Sikelia Productions

Maestro (2023): Bradley Cooper’s Sophomore Directorial Effort is a Step Down from A Star is Born, but Is Delivered with Undoubted Passion

Posted on by Jack Drees

“Maestro” is directed by Bradley Cooper (A Star is Born, Guardians of the Galaxy) who also stars in the film as Leonard Bernstein. Alongside Cooper is Carey Mulligan (She Said, Promising Young Woman) as his love interest, Felicia Montealegre. This film is about Leonard Bernstein’s journey through life as he spends it focusing on his greatest passions. Composing music and his relationship with his partner.

Actors who become directors is nothing new. In recent years we have seen it with James Franco, Jonah Hill, Olivia Wilde, Jordan Peele, and John Krasinski to name a few. The results have from these people have varied across the board, but another man on that list is Bradley Cooper. His previous outing was the 2018 remake “A Star is Born,” which became one of that year’s most celebrated titles that thrust a popular original song, “Shallow.” I thought the film was very good. Maybe a tad overrated as time went on, but I found it to be well done. And much like that film, Cooper’s directorial followup, “Maestro” also features him as the star. This film was not completely on my radar. Partially because Netflix is traditionally terrible at marketing their originals most of the time, but I at least knew about the film because the Internet has its way of feeding information to me. I was not completely sure what to think, but I was onboard with the concept. Bradley Cooper is currently 1 for 1 in the director’s chair, so I wanted to see if he could make it 2 for 2.

And he certainly scores here.

Overall, “Maestro” is a step down from “A Star is Born.” I don’t think I will be thinking about “Maestro” for as long or as heavily as I did after seeing “A Star is Born” back in 2018. I have not gone back to rewatch the film since, but I praised the film for its music, its acting, its screenplay, and display of what happens to creatives once they are given tools from big names. I still think the idea that people would make fun of Lady Gaga’s nose is unconvincing to the tenth degree, but the movie’s gotta movie.

If anything, Bradley Cooper almost directs this film better than he acts in it, and that is saying something because he is quite a good actor. There is a long orchestra scene more than halfway through that had me fully engaged. The entire film is set in the 20th century, but with that in mind, a lot of the film’s earlier scenes heavily immersed me. But I also think part of why he directs this film so well is because the acting in this movie is so good. One of the key aspects of directing is making sure your actors give the best performances possible. Given Cooper’s acting background, he uses that to his advantage as I felt several characters honestly could not be played by anyone else. Even if I was not a fan of some of the script choices or dialogue the characters had to utter, each character managed to make me escape from my chair into the screen. While this film is based on true events, it felt like a world that was different than my own.

Going back to Bradley Cooper’s acting, I think his acting here is also a slight step up from “A Star is Born,” because it is more chameleon-like here. Yes, factors like makeup, costuming, and others come into play here. But if I have one thing to say about this movie that makes his performance better here than “A Star is Born” it is that when I hear Bradley Cooper talk or look at his face, I see Cooper himself. In “A Star is Born,” he comes off as a movie star sometimes. It does not mean his performance sucked. Not one bit. It just means that felt like I was watching a variation of the actor as I also watched the character. Here, all I see is Bernstein. It is one of the best lead performances of the year and undoubtedly one of the finest of Cooper’s career.

The film is also one of the best edited pieces of the year, it starts kind of fast, but there are plenty of slower scenes to balance everything out. But as we get to the climax, there is a lot of breathing room that allowed the emotions of the scene to sink in. It allowed me to perhaps successfully feel the emotions this movie was going for.

The film is written by Bradley Cooper in addition to one of the finest screenwriters of this generation, Josh Singer (Spotlight, The Post). When it comes to the latter, this is one of his weaker scripts, but there is a lot to like about it. I think the first two acts have their off and on moments. Certain portions of the story worked better than others, but the third act made the film worth watching. The film is a slice of life piece to some degree and very much highlights both its beauty and misfortune. Once we find out a certain revelation about the character of Felicia, I was riveted. The way the scene plays out once the revelation kicks in is nothing short of emotional. I almost teared up. If I took one thing from this film, without going into spoilers, it is the idea that life is short so you should enjoy it however you can. Some of the happenings throughout the film cement that idea to a high degree.

The film is of course called “Maestro” meaning it is about Leonard Bernstein. But at its core, it is a love story. If anything, I think “Maestro” is quite a good love story. Bradley Cooper has a knack for romance between this film and “A Star is Born,” and part of that is because of the chemistry he maintains with his co-lead. This time around it is Carey Mulligan. Both actors and their characters have natural on-screen chemistry and this is shown in every era this film flies through. Speaking of the eras, the film manages to transition very naturally between each timeframe. Not once do I feel like we are spending too much or too little time in one place or another.

“Maestro” is unfortunately from Netflix. I say unfortunately because that means most theaters will not be playing it. I thankfully got to see it in a theater, and I have no regrets. This is a film that is worth seeing in theaters just to take in every little detail from the cinematography, the production design, and to hear the music perhaps the way it was intended. Again, going back to the orchestra scene more than halfway through the film, that was glorious to watch in a theater. It is the holiday season, meaning that there is a chance that you are with loved ones and may be looking for an excuse to get out of the house at some point. This is not a film for everybody, but if there is a theater near you playing this, take advantage of that opportunity and take your partner, take your spouse. take your parents, take your grown children. Have a night out on the town, get some food, and go see this movie. You might not regret it.

Or of course you could order takeout and watch Netflix in your pajamas, your call.

In the end, “Maestro” is a step down for Bradley Cooper’s directorial resume, but that is like comparing winning 200 bucks on a lottery ticket and then scratching another ticket moments later to win 150. Both clearly deliver a sense of satisfaction. One is just clearly greater than the other. That said even with “Maestro” being a lesser film than “A Star is Born,” I would not be against watching it a second time just to study it. The cinematography looks really good, it is well directed, and the editing is top notch. Technically, there is a lot to like about it. And as a love story, it is solid. Both leads are fantastic and make the movie worth watching. Overall, an easy thumbs up from yours truly. I am going to give “Maestro” a 7/10.

“Maestro” is now playing in theaters and is also available on Netflix to all subscribers.

Thanks for reading this review! My next review is going to be for “Wonka,” starring Timothee Chalamet as a younger interpretation of the iconic chocolatier. I just had a chance to watch the film earlier this month in IMAX, and I will have my thoughts on it soon. Also stay tuned for my reviews for “Migration” and “Aquaman and the Lost Kingdom.” If you want to see these reviews and more from Scene Before, follow the blog either with an email or WordPress account! Also, check out the official Facebook page! I want to know, did you see “Maestro?” What did you think about it? Or, which of Bradley Cooper’s directorial efforts do you like better? “A Star is Born?” Or “Maestro?” Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

Killers of the Flower Moon (2023): Three and a Half Hours of Kills, But Few Thrills

Posted on by Jack Drees

“Killers of the Flower Moon” is directed by Martin Scorsese (The Irishman, The Wolf of Wall Street) and stars Leonardo DiCaprio (Inception, Titanic), Robert De Niro (Meet the Parents, Joker), and Lily Gladstone (First Cow, Billions). When oil is discovered on Osage land, its people are murdered one by one. As this continues, the FBI steps in to unravel the mystery.

Martin Scorsese is undoubtedly one of the most notable names in Hollywood. He is one of the most influential directors of all time who still happens to have a respectable track record today. His older films continue to hold up and his newer titles do not seem to miss either. I have to say when it comes to his recent work, “The Wolf of Wall Street,” while I did not find it to be perfect, is one of the better movies I have seen to have come out in the past decade. In fact, to know that Scorsese is once again reuniting with Leonardo DiCaprio only serves as a boost of confidence. And of course, alongside them, is Robert De Niro, another acting legend who cannot do any wrong. Both Scorsese and De Niro were coming in hot with their recent work together, “The Irishman,” so to have a couple of Scorsese’s top players come back only helped build the prestige of what was to come. Now if I have to be frank, “The Irishman” to me was a movie of moments. There are a lot of decent parts of the film, but I feel like the parts I enjoyed more were less significant to the plot and more likely to be described as random sprinkles in the background. And to be honest, it was too long.

I can sit through a three plus hour movie. In fact, speaking of Leonardo DiCaprio, I very much enjoyed “Titanic.” The “Lord of the Rings” films are around the three hour mark and for the most part, they all serve their runtime beautifully. “Seven Samurai” is a wonderfully shot, exquisitely told revenge tale. “RRR,” which I reviewed months ago, is one of the most chaotically fantastic three hour escapes I’ve had in my entire life. If you want to go for something very recent, with a runtime that clocks at just around three hours, “Oppenheimer” is a compelling, haunting drama that I did not want to end. And if you are wondering why I had less of a problem with those movies than “The Irishman,” it’s not necessarily just that they were more entertaining. But everything in those movies felt essential, and they used those few hours in a way that had me engaged from scene one to the end credits. “The Irishman” honestly ends up feeling rather tiresome by the end, and maybe a little self-indulgent. I gave the movie a 7/10 when I reviewed it, but the more I think about the movie, I often think about how the runtime bogged my mind by the time it was concluding.

And that’s why I was worried when I found out that instead of “The Irishman’s” three hour and 29 minute runtime, “Killers of the Flower Moon” was only three minutes shorter at three hours and 26 minutes. If I have to be honest, this movie somehow feels longer than “The Irishman.” I cannot even believe I am saying that. For the record, I ended up seeing this movie in IMAX, and somehow I still felt overwhelmed with what was happening. When it comes to the look of the film, I will not deny that in many instances, it looks gorgeous. It honestly looks more pristine and captivating than a good number of films that came out this year. The cinematography is some of the best of the year. The locations are beautiful. The color palette, while definitely symbolic of the movie’s not so happy go lucky tone, is perfect for the story at hand. I will not deny it, “Killers of the Flower Moon” is a well made, well crafted, well acted, well directed piece of art. Or cinema, as some would prefer to call it. It’s just too long.

They size does not matter, it is what you do with it. And what they did with it, was kind of boring. By the second half of this movie, I kept asking myself when it was going to end, and that is never a good sign.

I must reiterate that “The Wolf of Wall Street” is a banger of a flick. From start to finish it is a wild trip with this one guy who by definition, should be beyond unlikable, and yet they utilize him in such a way that makes him one of the most charming protagonists in that year’s slate of films. Leonardo DiCaprio killed it in the lead role and while I did not always identify with the character, DiCaprio did such an excellent job at making a character like Jordan Belfort as palatable as possible. He is the kind of character that part of you wants to be, but then that sane part of your mind kicks in and rejects that thought. Jordan Belfort is a moron. No doubt about it. But he is a pretty likable one at that. DiCaprio manages to play, personality-wise, a similar character in this film. Specifically, Ernest Burkhart. He is clearly does not really have the best morals. I honestly find it hard to link alongside or root for this character sometimes. Overall, he is kind of self-centered. What kept me interested about Jordan Belfort is that in every scene, even in ones where he clearly came off as a posh prick, I found the character himself to be charming. My ability to admire Ernest on the other hand, was flying up and down like a see-saw.

Was I at least intrigued by this character’s arc and journey? Sure. In fact, one of the highlights of “Killers of Flower Moon” for me would have to be Ernest’s love connection with Lily Gladstone’s character. Everything involving this relationship, from early on all the way through the long runtime felt genuine. I really like these two together. In fact, it goes to show that Lily Gladstone not only gives a knockout performance as the character of Mollie Burkhart, but she may have been the bright spot in a film where everything around her feels comparatively brooding or a bit of a downer. She stands out as an angel in a dark alleyway.

The whole balance between Ernest’s connection to his uncle, in addition to the established motivation against the Osage people, in kahoots with his own relationship with Molly, serves as “Killers of the Flower Moon’s” biggest point of intrigue. It is, likely by design, supposed to induce discomfort. And if that is the case, the film certainly did its job. Because I am watching everything going down, and it is not really much of a mystery as to who is doing all the killing in the movie. There is the old saying that it is not about the destination, it is the journey. To be frank though, when it comes to this journey, I probably ventured off a few stops early.

When it comes to the movie’s cast, it is pretty stacked. Not only do we have Leonardo DiCaprio and Robert De Niro, the two big names carrying the film together. By the way, De Niro is quite good as William Hale, and delivers my favorite line of the film.

It may sound better with context, but those who must know, the line is “The front is the front, and the back is the back.”

But in addition to these names, the entire Osage ensemble happens to be really good in this film. I bought into all of them. We also have Jesse Plemons, who is given a meaty supporting role as an FBI agent with a lot to like. But I must admit, as much as I like Brendan Fraser and John Lithgow as actors, they almost feel out of place in this film. They feel distracting. Their appearances are not cameos, but they are almost executed in ways that feel cameo-like. They are not giving monumentally bad performances by any means, they do okay with the material given to them. But when you put them against say the recently mentioned Jesse Plemons, they feel more like stars than characters. That’s the best way I can sum it up.

Speaking of things that feel out of place, the ending of this film, when it finally happens, rubbed me the wrong way. I am sure it was well intentioned. If you asked me if Martin Scorsese and crew inserted everything into this film believing each increment would feel necessary, I would say yes. That said, the second to last scene in this film comes off as inconsistent and abrupt. When the movie finally ended, I was glad, because it was already long enough, but it does not change the fact that I waited over three hours for something that was lacking in satisfaction. When it comes to movies, I like weird. I like different. And I admire when filmmakers try stuff that are out of the ordinary. This is one of those times where it did not stick the landing.

If I had to name another positive, this film nails its atmosphere. Again, going back to its overall look, everything in the frame feels magnificently crafted. But there is also more to it than sight. Because the film is scored by Robbie Robertson (rest in peace) and he brings forth one of the most hypnotic and unique scores of the year. It is totally fitting for the movie at hand and almost comes off as a character of its own. While I may hesitate to watch “Killers of the Flower Moon” a second time, I could see myself going on YouTube and searching up the official soundtrack for the film to listen to in the background. It might be my favorite part of the entire film.

In the end, “Killers of the Flower Moon” is a magnificent effort that is not quite my cup of tea. There are things to like about it, but I do not know if I can say it was worth my time. I am honestly having trouble recommending this movie. If you asked me if I would watch it again in the next couple days, my answer would be no. Though I imagine a there are a surplus of people who would say yes. There is always that one movie every year that is likely going to not only get Oscar consideration, but also has a legit shot at a Best Picture nomination that I do not agree with. In 2020, it was “Mank.” In 2021, it was “Licorice Pizza.” In 2022, it was “Elvis.” In 2023, I think “Killers of the Flower Moon,” depending on how the rest of the year goes, will end up being that movie. Despite the marvelous camerawork, occasionally neat characterization, and atmospheric glory, it also reveals the painfully slow editing and pace that remains consistent throughout the movie. It is unfortunate because it is based on events that actually happened and it is an important story to tell. I just wish it were told in a way that made me more likely to run down the streets raving about it. It pains me to do this, but in a thumbs up, thumbs down world, this movie is a thumbs down. So, this score is going to reflect that. I am going to give “Killers of the Flower Moon” a 5/10.

“Killers of the Flower Moon” is now playing in theaters everywhere. Tickets are available now.

Thanks for reading this review! My next review is going to be for “Freelance,” the brand new movie starring John Cena as an ex-special forces operative. I will also have reviews coming soon for “The Persian Version,” “Priscilla,” “The Tunnel to Summer, the Exit of Goodbyes,” and the one movie on this list I am certain Martin Scorsese is most excited about, “The Marvels.” If you want to see more from Scene Before, follow the blog either with an email or WordPress account! Also, check out the official Facebook page! I want to know, did you see “Killers of the Flower Moon?” What did you think about it? And if you saw the movie, do you think the runtime is justified? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks

The Irishman (2019): Jack Does a Short Review of Martin’s Long Film

Posted on by Jack Drees

mv5bmguym2zizmutmwy0oc00ntq4lthkogutnjy2njkzmdjimwmwxkeyxkfqcgdeqxvymzy0mte3nzu40._v1_sy1000_cr006821000_al_

“The Irishman” is directed by Martin Scorsese (The Wolf of Wall Street, Silence) and stars Robert De Niro (Meet the Parents, The Godfather: Part II), Joe Pesci (Home Alone, Raging Bull), and Al Pacino (Heat, Insomnia). This is a return to form for critically acclaimed director Martin Scorsese, who is well-known for his gangster movies including “Goodfellas,” “Casino,” and “Mean Streets.” In this film inspired by Charles Brandt’s book “I Heard You Paint Houses,” Robert De Niro’s character, Frank Sheeren recalls events of his past as he gets involved with Russell Bufalino and dissects into his involvement with Jimmy Hoffa.

I will be completely honest with you. There was a time, going back two or three years ago that I did not think I was going to check out this movie as all. After all, I don’t personally pay for Netflix, which I heard this movie was going to be on. I did not realize at the time that they were getting a bit more serious with their theatrical releases. To this day, my family uses Netflix, but I just never jumped on the train. I’m just not a streamer, it’s not my style. The only services I use today happen to be Prime and Crackle. When I heard this was getting a theatrical release, my curiosity levels shot into the air and almost splattered like glittery fireworks. Even though I am rather late to the party, I did make a trip to one of my local theaters to go see “The Irishman.” I’d say it was worth the trip. To be honest with you, even though some of the most well-regarded movies ever made are gangster flicks, that type of film has never been my style. With that being said, my experience of witnessing this film was still a good use of my time.

Speaking of time, “The Irishman” is three and a half hours long, making it my most extended watch of the year. This is both a blessing and a curse. I say that because the movie for the most part is entertaining and rather investing. The downside is that perhaps both the first thirty minutes and last thirty minutes happen to be the points where the film manages to fizzle. I may be exaggerating on the first thirty minutes because for one thing, the film was just beginning, therefore it was nearly impossible for me to divert my eyes away from the screen. But, for the last thirty minutes or so, I felt like I was watching something that was four hours as opposed to three and a half.

I did something I don’t normally do when I work on my reviews, but I jotted down some short notes after watching the film. I was in the middle of a double feature, because I watched both this and “Marriage Story” in the same day. Before my second movie started, I stated that “I enjoyed the little things.” There are a few scenes in this movie that sort of add something to the film, but almost feel like they belong on an extended cut. There is a scene towards the end of the movie, that I won’t entirely go into that involves a conversation about the delivery of a fish. It’s undoubtedly entertaining, and in the moment, it kind of put a smile on my face, but the more I think about it, it almost does not really add anything to the film overall aside from some random laughs. It just feels like wasted time. I mean, it sort of reminded me of “Pulp Fiction,” which has random conversations about uncomfortable silences and foot massages. These are two random topics that somehow got in the script in the first place, but most amazing of all, worked. However, “Pulp Fiction” feels like it uses every minute wisely whereas “The Irishman” almost overstays its welcome. The pacing drags at a point, which considering the runtime, is not that surprising.

While this movie may suffer in terms of pacing, I think it is nevertheless one of the best directed and acted films I have seen all year. Martin Scorsese manages to deliver a technically competent film on all levels ranging from camerawork, lighting, and delivering the best performances possible. This movie also contains what may be my favorite child performance of the year, given by Lucy Gallina. Her performance is very subtle, and any scene involving her was either entertaining or simply charming.

Speaking of surprise performances, I want to talk about Ray Romano. Do not get me wrong, I liked Ray Romano long before he signed onto this movie, but I never thought Romano had the acting range he does today. After all, he was the lead role on one of my favorite sitcoms, “Everybody Loves Raymond,” where he basically plays an exaggerated, alternate version of himself. In this movie he plays a lawyer by the name of Bill Bufalino, and honestly, it’s the best performance of his career. Looking at his past work, it might not say too much, but it’s still worth pointing out.

However, Romano is not part of the big three. Specifically, De Niro, Pesci, and Pacino. And while I do admire the portrayals given by the entire trio, Pacino, personally, cannot be beat. Pacino was perfectly cast as Jimmy Hoffa. This is a role that I honestly do not see anybody else playing, except maybe John Tuturro, not specifically because of his acting ability or anything, but at one point, I thought Pacino looked like Tuturro during the film. Out of all the characters, Hoffa was by the far the most charismatic and interesting of all. He’s bombastic, wacky, and quirky. He’s basically what you need out of a proper Pacino role.

I don’t have much more to say on “The Irishman,” but as I watched this film, one of the things I almost forgot about going in that I eventually reminded myself of is the de-aging processes that can be seen throughout this flick. De-aging through digital tech is a seemingly increasing trend. We’ve seen it so far in films like “Rogue One: A Star Wars Story,” “Tron: Legacy,” and “Gemini Man.” I think one of the best de-aging jobs that has been done recently is for Samuel L. Jackson in “Captain Marvel.” YES, I JUST BROUGHT UP A MARVEL MOVIE IN A REVIEW FOR A MARTIN SCORSESE FILM. REMIND HIM NOT TO READ THIS IN ORDER TO AVOID NIGHT TERRORS. As for this film, I could barely even notice the digital makeup applied to everybody. I’d probably have to watch the film again, and I have no plans to watch it again in the near future, but if I were to watch it again it would be for one reason only. Because the main actors are not that young, and I want to remind myself of how they move. They may look younger in the film than they do in real life, but do they move like younger people should? It’s a question that is still on my mind.

In the end, “The Irishman” is entertaining, but a tad too long. Although at the same time, this brings up a dilemma, because one of the most entertaining factors of “The Irishman” are some little additions that do not need to necessarily be in the final cut, but are entertaining nonetheless. This movie is a solid piece of work, and not exactly a waste of my time (maybe except for somewhere between ten and thirty minutes worth), so I’d still recommend it. I’d recommend it to a good number of people, unless you are an easily offended vegetarian. This film has a lot of steak consumption. I really liked Jimmy Hoffa’s story overall, and basically any scene involving him made the movie twice as swell as it already was. I’m going to give “The Irishman” a 7/10. One reminder to Martin Scorsese, there are two Marvel films I saw this year that I liked better than this. Just being real.

Thanks for reading this review! I just want to remind everyone, as mentioned earlier, I went to see “Marriage Story.” I will have my review up for that as soon as possible, and stay tuned at the rise of the new year for my countdowns on the best and worst movies of 2019! If you want to see more great content like this, follow Scene Before! Also, check out my Facebook page! I want to know, did you see “The Irishman?” What did you think about it? Did you see it in theaters or at home? Tell me about your experience! Or, do you consider comic book movies like those in the Marvel Cinematic Universe “cinema?” Yes? No? Maybe? I don’t know? Part yes part no? State your case, defend your opinion, the universe depends on it! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!