Toby Jones

W. (2008): No Review Left Behind

Posted on by Jack Drees

Hey everyone, Jack Drees here! It is time for the second review in my Election Days series! Today we are going to be talking about “W.,” starring Josh Brolin. The film is about the life of the controversial leader George W. Bush. It features a stacked cast and is helmed by a filmmaker whose respectable track record includes other films having to do with U.S. politicians such as “JFK.” Does this 2008 film earn a Texas-sized thumbs up? Or does “W.” take the L? Here are my thoughts…

“W.” is directed by Oliver Stone (World Trade Center, JFK) and stars Josh Brolin (No Country for Old Men, American Gangster), Elizabeth Banks (Slither, Spider-Man), Ellen Burstyn (The Exorcist, The Last Picture Show), James Cromwell (Babe, The Artist), Richard Dreyfuss (Jaws, American Graffiti), Scott Glenn (Urban Cowboy, The Right Stuff), Toby Jones (Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets, The Mist), Stacy Keach (American Greed, Titus), Bruce McGill (Collateral, MacGyver), Thandiwe Newton (Mission: Impossible II, ER), and Jeffrey Wright (Angels in America, The Young Indiana Jones Chronicles). This film centers around the life of George W. Bush, the man who would become the 43rd President of the United States.

Like him or not, George W. Bush is an important U.S. President in my lifetime. Not because I agreed with his policies or because I liked him. Perhaps second to George Washington, maybe Abraham Lincoln, W. Bush is the earliest President I remember hearing about at some point in my life. Of course, with me being a child during the entirety of his two-term run, I did not immediately know the various aspects of his time in office that people talk about even today such as how he was President during the 9-11 attacks, No Child Left Behind, his response to Hurricane Katrina, his involvement in the Iraq War, and so on. The movie does not go deep into all of that, but it does not mean it is not a contained story. In fact, I would say I was surprised with how engaged I was with the film itself.

For the record, this is my second Oliver Stone film. I previously watched “Wall Street.” A film that I think does a really good job at capturing the hustle and bustle of the stock market and how much of a sport capitalism can be. So if you want me to compare this film to Stone’s other flicks involving U.S. Presidents, particularly “JFK” and “Nixon,” consider yourself disappointed. All I can say is that “W.” was better than I thought it would be. Though I really should not be surprised. It contains tons of great actors, moves at a brisk pace, and features several engaging characters.

The one thing I will say though about this movie, is that I wonder how people who do not know anything about George W. Bush, his family, or maybe live outside the U.S. would take this film. This movie came out in 2008. W. Bush was still in office at the time, making this is a topical picture during its release. I will let you be the judge as to whether 16 years is a long time, but that is how long it has been since this film has come out. There are people in high school right now who were born around the time Barack Obama first became President. I am not going to pretend I have the strongest opinions on W. Bush’s time in office because as I said before, he was President during my youth. During that time in my life, I was more concerned as to when would the next time I was going to Outback Steakhouse as opposed to the state of the economy. The film dives into the days leading up to Bush’s decision to invade Iraq and I am sure even a number of younger people who may end up watching the movie today would probably have an opinion on it. But such a topic is probably not going to have the same impact on those who vividly remember living through that time in history. At times, this feels like a 2008 film that was specifically made for a 2008 audience. I am not insulting those audiences, just to be clear. Those same audiences also got to witness timeless cinema like “Wall-E” and “Slumdog Millionaire.” But would “W.” hit the same way for today’s generation? Hard to say.

That said, the film is still quite universal in its story. It dives into W. Bush’s relationship with his father, which I thought was one of the best parts of this movie. Even though W. Bush comes from a family with a storied legacy, his relationship with his father is something I think a lot of people can relate to. Because we all have parents, and deep down, most of us want to do anything that will keep us from breaking their hearts. The two have a steady connection, but it is not perfect. Nor is it without rules.

My favorite deep dive in the film has to do with George W. Bush’s relationship with alcohol. We see how much drinking impacts his life in terms of the choices he makes, how it affects his relationships with other people, and his overall stability. The movie tends to present alcohol as an obstacle that keeps W. Bush from potential success. We notice as W. Bush ages and becomes more accomplished, mainly in politics, he gives it up. The movie shows how much drinking holds W. Bush back and how him giving it up seems to correlate with his achievements.

As for the performance of George W. Bush (right) himself, I have to say Josh Brolin did a good job in the role. Never once did I feel Brolin was trying to do an impression of the character. He kind of made the performance his own. He was bold in his presence and consistently commanding from scene to scene. Is it the greatest performance of a U.S. President in film history? No it is not. But to be fair, it is hard to compare with Daniel Day-Lewis as the lead of “Lincoln,” a film that came out four years later. In fact, during the same year “W.” was released, audiences were also treated to “Frost/Nixon,” and I would argue Frank Langella did an even better job as the titular leader in that film.

The supporting cast in this film also manages to put their best foot forward. Elizabeth Banks is a standout as Laura Bush. Richard Dreyfuss does a good job as Dick Cheney. And I thought James Cromwell as George H.W. Bush (right) was excellent casting. Across the board, I cannot name a single performance in “W.” I did not like.

But I have to give props not only to Josh Brolin for having the presence one would expect of a flawed but charming leader, but also to the writer of this film, Stanley Weiser, for bringing some decent material to the screen. Unfortunately, it is not all perfect. Despite the film never once feeling boring, it is a tad bewildering at times. The film comes off like I am in history class, and we are doing a unit on the Bush era of politics, whether that is W.’s time or his father’s, maybe with a brief cameo from Jeb here and there. But the unit does not have a clear path. It kind of jumps from place to place and it is not that organized. I guess in a way you can call “W.” a nicely laid out mess. Because I understand the film and what was presented to me. The final product did not melt my brain. I am just not sure if maybe the specific non-linear route the story took was as compelling as it was trying to be.

In the end, “W.” is not a movie I intend to watch again within the next year, but it is one I can definitely see myself revisiting at some point in my life. Again, I am a bit of a novice when it comes to Oliver Stone. “W.” just happens to be a third film in his trilogy revolving around U.S. Presidents. Given how I enjoyed “W.,” it makes me want to go back at check out “JFK” and “Nixon” should the chance ever come up. Is this movie for everyone? Probably not. It is about a controversial leader, so therefore I would not expect it to be for everyone. But it has the hallmarks of a good movie. Decent storytelling, good acting, solid production, and while it is a bit jumbled, I did appreciate Oliver Stone’s vision and what he brought to the table. I am going to give “W.” a 7/10.

“W.” is now available on DVD, Blu-ray, and on VOD. As of this writing, the film is available to stream on Peacock to all subscribers, and can be watched for free on Tubi, Philo, and the Roku Channel.

Thanks for reading this review! My next entry to the Election Days series is going to be for “On the Basis of Sex,” a film about Ruth Bader Ginsberg, the second woman to serve as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. If you want to see this review and more from Scene Before, follow the blog either with an email or WordPress account! Also, check out the official Facebook page! I want to know, did you see “W.?” What did you think about it? Or, do you have a favorite Oliver Stone film? Which of his U.S. President movies would you say is your favorite? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

The Instigators (2024): Wicked Average

Posted on by Jack Drees

“The Instigators” is directed by Doug Liman (The Bourne Identity, Jumper) and stars Matt Damon (The Martian, Good Will Hunting), Casey Affleck (Manchester by the Sea, Gone Baby Gone), Hong Chau (Kinds of Kindness, The Menu), Michael Stuhlbarg (Call Me by Your Name, The Shape of Water), Paul Walter Hauser (Cobra Kai, Inside Out 2) Ving Rhames (The Garfield Movie, Mission: Impossible), Alfred Molina (Raiders of the Lost Ark, Spider-Man 2), Toby Jones (Frost/Nixon, W), Jack Harlow (White Men Can’t Jump), and Ron Perlman (Hellboy, Pinocchio). This film is about two men who go on the run with a therapist after a heist does not go as planned.

As someone who has lived in Massachusetts all his life, it should not come as a surprise that I have a few Boston-based movies under my belt. Movies like “The Departed,” “Good Will Hunting,” “Spotlight,” “Ted,” “Patriots Day,” “Stronger…” Granted I still have not seen everything like “Mystic River,” “Black Mass,” “Gone Baby Gone…” Still waiting to get around to those. But as someone from this area, I feel it is my duty to check out a Boston-based film when possible, which is one reason why I saw “The Instigators” recently.

Sadly though, I cannot say I was that excited for this movie. The trailer failed to impress me, and I did not think this movie was going to do that well.

There are times where I almost forgot I had to review this movie, which is really weird when you consider my experience with it. This is a true story… When I saw this film on opening Thursday night, I am not making this up, my theater was decked to the brim with “The Instigators” posters. If this were my bedroom, you would think I have an unhealthy obsession with this movie. That should probably give you some indication as to how my experience went down.

For the record, I do not despise “The Instigators,” but I also cannot say it is worth your time either. This is one of those movies that barely kept me awake as it went. Does it have a good pace to it? Sure. Do I like the cast in the movie? Sure. Do I think the movie has some clever moments? Sure. But everything about the overall experience of the film just screams middle of the road. There is nothing outright amazing about “The Instigators,” especially when compared to other Boston titles like “The Departed.” If I was in a Boston mood and I wanted to truly pay attention to every single detail on screen, I would simply turn on “The Departed.” But as for “The Instigators,” the situation in which I most likely see myself watching this movie again in the future would probably be when I just need some background noise. Part of me wants to say that I could maybe catch the movie on cable and just leave it on, but I highly doubt that Apple is going to allow that to happen. I do not think they are in that kind of business.

Now as someone who resides on the North Shore of the Bay State, I do fit into some local stereotypes. I do enjoy Dunkin’, I buy a ticket to a ballgame at Fenway, I have used the term “Storrowed” every once in a while, and I have even had the privilege of seeing a couple Boston Marathons in person. When I was in college the Boston Marathon route went right by my campus, so I took advantage of my commuter parking pass and got to see the event play out a couple times. Heck, I went to see this movie IN THE ONLY THEATER TECHNICALLY IN BOSTON, not any of its suburbs, selling tickets for it! But I have to be real with you, as much as I try, to varying successes and failures, to maintain my local roots, I have to admit this movie does a good job linking itself to the Greater Boston culture. When I say this however, I should also say, the movie almost does… TOO GOOD of a job. Sometimes the outcome this movie provides when it comes to its Boston tributes, if you can call them that, is almost pornographic. Whether it means Alfred Molina randomly showing up with Dunkin’, getting Rob Gronkowski of all people to make a rather gratuitous cameo, or having Hong Chau’s character mention she’s from Lynn during a chase and having the other characters say “Lynn Lynn the City of sin” just because. Though I must admit, there is a scene in the movie where we see a protest outside of Boston City Hall and I almost burst out laughing as soon as I saw a sign that read “FIX THE MBTA!”.

It is almost as if the crew behind this movie decided to ingrain themselves so heavily in Boston culture to the point where they sort of built a decent atmosphere for the film, but did not have the brains on how to make the film as entertaining as can be. Because as I look back at this film, I find to be uneventful, unmemorable, and minimally engaging. I cannot say I hate any of the characters on screen, but I am not going to remember their names in six months.

That said, this film is led by Matt Damon and Casey Affleck, and the two, to my lack of surprise, have decent chemistry in their roles. They both do a good job as two guys from Quincy, and even though I admit their journeys in this film fall into some pits of predictability, I enjoyed seeing their motivations play out and their personalities come to life. But when you have these two leading a movie like this, I kind of expect something more from the script or the plot, or even the direction.

Heck, this movie is directed by Doug Liman, whose resume partially includes “The Bourne Identity” and “Edge of Tomorrow,” which like those movies or not, you would probably agree with me when I say they look pretty cinematic. This movie honestly looks like it was made for television between its lighting that appears as if the crew forgot to brighten the bulb a tad occasionally. Yet at other times, it has some unusual camera tricks that try to appear cinematic, but only manage to feel jarring the longer I gaze my eyes upon them.

If I had to pick a performance in the film that stood out to me the most, it would probably be Ron Perlman as Mayor Miccelli. At a glance, Perlman very much looks the part of a politician. He has this look to him that like some politicians, you question yourself in the back of your mind on whether or not to trust him. His presence in the film made for some good scenes, especially towards the end.

And you know what? This is a poetic transition. If I had anything else to say that is positive about the film, I must admit, I was not 100% thrilled with all that it had to offer, but there are several scenes where you can easily be entertained by these characters. The entire cast oozes charisma, even if they are playing characters whose names you will probably erase from your memory after leaving the theater. Is part of it because some of the actors in the cast are recognizable? Perhaps. Why do you think I am going about this review referring to the actors names but not acknowledging their respective characters? But like some of their previous work, those recognizable actors play their parts well here. However, for me, this film was missing something. If anything the film is almost too stereotypical and lacking in any oomph that will make audiences remember it for years to come.

In the end, “The Instigators” is a somewhat entertaining movie, but it is not one that had me engaged the entire time. As the heist goes down, I am interested in what is going on. But I cannot say there are any standout moments in this film that will cement it as one of my favorites of the year. Does everyone in the cast do a good job? Again, sure. But they are not Oscar-worthy. This movie is on Apple TV+, and I can frankly see why. I have to be real, their record has not been working for me. Other than “CODA,” which is amazing, I cannot say I have seen one movie from Apple yet, and I include “Killers of the Flower Moon” in this thought, that has totally floored me. If you were planning on watching “The Instigators,” I am here to tell you your time will not be completely wasted, but you can probably use that time to do other things that would be more exciting. I am going to give “The Instigators” a 5/10.

“The Instigators” is now playing in select theaters and is available on Apple TV+ for all subscribers.

Thanks for reading this review! If you want to see more reviews like this, I have more coming! Stay tuned for my thoughts on “Sing Sing,” “Borderlands,” “Skincare,” “My Old Ass,” “Reagan,” and “It Ends with Us.” 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 Instigators?” What did you think about it? Or, since I clearly have no faith in their service, what is something you recommend on Apple TV+? Yes, I know they’ve got shows like “Ted Lasso,” “Severance,” “For All Mankind,” but I want to specifically ask if there are any movies from them that you enjoyed. Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny (2023): Far from Spielberg, But Not Offensive

Posted on by Jack Drees

“Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny” is directed by James Mangold (Ford v Ferrari, Logan) and stars Harrison Ford (Star Wars, Blade Runner), Phoebe Waller-Bridge (Fleabag, Solo: A Star Wars Story), Antonio Banderas (Puss in Boots, The Hitman’s Wife’s Bodyguard), John Rhys-Davies (SpongeBob SquarePants, The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring), Toby Jones (Wayward Pines, The Dark Crystal: Age of Resistance), Boyd Holbrook (Narcos, The Sandman), Ethann Isidore (Sam, Mortel), and Mads Mikkelsen (Rogue One: A Star Wars Story, Chaos Walking). This film is the latest installment of the “Indiana Jones” franchise. This time around, the title character is done with adventures, and he is just about done with teaching. But when the opportunity to retrieve a time-spanning artifact strikes, Jones, with the assistance of his goddaughter Helena (Waller-Bridge), goes on one last adventure to acquire the object.

My dad introduced me to “Raiders of the Lost Ark” when I was eight years old. Back when Blockbuster Video was a thing. My dad picked up a copy of “Raiders of the Lost Ark” from my local Blockbuster Video and presented to it me. He said it was like “Star Wars,” an integral part of my childhood that I have carried to my adulthood. Safe to say, when he said that, my first thought was that I should just go watch “Star Wars,” so I ended up never watching the film before it was returned. Though I did eventually watch it with him when I was 13 years old because I recorded it on the DVR. I thought it was a really solid movie. For years, it was the only one I fully watched. With “Dial of Destiny” now out, I went back and revisited the first film, and watched the sequels for the first time. Despite a major hole regarding Jones’s actions towards the climax that “The Big Bang Theory” ruined for me, “Raiders” still held up nicely. “Temple of Doom” had its moments, but was not without its camp and flaws. “Last Crusade” is a contender to be one of the greatest adventure films ever made. Among other things, the film had rambunctious action scenes, great dialogue, dynamite chemistry between Harrison Ford and Sean Connery. If this were the finale of the “Indiana Jones” franchise, I would have been fine with it. Especially considering the massive downgrade that came with “Kingdom of the Crystal Skull.” With that came iffy at best CGI, a lack of verisimilitude compared to the other installments, haphazard characters, possibly Cate Blanchett’s career worst performance, and an underwhelming climax. The film had its moments, but they were few and far between.

Basically, the “Indiana Jones” franchise is like a see saw. One moment it is up, the next it is down. Then it goes back up, and suddenly back down. If we are going by statistics, this should mean that “Dial of Destiny” should be a step up from the franchise worst “Kingdom of the Crystal Skull.” Thankfully, that is the case. But that is not saying much.

I had some excitement for “Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny,” but I am not going to pretend I was bouncing off the walls about it. In addition to my long-standing indifference about “Indiana Jones” compared to other franchises, part of it might be because of how long this movie took to make since it was announced. They kept talking about the movie with little action to back it up. Also, this time around, Steven Spielberg is not at the helm. This time, the director’s chair has been given to James Mangold, whose recent “Ford v Ferrari” stands as one of the greatest car-related films of all time. When it comes to Mangold’s direction, it is not bad. The film looks good from a production standpoint. Many of the performances fit the characters. When it comes to basics, nothing stands out as a revolting negative.

That said, while the film does look good to a degree, I think it is still the worst-looking film of the “Indiana Jones” movies. Part of it has to do with how the movie is shot, specifically on digital, whereas all the previous installments were shot on film. I understand times change and digital is easier to handle. But when it comes to the look of “Indiana Jones,” it always had this dirty aesthetic to it. While it is here in parts, it is a far cry from its predecessors. With film you typically get more detail and there is a less artificial vibe to the image than digital. If I were behind the film, that is a change I would have made. As much as I knock “Kingdom of the Crystal Skull” for its bad effects, everything from the sets to the framing to the grading looks a tad better. Just a little.

But if I have to point out one set piece I really liked, a lot of the moments in New York City are eye candy. I have always thought of “Indiana Jones” as a larger than life franchise, where everything has this huge scale to it. Thankfully, the Big Apple lives up to its name. There is a chase through the city during a parade that was worth watching on the big screen.

Though, per usual, Harrison Ford puts in a good performance as the title character. While I will always think of Harrison Ford as Han Solo before anyone else, I can probably gather that Indiana Jones may have been his favorite character to play all these years later. In recent years, Ford has come back to revisit a series of characters he played throughout his career. The recently mentioned Han Solo, Rick Deckard, and now Indiana Jones for the second time this century. Of these kinds of roles, I still think Ford’s outing as Rick Deckard in “Blade Runner 2049” unleashed his best chops, but it is undeniable that this outing as Indy gave him a lot more to do, and he does it all nicely. I think Ford carries the film with excellence.

Speaking of Harrison Ford, the opening scene features Indiana Jones in his prime, and in doing so, this required artists to de-age him. I have seen a mix of face alterations and instances of de-aging on film to a mix of results. Thankfully, I can say much of the de-aging in this film is more on the positive end. There is one moment where Ford tilts at a 90 degree angle that took me out of the scene, but it is so minor that it fails to ruin the big picture.

Phoebe Waller-Bridge also appears in this film, and while her performance may be great, her character is not. When I watch movies, I do not ask characters to be perfect individuals, but I want a reason to root for them. In Waller-Bridge’s case, she plays Helena, Indy’s goddaughter. The best way I can describe this character is money-hungry. Do not get me wrong, money talks. But in the case of Helena, it is practically all she thinks about and all she seeks. She is nearly the most one-dimensional character of the film by the end of it. I will admit, there is one action towards the end she did that I could get behind, but for the most part, I was not fond of her. Her chemistry with Indy is okay at best and some scenes between them are better than others.

But if I have to be real, a lot of the film’s cast is surprisingly unmemorable. When I look back on “Dial of Destiny,” Helena and Indy are the only two characters that stand out. Maybe Mads Mikkelsen, who plays Jürgen Voller, an okay antagonist, adds something to the table, but other than these three, I cannot say I outright loved any of the other characters in this film. While I did not like the characters in “Kingdom of the Crystal Skull,” I will admit they at least stood out. Maybe not in the best light, but still.

I do not want to spoil the climax for this movie, but all I will say about it for those who have not seen it, there is a scene that goes on for an extended time that introduces a never before seen, but totally fitting concept to the “Indiana Jones” franchise. As much as it fits, I wish it could have been explored more. So much to the point that I would have been happy had they made a whole movie about what was happening in the climax, instead of the one we got. I am not going to pretend what happens in the climax is the best thing the franchise has ever done. But if they turned that into a 2 hour movie with the title character, or heck, even a Disney+ or Paramount+ series, I think it has the potential to be really good. It would catch a lot of eyeballs. The climax had some good ideas, but it did not do enough to make the rest of the movie worth my time. This is the longest “Indiana Jones” installment yet, and I occasionally felt that runtime.

In the end, “Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny” is not the worst film in the series, but also far from the best. This film tends to stick to the franchise’s admirable roots to some degree, but it is not enough to recapture the success of films like “Raiders of the Lost Ark.” Although on the topic of roots, it is not hard to appreciate any film placed in front of you when the music is scored by John Williams. If you are a fan of the “Indiana Jones” franchise, I think there is some precedent to checking out this film. I like the franchise, though it is, as discussed, something I never grew up with. Some of you reading this, should you check out this film, may have a greater attachment to it than I did. It is by no means the worst tentpole of the year. It has a long way to go to compete with the atrociousness of “Fast X.” I just think there are better movies you can watch right now. I am going to give “Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny” a 5/10.

“Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny” is now playing in theaters everywhere. Tickets are available now.

Thanks for reading this review! My next review is going to be for the brand new comedy “Joy Ride.” Also stay tuned for my reviews for “Mission: Impossible – Dead Reckoning Part One,” “Oppenheimer,” and “Haunted Mansion.” I also have plans to watch the brand new anime “The First Slam Dunk” this Saturday, so that will be added to the list as well. Though I imagine some of you are wondering, when will I review “Barbie?” The world needs to know. Well, world, I should have you know that I have not watched it yet, but I have tickets for Sunday. If everything proceeds accordingly, I will be watching the all new blockbuster this weekend, so I will have a review for that coming soon. If you want to see more from Scene Before, follow the blog either with an email or WordPress account! Also, check out the official Facebook page! I want to know, did you see “Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny?” What did you think about it? Or, what is your favorite “Indiana Jones” film? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

Empire of Light (2022): A Cinematic Projection of Why Community and Connections Matter

Posted on by Jack Drees

“Empire of Light” is directed by Sam Mendes (1917, Spectre) and stars Olivia Colman (The Favourite, The Crown), Michael Ward (The A List, The Old Guard), Monica Dolan (A Very English Scandal, Appropriate Adult), Tom Brooke (Preacher, Game of Thrones), Tanya Moodie (Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker, A Discovery of Witches), Hannah Onslow (This Is Going to Hurt, Ridley Road), Crystal Clarke (Sanditon, Ordeal by Innocence), Toby Jones (Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets, The Hunger Games), and Colin Firth (1917, Kingsman: The Secret Service). This film is about a group of people living in 1980s England who work together at a cinema. Two of these people, specifically Hilary, the manager, and Stephen, a recent hire, develop a bond and take their connection to the point of a committed relationship.

There is a saying that Hollywood loves itself. Movies like “La La Land” and “Once Upon a Time in Hollywood” highlight such a point. But while those movies are their calendar year’s shining example of “movie about movies” storytelling, 2022 is not short on these kinds of stories. “The Fabelmans,” which is based on Steven Spielberg’s youth, highlights the power of making movies. “Clerks III” doubles as a homage to Kevin Smith’s previous creations while also paying tribute to people want to create a film. I think it also shows how difficult such a process can be, both in front of and behind the camera. “The Unbearable Weight of Massive Talent,” which stars Nicholas Cage as himself, pays tribute to various movies he made (and some he did not) while also poking fun at the way certain cinematic stories are told. “See How They Run” features a storyline where people want to turn a play into a motion picture. Later this month, “Babylon,” which is set in old Hollywood, will hit theatres. Some may call it self-indulgent, self-absorbed, or self-obsessed. Based on how I liked all these movies, minus “Babylon,” which I have yet to see, I would call it “writing what you know.” One thing is for sure, Hollywood knows movies.

While “Empire of Light” does not entirely highlight people making movies, it does highlight another important aspect of the filmmaking process, selling the movies. Most of this film takes place at a movie theatre. Not a modern day multiplex like AMC or Regal, but a small venue with a couple screens. The building itself looked beautiful. Similar to how “The Fabelmans” emits a certain magical feeling in regard to filmmaking itself, the cinema here emits an alike feeling to the point where just being inside it feels like an escape from your problems.

Despite being in a digital age where everything is at our fingertips, I am glad we still have movie theaters. In fact, I had the chance to watch “Empire of Light” at the Coolidge Corner Theatre, which if you are not from the Boston area, is a cinema in Brookline, Massachusetts that has some killer Art Deco vibes and a lot of history. It is a great place to see a movie. Watching a movie like this in a theater of that nature, the kind where they open and close the curtains before and after the movie, felt beautifully trippy. The best movies are those that take you to another world, and despite being in an older movie auditorium, I felt like I escaped into another auditorium somewhere else.

Joined by other casting standouts like Michael Ward, Toby Jones, and Colin Firth, “Empire of Light” is led by Olivia Colman, a talented actress who can do no wrong here. Unsurprisingly, she breaks both of her legs in this movie and maybe even a shoulder. I would not be surprised if she receives some chatter this awards season. She portrays Hilary, a cinema manager. From a written perspective, I would say Hilary is a kind of manager I would love to work for. She is competent, occasionally tough, but also fair. In short, she appears to want the best for everyone. Above all, she seems to be in her mojo whenever she happens to be at the cinema. I am kind of jealous of everyone who got to work at the cinema before the 21st century, partially because of what they seemed to provide. Cinemas nowadays still provide a wonderful experience. Also, large formats like Dolby Cinema and IMAX are great ways to enhance blockbuster presentations for example. But there is something about the cinema now, as magical as it is, and yet it seems that some of the magic might have been more evident in a time before Nicole Kidman tried to tell me that heartbreak feels good in a place like this. If I could transport myself to the cinema in this film, I would take the opportunity if it were presented to me.

This leads me to my next ounce of praise, the locations and overall look of the film. Again, the movie theater itself is lovely. It felt massive and at the same time, intimate. The rooftop, especially at night, is ingrained in my memory. There are also some beach scenes that looked crispy. Why should I be surprised? This is from the same director/cinematographer duo who also worked on “1917,” which looked gorgeous in its own right. Now, comparing the two films on a technical level seems unfair as “1917” was designed to look like most of it was done in a single take. But I would say “Empire of Light” is a solid follow-up.

Before I address my problems with the film, another compliment I must give to “Empire of Light” is the sound mix. Following what I said about the magic of the movies, the sound in this movie, is best heard in a theater. The levels could not be better or more immersive. That said, there is one sound I found particularly annoying. Partially because I heard it so many times in other content, but it makes at least seven appearances in this one movie. Do not take my word for it, but gosh does it feel like seven… I do not mind hearing seagulls, but hearing the same seagull sound effect after the fifth time took me out of the film, which is unfortunate considering how immersive the rest of the movie is. I will also address the story. It is not a bad story by any means, but it feels like all sparkle with very little shine. The performances are great, but the writing to support said performances lacks flair at times. I cared for the characters, but I cannot say I was as invested in them as other movies I saw recently.

I often make the assessment that every movie, even unforgivable garbage such as “Morbius,” will always be better in a theater. I will also note there are moments, like certain portions of the score, or one particular repeated sound effect during a scene three quarters of the way through the runtime, that are marvelously hard on the ears and build tension just by becoming the elephant in the room. This film is not as complicated as “Top Gun: Maverick,” but whoever did the sound mixing should be happy with how it came out. If you look at the box office nowadays, you may notice that films that partially rely on spectacle like “Black Panther: Wakanda Forever” and “Jurassic World: Dominion” are usually the box office kings. Films that are of a tinier caliber like “Vengeance” or “The Fabelmans,” even though they might have have notable people in front of or behind the camera, do not do as well. I am part of the audience who goes to see spectacle fare like “Black Panther: Wakanda Forever” because the odds are that the big screen experience will be the ultimate way to experience those movies. If you are thinking of waiting to watch “Empire of Light” at home, there is no one stopping you. However, few movies have sounded or looked as good this year given the scale for which this movie aims. There is a reason why Roger Deakins, this film’s director of photography, has 15 Academy Award nominations attached to his name. I would not be surprised, depending on how well this movie does, if he gets nomination 16.

In the end, “Empire of Light” is not my favorite tribute to movies this year, but it is one of the more palatable ones. This has a look to it as attractive as “The Fabelmans,” and as weird as this may be to clarify, not as heartwarming or emotionally charging as “Clerks III.” Despite my slight negatives, I recommend this film. If you have a chance to see “Empire of Light” this weekend, take it. Go out and support this film. Sam Mendes gets a thumbs up from me on his first film after “1917.” I am going to give “Empire of Light” a very high 7/10.

“Empire of Light” is now playing in select theaters. Tickets are available now.

Thanks for reading this review! Stay tuned for the upcoming week, because “Avatar: The Way of Water,” finally hits theaters after 13 years of waiting. I already have my tickets for Thursday and I will share my thoughts on the film as soon as possible. These are words part of me never thought I’d say, but here we are. Here is hoping the film is worth the wait, and that it actually has a decent, memorable script this time around. Speaking of “films…” My next review is going to be for a film called “The Mean One.” For those who are not in the know, this is basically a gorier version of “How the Grinch Stole Christmas!.” Is this film going to pack in all tons of Christmas spirit? Or did it make me green and icky? Find out in the next review! 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 “Empire of Light?” What did you think about it? Or, what is your movie theater of choice? I am an AMC A-List member, so there are a few AMC locations I usually go to, but one of my favorite places to see a movie is the Sunbrella IMAX at Jordan’s Furniture in Reading, Massachusetts. It is THE place for a big-budget film, and it is also where I will be watching “Avatar: The Way of Water” this Thursday. Let me know your picks down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!