point out, the color palette of this film perfectly establishes its overall atmosphere. It has this moody feel to it, but it supplies itself in such a way where everything around it still manages to pack in a tad of thrills and excitement. It was easy on the eyes.
Speaking of beginnings, I am pleased to report that this film is one of the early roles from Oscar Isaac, who I think is one of the better performers who has tended to lend himself to content within the spectrum of popular culture over the years. This is not his first role. Isaac was previously in films like “All About the Benjamins” and “The Nativity Story.” But I think this film shows how solid of an actor he was early in his career. Despite his first name, he is not on an Oscar level here, but he is one of the standouts in this film for me, which says something considering who the two leads happen to be.
This film stars Russell Crowe in addition to Leonardo DiCaprio, and when it comes to the former, it is clearly established that he is a dad. Particularly, one who is heavily involved in the lives of his young children. This allows for an ongoing gag where his character is doing things for his children all the while trying to balance work. We see him on the phone with Leonardo DiCaprio completing important calls all the while either doing something such as taking his kids somewhere or tending to them. While this is a great way to establish a character’s background, the amount of time spent exposing this feels like overkill. I do not know if they were trying to be funny with this tendency, after all this is a thriller, not a comedy. Sure, maybe if I were a parent myself, which I am not, maybe I could relate to this gag. And the more I think about it, seeing this sort of reminds me of seeing my mom taking calls over the years while I am in her presence given her line of work. But when it comes to this gag, it feels like too much delivered in my face. The phone gag feels like the one moment that the movie is going for humor. But because everything else, for the most part, comes off as serious, the only reaction I have as this is going on is silence. I am not saying this should not be in the movie, it serves a purpose as to establishing the characters, but I think it overembellishes itself at times.
The narrative, in terms of progression, character development, and concept, all get the job done. There is nothing remotely broken that I can point out about the film in terms of how everything in it is laid out story-wise. All the characters work. The chemistry works. The concept works. And that is the best way that I can sum up “Body of Lies.” It is not a film that is overly offensive. But it is also not a film that I walked out of thinking that it is a game changer. It is a film that I think some people would kill their first born child in order to have it be as good as it is. But when it comes to the reputation of Ridley Scott, who continues to be one of the more respected filmmakers working today, this feels kind of bland. There is a reason why nobody is talking about “Body of Lies” all these years later and instead bringing up other films like “Blade Runner” and “Thelma & Louise.” It’s because those films made a mark on its viewers culturally and managed to deliver something special. And yes, “Body of Lies” is exciting at times and there are moments where the intrigue is there, but it is not enough for me to say I would watch it again in the next few months. Maybe it would make for good background noise if I find it randomly on cable, but that is probably the extent of it.
If there are any other highlights I can point out, I did like the relationship between Leonardo DiCaprio’s character, Roger Ferris, and his love interest he meets along the way. Said love interest, Aisha, is played by Golshifteh Farahani. I thought the two had solid chemistry and every moment they were on screen together, they clicked. They probably had the best connection in the entire movie. Their bond was fun to watch.
In the end, “Body of Lies” is… Fine, I guess. When I bought the Blu-ray six years ago, I was quite intrigued to know that Ridley Scott was behind it. I was intrigued by the big names on the cover. There was a lot of potential. The potential here is not wasted, but it does not mean the film doesn’t underwhelm. There is nothing about this movie that makes me angry, but there is nothing about this movie that makes me think I should go back to it anytime soon. Ridley Scott is a respected filmmaker. And while this may be an okay movie for some people, this may not be the finest Ridley Scott movie. I am going to give “Body of Lies” a 6/10.
“Body of Lies” is now available on DVD, Blu-ray, and streaming. As of this writing, it is available on Max to all subscribers.
Thanks for reading this review! If you enjoyed this first installment to the Ridley Scottober series, guess what? I’ve got three more coming! I don’t think the next review is gonna be on Saturday like this one. To be frank, I wanted to get this review out a little earlier, but I have had a pretty busy week. And I honestly have a busy week next week too, because I’m gonna be on vacation in New York, but I should have some time to whip something up. I’m gonna be on a train for three to four hours, so I can definitely do something. Maybe I will drop the review Thursday. I am kind of playing this series by ear at this point. But if you want to see another one of my reviews for a Ridley Scott movie I did a couple years back, check out my thoughts on “The Last Duel!” That should hold you all over for some time. 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 “Body of Lies?” What did you think about it? Or, what is a movie from a respected filmmaker that you think may be one of their inferior works? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!
“The Last Duel” is directed by Ridley Scott (The Martian, Alien) and stars Matt Damon (We Bought a Zoo, Good Will Hunting), Adam Driver (Star Wars: The Force Awakens, Marriage Story), Jodie Comer (Free Guy, Killing Eve), and Ben Affleck (Justice League, The Way Back) in a film where two friends are divided over the claims Marguerite de Carrouges brings forth about her rape. The two friends agree to duke it out in a trial by combat where one lives, one dies, and the outcome of the battle will also determine the fate of Marguerite de Carrouges herself.
I have been excited for “The Last Duel” since 2020, which is when I believe I first heard about it. I may have been looking at the list of films coming out that year on Wikipedia, which at this point, almost looks like a shell of its former self with titles like “A Quiet Place Part II,” “No Time to Die,” and “Black Widow” moving dates. At that point, upon seeing some of the names attached, this had some potential. This looked like some Oscar caliber material. It kind of had this “Braveheart” feel to it that empowered the heart. I was genuinely curious of what was to come.
When the trailer came out this summer, confirming that this movie was finally coming, it honestly promised something beyond my prior expectations because as someone who did not know the full story, I did not know if this was going to be a film of slow or fast pace. But getting a peak of Jodie Comer’s performance, which ended up being one of the film’s highlights, was a symbol of how exciting this movie could potentially be. Everything about this movie going in looked great, Dariusz Wolski’s cinematography, the performances from one of the best ensembles of the year, the set design, the locations. All of it had promises.
And frankly, those promises were met. When it comes to big battle type of films that take place long before I was even born, this one stands out. Partially because of the amazing directing from Ridley Scott, whose legacy has not died yet, and after seeing this movie, I only want more from him. Of the three main performances from Matt Damon, Adam Driver, and Jodie Comer, each one did a really good job at conveying rawness, pain, and fear amongst each self. No matter the situation each character finds themselves in, they each find themselves within their own pain and we get a sense of that. One is obviously the hero in this story, but that is also something that at various points, the movie sort of spins on its own head.
In most movies you see a linear path from start to finish with the main hero having a major screen presence. Or in other cases, the main villain. Look at “Avengers: Infinity War.” That whole movie started with Thanos going after the infinity stones and ended with him resting on a farm. Yes, the movie is called “Avengers,” is about the “Avengers,” and heavily features the “Avengers” during its runtime. But you could also argue that the film is technically Thanos’s story once it started and once it ended. “The Last Duel” has a somewhat typical act structure where it has your act 1, act 2, and act 3, but it doesn’t necessarily use those acts in a way where you see a progression of time, which in most cases would be from past to future. For the most part, the acts take place quite literally at the same exact time, but you see certain events play out whereas others are left behind. In some cases, the exact same event will play out but you get a greater emphasis on whichever character’s perspective is put into frame, and it’s not like they’re sitting in a room narrating the story in front of your eyes, you’re seeing it from a visual standpoint.. For some people, I imagine this sequencing procedure will seem repetitive or irritating, but for me, it made me understand the way in which this movie was trying to tell its story. In fact, I honestly think when it comes to the act structure, the movie placed the least compelling act, or as they call them, chapters, before the others, and there’s a reason for that. The other two chapters highlights a certain event in the first chapter that you’re only told about, but as you see more of it in the other two chapters, the bigger the impact it has by the end of the movie. The film shows how important all the perspectives are to create one big picture, thus highlighting the rivalry, the controversy, the infighting, the drama. This is a script that I would honestly put up against many others this year.
The movie does take a bit of time to get into, although it admittedly starts with some quick pace and a promise, there’s that word again, of what’s to come, but once it gets into the nitty gritty, it’s basically full throttle, non-stop, and as for me, the viewer, I’m completely engaged with what’s going on. This movie is called “The Last Duel” and of course, the duel, which is the literal climax of the film supposedly, I mean, you could almost argue that this film kind of has four acts, is incredibly exciting and gritty. But it does not mean the material prior to that going down is inferior in any way. If I have any other cons with the film that I could think of, I would say that the way Matt Damon’s character handles a serious matter in chapter 3 made me a bit uncomfortable. Granted, I think that was kind of the point, but it almost made him less relatable or less likable than maybe he was earlier in the film. May just be a personal reaction.
By the end of the film, when they get to that last battle, I was shaking. Because the film has done such a brilliant job at establishing the perspectives of the main trio that they all came together so well in the last moments. When we see the position of Jodie Comer’s character, the stakes she has to go through as the fight between a couple friends goes down, it only adds to the tension. This film is one of the best of the year and despite coming out the same weekend as “Halloween Kills,” “The Last Duel” felt ten times as disturbing.
In the end, “The Last Duel” is one of the best ways to retell a story in a two and a half hour runtime. This is a film that at times made me feel a pit in my stomach, but it did so in the best way possible. The technical aspects from the camerawork to the sound is all done to perfection. As for Matt Damon and Ben Affleck getting back together to write a script so long after “Good Will Hunting,” it was worth the wait. Granted, Nicole Holofcener (Enough Said, Can You Ever Forgive Me?) also has a credit, but still, it was worth the wait. I love “The Last Duel” and I would personally give it an 8/10.
“The Last Duel” is now playing in theaters everywhere. Tickets are available now.
Thanks for reading this review! I just want to remind everyone that Halloween is coming up and we will be starting my brand new mini review series that day, on the 31st exactly, “Ghostbusters: Before Afterlife.” Expect a review then, and I will be following that up the Sunday after, November 7th, with my thoughts on “Ghostbusters II,” which as of typing this, I have yet to watch once in my entire life. Be on the lookout for these reviews and also stay tuned for my reviews of “No Time to Die,” “Dune,” and if I get around to it on time, “Last Night in Soho.” Be sure to follow Scene Before either with an email or WordPress account so you can stay tuned for more great content! Also, check out the official Facebook page! I want to know, did you see “The Last Duel?” What did you think about it? Or, have you seen “Good Will Hunting?” Tell me your thoughts on that! Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!
Hey everyone, Jack Drees here! On January 7th, 2018 the “75th Golden Globes” was held. Seventy-five, undoubtedly, is a big number for any event, however this felt like other “Golden Globes” shows I watched with a 75 shoved in the title. Although based on my experience, it wasn’t as pleasant to watch. Nevertheless, it happened. Strange things occurred when it comes to the show. No, that’s not a “Stranger Things” pun, even though the show had a nomination. Apparently “The Boss Baby” was GOOD ENOUGH to be nominated for Best Animated Feature Film. As for one of the winners, specifically James Franco (The Disaster Artist), who won Best Actor in a Musical or Comedy, which in my opinion is incredibly deserved, he allowed Tommy Wiseau, the person who may be most responsible for his film, to come onstage as he was thanking him. As Wiseau came up, he tried to take the mic, but Franco pushed him out of the way. To be fair, Franco had limited time to speak so this was rather understandable. However it still comes off as either rude or weird. I don’t know, make your pick.
For those who were wondering what Tommy would have said, he went on KTLA 5, a local news network out of Los Angeles, CA. While he was on the program, he was promoting his disasterpiece, “The Room,” saying it’ll be back in cinemas for one night only, specifically Wednesday, January 10th. This technically means that “The Room” has a quality that associates with a lot of bad movies, despite how this is technically a rerelease, you can now say “The Room” released in January! During the promotion, the whole push incident was brought up. Tommy explained what he would have said if he actually had the mic. “If a lot of people love each other, the world would be a better place to live, and I’d say I’m making dream, it’s alive, it’s real, and again I’m very proud of “The Room,” etc. That’s it, that’s all I want to say. Nice thing. But somebody was like naaaaw, you cannot do that.” Out of all the things that were prominent at the Golden Globes this year, it was the message to not sexually harass and the promotion of the #MeToo movement.
The #MeToo movement was popularized in October 2017 when word was getting out that apparently a lot of men in Hollywood happened to be perverts. Such people included Harvey Weinstein, Kevin Spacey, Louis CK, Ben Affleck, Danny Masterson, Brett Ratner, and Bryan Singer. I think this movement is a good way to say that you shouldn’t sexually abuse others against their will.
When it comes to a lot of award shows I watch, I notice that they always touch upon certain social issues. As this occurs, people give their thoughts on the issue and I have nothing against it. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, there’s nothing wrong with having an opinion on anything. Unless of course you actually enjoyed “The Emoji Movie.” This year, the Me Too movement was extremely prominent. Almost everyone was wearing black. Not just women, but men too. A lot of women mentioned something along the lines of sexual harassment and how awful it is in their acceptance speech, Oprah Winfrey was given the Cecil B. DeMille award, which lead to an extended speech about sexual harassment, how “time is up,” and letting women know that they shouldn’t have to worry about the concept as much in the future now that all of the #MeToo stuff is happening. The #MeToo movement from my personal point of view is a very positive movement. However, the question I have is, is it completely justified or executed in a proper manner?
On one hand, I’d say it’s absolutely justified, sexual harassment is a serious issue. I’m well aware it’s usually the men who give the harassment and the women who receive the harassment, and I’m proud of all these women coming out and telling the hidden secrets behind all of the perversion they’ve received over the years. There are times however during this Golden Globes event where I think the events surrounding it went a little too far.
As mentioned earlier, almost everyone who attended the Golden Globes wore black. When it comes to the people who didn’t, one standout is Blanca Blanco. Yes, that’s her real name. Blanca Blanco is an actress who appeared in movies such as “Teen Star Academy” and “Fake News.” So in other words, you probably don’t care about what she’s done career-wise. Blanco showed up to the event wearing a red dress, which eventually lead to loads of flak. She made an exclusive statement to Refinery29, an American digital media company whose target audience is young women, and she had this to say:
“I love red. Wearing red does not mean I’m against #timesup movement. I applaud and stand by the courageous actresses that continue to brake the circle of abuse through their actions and their style choice. It is one of many factors leading women to a safer place because of their status in the acting world. I am excited about the ‘Time’s UP’ movement because true change is long overdue.”
By the way, me spelling “brake” is not an error, that’s how Blanco wrote her statement.
Up above is a photo of Blanco in her red dress, and this is when the controversy first started. A number of people think the dress is fine example of stupidity that disgraces the #MeToo movement whereas others think its just a nice looking dress that stands out. I’m on the side that doesn’t exactly care about the dress color. It’s extremely elegant and presentable as a dress, and it doesn’t matter whether its red or black or violet! Although rainbow colors would be a little weird for it according to my imagination. Blanca Blanco is that one person who shows up at the photo studio for a family photo who didn’t wear the same outfit, and I don’t care! By the way, why do outfits always have to match for family photos? That’s so odd! If I ever shown up to an event such as the Golden Globes, I would try to look nice, but in the end, color isn’t something that should necessarily be non-optional for its attendees. You can do it to show your support for a movement, but just because someone doesn’t wear a certain color, it doesn’t mean they don’t support a movement. What was it that Blanca Blanco said in that statement?
“I love red.”
You go girl! Also, what amazes me about this is how women’s rights are still an issue today, and everyone is kind of saying that this woman doesn’t have the right to wear red. By the way, I’ll have Blanca Blanco remind you something.
Next up, we’re gonna talk about Natalie Portman, or as I like to call her, one of the two people in a romantic relationship that had no chemistry in “Star Wars Episode II.” She’s a fine actress, but from a script perspective her character just didn’t work. During hear appearance at the Golden Globes, she went onstage alongside Ron Howard, and before going any further. Look at Natalie’s smile! She looks like she went into an orphanage, stayed awhile, and had a nice meal. And by a nice meal, I mean she ate all of the children! While the two were onstage, they were presenting the nominees and winner for Best Director. Natalie had one thing to say before the nominees were presented. She said, “And here are the all male nominees.” Best Director had five nominees, all of which were male. They are Christopher Nolan (Dunkirk), Steven Spielberg (The Post), Martin McDonagh (Three Billboards Outside Ebbing Missouri), Ridley Scott (All the Money in the World), and Guillermo del Toro (The Shape of Water). Let me just say that all of these from what I heard were completely justifiable nominees, and I can somewhat understand people complaining that Greta Gerwig (Lady Bird) or Patty Jenkins (Wonder Woman) didn’t get nominated. However, I don’t really find this joke funny. For one thing, it’s kind of forced and comes off as cringeworthy. Another thing I don’t like about it is that it’s basically shaming talented people, just because they’re men. Yes, you can technically say that the nominators are to blame here, but in reality, it doesn’t change the fact that you’re accusing them for nominating people and what they did was wrong because they have something that they can’t alter! Well, unless you get a procedure done. Not to mention, Portman was standing next to Ron Howard, a male director. Do I find the jab offensive? Not really. It’s just something that shouldn’t have been said. This may be a night to promote gender equality, but it’s also a night to celebrate achievement in film. And yes, more female directors would be nice, but it’s a female’s choice on whether or not she directs a movie just like how it’s a male’s choice. As much as I would love to see more great movies directed by women, I ultimately just want to see terrific movies directed by PEOPLE. Speaking of women and men, let’s talk about how the show opened.
Seth Meyers kicked the night off by walking onstage, and before he introduces himself with his full name, he says to everyone, “Good evening ladies and remaining gentlemen.” Having heard that, not only is that clever, but also hilarious. The monologue continues and eventually arrives at a point where Seth does a bit that he does on “Late Night with Seth Meyers” called Jokes Seth Can’t Tell, but every single joke is coming from a Hollywood star in the Golden Globe audience. I can’t really say I laughed all that much, even though it was nice hearing Jessica Chastain’s voice. At one point, we get to Amy Poehler, who I can’t really say makes terrible decisions in the business given that she played Joy in “Inside Out,” but hearing her talk here made me think I was watching “Ghostbusters” 2016. I’m not against feminist values, but she’s just forcing this “mansplaining” joke, if you can call it a joke, down everyone’s throat. It just felt like an awkward comedy or a really horrible “SNL” sketch.
Also, I want to say, Barbra Streisand (Yentl, The Guilt Trip) showed up at the event, and when she went onstage, this happened to be towards the end of the show. This was some time after Oprah Winfrey accepted her Cecil B. DeMille award. I must say, out of everyone who appeared and spoke at the event, she probably had the speech that will be recalled most out of them all. When Oprah exclaimed “Their time is up,” that put my brain into remembrance mode. So when Streisand shows up onstage later, she reminds everyone that time’s up, she was the first and only female director to win Best Director at a Golden Globes event, and that we need more female directors, not to mention more nominated female directors. I’m gonna say the same thing I said about Natalie Portman. People should make great movies, not just women. And I’m also gonna say this, just let the people nominated have their night. Much like Natalie’s jab, I don’t find anything Streisand is saying offensive. In fact, she does make a good point, we do need more competent movies from female directors. Although in reality, movies are movies, and people are people. I don’t care who directed the movie, as long as it’s not Anthony Ferrante (Sharknado 1-5). In the end, I just think what she’s saying is somewhat disrespectful at this time and place. If all the Best Director nominees were objectively terrible, let’s just say the nominees were Michael Bay (Transformers: The Last Knight), Paul W.S Anderson (Resident Evil: The Final Chapter), Peter Chelsom (The Space Between Us), Tomas Alfredson (The Snowman), and Dean Devlin (Geostorm), then I’d understand. However, all the nominees probably deserved some respect based on how well received their films happened to be. I seriously want to know, when you watch “America’s Got Talent,” does the host, AKA the one who presents all the winners and people going through to the next round, say something like “We need more variety winners?” No they don’t! I’m not against Oprah Winfrey’s speech whatsoever because it was mainly about ending abuse. Not nominating many female directors isn’t abuse, it’s just not considering people in a certain category. Also, I must say, at least Natalie Portman’s comment, while perhaps forced, was an attempt to make people laugh. Streisand’s comment just felt like it was rushed and it literally had no impact other than simply existing. With the exception of a gender swap, there is probably no other way a man can change exactly who they are. They’re a man, they can’t control that, just as how women can’t control being a woman. I’m not against the idea of nominating more female directors and having them win, but I’m against the idea of women literally having to insult boys for being boys. PLEASE DON’T TAKE THOSE LAST FOUR WORDS THE WRONG WAY.
There are so many people who gave this Golden Globes event a 1 on IMDb, and I can see why. I wouldn’t say it’s a 1/10 show, there are some good moments, it’s just that a chunk of the stuff about Time’s Up came off as forced despite being a positive movement, much like the #MeToo movement. You can share ideas, but there’s a fine line between sharing ideas and forcing them. Sharing them was done with Seth’s introduction line, forcing them was done with Natalie Portman as she presented the Best Director nominees. Next year, let’s try sharing and see how that pans out. Thanks for reading this post, I just want everyone to know that next week I will have my review up for “Molly’s Game,” I’m going to see it next Monday, so I’ll either get the review up by the end of the day or on Tuesday. Also, on Thursday, January 18th, I’m going to be starting my review series for the “Maze Runner” movies, starting with the first installment, simply referred to as “The Maze Runner.” This is being done because the third movie in the series, “Maze Runner: Death Cure,” will be releasing January 26th, and I figured I’d review the first two “Maze Runner” films in preparation for the third installment. Stay tuned for those reviews, and look forward to more great content! Did you watch the 75th Golden Globes show? What did you think? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!
“So I want all the girls watching here, now, to know that a new day is on the horizon! And when that new day finally dawns, it will be because of a lot of magnificent women, many of whom are right here in this room tonight, and some pretty phenomenal men, fighting hard to make sure that they become the leaders who take us to the time when nobody ever has to say “Me too” again.” -Oprah Winfrey
Hey everyone, Jack Drees here! You might have clicked on this post thinking “Oh, crap! Clickbait! GO BACK! GO BACK! GO BACK!” First off, thank you for giving me one extra view, very much appreciated. Second, regardless of how clickbaity this sounds, I will say what you’re about to read is somewhat interesting. When movies come out, you might think of it in a certain way. You might go back and watch it the way you remembered. Although in some cases you might go back and watch it, and there’s something different about it. Today we’re going to be looking at some of these changes, see if you see the movie in a different view than you did before. One rule I’m making for this list is that no made-for-TV changes apply here. If a movie gets a change from its original release because it airs on TBS or something, it doesn’t count. So changes as the one from “Home Alone” where Buzzy doesn’t say “I wouldn’t let you sleep in my room if you were growing on my ass,” and instead says “butt,” doesn’t qualify. Just for the record, this is not a countdown, these aren’t in any specific order, and I’m not sticking to any sort of idea, stating how much I like or dislike these changes. I might go into that, but I’m not saying I like every single change or dislike every single change. So let’s dive into this.
Revenge of the Nerds: Phone Number
The first change comes from the 1984 comedy “Revenge of the Nerds.” This is one of my personal favorite comedies. The sequels? Not so much. The movie has been released on VHS, Laserdisc, DVD, and Blu-ray. However, the sequels haven’t gotten past the DVD mark. This is a change that is seen on both the DVD and Blu-ray editions of the film. In 2003, the film was put out on DVD, but with a reedit brought to the mix. There’s a “For Rent” sign in the movie which had a genuine phone number on it. For legal reasons, the footage where the phone number was displayed was removed. Note, I didn’t say blurred, but removed. I have never seen the footage of where the phone number is revealed and as I write this, I’m looking at originaltrilogy.com, where a bunch of users are talking about this change and a couple of them called it “jarring.” I will have to watch the original cut in order to agree or disagree, but if you really want to make everyone happy, just blur the phone number. Also to everyone, please don’t call the phone number. Don’t be a dick.
All the Right Moves: Lea Thompson In the Nude
Remember how I said this isn’t a countdown? Well, I guess this may be an excuse to talk about movies I haven’t seen. Ladies and gentlemen, I give you “All the Right Moves,” starring Tom Cruise (Risky Business, The Outsiders) and Lea Thompson (Jaws 3-D, Back to the Future). Why am I talking about this? Well apparently I was in Connecticut and while I was there, I managed to pick up a bunch of Blu-rays to add to my collection. This movie happened to be one of them and I figured it would go great in my Tom Cruise collection. Due to random research, I came across something interesting. When “All the Right Moves” came out in 1983, there’s a sex scene featuring Tom Cruise and Lea Thompson which contains full frontal nudity, however when the Blu-ray released in 2012, the framing of Lea Thompson’s character in the nude was altered. This prevented people from seeing Lea nude below the waist. I don’t want to sound like a pervert, but I don’t know why that change had to be there. First off, the movie’s rated R. Second, if people who have watched this before are rewatching this today, they might be slightly jarred by what they’re seeing and the experience of that scene might be ruined for them. Not to mention, this is a Blu-ray cut! Not a cut made for television! On TV, I can sometimes understand some movies being altered for certain viewers for a number of reasons. But, on a Blu-ray?! What do I know really? I’ve yet to see the film so I can’t really say much.
2001: A Space Odyssey: “Affirmative, Dave” and Nineteen Minutes of Footage
It’s been almost fifty years since the release of “2001: A Space Odyssey.” In that span of time, the movie has been considered a classic by fans of science fiction and film from a general perspective. You know what they say, if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it. This change, much like the “Revenge of the Nerds” change, didn’t really break the film or anything for some people. In fact you can say it broke the film less because if you think about this, it’s not really that jarring compared to the “Revenge of the Nerds” change. In 1998, MGM released “2001: A Space Odyssey” on DVD, with a slight change in the dialogue. During the scene when Dave is trying to get through the pod bay doors, he asks HAL “Do you read me, HAL?” In that particular release, HAL responds by saying “Affirmative, Dave.” Although in the original release, HAL says “Affirmative, Dave. I read you.” What makes this change extra wacky is that the English subtitles for the DVD released by MGM actually still displays the line from the original release. The full dialogue however was revived in future home video releases from Warner Brothers. Speaking of changes, when “2001: A Space Odyssey” was first released, it was slightly over two and a half hours long. The version which is seen on most home video releases is a version that’s just slightly shorter than two and a half hours. Stanley Kubrick, the director of the film, removed nineteen minutes of footage after the film premiered. It would be nice to see that footage restored for when “2001” comes out on 4K, I’d totally buy that!
Blade Runner: Endless Cuts (SPOILERS AHEAD)
“Blade Runner” is one of the best sci-fi films ever made. In fact, a sequel just released in October and it might be just as good, if not better, compared to the original. Followers over the years have been exposed to multiple editions of what director Ridley Scott regards as “probably his most personal and complete film.” Ridley might not be lying when he says that, and we’ll get to that in a second. “Blade Runner” has had seven different cuts of the film released to the public.
In 1982, the workprint prototype version was shown to test audiences in Denver and Dallas. This was also shown in 1990 and 1991 to audiences in San Francisco and Los Angeles as a “Director’s Cut.” Although it didn’t have the approval of Ridley Scott. We’ll get back to that in a sec.
There was also a San Diego sneak preview version shown to audiences only once in May 1982. This version included three scenes that was never shown in any other version of the film (before or after).
Then we have the version the US audiences saw in theaters. This included a “happy ending” that the studio wanted in the film. Fun fact by the way, there are aerial helicopter shots which weren’t even filmed for “Blade Runner.” These shots were actually from Stanley Kubrick’s “The Shining.” The movie also included narration by Harrison Ford, who played the lead character of Deckard. While some might say Ford either was angry about his task or he intentionally narrated poorly, he said it was simply bad narration. This was also referred to as the “Domestic Cut,” which wasn’t released on DVD until 2007 as part of a collector’s set of the film.
Then we have the International Cut. This cut is a minute longer than the US version, and included more violence in three action scenes than the US version. This cut was eventually released in the US on VHS and Criterion Collection laserdiscs. Interestingly, this version was shown to the US on HBO during the 1980s, the 1990s, and 2015.
In 1986, the US broadcast version was released. This was put together by CBS to meet TV broadcast requirements. There’s even narration that wasn’t in any other version of the film leading up to it, plus a different opening crawl. And yes, I said made-for-TV changes don’t count, but I’m just providing evidence to prove my point.
Next came the Director’s Cut, which was created technically by film preservationist, Michael Arick. This cut was discovered as a 70mm print which nobody had an idea that it actually was the movie’s workprint version. This was discovered after a screening of the film in Los Angeles. Ridley Scott said the cut was roughly edited, lacked a key scene, and the climax missed Vangelis’s score. The Director’s Cut was very popular that it rereleased theatrically in 1992. This cut also brought up a very popular fan theory if you will to the table. At one point in the film, we cut to a clip of a moving unicorn. The original idea for this scene was to cut between Deckard and the Unicorn, but the condition of the print associated with this was not presentable, so it just shows the unicorn trotting. This scene along with a clip of Deckard holding an origami unicorn, may suggest he is a Replicant. Speaking of things this film removed, the movie no longer has the narration from Deckard along with the happy ending the studio wanted. Despite being called the “Director’s Cut,” Scott wasn’t satisfied. To be fair, he was busy with “Thelma and Louise,” time and money happened to be a problem, however this cut brought more satisfaction in general to Scott than the original. There’s one cut although, that brought even more satisfaction to Scott…
Here’s where we get to “The Final Cut.” This is the cut where Ridley Scott had complete artistic control. Remember the unicorn dream? Turns out in this version, the original dream was included. You know, the one where it cuts between Deckard and the unicorn. Other additions include alternate edits and violence featured in the international cut. It turns out there were parts of this version that went through reshoots to fit in this version. One such example is Zhora’s death scene. Fun fact, if it weren’t for Warner Brothers gaining total control over distribution rights in 2006, this would have probably never been released. This project started once the 21st century began, and in mid-2001, legal and financial troubles put the project to a halt.
Porky’s: Cherry Forever’s Extra Nudity
“Porky’s” is an interesting movie to say the least. When it comes to its reception, critics weren’t exactly pleased, but it did gain a cult following and there are still people who go back and watch it today. As far as 1980s coming of age stories go, this isn’t my goto pick. However, back in the 80s, this was a hit among many people who flock to the cinema. The film was #1 at the box office for nine consecutive weekends, suggesting that either a lot of people either wanted to see it, liked it and went multiple times, or happened to be really horny. The film eventually released on VHS and something appeared in that which never appeared in the theatrical release, or the future DVD release. Based on how the release was open matte, more nudity was revealed in the VHS version. This happened during the Cherry Forever scene. The additional nudity was a result of the transfer, and was never intended to be shown. You know, unlike my secret identity–whoops! That was close! I almost told you guys I’m the guy who saved the Golden Gate Bridge from absolute destruction. Oh, crap! I did it! I’m a failure! I was told by a wizard to keep that a secret! Oh, well! Sucks to be me!
xXx: Head-butt
One interesting move executed in battle is a headbutt. There’s something about it, you’re literally using your head to bounce off someone else as a fighting technique. Plus, the term itself is awesome. One movie where a headbutt is shown is 2002’s “xXx,” starring Vin Diesel. This movie isn’t exactly the next “Citizen Kane” or anything, however it is a fun action flick with some interesting lines in the lines in the script. Going back to headbutts, when this movie was released in several territories, audiences were exposed to a moment where a headbutt occurs. One territory where audiences didn’t get to see this however, was in the UK. Similar to the US’s MPAA, the UK operates under a rating system referred to as the BBFC. The BBFC has a rating labeled as 12A/12, which was the rating “xXx” was given. If the headbutt was kept in, the rating wouldn’t have been secured and would have bumped up to 15. This is how the film was presented for years. The headbutt wasn’t even in the eventually released Director’s Cut DVD. Although on January 5th, 2017, the film was rereleased on Blu-ray in honor of the film’s 15th anniversary. It was at this point that the BBFC waived the cuts to the film, and the headbutt was then inserted. The BBFC must have had this slogan for years:
BBFC: We’re buttheads!
Ferris Bueller’s Day Off: Paramount Logo
I love “Ferris Bueller’s Day Off.” It’s a coming of age story that a lot of people in high school can relate to. In fact, you can also include anyone going to school in general, not to mention anyone who’s working a s*itty job can relate to. Sure, “Office Space” kind of does the same thing, but this came first. This change doesn’t even affect much of the movie, it just has to do with the logo. This movie is from Paramount, and if you know who they are, there’s a good chance you’ve seen one of their logos. Some time after the movie was in theaters, it came out on VHS. However, the VHS versions contain a plastered Paramount logo depending on the year the print released. The original logo although was restored on all future DVD and Blu-ray releases.
American Graffiti: Digital Effect
Ah, George Lucas. What have you done? You took a bunch of people’s childhoods, which were epic because of your “Star Wars” movies, and you threw them in the garbage! Because if you haven’t noticed, the original “Star Wars” trilogy has made a crapton of changes over the years! Well ya know what?! I’m not gonna focus on that! Because I already did a countdown focusing on those changes, and apparently George Lucas made a change to “American Graffiti” as well! This change didn’t exactly offend me as much. Then again I only saw this movie once. The change is shown in the 1998 Collector’s Edition DVD and VHS, and once you hear what it is without any specification, it almost sounds like something George Lucas would do. Lucas requested for the opening scene which features Mel’s Drive-In to have a sunset with clouds. The original opening had a cloudy sky with buildings in the background. In this opening, the buildings are still there, but the weather is different. Interestingly, there was also a documentary on the making of “American Graffiti” included as a bonus feature on the DVD, and the original shot was inserted there. Time travel much?
Kindergarten Cop: Little Terrorists
I imagine some people getting a sense of surprise from “Kindergarten Cop.” The film itself is a comedy where a cop goes undercover as a kindergarten teacher in order to locate the ex-wife of a dangerous criminal. This movie released in 1990 and stars Arnold Schwarzenegger. It’s kind of interesting to put the Terminator as the star of a comedy, but stranger things have happened. Although I wouldn’t say it’s all too strange because another comedy, “Twins,” released two years before this one, and while not all critics and audiences appreciated the film, there were a number of them to say it was worth a watch. Interestingly, both comedies were directed by Ivan Reitman, who also directed “Ghostbusters” 1 and 2. And the movie does have some witty Schwarzenegger lines and also has some funny lines given by a bunch of kids as well. Speaking of lines, let’s talk about one of them. As mentioned, this movie released in 1990, which is eleven years before 9-11. Once that day occurred, it inspired the removal of one particular line in all future versions of the film. After Schwarzenegger’s first day with the kindergartners, he has this to say about them.
JOHN KIMBLE: They’re horrible. They’re like little terrorists.
I’d just like to state that if I were in kindergarten watching this film, it would probably be debatable on whether or not I should be watching it given it has a PG-13 rating. However I don’t know if this one incident means this line should be deleted. I don’t know if Reitman decided on this or if Universal did or anyone else for that matter, but you don’t really need to get rid of it. Sure, in reality, kindergartners aren’t commonly associated with terrorists, although that would make for an interesting cartoon or something, but I don’t see how this would offend anyone. I mean, it’s probably better than changing the line, but the elimination felt unneeded. Let’s face it. Kindergartners are crazy, and I know that because I was one. I wouldn’t blame someone comparing me with a terrorist at that age because I was a chaotic brat. Anyways, let’s move on.
Jaws: Smile, You son of a… (SPOILERS AHEAD)
“Jaws” is considered by many to be one of the greatest films of all time. It has a terrific script, admirable characters, and an awesome score from John Williams, who went on to do “Star Wars,” “Superman,” “Raiders of the Lost Ark,” “E.T,” “Home Alone,” “Jurassic Park,” “Schindler’s List,” “Saving Private Ryan,” and “Harry Potter.” If you’ve seen the ending, you’d probably know how it ends. Part of that ending involves the character of Brody. He’s in a duel against the shark and he’s got a gun. He’s in full concentration mode, trying to take the creature down. In honor of the movie’s 30th anniversary, a DVD was released in order to celebrate. This brought a very minor change in one line, in fact, it’s actually one of the lines of the movie that I remember most. In versions prior to this release, before Brody shoots his gun to kill the shark, he says “Smile, you little son of a bitch.” Here, he says “Smile, you little son of a…” and then his gun is shot. Like the original, all the blood and gore remains, but the word “bitch” is removed. I’m glad I’m not Jesse Pinkman from “Breaking Bad,” because finding this out would be the worst day of my life. I can now say that my memory suggests that all the versions of “Jaws” I’ve seen in my life at this point, have this specific “bitch” removed. I want to know how this feels for everyone who has either seen the original version and possibly been exposed to alternate editions of the film. How does this “bitch” removal come off to you? Does it take away from the scene? Does it not take anything away at all? Does it anger you? I really want to know. I can’t say much about this change, but if they ever alter “You’re gonna need a bigger boat,” there will be riots.
Thanks for reading this post, there’s a good chance I just possibly either ruined a scene for you, so if I did, I apologize. If so, don’t blame me, blame the people who changed them! Nevertheless, the year’s almost over, the holiday season is coming to its conclusion, but that also means I will have two countdowns coming up. Like at the end of 2016, I’m counting down my top 10 BEST and WORST movies of the year. I’ve seen a number of films that came out this year. Most of those films are ones I reviewed, and there are others I’ve watched but couldn’t make a review of for the sake of time such as “The Great Wall,” “American Assassin,” and “King Arthur: Legend of the Sword.” Believe it or not I will still be going to see more movies as the year comes to a close, because I have aspirations to go see “Downsizing,” “Father Figures,” “The Disaster Artist,” and if any other opportunities come up to see a movie released this year, I’ll take those as well. Stay tuned for more great content! Also, what is the worst alteration you’ve ever seen in a movie? For me, I gotta say Darth Vader screaming “no” at the end of “Return of the Jedi.” Leave your responses down below! And yes, can also includes ones from TV. Scene Before is your click to the flicks!
“Blade Runner 2049” is directed by Denis Villeneuve (Prisoners, Arrival), stars Ryan Gosling (La La Land, Crazy Stupid Love) and Harrison Ford (Star Wars, Raiders of the Lost Ark), and is the sequel to 1982’s “Blade Runner” which was directed by Ridley Scott (Gladiator, The Martian), a movie considered by many people to be one of the greatest sci-fi films, if not one of the greatest films, ever made. “Blade Runner 2049” takes place in the year of 2049 in the US state of California, the plot is that there’s a young blade runner (Ryan Gosling) who discovers a long-kept secret which leads him into tracking down former blade runner Rick Deckard (Harrison Ford), who’s been out of sight for three decades.
When it comes to the original “Blade Runner,” it’s a movie I haven’t actually watched until fairly recently. For the record, when I say that, I’ll have you know I didn’t even watch the original version of the film, which by the way the version I watched which isn’t original, is the one I viewed five times at this point. I say that because if you know this movie’s history, you’d be aware of how it has received endless cuts. In 1982, they started out with a movie that not many people saw but was on the rise to prove its influence to film. I mean, seriously! If you look at films and material which came out after it, you’ll understand what I’m talking about. Just check out “Ghost in the Shell,” “The Matrix,” the “Star Wars” prequels, “The Fifth Element,” all of these just look at them and don’t tell me you don’t see a bit of “Blade Runner” in them. The redo of the TV series “Battlestar Galactica,” according to the producers, cited “Blade Runner” was a major source of influence to the series. It has also been parodied in material such as the British science fiction TV show “Red Dwarf.” Based on what I have told you, it’s not surprising that people revere this movie. Overtime it has gained a cult following, and has been considered one of the greatest science fiction films, not to mention one of the greatest films in general, ever made. It was nominated for two Oscars (Best Effects, Visual Effects, Best Art Decoration-Set Decoration), it was also nominated for a Golden Globe (Best Original Score-Motion Picture), which I wholeheartedly approve of because the score is probably one of my favorites in movie history. BAFTA also praised the score by nominating it, which was one of the eight nominations the movie received in that particular show. By the way, it won three. It currently has a spot on the IMDb top 250, it’s on AFI’s 10 Top 10 as the #6 science fiction film, and IGN put it as the #1 spot in its “Top 25 Sci-Fi Films of All Time.” I watched the film multiple times now, specifically “The Final Cut,” and it gets better with multiple watches. So, how is “Blade Runner 2049?” Holy crap, this movie was an experience. I went to see this movie in IMAX, and I don’t regret it, because this is one of those films that MUST be seen in a theater! You know how I kept talking about “Dunkirk” and what an amazing experience that was? This was just as great! And with that I’m gonna give you guys a little sidenote…
I don’t use Netflix, in fact, I’d go as far as to say that Netflix is slightly overrated. I may be biased because they killed Blockbuster Video, a significant memory from my childhood, but I’m gonna let you know a little information about them that you may or may not be aware of at the moment. Netflix may be known for its selection of movies and TV programs to watch which are available at your fingertips, but they’ve also done original content. They’ve done TV shows such as “House of Cards,” “Orange is the New Black,” and “Stranger Things,” all of which received positive reviews and a following by many people. That’s not to say all Netflix shows were considered watchable, there are disliked ones such as “Iron Fist” despite it having a following. They’ve also done movies such as “Gerald’s Game,” “The Ridiculous Six,” and “Beasts of No Nation.” What I’m going to say next is rather unnecessary for their TV shows, but can fit for their movies. When it comes to Netflix movies, they go straight to the streaming service. There’s no theatrical release for it, it just hops straight on over to the service, so people might get a theatrical experience depending on their setup, but chances are someone might end up watching the movie on their laptop without headphones, or heck, even their phone! Critically acclaimed director Christopher Nolan agrees with me when say that this is bullcrap, because Netflix is missing out on a opportunity for their movies to be shown in theaters, where audiences pay money to go see it in an immersive setting. Want to know something else? There’s an event called Cinemacon, which is a convention dedicated to film, it shows off what upcoming movies have in store, it also does screenings for flicks, stars show up, and it also has has a focus on cinemas themselves and technologies related to them. When “Blade Runner 2049” footage was being presented to attendees at the show, Sony chairman Tom Rothman said this…
“Netflix, my ass.”
Well said, Tom. For the record, Netflix has never presented at Cinemacon, so that shows what they stand for in the realm of cinema. At least Amazon releases content in theaters!
If this movie were released on Netflix, I would have been outraged, partially because I don’t use the service, but having seen this movie, this movie looked and sounded SPECTACULAR! Yeah, that was a long point, but I felt it had to be made. This movie was directed by Denis Villenevue, who also directed “Arrival,” one of my favorite movies from last year. I think he’s a great director, and his vision for this movie was brilliant. Every single frame had something worth appreciating. I can only imagine the detail that went into storyboarding this thing! Although, I can’t exactly say that he’s only in this fest of praise, because I gotta give kudos to Roger Deakins, the cinematographer of the film. For the record, this isn’t the first time Deakins and Villenevue worked together. They’ve also collaborated in “Sicario” and “Prisoners.” I haven’t seen those films, but I will say that Deakins is a fine cinematographer, just watch “No Country for Old Men” to see what I mean.
The original “Blade Runner” came out in 1982, and when it comes to movies with great lighting, as of right now, it’s probably the first movie that comes to my mind. The lighting in “Blade Runner 2049” personally isn’t as great as the original, but that doesn’t mean the lighting’s bad. However, from an overall perspective, much like its three decade old predecessor, “Blade Runner 2049” has terrific effects. Every single effect in the movie felt realistic. Sure, there are moments of the movie containing visuals that probably would be impractical (the giant sex doll with blue hair for example), but in all reality, even those felt like they actually existed for the universe this movie was presenting.
Speaking of things that aren’t as good as the original, I gotta say the music isn’t as great. Once again, this doesn’t mean the music was bad, the music was almost as brilliant as the 1982 film. But the thing about the 1982 film, is that it was unique. The music by the way in that film was done by Vangelis, who also did the score for “Chariots of Fire.” Also, Vangelis did not return for this movie, and yes, he’s still alive. The guy doing the score this time around is one of my favorite composers. I’ve brought him up in a number of posts this year, Hans Zimmer. Like the original score, it’s techno, and at times you do hear booms, which is pretty much the first thing you hear in the original movie when the titles show up. By the way, those booms sound amazing in IMAX. Also, this score at times felt a little more traditional than the original “Blade Runner.” The “Blade Runner” score is something you’d rarely hear, and while this newer film does have qualities of the older score, the new doesn’t have the absolute uniqueness of the old. I say that because I remember the original having moments that almost sounded like chimes, it was different. You could also hear vocalizing in the score, and I mentioned how much of an influence this had on “Ghost in the Shell” and I wouldn’t be surprised if the original movie’s score was partially influential. The vocalizing, the more I think about it, reminds me of “Ghost of the Shell’s” intro music. “Blade Runner 2049” was just released, so only time will tell how much the music, plus the rest of the movie will influence future products. Nevertheless, “Blade Runner 2049” had a GREAT score and I’d love to listen to it again and again.
Let’s talk about one of the leads in the film, specifically Ryan Gosling. This fellow has proven to be an excellent actor. By the way, there’s a couple scenes in this movie where Ryan Gosling is in front of a piano, and that’s not the only film where Gosling is in front of a piano, just watch “La La Land” to see what I mean. Gosling plays K and he’s basically this movie’s young Blade Runner. He’s given a mission at the beginning of the film, and seeing his character progress throughout the picture was entertaining and very moving. At times, Gosling’s acting chops were unleashed to full potential, which happened to be prominent during the movie’s emotional scenes which I won’t get into to avoid spoiler territory. K also had some qualities which were noticeable that could be compared to Harrison Ford’s character of Rick Deckard, who we’ll get to momentarily. K starts off in the movie as being directed by Lieutenant Joshi, a character played by Robin Wright, who in terms of looks and attitude, almost reminds me of your typical Charlize Theron role such as the ones she’s done in “A Million Ways to Die in the West” and “Hancock.” Anyway, seeing Gosling focus on his objectives was fascinating and despite this movie, like the original, appearing to be a slow burr, my eyes were never taken off the screen. Yes, this applies to more than Ryan Gosling in all technicality, but I’m just making a point. There’s also a spouse Ryan Gosling has, by that I mean a futuristic spouse, and by THAT I mean a spouse that is basically holographic, oh yeah, and she can change form. I can’t even get into the mission Ryan Gosling does in the film because I have a feeling this is something the trailers are hiding. I’ve seen all the main trailers, but it’s been awhile since I’ve seen one in particular, and I’m not sure if the hidden details are there, but for the sake of keeping some information a secret to possibly have some folks savor the movie’s flavor, I’m going to ignore uttering these details.
Now let’s talk about Harrison Ford. If you remember the original “Blade Runner,” Harrison Ford played Rick Deckard, the main character of the film. He was hunting down replicants just because he had a job to do. Speaking of the original film, we do get some callbacks. As mentioned recently, the music can qualify as a callback, but we do get some audio from the first film. During the film I heard Harrison Ford’s voice as it was in 1982, and I remember hearing Sean Young’s voice too. The origami unicorn makes a return here, which has brought up an interesting theory of whether Deckard’s actually a human or a replicant. By the way, I’d say he’s human. Also, I may have said that Ryan Gosling did a great job, but in all reality, Harrison Ford probably did better. By the way, out of all the performances I’ve seen Ford do, this might be his best one. Also, Deckard’s introduction is definitely one of the best scenes in the entire flick. You may have gotten a glimpse at it in the trailers, but there is more to it then what was there. I won’t go into detail though.
As much as I praise this movie, it’s not perfect. For example, some characters didn’t stand out as much as others, and speaking of characters, there’s one character who goes by the name of Mariette. She’s not unlikable, but she didn’t really add much of anything to the movie in terms of story except for maybe one part where she and K’s holographic wife are shown to have no clothes on. Also, this isn’t really a complaint but it’s mainly something I noticed, Jared Leto is barely in this movie. In fact I think he may have spent less time here than “Suicide Squad,” although I liked Leto better here than “Suicide Squad.” I may be nitpicking, and from experience, this is probably one of those movies I have to watch more than once to fully appreciate, so maybe I’m just imagining things. Other than what I mentioned, this movie’s pretty much a masterpiece, which is saying something considering what many people say about 1982’s “Blade Runner.”
Now I just mentioned this could take multiple watches to fully appreciate. And I’ll have you know I watched the original “Blade Runner” four times from start to finish since early September. I also saw it not long ago and I fell asleep to it, but to be fair, it was late. This is one of those movies, like the original “Blade Runner” that I’m probably gonna watch over and over.
In the end, “Blade Runner 2049” is a movie that defines how sequels should be made. This to me is 2017’s “Tron: Legacy,” by that I mean you’ve got this film which came out a long time ago, in fact the original “Blade Runner” actually came out the same year as the original “Tron.” The film now has a sequel, years in the making, and people enjoy it. Granted “Blade Runner 2049” has gotten more positive reception, but it doesn’t mean people didn’t appreciate “Tron: Legacy.” I love the film from a technical perspective, this movie and “Dunkirk,” so far, have been my two favorite cinematic experiences of 2017. Hans Zimmer created a great score, the screenplay hit every necessary emotion, the direction and cinematography are stellar, I’m glad to see Harrison Ford return as Rick, Ryan Gosling was great as well. Overall, this movie did what it needed to do. I’m gonna give “Blade Runner 2049” a 9/10. If you saw “Blade Runner” thinking that this movie could never be recreated, chances are you’ve just been proven wrong. This is a sequel worth remembering, and as far as sequels go, this is probably the best one I’ve seen so far this year. I can’t wait to buy this movie when it comes to home video, I want to see it again, possibly pick up on some details I missed, we’ll see what happens. Thanks for reading this review! As far as upcoming reviews go, I hope to see “Stronger” starring Jake Gyllenhaal, which is about a guy who manages to survive the Boston Marathon bombing, and I also am planning on reviewing “Thor” and “Thor: The Dark World” in preparation for “Thor: Ragnarok.” Stay tuned for those reviews, and more reviews! Also, if you’re into “Blade Runner,” you might be interested in checking out my post dedicated to things “Blade Runner” got right about the future. Here’s a question, which “Blade Runner” was better? The first one or the second one? Also, one more question, what is a movie that gets better the more you watch it? Let me know down below in the comments! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!
Scene Before 