Sony

Saturday Night (2024): Some of the Most Stressfully Exciting 90 Minutes in Cinematic History

Posted on by Jack Drees

“Saturday Night” is directed by Jason Reitman (Ghostbusters: Afterlife, Juno) and stars Gabriel LaBelle (Snack Shack, The Fabelmans), Rachel Sennott (Bottoms, Bodies Bodies Bodies), Cory Michael Smith (Call Jane, 1985), Ella Hunt (Dickinson, Cold Feet), Dylan O’Brien (Teen Wolf, The Maze Runner), Emily Fairn (Mary & George, The Responder), Matt Wood (Law & Order: Special Victims Unit, Difficult People), Lamorne Harris (Call Me Kat, New Girl), Kim Matula (LA to Vegas, The Bold and the Beautiful), Finn Wolfhard (It, Stranger Things), Nicolaus Braun (Zola, Succession), Cooper Hoffman (Licorice Pizza, Wildcat), Andrew Barth Feldman (No Hard Feelings, A Tourist’s Guide to Love), Kaia Gerber (Bottoms, American Horror Stories), Tommy Dewey (Casual, The Mindy Project), Willem Dafoe (Spider-Man, The Lighthouse), Matthew Rhys (A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood, The Post), and JK Simmons (Spider-/Man, Whiplash). This film is a showcase of the chaotic 90 minutes leading up to the production of the first episode of “Saturday Night Live.”

People look at “Saturday Night Live” today with a mix of opinions. Of course, when a television series of its notability has been around for several decades, chances are that not everyone is going to have the same thoughts on it, and there may be moments some find to be better than others. I often find myself going back and watching the series’ gutbusting “Celebrity Jeopardy!” bits with Norm MacDonald as Burt Reynolds and Darrell Hammond as Sean Connery. Those sketches are comedy gold and I find myself quoting it on a regular basis. I have even used one of those bits as part of my Film Improvements segment during the 5th Jack Awards. But the movie “Saturday Night” dives into a time long before that when the show had its humble beginnings. The film has a star-studded cast including Gabriel LaBelle as Lorne Michaels, Cory Michael Smith as Chevy Chase, and Rachel Sennott as Rosie Shuster just to name a few people. Audiences of all kinds know the names of these characters today, but this movie is kind of an underdog story about a bunch of nobodies. One of the most positive things I can say about “Saturday Night” is that it easily gets me to root for its cast to do anything and everything they can just to make it on the air by 11:30. The film definitely has a Hollywoodized feel to it at times, but I think it works because some of the hyped up situations definitely add to the entertainment of everything on screen.

For those who do not know, since 2023 I have worked in live television, particularly local news. So while I might say the film “Broadcast News” is sometimes more specifically reflective of my work environment, even though that movie came out years before I was born, “Saturday Night” also does a great job at encapsulating the vibe of working in a live production. This film dives into the first episode of “Saturday Night Live,” but I must say as someone who has been working in local news for almost a couple years now, even when the formula may be familiar, there have been times that feel as if we are making a live broadcast for the first time. After all, there is so much that has to be done for several shows in a single streak of hours. Therefore, something down the line is bound to screw itself up. It is unavoidable. Sometimes it is my fault. Sometimes it is someone else’s bad. Sometimes it is a technical problem. But one thing I will note about my job is that we are lucky that we have a schedule that is set in stone. Sure, not everything goes right, but there is a lot that does. We have a history of shows behind us, and planned broadcasts for the hours ahead. We have a good team of people who all do their job as best as they can and offer excellent results. But our crew in “Saturday Night” learns that they are potentially going to be sidelined by a rerun for “The Tonight Show Starring Johnny Carson.” They might not even have a first broadcast.

There are so many things that this crew has to deal with in just a span of 90 minutes… Making sure the entire cast is ready to go. Convincing John Belushi to tolerate being in costume. Figuring out what to cut for time. Standing outside the building and trying to get people to join a live studio audience. Trying to sell the show to various affiliates. This entire film is a stress streak from start to finish. It is anxiety-inducing. The movie contains a moment or two that allow the audience audience to breathe. There are slower moments in the movie, but even in those scenes there is a sense of everlasting tension. There is a wonder if certain wrongs will be made right.

I mentioned this film has a star-studded cast, so chances are you are going to recognize at least one name on the list. But my favorite performance in the film is from Cory Michael Smith as Chevy Chase. From the moment I witnessed this son of a gun fall to the floor, get back up, and so casually utter the words, “Sorry, tripped over my penis,” I knew we were in for something special. Even though he has a legacy, I have heard about some of the controversy surrounding Chase, such as when he was on “Community.” Having heard about that almost makes this movie, and this particular performance, just a tad funnier. Although that makes me wonder how this movie will sit with certain people, because it reminds me of how hyper-obsessively knowing about certain comic book movie news stories over the years made me appreciate “Deadpool & Wolverine” in a way that I imagine some people would not. It makes me question how well the movie will age.

Also, Gabriel LaBelle as Lorne Michaels is a superb pick. This is a young, fresh actor who I would guess not everybody knows at this point, and I think some people will still not know a few months later, but I hope this review helps a soul or two get to know him, because he is talented. Michaels is the center of this rollercoaster of a film, and you can tell that in every single frame, he is nervous about whatever crazy derailment could come up. And those nerves rubbed off on me. This is a young guy with a lot of potential. But the thing about potential is that not everyone has seen it. Even though this is based on events that happened and I had an idea of how things in this movie would go, I was rooting for Michaels and crew to unleash said potential by the end of the film.

I also want to bring up the ending of the film. It is one of those endings that had me perplexed, yet satisfied. Because it comes out of nowhere, but it also closes on a note where anything after it is practically bonus content. The main story finishes by the time we get to said ending, but it comes at me like a bullet. It feels jarring. Given time to marinate though, I love what they did with the ending. I will not go into detail for those wanting to see the movie, but between the timing of the dialogue and the credits music, I am having a hard time imagining this movie capping things off better than it did. On the note of the music though, Jon Batiste, who actually has some recent variety TV experience as the bandleader on “The Late Show with Stephen Colbert” for seven years, does the score for “Saturday Night,” and it is perfect. At times it is subtle, but it is almost a character of its own in the film. Just thinking about parts of it gives me chills and nerves.

One good question to ask is whether this movie is a good watch for people who for whatever reason, have not seen an episode or sketch from “Saturday Night Live.” I think this film will definitely land harder for those who have seen some of the sketches, some of the episodes. That is for sure. But I think those who have not seen “Saturday Night Live” can still get plenty of laughs out of this film. Because if you have not picked it up already, this is not “Saturday Night Live” in movie form. It is not like “Jackass” or “Impractical Jokers,” two shows starring real people that end up taking their show’s format and converting it into a feature film. This is not this generation’s version of “Movie 43” so to speak… This is instead a buildup into how “Saturday Night Live” became what it is. This is, again, an underdog story, and I think a lot of people can appreciate those. And of course, there’s laughs, there’s tension, there’s a lot of big stars. Heck, JK Simmons makes an appearance in this movie, which I was not expecting at all. And I really was not expecting him to be cast in the kind of role in which he was picked to play. At one point he is just dancing like a moron, and he plays it up so well that I am laughing not because of the physical movements, but the guy doing said physical movements. I often pick apart animated movies nowadays for an overreliance on star power, but this is a movie that uses star power like few others I have seen recently, and I would say it does a great job with it. The cast is stacked and everyone plays their part to a T.

Maybe you know the names Kaia Gerber or Willem Dafoe or Dylan O’Brien. But what makes this movie is not the stars, it is the compelling narrative, ferocious pace, and laugh out loud funny comedy that honestly could match the feeling of a watching a spectacular “Saturday Night Live” episode at home on your couch or on your bed.

In the end, “Saturday Night” is an utter delight. I absolutely loved this movie. Granted, I am a bit biased because I work in live television so it kind of reminded me of the environment in which find myself on a regular basis. These are for two very different programs, but when putting two and two together, I found some commonalities. This was a movie that from scene one takes you on a ride, and I did not want it to end. That said, when it did end, I was satisfied and infatuated with what I saw. Does it sometimes feel hyperbolic in its execution? Perhaps. That’s probably my biggest critique, but the movie still works with that feeling intact sometimes. “Saturday Night” has the vibe, filmmaking style, and comedic flair of “The Disaster Artist,” but it uses those ideas and presents them in a movie with the pacing of “Speed” starring Keanu Reeves. I am going to give “Saturday Night” a 9/10.

For those sticking around, I wanted to end on this note because what I am about to say was intended as a part of the review, but it ultimately become a bit of a tangent. Nevertheless, I am proud of it. So I kept it here for you all to read.

This film is led by Gabriel LaBelle, who is still in the early days of his career, but he is proving himself to be a fine talent. But I am impressed by his luck, if you can call it that, in terms of his resume. Because a couple years ago he starred as the lead of “The Fabelmans,” which is an excellent movie by the way. For those who did not see the movie, it is directed by Steven Spielberg and is loosely based on his life. In that film’s case, LaBelle ends up playing a version if you will of Spielberg in his youth. Now, he has gone from playing one of the most iconic filmmakers of all time to playing perhaps one of the most impactful TV creators of all time. I would not imagine people today know Lorne Michaels like they know the name Steven Spielberg, but it does not change the fact that Lorne Michaels has become one of variety TV’s staples over the years. Whatever your definition of variety TV is, I will leave that up to you. However, to this day, “Saturday Night Live” is still doing weekly episodes. NBC’s “Late Night” format is still kicking with Seth Meyers at this point, who I would say is doing a very good job. I particularly think his “A Closer Look” segments are well timed and always end on a high note. It makes me wonder what is next for LaBelle. Is he going to take on notable game show hosts next and play young Alex Trebek? I think he’d do an okay job with that. They’re both Canadian! Just an idea! Heck, he could probably play Bob Eubanks! Peter Tomarkan! I could even see him as Pat Sajak! LaBelle has chops, I am just saying!

“Saturday Night” is now playing in theaters everywhere. Tickets are available now.

Thanks for reading this review! My next review is going to be for Francis Ford Coppola’s “Megalopolis,” his passion project which has now been in theaters for several weeks. Also coming soon, I will be sharing my thoughts on “Venom: The Last Dance.” 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 “Saturday Night?” What did you think about it? Or, what is your favorite “Saturday Night Live” sketch? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

It Ends with Us (2024): A Stellar Drama Featuring a Great Cast, and a PG-13ified Serious Subject Matter

Posted on by Jack Drees

“It Ends with Us” is directed by Justin Baldoni (My Last Days, Five Feet Apart) who also stars in the film as Ryle Kincaid. The film also stars Blake Lively (The Shallows, Gossip Girl), Jenny Slate (Everything Everywhere All at Once, Marcel the Shell with Shoes On), Hasan Minhaj (Babes, The Daily Show), and Brandon Sklenar (The Big Ugly, 1923). This movie is about a woman whose relationship with her neurosurgeon becomes upended when someone she previously dated reenters her life.

If there is a duo that ruled this summer for movies, it would have to be Ryan Reynolds and Hugh Jackman for their blockbuster hit “Deadpool & Wolverine.” But Ryan Reynolds is not the only one in his family making dough at the box office this summer. While not quite up to the $1.3 billion “Deadpool & Wolverine” has raked in so far, Blake Lively’s “It Ends with Us” is doing very well for itself. So far, it is past the $300 million mark on a $25 million budget. Frankly though, I am kind of surprised, because this is a movie that if I were an executive, I would second guess myself before letting it into theaters during mid-summer. Not that such a thing could be impossible, but it deals with a subject matter as serious as domestic violence. While there is romance, humor, and a recognizable name like Blake Lively, August would not have been my first choice when it comes to an appropriate time to release this film.

Speaking of marketing, the specifics as to how such a campaign went down are a bit icky. Some have pointed out the marketing does not give much of a hint that domestic violence is a part of this story. Also, this film had “Girls’ Night Out”-themed screenings. While I would have to assume women are more likely than men to get their foot in the door to watch this movie, having seen “It Ends with Us,” a girls’ night out should not be paired together with domestic violence.

The fact is, I am not a woman. Instead, I am, not that it matters, as straight and white of a male as you can get. But I was nevertheless intrigued by the buzz this movie seemed to be getting, even if some of it seems to be due to its controversial marketing campaign. Having seen the movie, I can say that it was a decent watch. Was it perfect? By no means. In fact, a lot of the dialogue is cheesy, though nowhere as bad as a by the numbers romcom like “Anyone But You,” a movie that strictly made money because it was a rare film released at the year’s end that put stylistic sex appeal over substantive Oscar bait. In fact, even the movie’s characters know how cheesy its own script is at times. The film’s main character literally says so when she is introducing herself to the love interest! For those who have not seen this movie or read its respective source material, the main character’s name is Lily Bloom, and interesting enough, she is a florist! But there is also a balance when it comes to the script’s tones that just so happens to bind together. At times, the movie is cute. At others, it is funny. At others, it is serious. All of these elements are handled with care.

As for that last element, that is where this movie’s issue of domestic violence comes in.

I would like to make another thing clear, and maybe this will once again make me the last person you’d want to be talking about this movie, I have never had a girlfriend. I have never been in a relationship. I have, thankfully, been on neither end of a domestically violent relationship. I am not going to pretend I am an expert on the subject, nor should I tell others how to handle such a matter. All I can lend is my opinion on how the movie handles it. As for how the matter is handled in “It Ends with Us,” I was surprised to find that it comes off as kind of tame. Now do not get me wrong, domestic violence is a serious issue. And the movie, effectively, presents it as such.

The MPA has officially rated this film PG-13. Not the lowest rating of the bunch, but certainly not the highest. There is a lot that you can get away with in a PG-13 movie. Though like many other PG-13 flicks, the movie does only limit itself to one f-bomb. But as I watched the scenes where the relationship becomes dangerously physical, the violence is never over the top or graphic. I honestly do not mind this choice because I am trying to think about this from the perspective of someone who has dealt with a relationship like the one this movie presents. Would over the top violence or a little extra blood be too much for some people? Chances are that could be the case. This is a movie that gets its message across by showing people the wrongs of this couple’s relationship without overplaying said wrongs for a horrid, disturbing dramatic effect.

Even though we have war movies that tend to use bloody and gory scenes to captivate the audience and immerse them into the environment, I think “It Ends with Us” made a smart choice to hold back on its handling of domestic violence to make the movie a bit more user-friendly. If anything, part of me is also glad the movie turned out to be PG-13, because while a number of adults have probably witnessed domestic violence themselves, it is something that teenagers and young adults should probably learn about because depending on the person, they are at the point where they may be starting to think about dating, or relationships. It is something that they would perhaps need to know. Whether it means detecting certain behaviors from their partners or preventing people from becoming violent themselves.

I cannot name a single character in the movie I did not admire. Not only do I think the entire cast does a good job with their roles, but I buy into the chemistry between everyone. Whether we are talking about Blake Lively and Justin Baldoni as the two leads, or even Lily Bloom’s relationship in high school where we get to see Isabella Ferrer and Alex Neustaedter play sweethearts. Looking back, the scenes between those two young high school students are some of my favorite parts of the film. For the most part, they are wholesome. I appreciated some of Lily’s actions. And it did a good job setting up these two characters for the events that play out in the rest of the film. On that note, Brandon Sklenar stands out as an older Atlas much like Alex Neustaedter does playing the younger interpretation.

As a Bostonian, I would say this film does an okay job masking the fact that despite the story taking place in Boston, this movie was in fact shot in New York. Of course, the movie has an obligatory shot of the Zakim Bridge before it hides any sense it was shot somewhere else. There is one concept that I thought was pretty funny where there happens to be a bar that plays Bruins games, and encourages people to wear onesies to get free drinks. I do not know of a bar in Boston that does that. I should note this concept is also in the book. But I would not be surprised if someone sees this movie, or based on said movie’s growing popularity, reads the book, and starts this tradition somewhere in Boston.

I am not going to pretend that “It Ends with Us” is the must see title of 2024. But kind of like “Barbie” last year, it is probably one of the more important watches. It is a movie that I probably would not have selected as my first choice. Heck, I watched “Oppenheimer” two weeks before I watched “Barbie,” but I think it is a movie from which people will take something with them, while also still being quite entertained. And boy, am I surprised at the entertainment value this movie offers. It has its laughs, it has its smiles. It has its feel good moments. Yet at the center of it all is an issue that I can gladly say I never had to face, but I think could serve as a decent learning experience for those who have never seen it. As for those who have dealt with it, or those with more expertise on this issue than I, this begs me to ask… Is this movie’s depiction of domestic violence rightfully executed? Do you think they should have done it differently? I know this issue is not comfortable for everyone to talk about. I am not trying to pressure anyone. But as someone who does not have a ton of experience with this topic I am never against learning something new.

In the end, “It Ends with Us” surprised me. I almost ended up not seeing this movie. To be real, I went because my mom wanted to check it out and I thought I’d go with her. And I am glad I did. Also, considering how Blake Lively’s spouse, Ryan Reynolds has a big movie out, I wanted to see what Blake Lively herself had up her sleeve. Safe to say, it was something worth checking out. Regardless of how it was marketed, “It Ends with Us” is a good movie. Sometimes the dialogue is not the greatest and some moments feel oddly hokey. But I can forgive that. The film has a great cast of characters and I found the pace flying at times. This is not a movie that I would recommend to everyone, but I think it is one that should you decide to watch it, you will leave it thinking you have not wasted your time. I am going to give “It Ends with Us” a 7/10.

“It Ends with Us” is now playing in theaters everywhere. Tickets are available now.

Thanks for reading this review! My next review is going to be for “Beetlejuice Beetlejuice,” the long-awaited sequel starring Michael Keaton. Stay tuned! If you want to see this upcoming review and more from Scene Before, follow the blog either with an email or WordPress account! Also, check out the official Facebook page! I want to know, did you see “It Ends with Us?” What did you think about it? Or, what is a movie you saw this year that surprised you? It could be a good or bad surprise. “It Ends with Us” ended up being one of my positive surprises, so if you would like to know a negative one, check out my review for the colossal disappointment known as “Argylle!” I like Matthew Vaughn, I like the cast, but the movie? Cast it into the fire for all I care! Let me know your surprise movies down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

The Garfield Movie (2024): A Case of the Mondays

Posted on by Jack Drees

“The Garfield Movie” is directed by Mark Dindal (Chicken Little, The Emperor’s New Groove) and stars Chris Pratt (The Super Mario Bros. Movie, The LEGO Movie), Samuel L. Jackson (The Avengers, Pulp Fiction), Hannah Waddingham (The Fall Guy, Ted Lasso), Ving Rhames (Mission: Impossible, Pulp Fiction), Nicholas Hoult (The Menu, Jack the Giant Slayer), Cecily Strong (Schmigadoon!, Saturday Night Live), Harvey Guillén (What We Do in the Shadows, Eye Candy), Brett Goldstein (Ted Lasso, SuperBob), Bowen Yang (Saturday Night Live, Awkwafina is Nora from Queens), and Snoop Dogg (The Joker’s Wild, Training Day). This film is inspired by the “Garfield” comic strip and centers around the iconic orange feline who reunites with his father all the while needing to complete a high-stakes heist.

The “Garfield” property is one that I never found myself overly attached to. As a child who grew up in the 2000s, I have come across the Bill Murray-led “Garfield: The Movie” and watched it a couple times. I did not have a passion for the material, personally. In my early double digit ages, I have also watched a couple episodes of Cartoon Network’s “The Garfield Show” when we had company at my house and I was not the one controlling the TV. Safe to say, with my limited exposure and lack of memory or experience with the comics, “Garfield” was not something I cared about a lot as a kid.

Speaking of not caring, I felt rather indifferent about “The Garfield Movie.” The only catalysts that could have gotten me invested in “The Garfield Movie” are the trailers looking uniquely bad, and the powers that be deciding some time ago that Chris Pratt is the only person who can lead big animated movies now for some reason. As soon I heard Chris Pratt was voicing Garfield, my first thought was the same when I heard he was voicing Super Mario. And that thought was, “Why?”

Now that I have seen “The Garfield Movie” and have now witnessed Chris Pratt’s performance as the title character, my thought was the same when I finally saw “The Super Mario Bros. Movie” and heard Pratt voice the title character in that. And that thought was, “Why?” Genuinely, I do not know how Chris Pratt could have worked in this role. The only defense I could possibly come up with is that Garfield, by nature, is a pretty lazy individual. And when I am hearing Chris Pratt talk, he kind of sounds rather mellow and unenthusiastic. That maybe could be what the movie’s going for, but it doesn’t work for me. And maybe this shows Pratt’s range because he also voiced Emmet in “The LEGO Movie,” which, sure, is pretty much the definition of an everyday, ordinary guy. But Pratt sounds enthusiastic enough in his performance there to put a spin on the everyday nature of the character. If anything, Chris Pratt in “The Garfield Movie” is about as interesting as a trip to DMV. He is lifeless, lacking in flair, and sounds as if he is just getting ready for the fat cat of a paycheck. The best way I can sum up Chris Pratt’s performance in “The Garfield Movie” is to say that I do not see a cat. I just see Chris Pratt in a soundbooth. It is the same problem I had with Dwayne Johnson voicing Krypto in “DC League of Super-Pets.” When you get a big name celebrity like that to be the lead voice of your film, sure, maybe it will boost credibility for select audience members. But to me it almost fails to come off as “acting.” I love “The LEGO Movie,” and Chris Pratt is a standout as the voice of Emmet. But “The Garfield Movie” is not a good fit for him. I did not think Chris Pratt could give a less interesting voiceover than “Onward.” Then “The Super Mario Bros. Movie” happened, and so did “The Garfield Movie.” What a world we live in.

That said, the movie’s supporting cast is a bit better. Samuel L. Jackson does an okay job as Vic (center). Hannah Waddingham, even though she could have been written better, does the best she can with Jinx. I thought Nicholas Hoult gave a much better performance as Jon than I anticipated. I like Hoult, but I was rather surprised he put as much passion as he did into the role. But by far the best performance in the movie is Ving Rhames as Otto, a bull who served as a mascot for a farm. Rhames currently has a consistent career in the voiceover game doing Arby’s commercials. But his performance as Otto proves that he not only has the meats, he has the goods. Also to his advantage, he has the best lines in the movie. There is one line, I cannot remember it verbatim, that he uses to mathematically determine how long it would take for Garfield and Vic to cooperate and work as a team. But for what I remember, based on the way it was executed, it delivered one of the bigger laughs I had during the film. And that transitions into another disappointment. I wish this film were funnier. After all, “Garfield” is an iconic comic strip. You’d expect humor out of something like “Garfield.” And sure, there are glimmers of “The Garfield Movie” that deliver a few laughs, but not a ton.

Animation-wise, the movie delivers a fairly wide color spectrum in certain scenes. There are moments, color-wise, that feel surprisingly bland. But I was impressed with the animation of the Italian restaurant we see at the beginning of the movie. Additionally, there are a few shots that tend to stand out and match the film’s mile a minute pacing. But I cannot say anything regarding the animation is revolutionary or changes the game. Although one compliment I would add is that Garfield himself is well designed. For the most part, he looks like he is straight out of the comic strip. They did a good job at bringing him to life. I just wish he were voiced more effectively.

One thing I took from “The Garfield Movie” is the notion that if this is how the title character is in his other material, then I probably do not have a passion for said character. On paper, Garfield may sound relatable, but his relatability is hard to balance for story like the one this movie is delivering. Garfield’s relatability comes from laziness, unwillingness to get outside, flawed dieting choices, things that make us human. Deep down, some of us can put ourselves in Garfield’s shoes, but throughout this film, no matter how much the plot chooses to progress, Garfield himself appears to lack dimension. In fact, going back to Ving Rhames as Otto, I think he had by far a much better journey in this movie than Garfield did. By the time we got to the end of his portion of the story, it delivered a greater sense of satisfaction to yours truly to what I felt as soon as we got the end of Garfield’s time in the film.

On another note, I was surprised to know how much product placement is in this film. Who directed this? Michael Bay?! Where are the explosions?! Where’s the corny, outdated dialogue? Come on, guys! What are you doing?! I’m guessing this what one of the “Transformers” movies changes into when it needs to shake things up. When it comes to animated movies, “The Garfield Movie” is not quite as bad as “The Emoji Movie” in terms of product placement, but there are obvious winks to FedEx, Popchips, and multiple instances of Olive Garden to the point where I thought I was watching a “Sonic the Hedgehog” movie instead of “The Garfield Movie.”

In the end, “The Garfield Movie” is predictable, disposable, and unmemorable. I would almost argue the movie is too chaotic. Everything gets into gear really quickly to the point where I never found myself fully invested with what was happening. The best phrase I can use to describe this movie is “run of the mill.” I have most definitely seen better, but it is not horrible. It is not the worst thing I ever seen. In fact, with “Madame Web” having released earlier this year, “The Garfield Movie” is not even the worst Columbia Pictures movie we got this year. But the first act at times is a chore to get through. Garfield is rather unadmirable as a character. The story, even with its more complex elements, is somewhat predictable. The ending almost overstays its welcome. And Chris Pratt is incredibly miscast as the titular role. I am going to give “The Garfield Movie” a 4/10.

“The Garfield Movie” is now playing in theaters everywhere. Tickets are available now.

Thanks for reading this review! My next review is going to be for “I Saw the TV Glow.” Stay tuned! Also coming soon, I will have reviews for “Back to Black,” “Summer Camp,” “Young Woman and the Sea,” and “Inside Out 2.” If you want to see these reviews and more from Scene Before, follow the blog either with an email or WordPress account! Also, check out the official Facebook page! I want to know, did you see “The Garfield Movie?” What did you think about it? Also, Garfield clearly loves lasagna to such an insatiable degree. On that note, I must ask, what food would you say is your weakness? I have a number that come to mind, but pizza’s gotta be up there. I literally took a two hour drive from my house a month ago and stayed overnight in a hotel just to try a pizza place I have been eyeing for some time. With that said, let me know down your hunger-inducing weaknesses down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

Tarot (2024): A Stupid Horror Flick with Stupid People Playing Stupid Games and Winning Stupid Prizes

Posted on by Jack Drees

“Tarot” is directed by Spenser Cohen and Anna Halberg and stars Harriet Slater (Pennyworth, Belgravia: The Next Chapter), Adain Bradley (Mr. Student Body President, The Bold and the Beautiful), Avantika Vandanapu (Spin, Mean Girls), Wolfgang Novogratz (The Half of It, Feel the Beat), Humberly González (Ginny & Georgia, In the Dark), Larsen Thompson (The Midnight Club, Pearl), Olwen Fouéré (The Tourist, Texas Chainsaw Massacre), and Jacob Batalon (Spider-Man: Homecoming, Let It Snow). This film is about a group of friends who unleash an unspeakable evil trapped within Tarot cards. With time not on their side, each person must do all they can to avoid certain death.

If you have never heard of the movie “Tarot,” you are most likely off the grid or refuse to use the Internet. Personally, I found out about “Tarot” through a movie trailer before watching something else in the theater. But that is one of the few ways you could have actually been made aware of this movie’s existence. This movie had a digital-only campaign. No TV spots. No billboards. I must say, on paper, I thought this was a ridiculous idea. Because without traditional spots or billboards, the movie and its studio just so happen to be potentially missing out on a wide audience. Lots of people watch TV, and lots of people drive on the highway. Turns out, I was wrong. Worldwide, this film has made more than $42 million at the box office so far against an $8 million budget. That box office total is more than “Abigail.” For the record, that movie cost $28 million including production and marketing when all is said and done.

Now about that trailer… I was not in love with it. If anything, “Tarot” looked like a January movie. It looked like a schlocky horror title with a disengaging story that the studio is simply going to dump into theaters because it has nowhere else to go. Only in this case, they somehow thought it was a good idea to release it in May.

And you know what? The most shocking thing happened during my screening… I cannot believe I’m saying this…

Bah, just kidding! This movie’s garbage!

The characters in this movie are not quite “Madame Web” bad, but each one of them feels like they are on a haphazard network TV show that never found its footing and is likely going to get canceled after one season. They’re not that well written, not that likable, and as much as the actors give their effort, it is not exactly shown on the screen.

Few things suck more in cinema than a horror movie that fails to deliver on scares. Thankfully, when it comes to a lack of scares, “Tarot” could be a lot worse. I will admit, it does get creative when it comes to how it goes about victimizing its characters. And the events in which each of characters finds themselves waltzing through happen to make sense based on everything that has been built up from the beginning. But the movie honestly could be a little scarier.

Now it has been about a month since I have seen “Tarot,” but time has proven that it is not on the movie’s side. “Tarot” is easily one of 2024’s most forgettable movies. If you were to ask me what this movie was about, I could tell you the basics where a bunch of people are at a cabin and play with Tarot cards, even if it is a ridiculous idea. I know a bunch of people are supposed to meet their fates from their actions. But if you were to ask me which character was who, what somebody’s name was, or some minor detail towards the climax, I’d probably go blank. My brain literally vomited the information the screen fed me into an imaginary trashcan as soon as the movie was over. That said, the deaths did not leave much of an impact, even if the process to get to them unleashed some creativity. We do not get enough time to get to know the characters in order to care about any of them. Maybe we get glimpses of their personality and flaws, but we do not know much about them other than them being college students. And the rundown of the movie itself is somewhat predictable. A bunch of people make an unreasonable choice, and that is followed by onslaught of blood, gore, and deaths.

If any other movie comes to mind when thinking of “Tarot,” it would probably be “Ouija.” It is a stupid movie where a bunch of stupid young people play a stupid game only to win stupid prizes. I have only seen the original “Ouija,” but never the sequel. That said, I hear the sequel is better. Maybe through some dumb luck we can have a future where this movie gets a sequel that is significantly more worthwhile than what we got here. But until then, if this movie comes out on DVD anytime soon, I think it will not take too long for it to meet its fate in the Walmart $5 bin. “Tarot” is probably not going to catch on in the same way “Ouija” did. After all, the latter made more than $100 million at the box office, but I think based on the limited budget this movie has, Sony and Screen Gems, to my surprise, were able to manufacture something that technically qualifies as a hit out of this.

But if you are looking for a good story, good characters, and good execution out of the movie’s promised concept, you might want to stay away from this. To my lack of surprise, the film’s directors… Yes, that’s directors, with an “s,” have never helmed a feature before. As far as I am concerned, both of them can only go up from here. In addition to their directing duties, Spenser Cohen and Anna Halberg also wrote the movie together. I cannot say much about Halberg’s writing background, but having looked at Cohen’s resume, I will admit this is probably not the most infuriating screenplay he has done. Because back in 2022, he was credited for writing “Moonfall,” which I had as my #2 worst movie of the year. Apparently Cohen also wrote “The Expendables 4,” which Halberg happened to produce. I did not see it, but I cannot say I heard the greatest things about that project either. Unfortunately, “Tarot” is not much better.

In the end, “Tarot” is one of those movies that as soon as the credits showed up, my brain just incinerated any information connected to it that it could. It reminds of that feeling in school where you study for a test on something you could not give two craps about, and once it is over, you refuse to care about it until the final. You did it once, and you put it behind you. That’s that. “Tarot” is a generic movie with underdeveloped characters and not that many memorable scares. I will admit though, as someone who lives near Boston, used to take the T every day, and sometimes find himself angered by its blunders, there is one scene in this film that kind of connected with me. I will not give anything away, but I will let you see it for yourself. I am going to give “Tarot” a 3/10.

“Tarot” is now playing in theaters and is available to rent or buy on VOD.

Thanks for reading this review! My next review is going to be for John Krasinski’s “IF.” Spoiler alert, it is much better than this movie. Also, stay tuned for my reviews for “The Garfield Movie,” “I Saw the TV Glow,” “Back to Black,” “Summer Camp,” and “Young Woman and the Sea.” 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 “Tarot?” What did you think about it? Or, have you seen “Ouija” or “Ouija: Origin of Evil?” Tell me your thoughts about those movies if you have seen them. Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

Ghostbusters: Frozen Empire (2024): We Came, We Saw, But the Movie Only Barely Exceeded Average

Posted on by Jack Drees

“Ghostbsuters: Frozen Empire” is directed by Gil Kenan (Monster House, Poltergeist) and this film stars Paul Rudd (Dinner for Schmucks, Ant-Man), Carrie Coon (The Leftovers, Fargo), Finn Wolfhard (Stranger Things, It), Mckenna Grace (The Young and the Restless, Gifted), Kumail Nanjiani (Silicon Valley, The Big Sick), Patton Oswalt (King of Queens, A.P. Bio), Ernie Hudson (The Basketball Diaries, Quantum Leap), and Annie Potts (Toy Story, Young Sheldon). This movie traces back to the franchise’s origin point, New York City, and centers around the Ghostbusters’ quest to uncover the connections to an ancient artifact and to keep civilization from being trapped under ice.

Here is a fun fact about Scene Before, “Ghostbusters” literally got this blog started. I am serious. Because I started this blog in 2016 as part of a high school project. One of the big talking points at the time was the trailer for the “Ghostbusters” reboot, which I did not enjoy. Then months later, one of the big talking points was the movie connected to that trailer, which I did not enjoy. Like, really did not enjoy. In fact, when I did my worst films of the 2010s list, that was #1, and I stand by it. Could that movie have worked? Of course it could have! After seeing “The LEGO Movie,” I am under the impression any movie can work. But 2016’s “Ghostbusters” was not funny. The CGI was off-putting. And it is a waste of a lot of people’s talent. When I look back at the film, part of me hates talking about it. Because if I simply say I did not like the movie, there is probably someone out there pointing their finger at me and telling me that I hate women. I am all for women empowerment. Look at how epic “Wonder Woman” was the following year. I just wish this movie were handled better.

When “Ghostbusters: Afterlife” was announced, I was quite excited. I thought it was a little soon for a new “Ghostbusters” outing, but the trailers seemed to successfully balance nostalgia with an immersive, adventurous vibe. It was also nice to see the franchise outside of New York City for once. Unfortunately, I did not get to review the movie due to time constraints. But if you want my quick thoughts, I had a ball with it. I liked the new characters. Paul Rudd was great in his role. The sound design was quite good. And the action sequences were fun. The movie was a delight. The film by no means rewrote what it meant to be a box office success, but it was enough of a hit to justify another movie, in this case “Frozen Empire.”

Just to give a quick ranking of the “Ghostbusters” movies before this one came out, I would have to say the first one is easily the best. “Afterlife” comes in second. “Ghostbusters II” takes third place for me. And again, it pains me just mentioning it, but I have to be honest, my least favorite film of the franchise is the disconnected “Ghostbusters” 2016. So where does “Ghostbusters: Frozen Empire” rank amongst these movies?

Honestly, smack dab in the middle.

In a thumbs up, thumbs down world, “Ghostbusters: Frozen Empire” is an easy thumbs up. There is plenty to like about this sequel. But there is not a lot to love. Does the movie have decent nostalgia? Sure. Does the movie have a good concept? Sure. Is the humor on point? Sure, but it is not as strong as the original movie. Does it handle the newer characters well? Some better than others. This is the one thing about this movie, there are a lot of positives, but when I say positives, I do so knowing that these positives may not be worthy enough for me to go back and watch the movie a second time in the next few months.

Sorry to spoil a movie that is a couple years old, but in “Ghostbusters: Afterlife,” the four original “Ghostbusters” made an appearance towards the end of the film. And yes, I said four. They found a way to inject the late Harold Ramis into the project. In this installment, three of those four are back, and around for a bit longer. Ernie Hudson and Dan Aykroyd have more notable impacts on the story, but Bill Murray manages to squeeze himself in at some point.

One thing I have noticed about the “Ghostbusters” franchise, at least in the movies, is that all of the ghosts are not on the busters’ side. Obviously, if your crew is about killing ghosts, of course, you are going to not play nice with them. But this movie introduces a ghost character who I thought served as a nice antithesis to that idea to some degree. Specifically, Melody played by Emily Alan Lind. Throughout the film we see young Phoebe (Mckenna Grace) develop a connection with her that drives the plot forward significantly. The two have good chemistry and I like seeing them onscreen together. Some elements as to how their bond starts may come off as far-fetched or convenient, but at the same time, it does make sense in a franchise where the Statue of Liberty basically goes “Night at the Museum” during the climax of “Ghostbusters II.”

Although that subplot does not even bring forth the most convenient, perhaps out of left field part of the movie. Because that honor, if you can call it that, goes to something we see out of Kumail Nanjiani’s character, Nadeem Razmaadi (left center). As much as I enjoyed the climax of this movie, if there is one thing I did not like about it, there is a moment where we see Nadeem do something that had me going “Why?” The moment did not feel authentic. Again, I understand, it is “Ghostbusters.” The franchise has jumped the shark before. But I feel the franchise is at its best when there is a balance between reality and fantasy. This leans too far into the fantasy route for me.

This is not to suggest you have to like one movie over the other, but I have a feeling that if you like the 1980s “Ghostbusters” fare, you might feel more comfortable watching this movie at times compared to “Afterlife.” It’s back in New York City, you have more time with the original cast, and it has a much larger scale and feel. If you like those things, you should, on paper, have an okay time with this movie. But the reality is, much like what I said last week about “Kung Fu Panda 4,” if I were to introduce this franchise to someone, I would just start with the original. This follow-up is entertaining, but it does not change the game. It is not going to be remembered as one of the greats. Maybe I will catch it again on cable one day. “Ghostbusters” seems to have a large presence there anyway. But we shall see. It could be better. But for my money, I had fun with it.

In the end, “Ghostbusters: Frozen Empire” is an enjoyable time, but compared to a couple other installments in this franchise, it is not as good. When it comes to pure spectacle, this movie does not fail. There is an action scene in the first act that had me hooked and excited for whatever was going to come next. Was I intrigued by everything that came after? You can say that. But I am not going to pretend I will run down the street screaming my highest recommendations for this film. That said, if you decide to watch it, you might enjoy it. You never know. I am going to give “Ghostbusters: Frozen Empire” a 6/10.

“Ghostbusters: Frozen Empire” is now playing in theaters everywhere. Tickets are available now.

Thanks for reading this review! I have more reviews coming up in the pipeline including “Snack Shack,” “Godzilla x Kong: The New Empire,” “Monkey Man,” “Abigail,” and “Civil War.” Stay tuned! If you want to see these reviews and more from Scene Before, follow the blog either with an email or WordPress account! Also, check out the official Facebook page! I want to know, did you see “Ghostbusters: Frozen Empire?” What did you think about it? Or, what is your favorite “Ghostbusters” movie? And despite everything I said earlier, I welcome any and all opinions about the 2016 reboot. If you like it, more power to you. But for me, the original is the best one. Let me know your picks down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

Madame Web (2024): The Writers of Morbius Return to Bring the Worst Movie Since Morbius

Posted on by Jack Drees

“Madame Web” is directed by S.J. Clarkson (The Defenders, Jessica Jones) and stars Dakota Johnson (Fifty Shades of Grey, The High Note), Sydney Sweeney (Anyone But You, Euphoria), Isabella Merced (Transformers: The Last Knight, Dora and the Lost City of Gold), Celeste O’Connor (Ghostbusters: Afterlife, Selah and the Spades), Tahar Rahim (The Serpent, The Mauritanian), Mike Epps (The Hangover, Next Friday), Emma Roberts (Nerve, Scream Queens), and Adam Scott (Parks and Recreation, Big Little Lies). This film centers around a woman named Cassandra Webb. When this paramedic discovers she is clairvoyant, she tries to balance learning about her past all the while protecting the future of three teenage girls.

In the moviegoing market, comic book movies are a dime a dozen nowadays. But there are reasons for that. For starters, a lot of them have received positive reviews in recent years. DC titles like “Joker,” “The Suicide Squad,” and “Wonder Woman” have received a lot of love over the years. In the case of the first title, it even got some recognition at the Academy Awards. The MCU has had a lot of positive critical reception and have been darlings with fans and audiences. On Sony’s side, the animated “Spider-Verse” titles have tons of dedicated fans. But let’s not forget the real reason why these films keep getting made. It’s the same reason every film gets made. Profit.

Films like “Iron Man 3,” “Aquaman,” and “Captain Marvel” for example, all made more than a billion dollars. Naturally, Sony wants a piece of that pie as well. And it’s not like they’re a stranger to it. Their collaborations with Marvel Studios, “Spider-Man: Far from Home” and “Spider-Man: No Way Home” both joined the billion dollar club. At the time, 2002’s “Spider-Man” became the fastest movie to ever reach $100 million at the box office. But in recent years, the studio has moved over to making films about Spider-Man characters without the use of the webhead as its primary protagonist. “Venom,” despite how much I think it is hot garbage, made more than $856 million. “Venom: Let There Be Carnage,” even though it came out when the COVID-19 pandemic kept some audiences at home, still managed to pass the $500 million mark. Then came “Morbius…” With the film grossing $167.5 million against a reported $75 million budget, it barely reached a point of breaking even.

And some may ask why these films seem to be making less than some of their competitors. While there are other factors that definitely come into play, I can shed light on one of them. These films are just not as memorable or high quality compared to say a lot of the MCU installments we have gotten over the years.

If you all remember my review for “Morbius,” I railed that movie into the ground. I wondered why Sony decided to get the writers of “Gods of Egypt,” Matt Sazama and Burk Sharpless, to pen the picture. Maybe they are nice people. Maybe they save kittens from trees on a regular basis, I have no idea, but it does not change the fact these two are some of the worst writers in Hollywood. I was especially shocked that Sony saw “Morbius” and thought, “You know who we should get to write our next comic book film?” The guys who gave us that schlocky Jared Leto film we pushed back for a couple years! As for the one trailer released in this film’s lackluster marketing campaign, it honestly did not help things. But of course, there have been plenty of uninteresting trailers to good movies. But what did I think of the movie itself? Well, to answer this question, I am just gonna have to ask anyone who is reading this to strap themselves in. Because this movie is getting the angry, tangent-filled review it deserves. Why? Because this movie is one of the worst I have ever seen in my entire life. I am not exaggerating. I am not being hyperbolic. This may be the worst film of the decade. Period. End of sentence. Done. Finito. The rain has taken the spider out.

This film is the first I have seen where they flashed the Columbia Pictures 100 years logo. I guess it only took a century to make something as truly diabolical and asinine as whatever this ridiculousness happens to be. I do not know how they did it. But somehow, Matt Sazama and Burk Sharpless wrote a film that is worse than “Morbius.” Get ready guys, I am about to do something I hoped I would not have to do, use “Morbius” as THE POSITIVE.

While “Morbius” was not great, the film at least started with a hint of promise. Looking back, the film had an okay, not great, but mildly amusing first act that did an alright job at establishing a key relationship in the film. You got to know Michael. You got to know Milo. It actually helps the film somewhat as it shoddily progresses. In “Madame Web,” I was about to break just from scene one.

As far as big budget movies go, this is one of the most headache-inducing I have watched. This may seem like a small thing, but there are a couple moments in the film that had these unnecessary zooms. It felt like the cameraman was trying out a camera for the first time and attempting to figure out how the zoom works! It’s that bad! Of course, the cringeworthy dialogue from the beginning did not help much either. And if you like cringeworthy dialogue, fasten your seatbelts, because you are in for a treat! This movie has it in spades! Disappointingly, “He was in the Amazon with my mom when she was researching spiders right before she died,” is not one of those lines. Yep, that infamously awful line from the trailer, it’s not in the movie. As for the other straight up abysmal utterances of words and phrases that did make it into the final project, they are not much better.

What makes “Madame Web” inferior to “Morbius?” Well, looking back at “Morbius,” I think Jared Leto did a great job staying in character the entire time and Matt Smith had the energy of a lively game show host with an edge. As much as I hate bashing actors nowadays, there is not one performance in the film to write home about.

With the exception of one scene past the film’s halfway mark, I cannot say Dakota Johnson gave her best work in this film. To be fair though, going back to the irritatingly terrible screenplay, it did not help things. The one moment Johnson shines in the film just so happens to be the one halfway decent moment in the screenplay. It is one where we get to have a nice, charming moment between her and another character. It is perhaps the only moment of the movie where any of the characters unleash authentic emotion. It was the one moment of the movie where I didn’t hate myself. Then we get to the next scene, and I am not kidding, where it only took a few lines for me to slap myself in the face like I was the first guy trying to figure out how to cure amnesia.

Dakota Johnson may play the protagonist of the film and had top billing. Given what she had to venture through, I’d argue she was underpaid. Right below her is Sydney Sweeney. In the time it took me to write this review, I think significantly more teenage boys took the time to buy posters of Sweeney to put on their bedroom walls than they did to secure “Madame Web” tickets. Knowing the inexcusably bad execution of her character on the page, I think those teenagers made some comparably reasonable purchases. For one thing, from a casting perspective, I find it hilarious that they ended up casting Sydney Sweeney to play a shy, reserved teenage girl. It might be the funniest casting since getting John Cena to play Vin Diesel’s brother in “F9: The Fast Saga.” Now I have seen twenty-something year old actors play teens decently before, and I have seen suave, confidence-exuding actors play roles that do not quite match those aspects of their real life persona. The profession is called acting for a reason. Look at Ana de Armas in “Knives Out!” She is perhaps one of the most beautiful actresses in the business today, but I don’t think you would get that impression of Ana de Armas if your first watch of her in a movie happened to be “Knives Out.” The best thing I can say about Sydney Sweeney in “Madame Web” is the same thing I can say for Jared Leto in “Morbius.” She did her best with the excruciatingly dull material given to her.

In comic book movie speak, the placement between Sydney Sweeney, the other teenage girls, and Dakota Johnson reminds me of the 2015 “Fantastic 4” reboot. An uninteresting, poorly contrived group of four people that is randomly placed together with no semblance of personality or likability. But you know what? I was able to find more positives in “Fantastic 4” than I did for “Madame Web.” The visual effects look nice, some of the first act was okay, and I think Miles Teller did a good job in the lead role. Meanwhile, “Madame Web” pales visually minus a few creative moments, I rolled my eyes from scene one, and I could not find a good performance even if you put a hypnotist in front of me to convince me that one was in front of me all along.

Speaking of “Fantastic 4,” this film, not to mention their respective distributors, have something in common. They come from similar obligations. Rights maintenance. It’s not show friends, it’s show business. Sony is obligated to commence production on a “Spider-Man” project every five years and nine months. They do not have to release the film, they just have to say that it is in production. After seeing “Madame Web,” I can say to those complaining that studios are not making enough original movies, Sony probably feels your pain. They likely felt that they did not want to make this film and instead, they had to. But you know what they could have done? I don’t know, cancelled it?! Go all David Zaslav on it and scrap it for a tax write-off?! That’s what they could have done! For those who say “Batgirl” should never have been cancelled, I think “Madame Web” may prove why that movie met its fate. After all, “Madame Web” is not making all the money in the world. You know why it is not making all the money in the world? It’s unwatchable! Simple as that!

As a fan of the Marvel Cinematic Universe, which this movie does not connect to, I recognize that the entirety of that timeline is not based on the vision of one director, or writer. A lot of it traces back to Kevin Feige, the President of Marvel Studios. As much as I am not one for what many would call studio interference, I will not deny that a lot of the success of the MCU is owed to Feige and his ability to balance connectivity from one project to the next. Not everything is a hit. There have been duds like “Thor: The Dark World,” but everything makes sense and at least feels like it is coming from some hint of passion. Feige cares about what goes on the screen. The filmmakers care about what goes on the screen. I am not saying this film’s director, S.J. Clarkson does not care. But as a whole, this movie feels like made by people who could care less about how it would turn out. Despite how much money these movies make and their extreme presence in popular culture, the MCU movies feel like they are made with love. At least they are when standing next to “Madame Web,” which feels like it was made to fit into a release schedule.

Speaking of release dates, I love how this movie was released on Valentine’s Day. I have never been in a relationship myself, but I nevertheless feel like I am in a fair position to give some advice. If you took your partner to see “Madame Web” on Valentine’s Day, they have every right to use that as a reason to block your phone number, ghost you, or break up with you. I don’t make the rules. I just tell things as they are.

Seriously! Who in their right mind saw “Morbius” and thought the writers should continue working in this cinematic universe? The fact that they were able to conjure a script that is inferior to their previous project is baffling to me.

And if you think I got into the movie’s most shameful moments yet, just wait. You have seen nothing yet. If you have been following this blog for the past five or six years, chances are you may remember my thoughts on “Uncle Drew.” But for those who need catching up, I have to say the movie was not funny, not charming, and completely lacking in any likability whatsoever. As far as I am concerned, “Uncle Drew” has only given me two things. One of the most passionate reviews I have done on this platform, and ire. Not much else. In that review, I titled it the “worst Pepsi commercial ever.” That highly talked about ad with Kendall Jenner has nothing on just how bad that movie was. It was filled to the brim with Pepsi product placement to the point where I almost wanted to chuck a couple Coca-Colas directly at the screen.

Ladies and gentlemen, I think “Madame Web” is now a fine contender to be the worst Pepsi commercial in history.

I am almost scared to know what went on behind the scenes of “Madame Web,” but at the same time, I am curious to know how much money Pepsi shelled out just have the exposure they’ve gotten in this film. Sony films in general are usually obnoxious enough for how much they advertise their own products. Just look at “Gran Turismo!” Not only is that based on a PlayStation exclusive video game, but it also doubles as a Nissan commercial, and ends up making the Walkman an essential element to the story. When it comes to product placement, Sony is arguably the most shameless major studio when it comes to this heinous trend. I understand, movies are expensive and studios need to pay the bills. But why does Pepsi need to be thrown in my face so obnoxiously? At this point, this is not a movie. It’s a giant, uninspired, bloody two hour ad! The real protagonist of this film is not Cassandra Webb, it’s Pepsi!

Speaking of lazy, the ending of this film downright sucks on so many levels. For starters, it reuses footage from Sam Raimi’s “Spider-Man 2.” Not only did it feel like a quick copout, but it made me wish I was watching a much better movie! As for other reasons why the ending sucks, I must once again go back to my old friend “Morbius.”

I said one of the reasons that film did not work for me was because it lied in its marketing campaign about certain things. Unfortunately, Sony learned nothing when marketing “Madame Web.” Because there is an entire segment of the trailer dedicated to showing off something regarding the teenage girls. Now, as mentioned, the teenage girls are in the movie. And that “something” I just mentioned is in the final picture. Unfortunately though, that something is used to basically tease a certain thing in the future. Perhaps a “Madame Web 2.” To that I must say, if you cannot give me a cool movie the first time, why should I care about what you are going to give me the second time? The ending of this movie basically just tells me that after being trapped in front of a screen for two hours, it wants me to come back for an occasion where we actually see something potentially worthwhile. One of the flaws of cinematic universes or modern film franchises in general is that everybody is so concerned about building excitement in regards to what’s next to the point where it is easy to forget that you have to focus on the feature that is in front of you. Additionally, we get a costume reveal for our title character and I have to say, it is strange to look at. Maybe it is because so much of this movie looks dark and greyish at times. Compared to a lot of other comic book movies, the color palette looks bleak. If these Sony Marvel movies have one thing in common, it’s that they look dark and depressing. It sometimes turns me off. I get that characters like Venom are often seen as villains, but still.

Honestly though, the movie is sometimes hilarious, but not in a good way. There is an entire subplot dedicated to the birth of a certain character whose name is never mentioned. As a “Spider-Man” fan, I am able to put the pieces together and determine who this character is, but the way this movie goes about this feels insulting and lazy. The subplot also brings out one of the most cringeworthy jokes in the movie. Basically, Emma Roberts’s character reveals her water just broke, to which one of the teenage girls ends up shouting, “Ewwwwwwww!” I am not joking, to say I facepalmed in that moment would be an understatement. If you were in my auditorium and you heard a loud slapping sound out of nowhere, that was me slapping my hand on my face in anger.

And yes, for those who ask, that was the scene that followed the one decent moment in the movie.

From a technical perspective, “Madame Web” has some okay moments in terms of the action sequences, but nothing I will worship until the day I die. In fact, once again, there is one action sequence that further emphasizes my displeasure with Pepsi’s overexposure throughout this turd of a film. I think the weakest part of the film from a technical standpoint is the sound. Now, everything’s clear. I could hear all the dialogue, in its everlasting, infinite, sigh-inducing glory… But there are multiple parts of the film where I thought I was getting brain damage from how loud the movie was. I watched the film in IMAX, which would naturally mean the sound would be louder. But I have been to numerous IMAX experiences and have witnessed plenty where louder sound has only served as a benefit. Take “Oppenheimer” for example. That trinity test scene was bonkers in IMAX. It was something else. It was one of the most riveting things I witnessed in my entire life simply because I felt like I was a part of that scene. Sometimes “Madame Web” was just loud enough to the point where my headache must have gotten irritated by what was in front of it. Speaking of headaches, the way this movie goes about explaining our main protagonist’s powers sometimes got on my nerves. It’s not that I did not understand it, but rather that it was showcased in such a way that messed with my mind the longer it lasted on the screen.

“Madame Web” is an hour and 56 minutes long. Honestly, that runtime is incredibly flawed. According to my calculations, I think I found the perfect runtime for the film. And that runtime is nothing because a film like this should have never been released. The fact that it even got made is mind-blowing. When this film started, I was turned off. As it progressed, I was seething. When the credits showed up, I stormed out of the theater like a young child who got blue shelled by their friend twice in one race during a session of “Mario Kart!”

I wish I were exaggerating. You may think I am simply telling you this for dramatic effect. It’s true. But I assure you, that short paragraph I just wrote, has more substance than “Madame Web” can provide in less than two hours.

In the end, to call “Madame Web” a joke would make sense, but to do that would be insult against comedy. Because comedy makes you laugh. The only thing “Madame Web” did was intensify my anger. I love comic book movies. I know they are not exactly in the best state right now, but I remember walking out of every MCU movie that came out last year. And even if they were not fantastic, they at least had some redeeming qualities. I know a lot of people have been recently bagging on “Ant-Man and the Wasp: Quantumania” and “The Marvels,” but I dare you to watch those two movies and “Madame Web” in a marathon and tell me that “Madame Web” is not the worst of those three. Because those two movies, despite their flaws, manage to pack in some fun. They deliver good action, neat effects for the most part, and have likable protagonists at the forefront. When I say that “Madame Web” is the worst film of the decade, it is hard to imagine such an assessment being a stretch. Between a wasted superhero story where we barely get any superhero DNA throughout, a lackluster villain, bad writing, terrible jokes, obscene dialogue, and tired homages to “Spider-Man” lore, “Madame Web” is an utterly atrocious mess that will go down in history as one of the most asinine, sloppy, downright criminal pieces of cinema that has ever disgraced the silver screen. Martin Scorsese, if you are reading this, I may disagree with you on comic book movies in regards to whether or not they are cinema. But after seeing “Madame Web,” I think it would be wrong to even call it a theme park ride. Why? …Because theme park rides are fun. I am going to give “Madame Web” a 1/10.

“Madame Web” is now playing in theaters everywhere. Tickets are available now.

Thanks for reading this review! My next review is going to be for “Drive-Away Dolls!” Hopefully that will serve as a palette cleanser for the fiendish brain cell-eradicator of a movie I just watched. One can only hope. Also coming soon, I will have my thoughts on “Bob Marley: One Love,” “Dune Part Two,” “High Tide,” and “Kung Fu Panda 4.” 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 “Madame Web,” and why did you think it was terrible? Err, sorry! My mind nearly broke for a second, what I meant was, what did you think of the movie? Or, what is the superior project? “Madame Web” or “Morbius?” Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

Anyone But You (2023): Sydney Sweeney and Glen Powell Star in a Romantic Comedy That Neither Feels Romantic or Funny

Posted on by Jack Drees

“Anyone But You” is directed by Will Gluck (Friends with Benefits, Peter Rabbit) and stars Sydney Sweeney (Euphoria, The Handmaid’s Tale), Glen Powell (Hidden Figures, Top Gun: Maverick), Alexandra Shipp (X-Men: Apocalypse, Barbie), GaTa (Good Mourning, Dave), Hadley Robinson (Utopia, Winning Time: The Rise of the Lakers Dynasty), Michelle Hurd (Star Trek: Picard, Law & Order: Special Victims Unit), Dermont Mulroney (The Wedding Date, About Schmidt), Darren Barnet (Never Have I Ever, Gran Turismo), Bryan Brown (Cocktail, The Thorn Birds), and Rachel Griffiths (The King’s Daughter, Hacksaw Ridge). This film is about man and a woman who meet in a coffee shop, hit it off romantically, only to have everything fall apart the next day. Some time later, the two reunite at a destination wedding in Australia all the while pretending to be a couple.

During many of my horror movie reviews, I would point out that horror is one of my weaker genres. When I started Scene Before, and even before I started, I tended to avoid horror because many of the movies coming out in said genre either looked identical or uninteresting. Thankfully, having explored more of the genre over the years, I have welcomed quite a few fascinating titles into my life. Similarly, romcoms are another type of film that usually slip under the radar for me. They’re just not my kind of movie. I’ve watched romcoms in the past. In 2019 I saw and reviewed “Long Shot” and “Isn’t It Romantic?,” which offered two completely different experiences for me. In 2022 I reviewed “Ticket to Paradise,” which ultimately got a thumbs up from me despite some problems that came up throughout the runtime. Last year, I reviewed “No Hard Feelings,” which I called a romcom in my review, though looking back it probably would be more accurate to call it a sex comedy than a romantic comedy. When it comes to this blog I have some experience with the genre. But compared to some other types of films, I am a bit of a novice here.

That said, this film is directed by Will Gluck, whose resume as a writer and director is kind of iffy. He previously did the recent “Peter Rabbit” movies, both of which I skipped because they looked like wastes of time. He did “Friends with Benefits,” which I thought was kind of cute. He also did the 2014 edition of “Annie,” which I watched once when it was on Starz. I did not see all of it, but I saw enough of to say I would rather devote my time to something more valuable. Gluck did not write this film, but he also directed “Easy A,” which thanks to some brilliant pacing, a great story, snappy editing, and a marvelous lead performance by Emma Stone, ended up being one of the more memorable coming of age stories of the 2010s.

So, going into “Anyone But You,” I cannot say I was stoked. But I would say I had generously moderate expectations.

Even with those expectations in mind, I was still let down.

This film is dumb. And I can tell it is dumb on purpose. But it is the kind of dumb I cannot appreciate. There is a difference between dumb fun and just dumb. This is the latter. Maybe it is because it is more in line with the films I usually like to seek out, I found a film like “Godzilla vs. Kong” to be an excellent example of dumb fun because even with the wooden characters and oddly structured storyline, the film has some of the best action I had seen in some time upon its release. It was a technical beast. The score was incredible. The special effects were really good. There was a lot to appreciate visually that kept the movie from being bad, unlike its 2019 predecessor, “Godzilla: King of the Monsters.” On the other hand, there are plenty of times in “Anyone But You” where visual gags popped up that either did not generate a reaction out of me, or if they did generate one, it was one that I don’t think the movie would have been going for.

Much of the humor in “Anyone But You,” most notably in the first half, are visual gags that either have to do with private parts or showing off ironclad bodies, sometimes both. It’s the same joke over and over again. If the joke is not funny the first time. Then it is not funny the second, third, fourth, and fifth time. The joke was old when it started, and it was basically on its deathbed by the film’s halfway mark.

My favorite joke in the movie though is one that involves a koala. Of course, Australia, koalas. What a pair. But there are a couple moments in the movie where we see a koala, and those made for my most notable reactions of the film. The jokes are so simple and quick, but that’s part of what makes them great.

And speaking of Australia, one joke that got old really fast was how much this movie utilized the character of Beau. The actor who portrays him, Joe Davidson, said in a press release, “Beau is what you get when you mix all the Australian islands and icons all into one character.” I have lived in the Boston area all my life, and I have seen a number of movies where the characters in said area will have noticeably played up accents. Movies like “The Departed” and “Good Will Hunting,” both of which I enjoyed. But the accents in both of them are definitely over the top, I’d say particularly more so in the former at times but I’d have to watch both films again to compare and contrast. And sometimes when the accents, and in the case of “Anyone But You,” the stereotypes, happen to be this played up, it is distracting. It is almost annoying. Beau is a living, breathing caricature of what some people would perhaps interpret as a hunky, Hemsworth-like Australian. And of course, they make a Hemsworth joke in the movie. Totally didn’t see that coming at all… It reminded me, as a Bostonian, when I saw “80 for Brady” and we would cut to the commentators and they would spew out the most asinine, ear-destroying Boston accents I remember hearing in film history. Safe to say, they were wicked awful. I am not saying there is anything wrong with Australia, their traditions, and what people think of them. I just think the jokes here range somewhere between lazy and overdone.

But how are the two leads of the film? I mean, they’re okay I guess. Sydney Sweeney does an alright job in her role and the material given to her, but there is not as much an oomph in her character or performance compared to what I would have liked to see. But I have to say, Glen Powell is a powerhouse in this film. I honestly forgot how charming he is. I thought Powell was one of the highlights of “Top Gun: Maverick,” and I am glad he is bringing the same appeal to this movie. While I did not love the movie, the material, the jokes, basically a ton of things in it, my biggest positive of the film is that I cannot see anyone other than Glen Powell playing his respective role. The movie is not funny, but Powell makes the most of what is in front of him and he is clearly trying. I just wish he were written better.

One of the more prominent problems I have with “Anyone But You” is that it ultimately feels like two different movies. Yes, I know it is a romantic comedy, which basically promises a romantic movie and a comedic movie all in one package, but the movie as a whole seems to lack a sense of consistency. The first half is a plethora of failed attempts at comedy, and the movie seems to dive into something more serious by the end of it that quite frankly did not keep me hooked. Part of that is because I never found myself completely invested with the characters in the first half. And the weird part is, despite noticing more obvious comedic attempts in the first half of the film, I am looking back at the film and would say I found the second half to be funnier.

As the film continues, it becomes cliche-riddled, bore-inducing, and tiresome. Is the movie offensively bad? I would not go that far. But it is far from the first pick I would make on a Friday movie night. Again, romcoms are not my genre, but I have come to a point in my life where I am practically okay watching any kind of movie regardless of the genre or what it is advertised to be. That said, I also heard enough about this film have some hesitancy towards it, and I felt as if I was right on those reservations. The film is not funny, overly cheesy, not romantic, and kind of forgettable. There are so many other options in theaters right now that I think you would be doing yourself a favor if you check out something else instead.

In the end, “Anyone But You” did not work for me. This is a romantic comedy that is neither romantic or funny. The jokes not only sometimes feel been there done that, but even the more clever ones fell flat because they felt as if they were repeating an earlier comedic attempt. Going forward, I am probably not going to remember a single character’s name from this film, maybe except Bea, partially because she is the lead, but the film somewhat reminded me of “Titanic” because of how many times I had to hear the names “Jack” and “Rose” in its extended runtime. I felt as if I had a similar experience hearing Bea’s name throughout the film. This movie is stupid and I feel dumber for having wasted my time on it. I would rather watch anything but this film if you ask me. I am going to give “Anyone But You” a 4/10.

“Anyone But You” is now playing in theaters everywhere. Tickets are available now.

Thanks for reading this review! Happy New Year, everyone! And it is time to celebrate with some end of the year countdowns! Pretty soon I am going to be sharing my lists for my best and worst movies of 2023! Stay tuned! If you want to see these lists and more from Scene Before, follow the blog either with an email or WordPress account! Also, check out the official Facebook page! I want to know, did you see “Anyone But You?” What did you think about it? Or, what is your least favorite movie genre? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

Napoleon (2023): A Historical Epic with a Tall Runtime that Falls Short of any Level of Engagement

Posted on by Jack Drees

“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!

The Persian Version (2023): Two Generations of Stories Come Together in a Uniquely Structured Dramedy

Posted on by Jack Drees

“The Persian Version” is directed by Maryam Keshavarz (Viper Club, Circumstance) and stars Layla Mohammadi (Special Ops: Lioness, The Sex Lives of College Girls), Niousha Noor (Kaleidoscope, Here and Now), Bijan Daneshmand (Infidel, The Night Manager), Bella Warda, and Tom Byrne (The Crown, Road Dance). This film is about a young Iranian-American woman who is at odds with her family, most notably her mother. The two have their key differences. But when a secret is revealed, the young woman realizes that she and her mother may have more in common than then they once thought.

“The Persian Version” is a film that I am not surprised a lot of people are keeping out of the conversation. It is not playing in too many places, and it came out the same weekend as “Five Nights at Freddy’s.” By the way, I have no plans to watch that film for those who ask. But I was very intrigued by “The Persian Version.” I was sold with the marketing. The movie looked, bright, cheery, vibrant, and seemed to make the most of whatever budget it had. It did not look terribly expensive, but it looked polished for a film of its caliber. Turns out, that is just half the battle, because little did I realize what I would be in for.

“The Persian Version” is a quirky, fun, good old fashioned time that occasionally inserts moments of seriousness every once in a while. Is this a good thing? Sort of. There are multiple storylines at hand, all of which deliver some sense of engagement to varying degrees. Like a lot of other movies, there are parts of “The Persian Version” that are better than others. But in the case of “The Persian Version,” even when the movie transitions in an uneven, and nearly cluttered manner, I still find myself invested in much of what is going on.

I found the storytelling and the way it was executed to be particularly creative. It is non-linear, there is an occasional song and dance aspect. There are notable tonal shifts. There is a balance between comedy and drama. But when it comes to those last two things, it is kind of like a see-saw. It has its highs and lows. I found the comedy in particular to be funny, charming, and for the most part, it works. I found the drama to bring the film to a more down to earth feel that gives a sense of perspective for the characters at hand. This does not result in the best movie of the year. Far from it. But it does result in a film I do not regret seeing and one I think that if it is playing near you, would not make for a bad choice. It comes with plenty to enjoy even with its quirks, whether they work or not.

This film starts out in a lighthearted manner. But it sort of does a back and forth transition between genres where at one moment, it is serious. It is dramatic. Then eventually, it reverts back to being something of a comedy. If you have seen my last review, “Freelance,” you would know that meshing genres does not lead to the best results. But in this movie’s favor, it manages to utilize comedy in a way that is humorous. And it also blends in drama to the point where it manages to compel me. But it does not mean the film is without its imperfections. If anything, I think as fascinating as the events within these genre blends are, there is a noticeable sense of inconsistency between them. Because while comedy and drama can work when combined together, the shift from one genre to another feels nearly seismic at times. It does not really allow much room to breathe and the movie almost spends too much time focusing on one genre to the point where it almost has no identity. It is kind of a mish mash, and too extreme of one at that.

The best way I can describe “The Persian Version” is that it is two movies in one package. Both movies are really good, but they almost do not fit together. The story presents itself in two tonal opposites. In comic book movie speak, it’s like combining “Deadpool” with “V for Vendetta.” Both movies work perfectly on their own, and maybe if you put both together, they could lead to an interesting result. But combining both projects only lessens their value in a case like this.

Although given time to marinate, the movie presents two different tones that ultimately fit their respective narratives by the end. And the more I ponder, it gives me a good idea as to how this film’s main duo tends to see the world. In the back of Leila’s mind, she will do anything to embrace the fun and spontaneity of life. She will do anything to have a good time. She will do anything to keep herself happy. Meanwhile we see another story with her mother as the center where I am getting the sense that having fun may not be the top priority, and fun would only get in the way of what she thinks is important. But it is also shepherded by what these two have on their plate at their respective times of their lives.

The other thing I really appreciated about the movie is that it kind of gave me perspective as someone who is of similar age to Leila, who serves as the film’s protagonist. It reminded me that nobody is perfect. I often think about my parents growing up and realize that maybe they have made choices in life that they either regret or maybe their parents did not always agree with, but maybe they stood by them regardless of the outcome. That is not to suggest those choices are a bad thing, because in the end, they ultimately make us who we are. What matters is how we conduct our lives moving forward for ourselves, in addition to the people around us. In the end, even if our choices end up being mistakes, life finds a way to make us happy.

To top off all of what I just said, “The Persian Version” has a marvelous ensemble that is led beautifully by a mother-daughter duo played by Niousha Noor and Layla Mohammadi respectively. Both individuals are perfectly cast and play off each other very well. The family itself offers plenty of moments to enjoy. I thought Leila’s grandmother, Mamanjoon, was a highlight of the film. She also had my favorite line of the film that comes into play a couple times. It got a good laugh out of me. When it comes to slice of life-style films, “The Persian Version” gets plenty of things right, but it is not without its flaws. But would I watch it again? Perhaps so. It is by far one of the most unique movies of the year and if you are looking for something beyond the traditions of filmmaking, this is a decent option.

In the end, “The Persian Version” showcases the beauty of life, all the while highlighting problems that its core woman characters have to face at certain times of their lives. No matter how big or small. The movie is kind of like life itself. It has its fun moments. It has its downer moments. But by the end, everything tends to come full circle. I think this is a creative, one of a kind feature that despite not getting a lot of attention at the box office for the past number of weeks, certainly had mine. I am going to give “The Persian Version” a 7/10.

“The Persian Version” is now playing in select theaters. Tickets are available now.

Thanks for reading this review! If you enjoyed this review, good news! I have more coming! My next review is going to be for “Priscilla!” I got the chance to watch this film at the beginning of the month. It has been on my mind for quite a bit. I cannot wait to talk about it. Also coming soon, I have reviews coming for “The Tunnel to Summer, the Exit of Goodbyes” and “The Marvels.” 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 “The Persian Version?” What did you think about it? Or, what is your favorite mother-daughter relationship in film? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

Dumb Money (2023): A True Story Rich in Humor and Stars

Posted on by Jack Drees

“Dumb Money” is directed by Craig Gillespie (I, Tonya, Cruella) and stars Paul Dano (The Batman, The Fabelmans), Pete Davidson (The King of Staten Island, Big Time Adolescence), Vincent D’Onofrio (Daredevil, Full Metal Jacket), America Ferrera (Barbie, How to Train Your Dragon), Nick Offerman (Parks and Recreation, The Founder), Anthony Ramos (In the Heights, Transformers: Rise of the Beasts), Sebastian Stan (Captain America: The First Avenger, I, Tonya), Shailene Woodley (Divergent, Big Little Lies), and Seth Rogen (Neighbors, Sausage Party). This film is inspired by Ben Mezrich’s “The Antisocial Network,” a book based on true events. The story of “Dumb Money” captures ordinary people subverting the expectations of Wall Street and turning GameStop into the hottest company on the stock market.

I never got involved in the stock market in any capacity throughout my life. It is just something I have never gotten around to. But even as someone who has never gotten involved, there were times in 2021 where I could not scroll through social media without seeing something related to GameStop, or heck, even AMC Theatres. Both companies were the talks of the town at the time because a ton of people kept buying their stock, and on the surface, it felt like an ongoing joke, but for some people, it was more than that. This is a fascinating story. Therefore, I was surprised, but also delighted, that people were making a movie of this caliber on it as soon as they were. On the surface, the cast is fantastic. Many of them either had recent roles that were highlights of their respective works or have maintained careers that have kept my attention for a long time.

When I think of the GameStop stock story, part of me wants to laugh about it. I mean, come on! It is a physical media company that is as much the butt of the joke as it is synonymous with its own industry. If you live in an area where used game stores are a rarity, chances are you will, even with recent closures, have a GameStop or two within close distance. I am a GameStop customer and shop there multiple times a year. I don’t think all their business practices are great, but they usually provide a decent experience if you are looking for something in particular. In fact, I almost ended up working for GameStop in my teens. Having seen this film, I realize that as much as it highlights the people who are investing in GameStop, it is not afraid to joke about some of the things the company has done. Additionally, “Dumb Money” seems to satirize retail environments in general. I previously worked in retail. Not at GameStop, but still. And this kind of took me back in a way. One of my favorite segments of the movie is this bond between a GameStop employee and their boss. Each scene between them got a laugh out of me. This movie highlights, as I previously knew, the fact that GameStop remained open during the pandemic as an essential business. Sure, it sold certain technologies that people often used during the pandemic, but it is far from the most essential of businesses.

My favorite dig this movie does towards the large gaming chain is when they reference the idea of employees doing a TikTok dance challenge as part of a company contest. This is true by the way. The moment I heard that joke, I was in shock, and then in amazement. Because I nearly forgot that happened. Or more specifically, that it almost did. For those who don’t know, GameStop proposed a challenge to its employees to dance to a song on TikTok in the hopes of achieving extra hours on Black Friday week. This is the thing I love about “Dumb Money,” it is a film that balances humor and respect towards its subject matter. But at the end of the day, it is also a film that tells marvelous tales of underdogs.

There are several underdogs in this movie, and their stories are all compelling. In fact, one of those underdogs is a GameStop employee played by Anthony Ramos. If I did not suggest it already, I enjoyed his presence in the film and his character was well written. Meanwhile you have a couple college students trying to strike it rich. Both of whom are wonderfully played by Myha’la Herrold and Talia Ryder. On another side of the spectrum is a struggling nurse named Jenny, played by America Ferrera, whose presence oozed of charisma every moment she was on screen. But at the center of it all is Keith Gill, who spends his off time from his job on the Internet talking about stocks and Wall Street. The working man and family background of this character made him a compelling protagonist, in addition to Paul Dano’s acting method.

I like all the characters in “Dumb Money,” and I must say the antagonists of the film, specifically those more connected with Wall Street such as Seth Rogen’s Gabe Plotkin, are also fun to watch. At times, this movie basically spitballs who to root for, which is not a hard thing for me to do considering the personality traits and backbones of the antagonists. But there is one scene that perhaps over-embellishes the necessity to root against Gabe. This movie is set during the early-ish days of the COVID-19 pandemic. And one of the earliest things we learn about Gabe is that he and his family now own a new place in Florida so they could party hard during the pandemic. I was, and still am to a degree, one of those people who takes the recent events of the pandemic seriously. I am not perfect, but I still keep everything about it in the back my mind. I remember when the pandemic first started, my family and I had to balance our finances because of the way the economy flipped on its head. And I was primarily concerned about getting my grandparents sick. Meanwhile, this guy is more concerned about being able to party like an animal. The difference here is obvious.

“Dumb Money” is one of those stories that highlights the divide between classes. You have Wall Street up at the top and people like Keith Gill, who is not poor, but making chump change in comparison. It shows how even people at the top feel like they might not have enough despite their enormous success. Meanwhile, this GameStop story, whether it will be remembered more as a triumph for people outside Wall Street or as a silly meme that caught a lot of people’s attention, shows that there may be room for regular people when it comes to striking it big on the stock market. This is a story set in recent times that often delivers humor highlighting said times. I am wondering how well this movie is going to age as a comedy because some of its humor is COVID-driven, but there are plenty of other jokes emitting a more timeless feel to balance it out. “Dumb Money” is very funny, entertaining, and brings out a heck of a story. Before this movie, I looked at the GameStop stock trend as a silly fad, but this movie presents it as something more. And that’s probably the best thing about it. It added depth to this subject for me that I was not expecting. A job well done is in order to everyone involved with this movie.

In the end, “Dumb Money” is rich in excellence. It is not my favorite movie of the year, but when it comes to comedy, this movie has a ton of laughs, and as a drama, it is way more compelling than it needs to be. It presents all these individual stories from different walks of life and makes one big, masterful connection out of all of them. “Dumb Money” is neither short on stars or chuckles. Go check it out if you get a chance. I am going to give “Dumb Money” a 7/10.

“Dumb Money” is now playing in theaters everywhere. Tickets are available now.

Thanks for reading this review! Stay tuned because I have reviews coming for “It Lives Inside,” “Dicks: The Musical,” and “Killers of the Flower Moon!” But in addition to those reviews, I have my last review of the Ridley Scottober series dropping this week. If you want to read my reviews in the series so far, you can check out my thoughts on “Body of Lies,” “Gladiator,” and “All the Money in the World.” As for this last review coming up, I must claim it is a big one. I am talking about “Blade Runner!” Make sure you check out these reviews, past and future, when you get a chance! And you can do so by following Scene Before either with an email or a WordPress account! Also, check out the official Facebook page! I want to know, did you see “Dumb Money?” What did you think about it? Or, do you shop at GameStop? If not, what is your gaming store of choice? Do you even play video games? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!