Tracy Letts

A House of Dynamite (2025): Kathryn Bigelow’s Back, and with More Perspectives Than Ever!

Posted on by Jack Drees

“A House of Dynamite” is directed by Kathryn Bigelow (Point Break, The Hurt Locker) and stars Idris Elba (The Suicide Squad, Pacific Rim), Rebecca Ferguson (Dune, Reminiscence), Gabriel Basso (Hillbilly Elegy, The Night Agent), Jared Harris (Mad Men, Chernobyl), and Tracy Letts (Homeland, Lady Bird). This film showcases different people’s perspectives as the U.S. tries to respond to an intercontinental ballistic missile.

If you know me in person, you know that when I hear the term “Netflix movie,” I automatically go, “NEXT!” When you are a studio dedicated to hiring some of the biggest stars and putting them in a paint by numbers or completely forgettable story like “Red Notice” or “The Gray Man,” I start to think your track record needs improvement. That said, Netflix can occasionally deliver a diamond in the rough. Like many of its competitors, Netflix will usually spend the end of the year delivering their prestige films. These are movies that are likely to get some awards contention like “The Irishman” or “The Power of the Dog.” This year, one of Netflix’s prestige films happens to be “A House of Dynamite,” directed by the first woman to win an Academy Award for Best Director, Kathryn Bigelow. Like some of her other movies, this one involves a serious subject matter and in some cases, might make for a tough watch.

Upon my first impression, “A House of Dynamite” is exactly what I just said. It is one of those films that as soon as I finished watching it, I thought to myself, I need to go home and find something comfortable to put on the television. As soon as the movie was over, I left the theater, got in my car, got takeout, went home, turned on my TV, as well as my 4K Blu-ray player, and popped in “A Bug’s Life.” I sometimes talk about certain films going for the emotions, but this one goes for the emotions in a different way. It goes for the emotions not so much to make you sad, but more so to make you hopeless on top of being sad.

“A House of Dynamite” is this year’s “Oppenheimer.” It is not as good as “Oppenheimer,” but the two are close in terms of quality. “A House of Dynamite” is presented in such a surprisingly brisk pace. I am gobsmacked on how intriguing they ended up making certain segments of this movie. On paper, the movie sounds like pure cinema, but that may depend on how much detail that paper contains. If I told you that this movie was about a bunch of people trying to deal with an intercontinental ballistic missile that is on its way to the continental United States, you might be sold. The concept sold me. But I was not expecting it to be done in the way the filmmakers’ decided to go about it.

The movie is a case of more talk than action. We never see the missile. The closest we get to seeing the missile is through detection screens indicating where exactly in the air it happens to be.

The film also seems to take a page from “Top Gun: Maverick,” because if you remember that film, it never names the enemy. I think this is actually a somewhat wise move, and the way the movie went about it is surprisingly effective.

If I had to look ahead months from now, I cannot see “A House of Dynamite” winning Best Picture at the Oscars. I can see it being nominated. However, winning seems to be off the table. This is not necessarily because it is a Netflix movie, which, like it or not, can come as a turnoff when your awards body is mostly dedicated to movies in theaters. The main reason why I cannot see this film winning is because if I had to name the film’s most significant imperfection, it would be that the characters do not appear to take center stage. The film appears to be more plot-driven than character-driven.

There is an extensive list of characters in the movie, but I could not tell you any of their names. In fact, in the case of Idris Elba, whose name appears first on the cast, he is credited as “POTUS.” Not to digress, I never imagined Elba playing the President of the United States, but I think on paper it is a great pick. In execution, he plays his part well. “A House of Dynamite” does not really have a central character, but the President is arguably the core of the movie.

The film, like many great stories, is presented in three acts, but it presents its acts somewhat similarly to “The Last Duel,” which shows the same story three times from alternative perspectives. The perspectives are packed with differences, but they all take place around the same time and involve the same incident.

Having seen the film, I would love to know how this movie was written. I want to know which perspective Noah Oppenheim started with, how long it took for him to mesh everything together, and how long it took for him to decide on the order of the three acts. For all I know, it could be a boring backstory, but it does not change the fact that this is one of the most unique screenplays of the year. As for the order of the acts that was chosen, I thought it was perfect. Each act seems to hint at things that become more relevant later, and the hints enhanced the acts that followed as they happened. If this film follows in the footsteps of other Netflix projects like “Roma” or “Marriage Story,” I would love to see a Criterion Collection physical copy of the film be brought to market, because I would kill to see a bonus feature on the process that went into putting the screenplay together.

I am curious to know how people will perceive the ending, because without spoilers, let’s just say that the film does not end in a way that I think a lot of people would expect. I do not outright hate how this film ends, but I cannot say it was satisfying either. It almost makes the film feel incomplete. Once again, the screenplay has such a unique layout, therefore the ending is also fittingly unique. But it does not change the fact that it is lacking an impact. It feels like the movie had more to tell but decided to forget about whatever was ahead. Does the ending take away from what made the rest of the movie good? Not really. Sure, the film does not stick the landing once it concludes, but by no means does it split its head open.

In the end, “A House of Dynamite” is one of the most thrilling pictures of 2025. Pardon my overuse of Christopher Nolan film comparisons, but the film somewhat reminds me of “Dunkirk.” This is due to the recently mentioned imperfection of the movie not exactly having a main character. Instead, the closest thing to it would be the main event itself. And it most certainly helps that the main event is quite exciting. The film overall is intense and nail-biting. And this is without getting to see the nuclear missile itself! Is this is Kathryn Bigelow’s best movie? No. I have such a soft spot for “Point Break.” Although if you are looking for another banger on her resume, look no further than “A House of Dynamite.” I am going to give “A House of Dynamite” an 8/10.

“A House of Dynamite” is now available on Netflix for all subscribers.

Thanks for reading this review! My next review is going to be for “The Smashing Machine!” Stay tuned! Also, look forward to my thoughts on “Shelby Oaks,” “Frankenstein,” “Good Fortune,” and “The Running Man.” 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 “A House of Dynamite?” What did you think about it? Or, what is your favorite Kathryn Bigelow movie? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

Elvis & Nixon (2016): Presley Meets the President in This Fun Amazon Studios Film

Posted on by Jack Drees

Hey everyone, Jack Drees here! It is time for the final entry to the Election Days review series! Every year I make an effort to do a weekly series of older releases. This year has been tough to fit one in due to work, travel, life, and so on. But I figured what better time to do a series like this one than during an Election Year in the United States. If you have not read my other reviews in the series so far, be sure to check out my thoughts on “The Campaign,” “W.,” and “On the Basis of Sex.” This week’s review is going to be for the film “Elvis & Nixon.” I have definitely heard of the film before taking on this review series. It came out in 2016, back when Scene Before started. It is one of the earliest films from Amazon Studios, which has now become Amazon MGM Studios. But for whatever reason, I never bothered to check it out. That said, I watched the trailer, I thought looked good, so I thought I would give it a shot. Here are my thoughts on the movie.

“Elvis & Nixon” is directed by Liza Johnson (Dead to Me, Silicon Valley) and stars Michael Shannon (99 Homes, Revolutionary Road), Kevin Spacey (Horrible Bosses, House of Cards), Alex Pettyfer (Endless Love, Magic Mike), Johnny Knoxville (Bad Grandpa, Jackass), Colin Hanks (Orange County, King Kong), Evan Peters (X-Men: Days of Future Past, Invasion), Sky Ferreira (Putty Hill, The Green Inferno), Tracy Letts (Wiener-Dog, Homeland), Tate Donovan (Hercules, Damages), and Ashley Benson (Days of Our Lives, Pretty Little Liars). This film is based on true events and is about a meeting between famed musician Elvis Presley and U.S. President Richard Nixon in 1970, an event that spawned the most requested photograph in the history of the National Archives.

The past couple years have given us some exposure to Elvis Presley on the big screen. Whether it is through “Elvis” in 2022, which I did not enjoy. Or “Priscilla” in 2023, which I thought was one of the best movies of that year. These two films are deep dives into of each of the titular individuals’ lives, but “Elvis & Nixon,” which came out years before both of those films, is a little different. This film specifically focuses on one point in time during Presley’s life, not to mention Richard Nixon’s life. It never strays away from its key event. There are no concert scenes. There’s not much of Elvis’s discography playing in the background. It picks a place in time and refuses to stray away from it. This leads me to some compliments regarding the film. It flies by. Not only because it has a short runtime, but so much fun is packed into said runtime. This film is based on truth, but even with that in mind, it does not mean it is a serious story. Sure, Elvis Presley appears to be motivated to tackle issues he finds to be serious, but the story itself is kind of light. It is literally about two people meeting. Of course, there is other stuff in between, but that is basically the gist.

That said, this also highlights a problem in the film. The film packs a decent amount of material in its short runtime, but I cannot say I was invested in all of it. Some of the threads in the story come off as a bit of an afterthought. It is not that they are boring or do not make sense. But they clearly play second fiddle to the main story. Though to be fair, it would probably be worse if the main story felt like the afterthought. That said, I do wish I were a little more invested in everything else surrounding the nucleus of the plot.

All the actors play their parts well, and despite him being a controversial name now, I even include Kevin Spacey as Richard Nixon in this sentiment. I thought of all the characters in the movie, Spacey’s take on Nixon may have been the biggest standout. He has a commanding voice and admirable presence. He brings a distinctive aura to every scene he is in. His performance definitely fits under a term that I have used previously in the Election Days series, Hollywoodized. There are definitely some exaggerative qualities to it on screen. But it does not change the fact that those qualities fit his character well.

As for Elvis Presley, I thought he was competently played by Michael Shannon. I think he does a good job with his material. Academy Award-worthy? Perhaps not. But he does a good job. While Shannon definitely evokes Presley’s often advertised charisma, I thought he was tamer than I would have expected. Granted, it is fair to say the tale behind this film itself is calm. There is a little more conversation, a little less action, so to speak.

Perhaps my favorite element of “Elvis & Nixon” has to do with Presley’s perspective upon entering the White House. We see the process to get Presley into the building and meet the President is rather complicated, as I imagine it would be for just about anyone else, I have not been to the White House to do such a thing myself. I have never even been to Washington, D.C. period. Crazily enough, I cannot say I ever really imagined what it would be like to meet a sitting U.S. President. But as I watched this movie, it clicked with me. Doing such a thing has to be one of the grandest of privileges. That is the feeling that this movie tends to project while it is set in the White House.

And on that note, perspective is something I think is not just nailed from the view of Presley, but also his fans. This movie has a scene where Elvis enters a room full of women and just about every one of them, whether they choose to display it excessively or not, lose their mind. In fact, we see men doing it too. The only person who we find not to be on the same page with all these people is President Nixon.

This movie has a beginning, middle, and end, like a lot of others do. This movie has a point a to b progression, like a lot of others do. But not every movie can do what “Elvis & Nixon” does because to some degree, it turns nothing into something. If this movie were not based on actual events, that is a description that would immediately come to mind for a movie like this. Again, one of the top goals as far as Nixon’s administration is concerned is to get a picture of the two titular characters, and even something as simple as that becomes complicated.

As someone who did not live in the time of Elvis Presley and Richard Nixon’s peaks in relevancy, I nevertheless can say I was fascinated by what this movie was trying to deliver. That said, I think people who lived during this time will appreciate this movie most because it does a good job at highlighting the prominence of both figures and establishing how mind-blowing it is that these two incredibly famous men ended up crossing paths. But even I, who was born towards the end of the 20th century, recognize the moment this meeting has on our culture. That said, I did not know that the photo behind this film is the most requested in the history of the National Archives. I am not sure how many history classes cover Elvis and Nixon meeting. It is definitely a notable moment in pop culture, but there is a reason why I did not learn about it in school. But this movie, unlike some others based on true events, feels less like a history lesson and more like a fun escape. I laughed quite a few times in this film, there are quite a few gags that are finely executed. If you are looking for something to watch, this movie will do the trick. Is it a masterpiece? No. But it is definitely a solid hour and a half.

In the end, “Elvis & Nixon” definitely has fun putting two notable people of their time in the same room, and results in a movie worth watching at least once. The subplot elements are almost distracting and feel like they are just there to fill an already short runtime, but I would issue a thumbs up to what we got in those 86 minutes including credits. I had a great time watching the movie. Overall, it is light and fluffy, but it does not mean it is not entertaining. The film is not Shakespeare, but definitely a fine time waster. I am going to give “Elvis & Nixon” a 7/10.

“Elvis & Nixon” is now available on DVD, Blu-ray, and on Prime Video for all subscribers.

Thanks for reading this review! I hope you all enjoyed this Election Days series! I have no idea what my next weekly series is going to be, but I do have a few in mind. If I think it is time to do another one, I will share it with you all. Until then, look forward to my reviews for “Here,” “Gladiator II,” “Red One,” “A Real Pain,” “Y2K,” “Juror #2,” and “Wicked.” 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 “Elvis & Nixon?” What did you think about it? Or, what is your favorite movie associated with Elvis Presley? It can be one where someone plays him, maybe there is a good use of his discography, or one he has been in himself. Personally, I thought “Blade Runner 2049” had a couple memorable, albeit brief, moments featuring the musician through a hologram. Let me know your picks down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

The Post (2017): Streep and Hanks Spread the News and Define History in This Spielberg Flick

Posted on by Jack Drees

Hey everyone, Jack Drees here! It is time for the third installment of this ongoing Steven Spielberg Month, where I will be reviewing four of the many movies Spielberg has created over the span of his career. Spielberg has created films with action like “Raiders of the Ark” and “Minority Report,” but today, we are doing a reverse Elvis Presley. A little less action, a little more conversation. That is because we are tackling one of Spielberg’s most recent outings, “The Post.” Nominated for two Oscars, this film was met with acclaim. Let us hope that the Movie Reviewing Moron will have something to say to add to this film’s endless stream of positivity. Here we go.

“The Post” is directed by Steven Spielberg (Lincoln, The BFG) and stars Meryl Streep (The Giver, The Iron Lady), Tom Hanks (Toy Story, Cast Away), Sarah Paulson (Studio 60 on Sunset Strip, Game Change), Bob Odenkirk (Breaking Bad, Nebraska), Tracy Letts (Lady Bird, Wiener-Dog), Bradley Whitford (The West Wing, The Handmaid’s Tale), Bruce Greenwood (Star Trek, Young Justice), and Matthew Rhys (Brothers & Sisters, The Americans). This film is about the first woman newspaper publisher and her editor as they uncover a history changing revelation that had been hidden for four presidencies.

I started Scene Before in 2016. Therefore, I have reviewed a lot of movies since then. Despite seeing previews, I have never gotten around to reviewing, or even watching, “The Post.” The film had a lot of potential from one of the most acclaimed actors and one of the most acclaimed actresses coming together to lead the picture. In addition, Steven Spielberg is behind the camera. Despite the potential, I skipped this film. I was excited to finally give it a watch at home since I had a used copy of the 4K Blu-ray on standby. Physical media forever.

Safe to say, the film is quite good. Streep and Hanks, unsurprisingly, make for a marvelous on-screen pair as Katharine Graham and Ben Bradlee respectively. Cast members who are not quite at the level of top billing like Jesse Plemons and Will Denton also have moments to shine as well. Steven Spielberg delivers another win for his career on top of his many others. The screenplay, which was written by Liz Hannah and Josh Singer is undoubtedly compelling. I should not be surprised that the screenplay is as solid as it is, as Singer has previous experience in writing excellent journalism-centered storytelling. In addition to “The Post,” Singer also wrote “Spotlight,” for which he won two Academy Awards, specifically Best Original Screenplay and Best Picture. Having seen that film, I am not terribly shocked. I am also not terribly shocked that not long after those wins, Singer would once again utilize his creativity to effectively craft “The Post.”

Despite being a serious movie, it flies by. Honestly, despite being a couple hours, it felt like an hour and a half at times. It is that good. Pacing-wise, this is one of the better movies I have seen recently. Kind of like “The Post,” “Spotlight” came out as another one of these awards season darlings. I think both movies are equal in terms of entertainment value, a term I use lightly given both of these movies’ subject matters. Although as for which one I like better, I think it depends on where you look. “The Post” feels a bit more theatrical than “Spotlight.” Therefore, when it comes to technicality, that is one aspect where this movie dazzles. The costumes are rugged and transportive enough to make me feel like I am traveling back in time. A lot of the locations look extravagant and beautiful. To add to the antique touch, this movie was entirely shot on film, whereas “Spotlight” used the digital Arri Alexa XT.

Steven Spielberg is no stranger to starting off his movies with a compelling hook.

No pun intended.

In “Jaws,” you have the intro with the infamous music that continues to build whenever the shark is present. After that, you have that scene on the beach where the shark bites a girl in the water. Total intrigue. In “Jurassic Park,” the opening scene between the humans and the dinosaur shows off the menacing vibe these creatures can deliver. In “The Post,” we start off with soldiers fighting in Vietnam. I was not alive during the Vietnam War. In regards to history, I was still a baby when 9-11 happened. Although based on what I have learned in school, I know enough about the Vietnam War to recognize how significant and unfortunate it is from a U.S. perspective. I thought starting off here provided for an effective reminder of not only what the Vietnam War put a militaristic group through, but also what it did to the people of the country they were tasked with defending and honoring.

Now, this is not an action movie, it is not a war movie. War and politics are two defining traits within the story, but if you are looking for a war film in 2017, “Dunkirk” is probably your friend. That said, this one glimpse of action during the Vietnam War set the stage for what was to come. It took something so big to make something much smaller in scale appear more attractive.

This film dazzles from a technical perspective. Again, the costumes and locations look stunning. Speaking of stunning, the intricacies that go into how this movie was made are mind-boggling. The camerawork in this film occasionally felt so immersive that it highlighted some of the best direction of the year. The movie has a few long takes that felt perfectly planned and put me right in the room. There was a scene where I felt as if I was walking around the office of The Washington Post. It is like if Google Maps Street View theatrically transformed itself. Janusz Kaminski, a longtime collaborator with Steven Spielberg, worked on the cinematography for this film. While it was not nominated for an Academy Award, I think it is some of the finest of 2017 alongside Roger Deakins’s work in “Blade Runner 2049” and Hoyte van Hoytema’s craft in “Dunkirk.”

I often try to avoid politics on Scene Before. However, this is one of those cases where it must come into play. I say so because one of the notable aspects of “The Post” was its time of release. This film came out around the tail end of 2017, when Donald Trump was President of the United States. “The Post” almost comes as a tell as to whether history could repeat itself, because this movie reveals a lack of trust or full connection between the news and the government. At the same time, Donald Trump would consistently sideline or mock various news outlets and pick his favorites. This is an action he would continue to do even by the time he left office. If I saw this movie years ago, I would probably leave the theater thinking it is a relevant title and connect it to the importance of the 1st Amendment. This film has an ending that profiles such a thing beautifully.

Speaking of U.S. Presidents, Richard Nixon makes an appearance in this movie. There is a scene towards the end of the movie where we see a suited Nixon. We never see his face, it is almost like looking at The Banker from “Deal or No Deal” at times. Since this movie is based on true events, one touch that I thought was nice was the use of Nixon’s actual voice . The addition of Nixon’s real voice illustrated a specific scene’s point and perhaps delivered an emotional attachment that I would not have felt otherwise. Curzon Dobell is barely in the movie as Richard Nixon, but for the short time he is in it, he makes the performance a standout.

The story feels kind of Hollywoodized and some of the supporting characters do not stand out as much as others, but the film overall is worth a watch. The only other critique I can come up with is that this is one of John Williams’s lesser scores. The man is a genius, and his music during the movie works. But when it comes to his library, this is a score I am not going to remember as much as others.

In the end, “The Post” is a stellar look at how the United States changed journalism, and in turn, how journalism changed the United States. There is no surprise that a film like this could work. Coincidental or not, the timing of this story could not have been better. You have Meryl Streep, Tom Hanks, and Steven Spielberg working together. On paper, this sounds like an absolute win. In execution, it is an absolute win. In other news, water is wet. While “Spotlight” may be a slightly better journalism-centered story, “The Post” is another example of how well journalism can be used as the centerpiece of a cinematic experience when given the right tools and context. If Josh Singer wants to do another movie about journalism I am there on day one. I think he is one of the best screenwriters working today. His work on the film with then newbie Liz Hannah, who would go on to co-write the funny political comedy, “Long Shot,” is superb. I am going to give “The Post” an 8/10.

Speaking of history, one thing I love about Steven Spielberg is his ability to successfully manage a couple feature-length directorial efforts in such short time. In 1993 he released both “Jurassic Park” and “Schindler’s List” within months of each other. Before making “The Post,” Spielberg directed one of my favorite films from him, “Ready Player One,” and he ended up shooting “The Post” while “Ready Player One” was in post-production. “Ready Player One” ended up coming out after “The Post,” but it goes to show that Spielberg is committed to his craft. When one door closes, another one opens. Sometimes he opens the other door back up after a while. There is a reason why I am doing a Steven Spielberg Month, and this is one of them. He is one of the best minds in the film industry today.

“The Post” is now available to rent or buy on VOD and is also available on DVD, Blu-ray, and 4K Blu-ray.

Thanks for reading this review! My next and final installment to Steven Spielberg Month is coming next Friday, October 28th, and it will be a review for Spielberg’s latest movie to have a wide release, “West Side Story!” I have seen the film twice and will watch it once more for review purposes. I am excited to finally talk about this movie given how I did see it in December 2021, but due to time constraints, I never got around to reviewing it. If you want to see my other reviews through Steven Spielberg Month, check out my thoughts on “Close Encounters of the Third Kind” and “E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial.” If you want to see this and more from Scene Before, follow the blog with an email or WordPress account! Also, check out the official Facebook page! I want to know, did you see “The Post?” What did you think about it? Or, did you see “Spotlight?” Tell me your thoughts on that movie! Do you like “The Post” or “Spotlight” more? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

Little Women (2019): Call Me “March” Like You Said You Would

Posted on by Jack Drees

mv5by2qzytqyyzitmzawyi00yjzllthjntutnzmymddkyzjinwm4xkeyxkfqcgdeqxvymtkxnjuynq4040._v1_sy1000_cr006741000_al_

“Little Women” is directed by Greta Gerwig (Isle of Dogs, Lady Bird) and stars Saoirse Ronan (Lady Bird, Mary Queen of Scots), Emma Watson (Beauty and the Beast, The Circle), Florence Pugh (Midsommar, Fighting with my Family), Eliza Scanlen (Home and Away, Sharp Objects), Laura Dern (Marriage Story, Star Wars: The Last Jedi), Timothée Chalamet (Beautiful Boy, Interstellar), Meryl Streep (The Post, Sophie’s Choice), Tracy Letts (The Lovers, The Post), Bob Odenkirk (Breaking Bad, Incredibles 2), James Norton (Happy Valley, Flatliners), Louis Garrel (The Dreamers, Redoubtable), and Chris Cooper (The Amazing Spider-Man 2, A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood). This film is based on the book of the same name conceived by Louisa May Alcott, which has been adapted and brought to other mediums in the past, and this is another attempt to make a film out of it. The story of “Little Women” follows the lives of the March sisters, four women who are determined to live life on their own terms.

Apparently, this is one of multiple adaptations of “Little Women.” However, just a fair warning, I have never read the book, and I never witnessed any other adaptation of the IP. So this film took my “Little Women” virginity. I probably would have gone to see this film earlier, but due to time constraints, other films getting in the way, not to mention missing out on an opportunity to go to an advance screening, I just couldn’t get around to “Little Women” until now. In fact, the reason why I am watching “Little Women” at this point is to get caught up on this year’s Academy Award nominations, specifically Best Picture. Upon hearing which films were announced for the category, I have seen each one except “Little Women,” so I took today,  perhaps my least busy day of the week, and took the subway to a non-profit theater that way I could go watch the movie in 35mm film. I figured if I wanted to watch a Best Picture nominee, I might as well commit.

Sadly, I don’t feel like that commitment has worked out. I will be honest, I was kind of disappointed with “Little Women.” I would like to just point out, I admire Greta Gerwig as a filmmaker. I think she knocked it out of the park with her 2017 feature-length directorial debut, “Lady Bird.” Although if I had to compare “Little Women” to “Lady Bird” and my desire to go back and watch them again, it would be like comparing odds of finding a Chick-fil-A in a casino or a slot machine in a casino. Even though I have seen “Lady Bird” once, it would probably associate more with the slot machine. It’s a jackpot! As for “Little Women,” I might chicken out after a little while.

Now… Don’t think I am nagging on “Little Women” calling it a disaster. It is by no means the worst movie of all time, it just has problems is all. In fact, “Little Women,” in terms of direction, shines. I feel like in terms of a director wanting to get THEIR vision out to the public, “Little Women’s” Greta Gerwig succeeded at such a task more so than a good number of other filmmakers this year. A lot of the cinematography done by Yorick Le Saux is beautiful and totally stands out through the 35mm print shown at my screening. Alexandre Desplat’s score is great and fits the vibe! I also like the idea of not only shooting the film on location, but shooting it around the area where Louisa May Alcott wrote the “Little Women” book, Concord, Massachusetts. It provided for some of the most gorgeous scenery of 2019’s cinematic year and some of the better production design for said cinematic year. A lot of the scenes in the film are wonderfully realized and jump off the screen. Too bad the movie’s kind of boring.

Don’t get me wrong, the movie starts out fine. In fact, the first two thirds are somewhat interesting. The characters, not to mention the actors who play them, are not half bad. I felt the chemistry between pretty much every single character, which may have been the most necessary requirement for this film, because if I did not believe in the chemistry between the sisters, then why should I care? Amazingly, I got to a point where I did not care. I say that because even though this film is one of the better technical pieces of the year, I think pacing-wise, it suffers. I like the idea of these women dealing with their separate and collective issues, and there are some scenes that were in a word, capital! I will not go into detail, because despite having seen a trailer, I am not sure how much this film revealed beforehand. But I think one of this film’s bigger challenges, from a screenplay and directing perspective is meshing together all of these characters’ individual journeys and having a viewer like me care about all of it without it feeling a tad like a mess. Unfortunately, the film dives into the messy territory. “Little Women” honestly feels ten, twenty, maybe even thirty minutes longer than its runtime, specifically 2 hours and 15 minutes. For reference, I watched “Marriage Story” in the theater at the end of the previous December, which was 2 hours and 17 minutes. “Marriage Story” honestly somehow feels shorter than “Little Women.” To add onto this, I remember staying throughout the entire credits during “Marriage Story.” On the other hand, I left part of the way through “Little Women’s” credits.

I almost wonder if “Little Women” is one of those films that could get better through a rewatch, that way I can just concentrate closely on each character and maybe care about them with an all new point of view, but after watching this film for the first time, I don’t see much else of a reason to watch it once more. I have never been interested in the book, I have never sought out any other adaptation of this material, and in case you must know, and maybe this is affecting my thoughts on the film a little bit, I am not really in the target audience for “Little Women.” As far as I know, “Little Women” was never originally written for me, so I may not have the perspective that many of its targets would. I think actors like Saoirse Ronan, Laura Dern, and Timothée Chalamet do a fine job with their roles and suit their characters well, pretty much to the point where I don’t imagine anybody else portraying them. I also think the costumes in the movie are some of the finest and most sophisticated costumes in a 2019 film. “Little Women” has a lot of good qualities to it, but several things keep me from wanting to go back and watch it again. I am honestly shocked to say all of this, because I didn’t hate the trailer that I saw for this film, and I had faith in Greta Gerwig. To be clear, she did a good job with the direction, but had a few things been handled better, I think this could have been a damn fine vision, not to mention a better movie.

Plus, another thing to consider is this… I already mentioned that I am not the target audience. So I have to ask everyone reading a question and this may be important. First off, if you have seen 2019’s “Little Women,” what are your thoughts on it? Also, if you have seen any other material related to the “Little Women” IP, what are your experiences in relation to that? Was what you saw pretty good? Bad? Middle of the road? I’ll even ask this classic question, was this movie better than the book? Let me know!

In the end, “Little Women” is one of the bigger disappointments of a film that I have witnessed in recent memory. If you have followed this blog recently, you may know that I reviewed “Cats” because I apparently have ALL THE TIME IN THE WORLD to watch “Cats.” When I reviewed “Cats,” I called it the most competent borefest of a film released in its particular year. “Little Women” was released in the same year as “Cats,” specifically 2019, and there is an argument that I could make from my end that “Little Women” may dethrone “Cats” to earn such a title. It’s gorgeous, beautiful, not to mention vibrant. As a production, it is a feast for the eyes. But the eyes need to do more than stare at pretty things for a couple of hours. Had the movie maintained the promising pacing and kept me as interested as I was during the first couple of acts, I would still recommend “Little Women” to a lot more people. Of the movies the Academy nominated for Best Picture this year, “Little Women” is honestly my least preferred. But to be honest, based on the positives outweighing the negatives for this film FOR NOW, I am going to give “Little Women” a 6/10. This film is no “Lady Bird,” and I’ll be honest, for everyone who is upset about Greta Gerwig not getting nominated for Best Director, I get it. But personally, gender is not a topic I am associating with how I view nominations, but that’s just me, I think a display of talent regardless of gender, should come first, doesn’t mean I want to start an online war about it. Although I will be honest, all the chosen nominees, to me, were better in terms of vision fulfillment, technical choices, not to mention creating an overall better movie, at least for the most part on some of these direction-related requirements. And if you want my two cents, I do have a recommendation for a great 2019 film directed by a woman. If you haven’t already, go watch “Honey Boy,” it’s gonna be on Prime soon and I highly recommend it!

Thanks for reading this review! I just want to let everyone know that I am going to be heading back to college next week, and hopefully it does not affect my consistent content release schedule. But maybe before I go back, I am planning on watching one more movie. Maybe I’ll watch more than one, but I didn’t want to end this post without mentioning “The Murder of Nicole Brown Simpson,” directed by Daniel Farrands. As of right now, this film is not playing anywhere near me, although it did get a release in theaters. And if this sounds somewhat familiar, this film is from the director of the 2019 abomination, “The Haunting of Sharon Tate.” I just want to say… I MIGHT sacrifice my soul and watch this movie. For those of you who have seen my worst of the 2010s list know that “The Haunting of Sharon Tate” earned a spot pretty high on the list. I’m just curious to know if “The Murder of Nicole Brown Simpson” is somehow any worse. If I watch this movie, please wish me luck! I might need it! Be sure to follow Scene Before either with an email or WordPress account so you can stay tuned for more great content! If you want to leave a like or comment (if your account is eligible), please do so! It really helps me out! Also, please check out my Facebook page and spread the word about Flicknerd and Scene Before on social! I want to know, did you see “Little Women?” What did you think about it? Or, of the 2020 Best Picture nominees from the Academy, which is your favorite? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!