Uncategorized

Insomnia (2002): A Movie That’s Better The Second Time Watching It

Posted on by Jack Drees

Hey everyone, Jack Drees here! If you have read my blog at all last week, it’s possible that you may have come across my review for “Interstellar.” If you never heard of the film before or don’t know when it came out, that’s not a new release, that’s actually from 2014. I reviewed it because the guy who directed that movie, Christopher Nolan, has a new film coming out on July 21st. It’s gonna be in theaters everywhere including special presentations in various film formats. Today, we’re gonna review yet another one of his movies. But before we get into that, I want to say if you actually want to read my review for “Interstellar,” click the link down below and that will take you to the review.

https://scenebefore.wordpress.com/2017/07/04/interstellar-a-beautiful-intense-breathtaking-brilliant-sci-fi-marvel/

Today we’re gonna be talking about one of Christopher Nolan’s earliest films, “Insomnia.” This film came out in 2002 and considered by many to be one of Christopher Nolan’s worst movies. Although based on ratings I’ve gathered for this movie, that doesn’t mean much of anything because it’s still got a good rating of 7.2 on IMDb with most of the individual ratings coming in around the 7/10 range, which can suggest that the movie’s watchable. Without further ado, let’s start the review!

mv5byzlkzteyyjutmty5ns00zju0ltk5otytm2m0zdg1nmnjmzhkxkeyxkfqcgdeqxvymtqxnzmzndi-_v1_sy1000_cr006661000_al_

 

“Insomnia” is as mentioned recently, is directed by Christopher Nolan, and stars Al Pacino (Scarface, The Godfather), Robin Williams (Jumanji, Aladdin), and Hilary Swank (Boys Don’t Cry, The Gift). This film is a thriller and is about homicide detectives who are investigating the murder of a local teenager.

A couple things before we dive into this film, I have watched this movie once before, I thought it was alright but it definitely could have been better. But then I kinda remember doing two things at once (maybe, I don’t know). Although I thought I’d give it another shot because it is a Christopher Nolan movie and that is what I intend on reviewing for the next few weeks before “Dunkirk” hits theaters. Also, in case you didn’t know, this is actually a remake of a 1997 Norwegian film which has the same name as this one. I can’t really compare this movie to that one because I haven’t seen the other interpretation, but IMDb says it has an overall slightly higher score compared to the 2002 movie of 7.3/10 with most ratings coming in the 7/10 range, although it also suggests less people, at least those who use IMDb, saw the 1997 film and more saw the 2002 film. Now let’s dive into some characters, starting with Al Pacino.

In Christopher Nolan’s interpretation of “Insomnia,” I took a glance at the cast for this movie, and noticed the characters overall have different names, and I can understand that. This is based on a Norwegian film and this is kind of being directed to other audiences. Al Pacino plays a character named Will Dormer. Al Pacino is playing another lead role who occasionally uses a gun. And that’s not the only recurrence of an Al Pacino role. In fact, to even support what I said, you know how in some movies Al Pacino would do this over the top voice that sounds like Nicolas Cage if he knew which movies to actually be a part of? For example, in “Heat,” when he shouts “She got a GREAT ASS!” Yep, he does it here. Here if it were some other actor, it probably would have taken me out of the movie, but Al Pacino made it work because it’s almost like his trademark. Also, the way his character was written was rather investing throughout the film, and once it concludes, it totally works.

Next up, we’re gonna talk about Robin Williams in this movie, who gives a good performance as his character, Walter Finch. One minor complaint I have when it comes to this movie is something I noticed on the cover of my Blu-Ray I own for it, along with the poster. Robin Williams’s name is on it. And yeah, I get it, Robin Williams is a pretty big name, but he’s not really in the movie at all until the runtime approaches the second half. If Williams’s name was gonna be on the poster, I’d personally put it on the end, where Hilary Swank’s name is. After all, Hilary Swank is pretty much in the movie from beginning to end, much like Al Pacino. It reminds me of when I watched “You Can’t Have It” back in March. Rob Gronkowski, the tight end of the New England Patriots, was supposed to be in the movie, he was even in the center of one of the posters which contained a lot of characters, but he doesn’t even show up until like the final seven minutes. It just felt unnecessary and ruined a movie that while technically incompetent, still had an interesting story and a lot of likable characters. Although despite what I said Williams’s character wasn’t all that bad. When I was watching this movie for the first time almost two months ago, Walter Finch may have been my favorite character after finishing the movie. Speaking of which, let’s dive into a little more depth.

I want to talk about something I saw in the film and connect it to reality. In the movie, the murdered teen girl had a personal connection with Robin Williams’s character. Now Williams is playing a writer, he makes books. He mentions at one point, he was at a signing which the girl attended, they eventually talked, and they met a few more times after the signing. This scene actually got me thinking and made me ask a few questions to myself. Now, if you didn’t already know, one of my personal biggest idols is Curtis Armstrong, who you may know from content including “Revenge of the Nerds” and “Supernatural.” I met the guy in person before, he’s a fun dude, and personally, if I could hang around with him more, I would. After all, we have some stuff in common when it comes to our personalities. In fact, I’m actually meeting him again in just one day after this is posted. At one point, Robin Williams reveals that the girl showed him her writing when she became comfortable with that idea. For the record, she was interested in writing and a big focal point for her as a writer was poetry. He’s soon asked how the poetry was as a whole, and he replies to the person asking, saying it wasn’t good. Not long after he says the girl never knew his true thoughts about it, and he doesn’t know why he would spit something like that out of his mouth. Now I’m an aspiring screenwriter, I also enjoy writing on this blog, and I’ve been told these reviews, when it comes to my overall writing ability, have proven to be some decent material. If I wanted someone to judge me as a reviewer or as a screenwriter, I would want them to be as honest with me as possible. I would want to know if I’m the skyrocketing overlord of my craft or if I’m the pathetic ass of my craft. Although when it comes to this movie, I could understand where Walter Finch, the character played by Robin Williams, was coming from. Let’s say if I were a celebrity and I were at a convention as a special guest signing autographs and doing photo ops, I would love to meet my fans, I would love to see the stuff that they put all of their time and effort into. However, one thing I don’t want to do to my fans, is let them down. If I had a fan that came up to me at a convention, and they showed me a short review or something like that, I would love it if they’d ask for constructive criticism. I mean, heck, you guys know Doug Walker? The Nostalgia Critic? He’s at conventions all the time! If I showed him a review of mine, I’d want him to respond back to me with full honesty. I want him to tell me if it sucks, I want him to tell me if it’s awesome, I want him to tell me if it’s OK. A big thing I wondered about this movie, is what this girl was like as a person. Was she too shy to ask for constructive criticism? Did she ask for constructive criticism and never receive the truth? I’m actually curious about this. In fact, I’m even aware of my own mistakes without anyone else pointing them out. I make numerous errors on here. Here are some actual examples you may or may not have noticed from reading this blog.

Top 10 WORST Movies of 2016
“How does movie exist?!”
CORRECTION: How does this movie exist?!

“Transformers: The Last Knight” Review
(ON THE TOPIC OF CHARACTERS BREAKING THE FOURTH WALL BY PLAYING MUSIC IN SOME WAY) “I don’t recall seeing that type of humor anywhere. The closest I can say that has come to this, is during one scene from a “Family Guy” episode called “Baby, You Knock Me Out,””
CORRECTION: More than one “Family Guy” episode I witnessed was like this, “Blue Harvest” is another example.

“The Fate of the Furious” Review
“As far as other news goes, there is a TV movie coming out on HBO this Sunday, that movie is called “The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks,” it’s based on a book by Rebecca Skloot, and focuses on the true story on the discovery of and research dedicated towards the HeLa cell, which changed cancer research forever. I MIGHT review it, I might not, I don’t even know if I’ll even see it, but if I do see it, there may be a possibility of an upcoming review concerning the film.”
CORRECTION: The movie premiered on a Saturday (By the way, I did see it, never reviewed it)

And yes, I know WordPress allows you to edit these things, at the moment I have no intentions to, because I feel I should reveal that I, am human, and I’m fallible.

Now let’s talk about Hilary Swank. She plays a character named Ellie Burr. I don’t have many complaints with this character. Some things that stood out about her is her outgoing presence and her name. And while I do think she may be the weakest of the three big names on the poster, I did enjoy her character in the movie. Although she did remind me of Optimus Prime from “Transformers,” a little bit. Weird comparison, I know. But believe me, you know how I mentioned her name stands out to me? She said her name multiple times during the movie, I mean it was necessary, but still, before she said it on multiple occasions, it almost felt like I just heard it not too long ago. You could almost dub in Optimus Prime’s voice in multiple moments of the movie and you will either hear something like “Optimus Prime,” or “My name is Optimus Prime,” or “I am Optimus Prime.” In fact, despite remembering how I technically enjoyed Hilary Swank’s character in the movie, moments containing her throughout are starting to fade from my memory.

Another minor complaint I have about this movie is the score, which is done by David Julyan, who also composed music for other Christopher Nolan flicks including “Following,” “Memento,” and “The Prestige.” I’m rather disappointed to say this because this is a Christopher Nolan movie and I usually like the scores I hear in them. At times in this movie, the score totally works and it matches perfectly with a scene, especially at the very end. But at other times, it feels like a scene should have no music whatsoever and yet there is music playing. Also, at times, the music played in certain scenes that are paced faster than others don’t really give any fast paced vibes and feel more like music that belongs in a particular segment of “Manchester by the Sea” or something.

I’ll say this and this isn’t really a spoiler or anything, but at one moment in the film, Al Pacino shoots his partner. It was kind of intense when I saw that and it felt extremely realistic given the circumstances the characters were going through. Seeing Al Pacino try to deal with this in the aftermath was rather compelling and added a bit to the overall story in terms of benefits. This leads to something else in the film that almost sounded illogical at first, but from the purpose of storytelling, it made the overall story a little more compelling than it already was.

If I have any other compliments to give towards the film, I’d say that the final shootout was awesome. I won’t go into detail, but this is one of the moments where the music (or lack of music) worked. Seeing the two sides going against each other in battle was investing and it had me glued to the screen. It was a very short fight, but it was also sweet. Some of the cinematography in this movie was pretty cool too, especially during the opening. From what I can gather, none of this film was done on a green screen, and I could definitely tell, and films like these are why I love when films are shot on location. Granted, I do enjoy all of the popcorn superhero films, but when a director wants to shoot a movie in the real world, only good things in my mind would come as a result.

In the end, “Insomnia” is definitely not Christopher Nolan’s best work, but that doesn’t mean the movie’s bad. There’s a lot to like about it. The cinematography, the characters, the performances, the editing, the dialogue. Although the film has numerous flaws, and some of them in my view, happen to be character quirks, but despite those quirks and flaws, I had a good time watching this movie. Watching this movie the second time was definitely more enjoyable than it was the first time. I’m gonna give “Insomnia” a very high 7/10. I was almost gonna give this an 8, but given time to marinate, this isn’t a movie I’d watch over and over again. Sure, it was an enjoyable ride, don’t get me wrong, but it doesn’t feel like something I’d be putting on in my Blu-Ray player in a week from now. Thanks for reading this review. I’m not sure if I’m gonna be seeing any movies this upcoming weekend, after all, I am going away to a family reunion. However there is a theater nearby in the town I’m staying in for a few nights, and who knows, it’s possible I could catch a movie there if there’s nothing else to do. Like, if it’s a rainy day or something.

Also, next week, I will be doing my final review in my Christopher Nolan series leading up to “Dunkirk.” That review is going to be for the 2010 flick, “Inception,” the film about a thief who is experienced in stealing ideas from others in dreams. Stay tuned for that along with more reviews! Scene Before is your click to the flicks, and before I end this post, here’s a funny line from “Insomnia.”

What has two thumbs and likes blowjobs? (POINTS TO HIMSELF WITH BOTH THUMBS) This guy! -Fred Duggar

Revenge of the Nerd: A PROMOTION (Plus a Personal Story)

Posted on by Jack Drees

915ujnxkjil

Hey everyone, Jack Drees here! Today I little wanted to do something for someone I admire. If you remember months back on this blog, I did a post on the TV show, “King of the Nerds,” a reality competition on TBS that aired from 2013-2015. I honestly want it on the air longer, but that’s not something I want to talk about right now. One of the hosts of that show is Curtis Armstrong.

Even you haven’t seen the show “King of the Nerds,” you may be familiar with this name. If you don’t know the name, there’s a chance you may know the face. Aside from “King of the Nerds,” you may have seen or heard Armstrong in “New Girl,” “Supernatural,” “Ray,” “Risky Business,” “Revenge of the Nerds,” “Moonlighting,” “Dan Vs.,” and “American Dad!.” In real life, Armstrong, seemingly has numerous qualities of a nerd. Although I am looking at his IMDb and it kind of says otherwise, “I’m not an improv guy. I’m not a nerd, I play one on television.” He’s also revealed to be a bibliophile, Beatles fanatic, and Sherlock lover. I also consider Armstrong to be a fine role model and one of my all time biggest idols.

ctqr5xpucaanu5_

I’ve also met him in person at Rhode Island Comic Con in 2015. The moment I met him and got a picture with him is currently my profile pic on WordPress along with other social media including my Twitter and Google accounts. I mean, why not? It’s a picture I personally revere. Not to mention, I’m wearing my favorite t-shirt, a “King of the Nerds” t-shirt I won in a contest which shows the hosts, Curtis Armstrong and Robert Carradine, and it shows them in a bunch of different colors and facial expressions. You may also notice I have sunglasses as well, those also have a “King of the Nerds” logo. When I met Curtis I didn’t show that part to him, it could’ve slipped out of my mouth, but who knows? The same day, I actually got an autograph from him. Then I came back the following day to tell him he was the best part of the con. I wasn’t lying when I said that. Curtis was nice, we talked together more than I did with other guests, not to mention when I was talking to Curtis, it felt like I was talking with an actual person. I’m not saying the other guests weren’t friendly or nice. It’s just when I talked to Curtis, it almost felt like he didn’t want me to leave. Did he want me leave? Probably, there were other people waiting in line, and that always is a justifiable reason to leave. But I was having fun with him and I would imagine he was having some sort of fun with me. I felt that when we talked on the last day of the con, when we left, it almost felt as if I was in a movie. Curtis said he’ll see me “next time.” If that were a movie, it might as well be called “Jack and Curtis,” it would be less than 4 minutes long and probably wouldn’t make it to theaters, although it would definitely have more substance than the new “Transformers.”

I may be rambling here, but I feel it’s worth it, because if you’re new to this blog, or if you just want to hear a personal story of mine, this is one I enjoy telling, and it makes sense for what I’m doing. Because Curtis Armstrong has a new book coming out in a few days. This book is going to be called “Revenge of the Nerd” and it features the subtitle, “Or… The Singular Adventures of the Man Who Would Be Booger.” Why am I doing this? With everything Curtis does for me, I feel the need to do things for him, and this is one of those things.

“Revenge of the Nerd” is an autobiography Curtis has begun creating earlier this decade. This is going to contain some information on his early years in Detroit, a city which actually coined the term “nerd.” There’s also gonna be a focus directed towards his acting career, including some things behind the scenes of some of Curtis’s various projects.

I have not read this book yet, nor has many other people, so I can’t really give my own thoughts on it, it’s actually yet to come out. The official release date for this book is next Tuesday, July 11. This seems like a short promotion, and yeah, I did basically say just about everything worth saying about the book itself, however I’m not done.

Curtis has been going around various places promoting his book, in fact, when the book releases, there are more promotions coming up. I actually have a list right here. Right now, Curtis is actually at Indy Pop Con, in Indianapolis, but once that’s over, plenty of more promotions are on the rise.

NEW YORK, NY: Barnes & Noble Tribecca (July 11, release date of the book)

BOSTON, MA: Brookline Booksmith (July 12)

PORTLAND, OR: Powell’s Books (July 13)

PASADENA, CA: Vroman’s Books (July 18)

CHICAGO, IL: Chicago Flashback Weekend (August 4-6)

TULSA, OK: Circle Cinema *INCLUDES REVENGE OF THE NERDS SCREENING* (August 26)

BURBANK, CA: Monsterpalooza (September 15-17)

HUNT VALLEY, MD: Monster Mania (September 29-October 1)

PROVIDENCE, RI: Rhode Island Comic Con *INCLUDES REVENGE OF THE NERDS CAST REUNION* (November 10-12)

DOMINICAN REPUBLIC: 80’s in the Sand (November 13-18)

You know how I mentioned, looking back, I felt like I was in a movie when saying goodbye to Curtis? Well, my plans which are set for this Wednesday may as well be considered the sequel. In case you guys wanted to know, I’m going to at least one of these promotions. I’m gonna be going to the one in Boston on July 12, and it’s quite possible I’ll be at Rhode Island Comic Con from November 10-12. I mean, I went the past two years, so why wouldn’t I be there? If you didn’t know, Armstrong is famous for playing Booger on “Revenge of the Nerds,” and he often finds people who recognize him as Booger, he’s not offended at all, he’s actually delighted by it. So viewers, I want to know in the comments, out of curiosity, do people ever call you nicknames? This can also include ones people don’t call you much anymore. Also, I REALLY want to know, have you ever had a nickname that had some sort of relation to something disgusting? For me, I don’t recall receiving any disgusting nicknames throughout my life, but I want to know if you’re any different. I’ve received some nicknames throughout my life including J-Man, Dr. J, Jackson 5, and Dr. Ees. Also, guys, I got another Christopher Nolan movie review coming up pretty soon. Stay tuned for that. As far as new theater releases go, I’m not sure which movie I’ll see next, maybe “War for the Planet of the Apes” even though I haven’t seen many of the other movies. Only time will tell. Stay tuned for more great content! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

TAKASHI: Excuse please, but why do they call you “booger?”

BOOGER: *Picks his nose* I don’t know.

Spider-Man: Homecoming (2017): The Spidey Reboots Continue

Posted on by Jack Drees

mv5bndcyndczntgtota5os00ymqwlwe2nmitmjfhmdvizjm2mduwxkeyxkfqcgdeqxvymzexmty0mju-_v1_sy1000_sx750_al_

“Spider-Man: Homecoming” is directed by Jon Watts and it has a cast including Tom Holland, Michael Keaton, Robert Downey Jr., Marisa Tomei, Laura Harrier, and Zendaya. This film is the sixth standalone “Spider-Man” film to hit the big screen. You may have seen the interpretation of this web slinger once before in “Captain America: Civil War,” but ultimately, this is Spidey’s own movie, hence the name “Spider-Man: Homecoming.” The overall plot of this film involves Spidey trying to balance his life in school, while at the same time, having to take down the Vulture. Oh yeah, and Iron Man’s there too.

Going into this movie, I was pretty excited. I’m not much of a comic book junkie, but I do enjoy Spider-Man as a character, and pretty much every aspect of him resonates with me as a person. He’s a nerd, he’s smart, he’s trying to just get his life together, and he’s kind of an outcast when it comes to society despite having a number of friends. Although at the same time, I was worried, because the trailers did reveal a little more than I had hoped they would, and this movie was being advertised almost as an “Iron Man” film. I mean, you could argue that “Captain America: Civil War” qualified as an “Iron Man” film but to me, it actually worked there because part of the title is Civil War, signifying that there is a war among the Marvel heroes, and it still focused a bit on the story of Captain America and what he’s got going on during various portions of this film. If you watch the trailers for this film, you might as well think it should be called “Spider-Man: Homecoming (Featuring: Iron Man).” However, this movie isn’t really like that. Sure, Iron Man is in some of it, but it’s not like he’s taking up a good portion of the movie’s runtime.

Let’s talk about Peter Parker in this movie, now if you have watched all the other big screen “Spider-Man” flicks, you may be aware that in at least a portion of each series these flicks are part of, Peter’s a teenager in high school. That’s no different here in this movie. Parker establishes at one point in the movie that he’s 15 years old. Why do I mention this? Well, one thing people point out about the other flicks, is that Parker is being played by someone pretending to be a teenager, but they’re really in their twenties. For the record, Tom Holland, the guy playing this interpretation of Spidey, is actually 21 right now. I would imagined he would have been 19 and 20 throughout the process of filming this movie. After all he was 19 when “Captain America: Civil War” came out. So while it is not exactly age accurate, it is closer to being age accurate than the past Spider-Men we’ve received. Now, I gotta say, I have nothing really terrible to say about Tom Holland as Spider-Man, at times, when he’s in the suit, he reminded me of Andrew Garfield’s interpretation of Spider-Man. I’m not saying there’s anything wrong with that, I liked Garfield’s interpretation. It was like the comics, he had all sorts of technology, he had some quips, which we’re gonna get to. Speaking of Andrew Garfield, I mentioned I had some cons with his interpretation as Peter Parker. I can’t say the same for Tom Holland. It was never awkward, it was fluid, and it felt like I was watching an actual nerd at times. Some of this is shown through his various complications he’s received through his personal life. Speaking of his personal life, let’s talk about one of Peter’s friends.

One character in this movie goes by the name of Ned Leeds, he was played by Jacob Batalon, and there was a point in this movie where I wanted some sort of technology that existed which could allow me to jump into a movie’s universe. I could go into this one, find Ned, and give him the finger! I mean, at times, I liked his character, he was a nerd like me, but there were times in this movie where it almost sounded like he was jacked up on caffeine and he was just, I don’t know how to describe him. Simply put, he was annoying. He eventually finds out Peter is Spider-Man, not a spoiler, it was shown in the advertising, and after that, he starts asking all of these questions, and it’s just too much to handle.

Let’s talk about Peter’s love interest in the movie. In Raimi’s trilogy, the love interest was Mary Jane Watson, played by Kirsten Dunst. In Marc Webb’s films, the love interest was Gwen Stacy, played by Emma Stone. In this universe, the love interest is Liz Allan, played by Laura Herrier. If you remember before this movie came out, rumors were going around saying the love interest in this movie was going to be Mary Jane, played by Zendeya (Shake It Up, K.C Undercover). However, none of that’s true. Sure, Zendeya’s in the movie, but she is neither the love interest, nor is she Mary Jane. Zendeya actually plays a character named Michelle, although at one point she does say people call her “MJ.” Anyway, back to Liz. When it comes to all of the love interests in every “Spider-Man” series we’ve gotten so far, I must say the relationship between her and Peter may be the most authentic. Is it my favorite? I don’t know, but in terms of coming close to a real relationship, this is something Peter and Liz have going for each other.

Now let’s get to where Marvel usually leaves a bit to be desired, the villain. In this movie, the villain is the Vulture. He’s played by Michael Keaton which I actually find rather interesting considering how he once played Batman. He’s one of the better villains I’ve seen Marvel put out recently. He’s not the best Spider-Man villain I’ve seen in all of cinema, that’s a close call between Alfred Molina’s Doc Ock and Willem Dafoe’s Green Goblin. His relationship with Peter in this movie is interesting, he was almost terrifying at times, and his motivation was pretty clear.

Going into this film, I knew about this, but Happy Hogan (left), played by Jon Faverau, is also in here. What I didn’t expect is how much of a crucial role he’d have in the film as a whole. I’m not against it or anything, I’m just saying. Overall, I had no major problems with him, although he pretty much did the same actions as Tony Stark throughout the movie so there’s not too much separating the two characters in that sort of aspect. The two were basically mentors to Peter. The relationship between Peter and Tony was a bit more prominent, but there was a relationship between Peter and Happy too.

I want to talk about the movie’s screenplay and how it was presented. Multiple people wrote this movie, and while I do think they did a fine job, it could have been better. I’ll just put it this way. In “Captain America: Civil War,” Spider-Man, at least in my opinion, was the best part of the movie. Why? Pretty much every single line of dialogue uttered by him, mainly during the big throwdown at the airport, was comedy gold. Almost every line from Spidey was a quip, and they were all hysterical! Sure, you get some chuckle-worthy quips here, but nowhere near as good as “Captain America: Civil War.” And this kind of sucks because you have an entire movie dedicated to Spidey, as opposed to a movie that has him for about ten or so minutes. Now, if you read my reviews, you may be thinking I’m an idiot, because I happen to revere Tobey Maguire’s Spidey and I mentioned before that he doesn’t give too many quips and it works for him. Here’s the thing, it was established in “Captain America: Civil War” with this Spider-Man that he’s a s*it-talker. These are two different universes.

On the topic of humor, there was this one line given in the movie. A bunch of people are going on a bus, I honestly can’t recall who said this, it could’ve been Peter, I don’t know. But they’re all headed to Washington DC for Nationals, and one person talks about protesting and that’s a reason why they’re on this bus to DC, this is followed by a reply from someone else saying that protesting is patriotic. When I heard that, I couldn’t help but think about the following ideas. 1: This was one of the later days of shooting and Trump was in office. 2: The writers pretty much predicted Donald Trump would win and they had the balls to write this. 3: This may be anti-Trump propaganda. 4: This could have been a reshoot just to get that line in because Trump was in office and the people behind this movie wanted to insert a joke per se. I don’t know, but this almost sounds like the movie just wanted to bash against Donald Trump. I’m not against bashing Donald Trump, but that line was cringe-worthy and just all around forced.

Another problem I have with this movie involves Spider-Man’s suit. Tony Stark has a form of control over it, which yeah, it’s almost in the same way you operate a kid’s bike. That’s fine and all, but the problem with that is, at one point, Peter turns it off. Yes, that’s a spoiler, but I assure you, it very likely won’t affect much of your experience watching this movie. The thing I consider to be wrong with this is how the suit operates when turned off. There’s this artificial intelligence thingy inside the suit essentially, and it’s pretty much the Spider-Man equivalent to JARVIS. The mode Peter turns off is referred to as Training Wheels. Peter and Tony never get into an argument over this, but that’s not worth talking about. What I do feel like talking about is the fact that Spider-Man has an assistant in his suit, it’s basically helping him. It’s giving him advice on all sorts of tactics and stuff like that. If you have a mode called Training Wheels, wouldn’t that have the voice? Spider-Man has to figure out everything on his own without that voice. I mean, you could argue that the mode is called training wheels because Spider-Man doesn’t have access to all of the advanced s*it. But even with that, how does this resolve the artificial intelligence problem? Let’s look at it this way, there’s a sequence in “Iron Man 3” where a bunch of people are falling out of a plane and Iron Man has to save them. He has JARVIS who’s actually able to assist him. He asks JARVIS how many people are in the air, JARVIS replies saying a number somewhere in the teens, I believe it was thirteen. Tony then asks how many people he could carry, JARVIS responds telling him he can only carry four people. Tony is able to use his artificial intelligence to his own benefit and Spider-Man can’t, because, it’s too advanced for him. That’s like telling a student that he or she can’t refer to a textbook when they’re doing their homework.

Speaking of artifical intelligence problems, there’s more. At one point in the movie, Spidey actually tells her about Liz, and how he feels about her. Now, I won’t get super-spoilery, it might be minor-spoilery, but it’s not gonna affect much of your experience. Peter Parker actually TELLS her about Liz, but at no point does it reveal Peter SHOWING pictures of Liz or anything like that. At one point later in the movie, I won’t say when, the AI says that Spider-Man should kiss her. YOU DON’T KNOW WHAT SHE LOOKS LIKE! WHY ARE YOU SAYING ALL OF THIS CRAP?!

One thing I have a very minor problem with is the movie’s title. It’s called “Spider-Man: Homecoming” and based on the content presented in the movie, it’s called that for a reason. During the movie, there’s this homecoming dance, but that barely has anything to do with the movie. If you want a better title, I’d go with “Spectacular Spider-Man,” “Spider-Man: The Inspired Hero,” “The Web Slinging Spider-Man,” “Spider-Man: Rise of the Vulture,” or “Friendly Neighborhood Spider-Man.” As far as other complaints go, I was going to say there was one point which one of Iron Man’s suits come in and rescues Peter from an incident, and I began to question how it even knew where Peter was, but another part of me says that Tony might be tracking Peter and it happens to be something movie isn’t telling me, so I’m wondering if that complaint will either stand or fall.

In the end, “Spider-Man: Homecoming” is somewhat fun, but overall, it could have been a much better “Spider-Man” experience. There were some things I liked in the movie, and quite a few things I didn’t like in the movie. I haven’t even talked about Aunt May, I’ll say she was average. Certainly better than the last Aunt May we had. Considering how “Spider-Man” was established in “Captain America: Civil War,” this film was rather disappointing. By the way, if you don’t know my thoughts on “Spider-Man 3,” I believe it gets too much hate, and honestly, when compared to “Spider-Man 3,” I’d actually rather watch that instead of “Spider-Man: Homecoming.” Sorry guys, this is just how I feel. I’m gonna give “Spider-Man: Homecoming” a rather low 7/10. This might drop to a 6 sometime in the future, I’m honestly not sure. This film had a lot of good things about it. The high school scenes felt rather authentic, the villain was great by Marvel standards, I liked Tom Holland, but he was given better dialogue in “Captain America: Civil War.” Oh yeah, and Ned is just a chatterbox that I wanted to punch in the face. I may be judging this film rather harshly, but the thing is, this is Marvel Studios, who are usually known for making good movies, nine of them being at least 8/10 in my book, so this ultimately somewhat let me down. Sure, Sony was involved, but Marvel Studios collaborated so I feel something like this is worth mentioning.

Thanks for reading this review, Christopher Nolan’s newest movie, “Dunkirk,” comes out in two weeks, so right now I’m doing a series of reviews dedicated to past Christopher Nolan films, this week I reviewed “Interstellar,” I haven’t made a final decision on what my next review should be, but you’ll see what I decided on when I finish the review. Although if you do want to check out my review for “Interstellar,” you’ll either see an icon that can take you to the review, or that’ll be the post below this one. Also, since this is a review for “Spider-Man: Homecoming,” I’ll have links down below to all of my other “Spider-Man” reviews. Check those out if you’re interested, I had fun making them, and I hope you have as much fun reading them. Stay tuned for more reviews! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

“SPIDER-MAN” REVIEW: https://scenebefore.wordpress.com/2017/03/18/spider-man-your-friendly-neighborhood-2002-movie/

“SPIDER-MAN 2” REVIEW: https://scenebefore.wordpress.com/2017/04/14/spider-man-2-best-superhero-movie-to-date-spoilers-for-this-movie-spider-man-1/

“SPIDER-MAN 3” REVIEW: https://scenebefore.wordpress.com/2017/05/11/spider-man-3-2007-is-it-really-as-bad-as-everyone-says/

“THE AMAZING SPIDER-MAN” REVIEW: https://scenebefore.wordpress.com/2017/06/06/the-amazing-spider-man-2012-is-it-really-so-amazing-spoilers/

“THE AMAZING SPIDER-MAN 2” REVIEW: https://scenebefore.wordpress.com/2017/07/02/the-amazing-spider-man-2-2014-a-crappier-version-of-spider-man-3-spoilers/

Interstellar (2014): A Beautiful, Intense, Breathtaking, Brilliant Sci-Fi Marvel

Posted on by Jack Drees

Hey everyone, Jack Drees here! Today I’m starting a series of reviews I plan to do, it’s either gonna contain two or three movies, I’m not done deciding yet. But the point is, “Dunkirk,” one of my most anticipated films of 2017, is gonna be out soon. That film is directed by Christopher Nolan, one of favorite directors of all time. So I figured I’d review some other films Nolan has directed prior to “Dunkirk.” The first film by Christopher Nolan I plan to tackle is actually his most recent work, “Interstellar,” it came out November 5th, 2014 in select theaters, and it came out November 7th everywhere else. So without further ado, let’s start the review.

mv5bmtc1ntm2odqxm15bml5banbnxkftztgwotc1ntm3mje-_v1_sy1000_cr006401000_al_

“Interstellar” is directed by Christopher Nolan, as mentioned earlier, and it stars Matthew McConaughey, Anne Hathaway, Jessica Chastain, and Michael Caine. You also have some other important roles from Casey Affleck, Mackenzie Foy, David Gyasi, John Lithgow, and Timothee Chalamat. This film takes place in the future and Earth is dying, all sorts of plants are dying, wheat is dead, corn is soon coming to an end, and Matthew McConaughey teams up with other explorers in order to find a new home for mankind.

DSCN0005

Here’s a true story about this film, this movie, when I purchased my Blu-Ray at a store, cost $49.99. For the record this was in a casino so everything’s a little pricier there as opposed to other places. But still, after a couple years of owning this Blu-Ray, I have to say my purchase was worth the money. Also, you may notice it says that it has an actual IMAX film cell inside, which was part of why I wanted this edition of the movie. Speaking of which, I’m gonna talk about my first experience of going to see this movie. When seeing this movie, I did not go to any of my local theaters. I actually went to a theater in Providence, RI, which was over an hour away from my house. Why? They had a very rare presentation. Remember how I said that this film released on November 5th in select theaters? This theater was one of them, and that’s because the theater was showing “Interstellar” on film. Nowadays, seeing a movie on film is a rare experience itself, but this was special. This theater had an IMAX. Also, it was an older one at that. And it shows because this IMAX had film equipment. If I saw this movie with IMAX digital equipment, I would have a cool experience, but something would be missing, I would either have a smaller screen, or a smaller image. Depending how footage shown in IMAX is shot, it could fill up the whole screen with no black bars. That’s how the presentation of “Interstellar” was for 66 minutes of its runtime. At certain IMAX digital theaters, you could get that, but the screen would be smaller. At other IMAX digital theaters, the image would be bigger, but it wouldn’t fill the whole screen. This is why IMAX film is superior to digital, I even go into it a little deeper in a recent post, if you want to read that, the link’s down below. Also, I just want to say, I went to this presentation with my aunt, and if she’s reading this, I can’t thank her enough.

https://scenebefore.wordpress.com/2017/06/19/why-dunkirk-must-be-seen-on-35mm-film-70mm-film-imax-70mm-film-or-imax-laser/

Starting off the character segment of this review, let’s dive into the main character of the movie, Cooper. He’s played by Matthew McConaughey, who you may know from films like “The Wolf of Wall Street” a filmed praised by average moviegoers and critics alike, and films like “Ghosts of Girlfriends Past,” a movie with an opposite reaction, including an WFCC Hall of Shame award dedicated to McConaughey himself, with the following suggestion: “Matthew McConaughey as cardboard cutout misogynist, in one too many phone-it-in rom-coms featuring toxic bachelors.” One thing’s for sure in this movie, his performance was great. He had all the necessary emotions at the right times, and his character, much like everyone else in this movie, is well written and chosen by casting. Cooper has two kids, Tom and Murph, who we’ll get to eventually. He also lives with a character played by John Lithgow named Donald. The reason why he gets recruited to the mission to save mankind is because he’s a great pilot, and there aren’t many of them on Earth. Oh yeah, and he also hates farming, which sucks for him because that’s what the world needed during this movie. Not to mention he lives on a farm. One more thing worth mentioning is that while he’s often referred to by his last name, his first name is actually Joe.

Anne Hathaway, who you may know from “The Dark Knight Rises” and 2012’s “Les Miserables,” is also in this movie, and according to IMDb, her character’s name is Brand, but if you are curious to know her first name, that happens to be Amelia. Like Cooper, Amelia Brand is also a part of the mission. Watching her in this film, I noticed how she acted as a character and there’s one scene where she’s on this planet, she finds an entity, but there’s this giant wave that’s bigger than the wave you saw in the final moments of “Point Break” coming in towards her along with the rest of the crew, she says she needs to take this thing back to the ship. Although Cooper is against this, he’s forcing Amelia to just get back to the ship as quick as she can. Their chemistry throughout the entire segment on this planet, is believable and fluid. By the way, her father is also an important character when it comes to this film, but we’ll get to him later.

The last human character who goes into space worth bringing up is Romilly. He’s played by David Gyasi, and he honestly isn’t in the film all that much as opposed to other characters, but when he is in the film, he’s there for good reason. There’s one segment where he’s wearing a blue shirt, you’ll see what I mean.

There are multiple robots in “Interstellar,” but the one worth mentioning here goes by the name of TARS. Why is he worth mentioning? Simply because he’s the funniest character in the movie. He has a bunch of different settings that can be played around with, and the characters in this film actually do play around with the settings. Some of you might think of robots as these emotionless things that can’t even do anything but serve people, but this robot kind of is emotional per se, because of a unique feature, humor settings. They’re introduced at the point when the crew’s ship is launched into space and TARS says “Everybody good? Plenty of slaves for my robot colony?” Also, when he’s joking, there’s actually a cue which can suggest that.

Michael Caine is also in this film, and if you have seen some of Christopher Nolan’s past films, Caine’s appearance here might not be a surprise to you. Why? Because he was in a good number of Christopher Nolan movies prior to this one, in fact, I just looked at his IMDb page, and the films listed in his “known for” section are all films directed by Christopher Nolan. Yeah, it said he’s known for “The Dark Knight,” “Batman Begins,” “The Prestige,” and “Inception.” It’s almost as if he and Nolan are a team and they have some sort of unbreakable bond, somewhat like Peter Berg and Mark Wahlberg, they’ve already done of films together based on true events, and I only wonder if they’ll do more in the future. Caine plays a professor, he’s also Anne Hathaway’s character’s father, which can be suggested by his name, Dr. Brand. He’s important to the mission, but he doesn’t go into space, he basically encourages Cooper into going on the mission. His side of the story is mainly developing an equation of his own in order to help the Earth survive. During the movie, he also happens to work with Cooper’s daughter, who we’re actually gonna talk about right now.

Cooper’s daughter goes by the name of Murph, kind of sounds like a guy’s name if you ask me, but still, that’s her name. Murph probably has the most interesting story out of each character who remains on Earth during this movie. Not to mention, the actors portraying her do a phenomenal job with the role they’re given. Let’s start off by talking about young Murph, played by Mackenzie Foy. Mackenzie Foy’s performance in this movie, as far as child performances go, may be one of the best I’ve ever seen. Her acting ability is so fluid, so believable, so emotional at various points, that I instantly felt a connection with this character at first sight. Her character as a child is shown to be very unique in this futuristic realm. I’ll get into why a little bit later, but now let’s talk about the adult version of Murph, played by Jessica Chastain. Much like Foy’s performance, I was able to believe Chastain’s character as a person. The moment she appears is probably gonna get you glued to the screen. I won’t describe the scene in detail, but I’ll give the first words spoken by Chastain in this movie: “Hey dad. You son of a bitch.”

 

Let’s move away from Murph and talk about Cooper’s other kid, Tom. The young version of Tom is played by Timothee Chalamet, and the old version of Tom is played by Casey Affleck. As far as Tom goes, performance-wise, I think the versions of Murph did better overall, I’m not saying the Tom performances suck, but they’re just not as good as the Murph performances. Also, Tom doesn’t get much screentime as Murph. Believe it or not, I’m not against this. We see both characters and get to know them a little bit, Tom doesn’t seem to have much of a problem with anything, and his behavior shouldn’t come as much of a surprise in real life considering his age. If you look at Murph, she cries occasionally in the movie, she does it as an adult, but she is ten years old for a period of the runtime. One of my favorite scenes between the adult versions of Tom and Murph is when there’s all sorts of drama going on on Earth, while at the same time, there’s drama going on on another planet. I won’t go into detail because I feel like the flavor should be savored for watching the movie, but if you guys have watched the movie and somehow don’t understand what I’m saying, I’ll give you a line uttered by Murph during this scene: “Dad didn’t raise you to be this dumb Tom!”

One of my favorite things about the movie is the score, composed by Hans Zimmer. In one of my recent reviews, specifically for “The Amazing Spider-Man 2,” I mentioned Hans Zimmer did the score for that movie. I also mentioned that the score for that movie was underwhelming in some ways. This score however, IS NOT that. The score in this movie may be my favorite of all time! There are so many great pieces of music and it’s a soundtrack I often listen to. It works very well in the movie for every segment, and one of my favorite things about it is that when you’re listening to it, it’s almost like listening to a clock. At some points of the score, you can hear something that almost sounds like ticking or tocking, and at other points, it’s 60 beats per minute, which also means 1 beat per second, so that is kind of a suggestion of time. This sort of stuff is shown in pieces of music played during the movie called “Mountains” and “Coward.” Below I’m actually gonna place a few YouTube videos, they’re actually songs from the movie. You can listen to them if you want to, however it isn’t mandatory, but these are some of my favorite pieces from the film. Speaking of which, I want to know, what is your favorite movie score? Let me know in the comments!

There are a number of songs I like in this movie, however these are the ones I just felt like displaying here, so enjoy! Also, there’s one thing that I want to bring up that this part of the movie makes me think of.

Right here we have the director of the movie, Christopher Nolan, and sticking with a topic I mentioned earlier, look at the camera he’s got. That right there is an IMAX camera. And if you ever watched an IMAX documentary, those cameras are often used for them. They also have a 3D camera which is heavier than the one Christopher Nolan’s holding, although this movie wasn’t meant to be shown in 3D, and the same can be said for any Christopher Nolan movie, so Nolan thought this camera would do the trick. Also, if you consider the difficulties of both cameras, difficulties having to do with size, sound, etc., imagine how much harder it would be to use an IMAX 3D camera as opposed to an IMAX 2D cameras. They have made lighter versions over the years, but those are digital and Nolan is against digital cameras in general. When I saw this in the theater and the aspect ratio changed, my mind was going in circles with excitement. Also, if you buy the Blu-Ray, you can see the aspect ratio change there as well. Although it doesn’t change like it does in the theater. Because nowadays, people traditionally use widescreen TVs, and those are different in terms of aspect ratios as opposed to IMAX screens. So for the scenes shot in IMAX, you can get the aspect ratio of 1.43:1 in a traditional IMAX theater, you can get the aspect ratio of 1.90:1 in an IMAX digital theater, and on Blu-Ray you can get the aspect ratio of 16:9/1.78:1 for said scenes. I don’t know if you’ll experience that when streaming the movie on Amazon or Netflix or something, but I know the entire movie if shown on cable channels would be 1.78:1 with the exception of the opening credits. Although if you watch the movie on DVD, the entire movie will have black bars and the aspect ratio will be 2.35:1. The way it’s used in this movie is pretty awesome. It’s better in the theater, but it doesn’t mean I can’t appreciate it at home too. I was mentioning in the last paragraph about one of my favorite parts of the movie, when all of the drama starts in space, and it is shot with an IMAX camera, it soon cuts to the Earth drama, the Earth drama is shot with regular film cameras and is shown in an aspect ratio of 2.35:1. It’s transitions like these that don’t feel jarring as opposed to other movies *coughs* “Transformers: The Last Knight,” that I’ve seen shot with IMAX cameras. By the way, this later turns into all IMAX shots for a period of time and it looked amazing on my TV.

The father-daughter relationship between Cooper and Murph is actually one of my favorite relationships in all of cinema. Each scene with these two characters together on screen was screenwriting bliss. It felt authentic, and right before Cooper leaves, you can understand both of the characters equally. At the beginning of the movie, Murph is ten years old, and Cooper is a grown man. Murph wants her father to stay, but Cooper says he has to leave. Let’s face it, I can actually relate to Murph, because one time I was actually 11 years old, my mother was going on a business trip to Arizona, I wanted my mother to stay, but she couldn’t. Mom never left me alone without her for a few days so the whole idea of it was scary at the time.

In search for a new home, the crew stopped by a couple of planets, one of them was icy and the other watery. I enjoyed all of the moments on each planet, but some of my favorite parts in the movie happened when the crew was on the icy planet. I will not dive into detail because this is a movie whose details are worth keeping in secret.

By the way, this is a long movie, it’s actually one of the longest movies to come out in the 2010s. If you ask me, I don’t mind the long runtime. This movie to me, in terms of runtime mixed with entertainment value is like watching any of the “Lord of the Rings” films. Sure, they’re long, but they’re amazing! This movie is so long in fact that when it was brought to the IMAX 70mm theaters, the movie almost couldn’t be projected because of how long it was.

You may have read throughout this post and noticed me say that I can’t dive into detail about certain aspects of the film. There are a couple of reasons for that. For one thing, some of the stuff in this movie wasn’t shown in the trailer. Another thing is that when I see certain segments in this movie it leaves me with some sort of emotion that I feel shouldn’t be wasted before you decide to watch this movie one day. Also, in my view, this movie, based on the premise, sounds like it can simply be enjoyed by a lot of people. But to truly appreciate it, you have to watch it. And when I say watch it, you can’t take your eyes off the screen too many times. Various parts of the film either involve absolute observing or die-hard thinking. In fact, I’ll tell you, almost single time I watch this film, there’s something I might not notice when watching previous times. So who knows? Even though as I’m doing this review and suggesting to you the high number of watches I’ve gotten with the movie “Interstellar,” there still might be stuff I haven’t noticed. Although I will say, if you have seen some of Christopher Nolan’s other films, this film may be less confusing depending on who you are. You’ll probably know what I mean if you have seen “Memento.” Then again I only watched that movie once so what do I know?

However, there’s one detail I feel like sharing. This movie takes place in the future, and one thing that’s brought into the movie is idea of the Apollo missions. Essentially, Cooper is at a parent-teacher conference at the school his kids go to, and one of the teachers is talking about Murph. This teacher says that she believes that the Apollo missions were faked in order to bankrupt the Soviet Union, suggesting she doesn’t believe one bit of those missions actually happened and it’s customary for people in the future to believe that the people of Earth never went to the moon. Not only is that an interesting idea to put in the movie, but with all of the people who deny that we actually went to the moon nowadays, I can only imagine what the future holds when it comes to that.

Now let’s get serious for a moment and I’ll ask you a question. Has a movie ever made you cry? I can’t say many films have done that for me. “Toy Story 3” almost did, the same can be said for “Ice Age,” and perhaps even “Inside Out,” but I don’t recall one time where I shed tears during a movie because of something happening in it. I’ve watched this movie many times, and I did feel emotions during multiple watches, however, I never cried… until the last time I watched it. I rewatched this film for the umpteenth time in preparation for this review, and as the movie was coming to an end, there’s a very emotional number of moments in this movie, as this was happening, I was choking, and tears were falling from my eyes at various points. I WILL NOT go into detail, I need you to see this for yourself. This is how much I love this movie, not many other movies can make me feel this way. I cry in real life, and honestly, I don’t think there’s anything wrong with it, but it’s very rare for me to cry during a movie, and when I do, how do you think I feel about it after watching it? When I first saw this film, I thought it was a good time, I truly appreciated it for its cinematography and effects, but overall it was not the best film I ever seen. Then I watched it a few more times, enjoyed it, but still thought it didn’t hit me or anything. Then the next time I watched it from beginning to end, and didn’t fall asleep because it was super late, I f*cking loved the hell out of it. Now I’m here at this point, where I actually cried. That says something, this is definitely up there with my favorite movies of all time, and this is one of those movies I can’t stop watching because of my own connection with it before going in, after coming out, the technical aspects, the story, and my own emotions I feel while watching this masterpiece.

Ultimately, “Interstellar” defines what I love about movies. It has great characters, excellent technical aspects, including cinematography, effects, set design, also good location choices when this movie was shot in the real world, a compelling story, great music, a high replay value, likable performances, and execution delivered with such ambition that it shows how much passion was put into a project by so many people. “Interstellar” probably isn’t a film for everyone. Some people say it takes forever get into space, and I get that. Some people say some of the science in the movie is flawed, and I get that. Some people say they find it confusing, and I get that. Some people think it’s long, and I get that. Some people think it’s boring, and I get that. Some people think Tom as a character doesn’t get enough attention, and while that is a complaint I disagree with, I get that. Some people might go in thinking this is truly all sci-fi and has a complete focus on the space exploration and not as much of the Earth stuff and the drama and tose people might end up disappointed by the results, and I get that. However, to me, these complaints aren’t ones I have, and while I do sometimes pick movies apart for scientific inaccuracies, for example in my review for “The Fifth Wave” I pointed out there was a physics error, this movie is good enough in all of its other terrific aspects for me to ignore scientific errors. I mean, I cried, and I never do that during movies, so that says something that can’t be said about many other movies I’ve viewed in my lifetime. I’m going to give “Interstellar” a 10/10. This is a movie you should watch at least once in your life, if you have a bucket list and you didn’t write “watch “Interstellar”” on it, I command you to write it down. Or if it is written down and it isn’t crossed off, make an effort to watch the movie in any way you can. If you ask me, I’d personally watch the Blu-Ray on the biggest screen possible, because this movie is meant for that, if I ever get kick-ass surround sound one day, this is a movie I would use as a test for that. But please, seriously, watch “Interstellar.” You’ll likely thank me later. Thanks for reading this review and next week I will be reviewing another Christopher Nolan film, I’m not sure what it’ll be, probably either “Inception” or “Batman Begins.” Also “Spider-Man: Homecoming” comes out this weekend, so I hope to go see that as soon as possible, and if you are on a “Spider-Man” high right now like I imagine a number of people are, be sure to check out my last movie review for “The Amazing Spider-Man 2.” The link for it is down below, please check it out, and stay tuned for more reviews! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

Do not go gentle into that good night; Old age should burn and rave the close of day. Rage, rage against the dying of the light. -Dr. Brand

“THE AMAZING SPIDER-MAN 2” REVIEW: https://scenebefore.wordpress.com/2017/07/02/the-amazing-spider-man-2-2014-a-crappier-version-of-spider-man-3-spoilers/

Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle Trailer 1 Review: More Like Welcome to Hell

Posted on by Jack Drees

mv5bmtu3ntq0otu0m15bml5banbnxkftztgwnty4nty3mji-_v1_sy1000_cr006581000_al_

Hey everyone, Jack Drees here! Not too long ago, a new trailer just came out for the “Jumanji” remake. I didn’t really plan on doing much of a review, I tweeted about it, but that’s how far I went with the whole subject. Although now I change my mind about that. By the way, this movie isn’t gonna be called “Jumanji,” it’s actually gonna be called “Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle.” So yeah, it’s kind of like “Ghostbusters: Answer the Call” from last year, even though just about every person I know that had some sort of exposure to the film calls it “Ghostbusters.” …Oh lord.

Before we talk about the trailer as a whole, this movie actually is going to star a bunch of people I can admire. For example, Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson, I’ve seen him in a lot of movies, he’s very charismatic, and he always seems to have a smile on his face no matter what he does. You’ve also got Kevin Hart, who I also like, and as a matter of fact, this is not the first time Kevin Hart and Dwayne Johnson are in a project together. Go watch “Central Intelligence” starring Kevin Hart and Dwayne Johnson, it’s a fun comedy and it has some cool action. You also have Jack Black, who you may know from various roles such as Po from “Kung Fu Panda,” R.L Stine in 2015’s “Goosebumps,” and you may have seen him as Carl Denham in 2005’s “King Kong.” And last but not least for cast members worth mentioning in terms of this paragraph is Karen Gillan, who you may know as Nebula from “Guardians of the Galaxy” and Amy Pond/Soothsayer from “Doctor Who.”

The point is, you’ve got all of these actors I’ve seen before, while some of these actors are people I’ve seen in more work than others, I think these folks have proven they are talented. The Rock has his line delivery and kickassery, Kevin Hart has his loudmouth voice, Jack Black can put some charm into multiple characters I’ve seen him portray, and Karen Gillan is not really an actress I’ve seen much of, but she’s still talented for the stuff I’ve witnessed her in. This sounds somewhat familiar, it somewhat reminds me of “Ghostbusters” from last year. You’ve got these four actresses, they are at least somewhat decent when it comes to overall talent, I like some of these actresses more than others, and all of them are wasted in a piece of crap movie!

I don’t watch the original “Jumanji” all that much, but when I do watch it, I’m always entertained, I love the movie, and while I can’t quote it from beginning to end, there’s a lot I can appreciate about it. The plot of the original film is that a board game gets discovered by a couple of kids, this board game however is not an ordinary board game like Monopoly or Clue or Trouble. This game can bring a host of dangers. There’s a man trapped inside the board game, he gets released, and you’ve also got a bunch of creatures attacking the players as well as other people, and it’s just a fun time. I also can really appreciate the ending. The writing for it is solid and visually, it’s eye candy. This upcoming movie has some big shoes to fill, but I don’t think this upcoming movie can cross a bridge in order to fill said shoes.

Alright, on with the trailer. When the trailer starts, the first vibe I get is that of a comedy, and don’t get me wrong, the original “Jumanji” was meant to be a comedy directed towards a family friendly demographic, but when it’s displayed in this trailer, it feels, weird. Then a bunch of teenagers who go to school together are forced by faculty to enter the school’s basement, and they find a game system. It kind of has a found-footagey feel without being a found footage movie, I honestly don’t know why except for the fact that I saw “Project Almanac.” Then one of the teenagers say “An adventure for those who seek to find. A way to leave their world behind. Jumanji.” That line was actually a tagline for the original movie. This suggests the movie’s biggest change. Jumanji’s a video game. I wasn’t for this originally, and I’m still not for it, and after seeing the trailer, words almost can’t describe how much I’m not for it. So these folks choose their characters. The black guy chooses Franklin “Moose” Finbar, the chick in the red tank top picks Professor Shelly Oberon, who she referred to as “the curvy genius”, the guy with the maskless Kylo Ren-esque hairstyle chooses to be Smolder Bravestone, and there’s another girl who’s left choosing one character, and that’s Ruby Roundhouse. Eventually get transported into the video game and they are not the same teenagers they once they arrive, they aren’t themselves anymore, they’ve turned into different people, you know, those actors I mentioned earlier.

This movie shows who these characters are in the video game and who they are in real life. There are some attempts at comedy, kind of like some attempts given earlier in the trailer, but they all fell flat to me. Even this one thing where the hot red tank top wearing chick from the real world turns out to be Jack Black in the video game. Then the trailer suddenly jumps into fast paced action, showcasing some special skills the video game characters have. Some of it stands out, while other portions of this showcase just appear to be OK in my eyes. We also get a chunk of a helicopter chase and it could be entertaining, but I wonder if the rest of the movie will allow me to enjoy it. After that, the title slide appears, then we get this scene where the characters are talking, and Jack Black gets bitten by a horrible looking CGI hippo. There’s some banter back and forth between Kevin Hart and Dwayne Johnson, and the trailer’s over.

The biggest problem I have with this video game idea is that it might mean that less is at stake in this movie compared to the 1995 version. The last movie took place in the real world, with real stuff. Also, the people were normal people, they weren’t superhuman, they were just trying to survive.

As far as comedy goes, so far, I didn’t find anything funny. Maybe Kevin Hart can save the movie. He does almost the same thing every time, but it works. Maybe there could be some funny moments in the movie here and there, and if there are, that would make the movie watchable at the very least. I just hope it’s funnier than “Ghostbusters” from last year, and speaking of which, I’m gonna bring up some parallels.

 

The “Ghostbusters” remake came out last year on July 15th, it was released by Columbia Pictures, which is owned by Sony. This “Jumanji” remake comes out December 20th of this year, so their release dates are during different seasons. Guess who’s got the rights to the film? Sony! Not only that, but it’s also the same company Sony owns, Columbia Pictures! Also, let’s take two stars from both original films: Harold Ramis and Robin Williams. Harold Ramis was in “Ghostbusters” and he played Egon, and Robin Williams was in “Jumanji” and he played Alan Parrish. Both actors are dead now. I can’t remember if the “Ghostbusters” remake had a thing in the credits saying “RIP: Harold Ramis,” but regardless of that, the movie was still distasteful! You can argue it was a good movie in terms of showing girl power, but in reality, it’s not. Because the girl power involved in that movie basically destroyed the male gender. Literally, at one point in the movie, the girls all get together and defeat a ghost by shooting their proton guns at the ghost’s crotch! If you want to show girl power, and you have men in your movie, you can have men appreciate what the girls are doing and root for them. Don’t do whatever the f*ck happened in that piece of s*it movie. I don’t think this upcoming “Jumanji” movie is gonna attempt to show any sort of thing dedicated to girl power, progressivism, or showing that women are “better then men,” or anything like that, but I just think this movie, like “Ghostbusters 2016,” is going to ruin some people’s childhoods.

Many people, including me, watched “Jumanji” at a younger age, and they probably still watch it today. One big problem from my view is the movie’s name. It has “Jumanji” in it. A saying I heard about this in the YouTube comments for this trailer said that this looks like a funny comedy. The person who said that is wrong in my book, but let’s go on. They also said that people are getting angry over this idea because of the name “Jumanji” being put in the title of the movie. Here’s my problem with that. I don’t work for Sony, I don’t work for Columbia, I have no relation to any work put into this movie, so therefore, I had no power in deciding the name for the movie nor did I have any power over any sort of process in this movie’s entire creation. The people behind this movie are basically telling me that I must view this as a “Jumanji” movie. What if the recent “Beauty and the Beast” remake were not a remake and instead, a ripoff, which I hear it pretty much is when compared to the Disney animation. Some people might think of it as a ripoff and they might say “I’ve seen this before,” so it might affect their verdict when judging the film. I don’t mind having a bunch of changes brought to a remake, as long as they work. The original movie, which I’ve seen, will likely be in my mind as I’m watching the movie, and throughout I might want some of the vibes you’d get from the original, unless of course the original sucks. Let’s just say this, if this film were called something else that could probably be a badass video game title, it might catch interest from more people. Although we already live in a world where “Jumanji,” a movie with a board game, exists, and we also live in a world where this claimed remake, which contains a video game, exists. Let’s also put it this way, what if “The Notebook,” a romance film about a poor man falling in love with a rich woman, was marketed as an action thriller and then everyone looking for action gets none of it? I know there’s a saying that you can’t judge a book by its cover, but you can also look at the cover, and see if that intrigues you to go on to discover what’s next. This trailer along with other stuff I’ve seen related to “Jumanji” is essentially a cover for the movie, and based on what I’m seeing, nothing looks all that intriguing, and part of it is in comparison to the original, along with the fact that I didn’t laugh once. But who knows? Maybe the funny parts are all in the movie, oh wait a minute that never f*cking happens!

I am planning to see this movie when it comes out, in fact it will probably end up being one of the last movies I see this year considering the time it comes out. However, I’m not really looking forward to it. So hopefully, despite my extremely low expectations for this, I can walk out with a shockingly good movie. And yeah, I do recognize that the other “Jumanji” movie isn’t original work, that was actually based on a book. Also, on a last note, I am not against remakes, I’m against unneeded remakes. Was this remake needed? I wouldn’t say so. Also, Universal, DON’T REMAKE “BACK TO THE FUTURE!” Thanks for reading this post, I honestly don’t know what to say anymore and I’m around two-thousand words in already.

Pretty soon I’m planning on doing a series of reviews related to movies done by Christopher Nolan, one of my favorite directors of all time. He is coming out with a new movie, “Dunkurk,” on July 21. He’s directed films such as “Memento,” “Insomnia,” “The Dark Knight” trilogy, “Inception,” and “Interstellar.” I’m not sure what film I’m gonna do first, but I want to know, if there is a particular film by Christopher Nolan you want me to review, what would it be? Please leave a comment, and I assure you I do read them. Stay tuned for more more great content! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

The Amazing Spider-Man 2 (2014): A Crappier Version of Spider-Man 3 *SPOILERS*

Posted on by Jack Drees

mv5bmzmzotc2mzg2ov5bml5banbnxkftztgwotc2mdk5mde-_v1_sy1000_cr006741000_al_

“The Amazing Spider-Man 2” is directed by Marc Webb, who also directed the first “Amazing Spider-Man” film, and stars Andrew Garfield, Emma Stone, Jamie Foxx, and Dane DaHaan in the fifth live-action “Spider-Man” film brought to the big screen. This film continues the story of Peter Parker in what is being called, according to all the movie’s marketing, “his greatest battle.” …Honestly it’s not. His greatest battle happened in 2004 in Sam Raimi’s “Spider-Man 2.” He has to stop the evil Electro, while at the same time, he regroups with an old friend, Harry Osborn, the son of Norman, whose name was mentioned in the last movie, but has a much bigger importance in this movie. Meanwhile, he has to balance all of that with his relationship with Gwen Stacy.

The year before this movie came out, that’s when I first aspired to make my own movies in Hollywood, that’s also when I started to look at all sorts of film news regarding films that come out long from the day its announced. This was one of those films I was really looking forward to. “The Amazing Spider-Man” wasn’t the best Spidey flick I’ve seen, but it didn’t mean I lacked faith in its then upcoming sequel. When I first saw the first trailer for it, my excitement grew, and before it came out, it was my most anticipated film of 2014 right below the final “Hobbit” film. I liked the film when I first saw it, but as time passed, the film went from being good, to just being OK. Before watching this film again, I wondered if this opinion would change. So how was the experience of rewatching this movie? It was worse than I thought it would be. There were some cool moments, but this experience of rewatching this movie, was surprisingly boring and surprisingly almost anger-inducing. So much crap is happening in this movie that it isn’t even funny! You think a lot of crap happens in “Batman v. Superman?” A lot of the crap you see that movie, at least in my book, PAYS OFF! This movie almost seems to never know what it ultimately wants to be! It’s just a bunch of tones combining together in one product! It’s like putting peanut butter on pizza. Peanut butter is an unthinkable pizza topping and even if your friends call you boring for doing so, you’re probably better off ordering cheese pizza. Which reminds me, hilariously enough, this movie is full of cheese.

Andrew Garfield returns in this movie as Peter Parker, and when I compare Andrew Garfield with Tobey Maguire from Raimi’s trilogy, I do think there are some things I like better one way as opposed to the other. One pro Garfield has compared to Maguire is his age. He was a bit younger than Tobey when playing Peter in each of their first “Spider-Man” movies and he was also younger than Tobey was when they were doing their own second installments. Another pro Garfield has is his line delivery. OK, well, this isn’t entirely directed towards Garfield as an actor, nor is it directed towards Maguire, it’s more towards the writing. Garfield’s interpretation of “Spider-Man” is slightly more faithful to its source material. What do I mean? Garfield’s Spidey gives more quips as opposed to Maguire’s. Sure, Maguire did that too, but not as much. Although as Peter Parker, I think the better interpretation goes to Maguire. It was believable, it showed how much of a nerd he was, and it wasn’t as awkward. OK, you have every right to bring up some segments in “Spider-Man 3” which I consider understandable. Speaking of faithfulness to the source material, Spidey has web shooters. I personally prefer Spidey shooting webs out of his wrists simply because believe it or not, it sounds more practical. You have this high schooler, you have no verification that he or his family is rich, and now he’s making all of this technology that could be costing a lot of money. The creator of “Spider-Man,” Stan Lee, actually has a criticism for all of this. He likes the web shooters because at any point Spidey could run out of fluid and he’s forced to rely on his wits. By the way, Stan, Stanny, Stan by me, Superstan, if you’re reading this, which you probably aren’t, because you’re probably at a convention right now or something, I need you to rewatch Sam Raimi’s “Spider-Man 2.” Spider-Man doesn’t exactly run out of fluid, but he has trouble producing it, which eventually leads to him losing his powers, I honestly think that’s better, but you do you. Also, from my memory, between the two films in Marc Webb’s Spidey series, Spidey never runs out of fluid. One of his web shooters becomes disabled, but he never runs out of fluid. If you ask me, after watching every “Spider-Man” film brought to the big screen that exists today, I’ve come to the conclusion that Tobey Maguire is my preferred “Spider-Man.” He may not be as funny, but he’s extremely relatable, I’m able to care about him, and his interpretation may be arguably the most realistic interpretation of a superhero I’ve ever seen.

Emma Stone also returns in this movie, and she once again plays Gwen Stacy. One key difference between her character compared to the love interest in Raimi’s trilogy, Mary Jane, is that Gwen is never a damsel in distress. Now, some of you might be getting tired of that sort of thing, and believe me, I don’t mind Gwen as a character being someone who’s able to stand up for herself, but at the same time, it makes her a dumbass, we’ll get to that in a second, but let’s talk about her in the beginning of the movie. We first see her in this movie graduating high school. She’s the valedictorian and she gives this speech that is supposed to have a huge meaning in the movie as a whole, Peter comes in after trying to complete the mission he’s taking on at the movie’s opening, he kisses Gwen on the lips. Kind of cringeworthy if you ask me. Although we do get a pretty good Stan Lee cameo. The relationship between Peter and Gwen is kind of off and on. They start off as boyfriend and girlfriend, they have an awkward conversation, awkward mainly for me, the viewer, which then leads to the two breaking up. Peter then stalks Gwen Stacy, which he later admits, so yeah, basically this attempt at making a “Spider-Man” movie turned into the superhero version of “Twilight” for a few seconds… Weird. The two eventually become friends, then it’s almost like they become friends with benefits. No, they don’t have sex, they kiss once in a closet, so you can probably call them friends with minor benefits. Then the two reunite as boyfriend and girlfriend just before Gwen is supposed to leave on a plane to the United Kingdom because she just got accepted to Oxford and they have summer classes. It’s a very rocky relationship, kind of like this movie. Oh, and you know how I mentioned when it comes to the character of Spidey in this series compared to the previous one that they are slightly more faithful to the comics? Well, in terms of faithfulness, this movie’s final act is faithful to Gwen Stacy too. Right before the big bloated electric battle begins during the end of the movie, you can see Gwen and if you know anything about the comics, and you watch this movie, just look at her outfit. It may look familiar to you. Some of you might be asking why I’m bringing this up. Well, in this movie, spoiler alert, I said there were spoilers in the title of the post, so if you are at this point without having seen the movie and you care so much, only blame yourself, Gwen dies. When she dies, she’s actually wearing the same exact outfit she wore when she died in the comics. Another thing I actually just found out, is that when she dies, it’s in a clock tower, and when that happens, it says 1:21. And if you read the comics, Gwen dies in issue 121. On the topic of Gwen, let’s talk about some other things.

One thing I want to bring up is the character of Captain Stacy, who is also Gwen’s father, which if you saw the movie which came out before this one, he dies in that. Before he dies, he says the words displayed in the image above. Peter actually sees Gwen Stacy’s dad throughout the film, not literally, because he’s dead, but it’s almost as if Captain Stacy is in front of him. Peter disobeying Captain Stacy’s dying words and seeing Captain Stacy at the end of the movie should have been a sign for him that Gwen could get in trouble. After seeing that, I wonder how obvious in terms of foreshadowing this would be to people. During my first few watches, I don’t remember seeing it all that much until recently. Although I probably did notice it and it just slipped from my memory because it’s been a while since I saw this movie. Also, I want to know, if you saw the movie, did you notice this? And what are your thoughts on it? I want to know in the comments.

When Gwen Stacy shows up as Spider-Man is fighting around the power grid, she says she must be here because she knows how this grid operates and that sort of thing, but she has to make it clear that being here is “her choice.” Listen, I get if you want a progressive female character that girls can look up to in a movie, but the problem here is, Gwen doing this, is just idiotic by the standards of common sense. “Highly Illogical,” as Spock puts it. Gwen has no superpowers, so it would be like me, a guy who hasn’t played a game of ice hockey in his life, suddenly joining the NHL. In fact, when Gwen dies, I blame her more than Peter. I mean, sure, when she died it was sad, but if you remember the quote from Captain Stacy which was recently brought up, Spidey tried to leave Gwen out of it, but she forced herself in. Sure, Spidey failed at getting rid of Gwen at that moment, but still. How could he? Maybe some blame can go towards the web slinger for failing, but Gwen nevertheless brought herself in.

the-amazing-spider-man-2-poster-banner-full

On a different subject, let’s talk about some bad guys. One of the biggest problems people have with this film are the villains. If you remember “Spider-Man 3” from 2007, you may recall that people disliked it partially due to the movie having three villains (New Goblin, Sandman, and Venom). In this movie, the main villain according to the film’s marketing was Electro (right). However, Spider-Man interacts with certain people in this movie who potentially become villains, including the Green Goblin (middle), and the Rhino (left). So in a way, the “Spider-Man 3” problem exists in this movie. This problem is overall done differently, but nevertheless, it exists. Speaking of which, let’s talk about those villains.

Starting off with Electro, his character is played by Jamie Foxx and overall I thought the buildup for his character, going from average person to villain was very compelling and in a way, I was able to understand how he felt at certain points of the movie. At the beginning of the movie, Spider-Man is going around the city trying to complete an objective, and there’s this guy named Max. He’s going around the city and all of these blueprints he’s carrying fall out of his hands. Spidey lends a helping hand to him regarding the blueprints and he says that Max is Spidey’s “eyes and ears.” Max throughout the first act is treated rather horribly by those he works with, especially considering it is his birthday. As far as other positives go, I really liked the first fight sequence between Spidey and Max in Times Square. At times it is full of CGI, much like another portion of the movie that I bet you might predict I’m thinking of, but still, I enjoyed it. Speaking of CGI, there was this one sequence when Electro was blasting this amazingly massive sparkle wave throughout Times Square, that certainly did a lot of damage. Despite all of what I said so far, I do have some criticisms. Electro feels like a superhuman whose powers give you the will to do anything. At times, it’s almost as if the screenwriter needed a scene to make sense so he’d put in a power we have yet to witness from Electro and it just feels absurd. In fact, there’s one point where we see him, and he’s wearing nothing but boxer shorts. I mean, kids watch these movies so you can’t show any penises, but really?! Just do some closeups on Electro and cut his legs off! Might look weird in terms of presentation but it might make Electro slightly more convincing. Either that or crop the image or something!

Speaking of awful, let’s go onto Dane Dahaan. In this movie, he’s portraying the character of Harry Osborn, and if you know anything about “Spider-Man,” he’s the son of Norman Osborn. You may remember from the last movie, there was a subplot involving Norman and how he was gonna die soon. You barely saw his character during the movie, but still, that plot was a thing. Turns out in this movie, he actually has more screentime. How much screentime in total? Probably less than a few minutes. Norman actually ends up dying moments after talking to Harry and it turns out that the disease that was the killer for Norman happened to be genetic. Interestingly enough, Harry is getting this disease at a much quicker rate than Norman. This leads into a subplot that just got duller by the second. This subplot involves Harry getting a cure for himself. Eventually, he says that he needs Spider-Man’s blood. Part of this is based on research done by Peter’s father and the fact that Spider-Man himself was bitten by a Spider. Now let’s drift away from that and talk about Dane DaHaan himself. I haven’t watched much of Dane DaHaan’s work, but I hear he’s gonna be in “Valerian and the City of a Thousand Planets,” a movie I’m really looking forward to. Although it comes out the same day as “Dunkirk” so I’m gonna put “Valerian” behind that on my must see list. I don’t know how well or poor he does in other movies, but in this movie, Dane DaHaan may have given what I consider to be part of my top 10 worst performances of all time. Dane starts out in this movie as if he were a slow talker. Like, imagine if “Seinfeld” were soft rebooted today and the original cast came back to do more episodes, and if they did one involving an over-dramatic slow talker, this would be a character if the episode had a really dark vibe. Later on, it becomes better, but it’s really weird. Plus the way Harry looks as the Green Goblin is creepy, but I almost don’t buy it for some reason. Anyone else feel that way?

This paragraph is gonna focus on Aleksei Sytsevich, otherwise known as Rhino. This character is played by Paul Giamatti, a fairly respected actor from films like “Saving Private Ryan,” “Cinderella Man,” and “Saving Mr. Banks.” Much like Dane DaHaan in this film, this guy’s performance is weak. I personally like Giamatti’s performance as opposed to DaHaan’s, but that doesn’t say much because watching his performance was almost like watching a cartoon. The first few seconds of him on screen, he’s just obnoxiously yelling random mumbo jumbo that I guess can also be referred to as words, this is all being done while he’s driving a truck and the camera is just focusing on him as he’s shouting. You can argue that Spider-Man acts like a cartoon in this movie with those endless quips he’s got, but I can buy into it. If this was a voiceover role in an animation I might be a little bit more forgiving, but it doesn’t work in a live-action film like this.

Let me ask you something, have you ever seen a movie that you thought was so bad it was good? Common examples among people for this include: “Batman & Robin,” “The Room,” “Troll 2,” “Birdemic,” “Sharknado,” or “Nicolas Cage: The Movie,” yes, that’s not a real movie but if you know who Nicolas Cage is and follow his work you’d most certainly get my point. If “The Amazing Spider-Man 2” qualifies to be that sort of film, it does by a hair, at least that’s how I feel for now, but I do think there are more moments in this movie that can make this film hysterically bad compared to “Spider-Man 3.” I can actually ENJOY “Spider-Man 3” compared to this piece of crap! Aside from the future meme of Paul Giamatti’s performance in this movie, one of my personal favorite examples of this movie’s plethora of hilariously awful moments include this one scene where Spider-Man is going up against Electro. So the two are fighting in this CGI-infested battle, I mean, it’s a cliche in superhero movie climaxes so whaddaya expect? All of sudden, Electro flies from one structure of the grid to another, and from each structure to the next, is one syllable from “Itsy Bitsy Spider.” Hearing it is funny enough, but it’s also funny to hear Spidey talking about it saying “I hate this song!” By the way, that’s not the only time “Itsy Bitsy Spider” was used in a “Spider-Man” movie. It was used in the finale of Sam Raimi’s first “Spider-Man” movie from 2002. Yeah, the Green Goblin was on his glider and he began singing, “The Itsy Bitsy Spider went up the water spout. Down came the goblin and took the spider out.” If these guys wanted to bring any more hilarity to the table, they should have put in “Boris the Spider” by The Who somewhere! I feel like I should talk about more of these, so you know what? I’m gonna talk about more of these.

There’s this one moment where Peter and Gwen are talking, they’re thinking of just being friends. At one point, Peter thinks of developing some ground rules now that they are friends. One of them is that Gwen needs to laugh differently than she usually would. So at one point she gives off this really corny laugh and it’s almost like listening to a female version of the Joker or the Green Goblin. In fact, Harry shouldn’t be the Green Goblin in this movie, Gwen should (laughs normally, not at all like Gwen).

This next moment isn’t exactly hilariously awful, it’s just… awful. Part of the movie is devoted to Peter finding the truth behind what happened to his birthparents. Some of it feels awkward, some of it feels like it wasn’t worth hearing, and this moment, just feels… insane. There is this bag that is shown at the beginning of the film, it’s ignored until somewhere beyond the halfway point. It had all of Peter’s father’s stuff inside. I don’t even know if I’m gonna end up getting the entirety of this information right, but this movie doesn’t feel right, so this movie and I may as well call it even. One of Peter’s father’s items was a calculator. Peter ends up breaking this calculator and inside it happens to have some subway tokens. Peter all of sudden starts doing some research and heads to the area which this subway is located. So he’s in this underground station, there’s a gateway where you put in your token, Peter puts one in and he goes through the gate, there’s no train on the tracks. Turns out there’s a train is underground! Peter actually pushes a wall in order to bring it up! What the s*it?! What idiot wrote this?! Who thought of this?! Inside there is actually a computer that contains a video Richard Parker, Peter’s father, made. Just… why?! This is f*cking New York f*cking City, not Smurf Village!

I want to talk about the score in this movie. Thus far, I’ve mentioned that I enjoyed every single score in a “Spider-Man” film I reviewed. This film, is inferior to the others in terms of that. I’ve likely heard less impressive scores throughout my life, but this film is the worst of the “Spider-Man” movies when it comes to the score. The music in this film was done by Hans Zimmer, one of my all time favorite movie composers. He’s also had experience with making scores for superhero movies prior to this one. If you watched Christopher Nolan’s “Dark Knight” trilogy, he did each one of those movies. He even did my favorite movie score, which is in “Interstellar,” a movie that came out six months after this movie. If you watch this movie and that movie, you can tell the same guy did both scores because they sound very similar at certain points. The biggest problem I have with this score, is this dubstep theme he did for Electro. I’ve listened to the theme on it’s own and I don’t exactly mind the music, as music, it’s fun to listen to. But when you place it in this movie, it just doesn’t work. My suggestion is probably putting this theme in the credits, which by the way, we’re gonna get to. There were some likable moments in the score, but in the end, it cannot even come close to rivaling Danny Elfman’s scores in Sam Raimi’s “Spider-Man” trilogy.

Oh yeah, let’s talk about the ending of this movie, it sucks! It all starts out with a sinister six teaser, then it continues to a point which the public wonders where Spider-Man is, then Spidey is in the city, he’s about to take down Rhino, a villain you may know from the comics. He was shown in the trailer and there’s this one shot that looked pretty cool in it, the shot was shown in the movie, and as soon as they start fighting, the movie’s over! This ending might be disappointing to a lot of people, but a small shred of disappointment might be added if you were watching the trailer and were looking forward to that.

Now let’s dive into the movie’s end credits, because there is an end credits scene worth talking about. And just a reminder to you all, I wouldn’t be saying this to you if I were reviewing the movie back in 2014. I might point out that there is an end credit scene, but that’s pretty much all I’d say. But I want to bring a little more depth to the table. I still recall the first time I saw this movie, it was a sold out IMAX showing, or should I say lie-MAX because it was shown in IMAX digital (I’ve ranted about it more than once). There were about 500 people in the theater. Once the movie was over, a good number of them, including me, actually stayed for the credits. So we’re watching, throughout there is this song by Alicia Keys playing called “It’s On Again.” That song comes to an end, and we see this flashing, then we are cut to a door with an X on it, that signifies that we are getting a scene related to “X-Men,” which does make sense because “X-Men: Days of Future Past” has yet to come out and it was going to be in theaters soon. Once that’s over, we go back to credits, and throughout there are no other scenes. Now just a reminder to you all, I own the Blu-Ray for this film. It also comes with a DVD and digital download copy code so you can watch the movie digitally. I watched the Blu-Ray version in preparation for this review, and that was not the only time I watched the movie in that specific format. On the Blu-Ray, and this can also give a little suggestion to other home video formats as well, the end credit scene isn’t there! Now, “The Amazing Spider-Man 2” is a Sony film, and FOX owns the rights to the “X-Men” movies, so putting that scene in this movie is a little bit out of the ordinary. If that clip existed solely for the sake of promoting “X-Men: Days of Future Past,” a movie which came out three weeks after this one, I get it, but removing it entirely from the film later on is just wrong in my book! There are some people who enjoyed that in the theater and may have been looking forward to watch it again at home, but they don’t get to see it! I wonder if one day there will be another edition of “The Amazing Spider-Man 2” released on home video and it will be subtitled “The Theatrical Cut,” and that cut will feature the “X-Men” end credit scene. For those of you who think I’m creating fake news and you plan to call out on me like Donald Trump, I have video proof, and I’ll mention once again, I WAS AT THE THEATER, so I saw something that maybe you didn’t. There is another video of this I found on YouTube that may have better quality, but I’m posting this video you’re seeing up above because in case you can’t tell, that was taken by someone in a movie theater, which was the only way you could really watch this scene. Also, if it looks kinda weird, that’s because the presentation was in 3D, quite possibly IMAX 3D.

In the end, my thoughts on “The Amazing Spider-Man 2” has changed quite a bit from what they were last time I thought about it. Last time I thought about it, I thought it was just OK, but now it’s sadly worse than that. The “X-Men” thing won’t affect my score, but everything else will. This movie is nothing but a bunch of scenes that are randomly placed together. Peter Parker was awkward, Gwen Stacy was stupid towards the end of the movie, there were too many subplots, Aunt May was rather annoying, there’s one moment from the start of the film that comes to mind when I say this, the script almost felt like it was written by Akiva Goldsman, the writer of “Batman & Robin,” Paul Giamatti is basically the Heavy from “Team Fortress 2,” and Dane DaHaan, just, why? Why Dane DaHaan? Why did this happen? If you watch this movie, you might have some fun watching it, but ultimately, if what you’re looking for is a good “Spider-Man” movie, watch “Spider-Man” from 2002 or “Spider-Man 2” from 2004. A couple last things before I give my rating, this movie has a good chunk of deleted scenes. Including a moment when Peter meets his father in person and the introduction of Mary Jane Watson played by Shailene Woodley (Divergent, The Secret Life of the American Teenager). This movie as a final product is the longest “Spider-Man” film ever made. If these scenes were included, the final product would have only been longer. I’m gonna give “The Amazing Spider-Man 2” a 3/10. For the record, I actually gave “The Amazing Spider-Man” a higher verdict, but in the end, I’d probably much rather watch this movie. Why? It may not be as well crafted as a film, but I can still enjoy some of the goofiness it has to offer. Not to mention, “The Amazing Spider-Man” is essentially something the world has seen before in “Spider-Man” from 2002, which was a better flick, this however is a different movie. Thanks for reading this review and I can now declare that my series of reviews dedicated to past “Spider-Man” movies is over. I want to know, if there is a series of film reviews you want me to do, what would it be? Right now I think I have one in mind. In a few weeks, the movie “Dunkirk” comes out, and that is a film directed by Christopher Nolan. Maybe before that, I should do some of his films from the past. Maybe I could do “Inception,” “Interstellar,” “Memento,” “Insomnia,” or his “Dark Knight” trilogy. This isn’t official, but I’m just saying I might keep it in mind. We’ll see what happens. Also, what is your favorite “Spider-Man” film? Mine’s “Spider-Man 2” by the way. And no, “Captain America: Civil War” doesn’t qualify. If you want to read any of my other “Spider-Man” reviews, I’ll have links to those posted down below. Hope you enjoy those and I hope to see “Spider-Man: Homecoming” in theaters as soon as possible. Stay tuned for more reviews! Scene Before is your click to the flicks, and now, I’m gonna leave you with a horribly delivered quote from Harry Osborn in this movie that I find hilarious.

“On my 16th birthday, you sent me Scotch.” -Harry Osborn

“SPIDER-MAN” (2002) REVIEW: https://scenebefore.wordpress.com/2017/03/18/spider-man-your-friendly-neighborhood-2002-movie/

“SPIDER-MAN 2” (2004) REVIEW: https://scenebefore.wordpress.com/2017/04/14/spider-man-2-best-superhero-movie-to-date-spoilers-for-this-movie-spider-man-1/

“SPIDER-MAN 3” (2007) REVIEW: https://scenebefore.wordpress.com/2017/05/11/spider-man-3-2007-is-it-really-as-bad-as-everyone-says/

“THE AMAZING SPIDER-MAN” (2012) REVIEW: https://scenebefore.wordpress.com/2017/06/06/the-amazing-spider-man-2012-is-it-really-so-amazing-spoilers/

 

Baby Driver (2017): A Mix of La La Land, Guardians of the Galaxy, and Fast & Furious

Posted on by Jack Drees

 

mv5bmjm3mjq1mzkxnl5bml5banbnxkftztgwodk1odgymji-_v1_sy1000_cr006741000_al_

“Baby Driver” is directed by Edgar Wright, who also directed films such as “Shaun of the Dead” and “Scott Pilgrim vs. the World.” This film stars Ansel Elgort (The Fault in Our Stars, Divergent), Kevin Spacey (Se7en, House of Cards), Lily James, (Cinderella (2015), Pride and Prejudice and Zombies), Eiza Gonzalez (Jem and the Holograms), and it even features Jon Hamm (The Town, Mad Men) along with Jamie Foxx (Ray, Django Unchained). This film is about a getaway driver named Baby, he’s forced into working for this crime boss and he goes on a mission that could possibly put him in jail.

Now before we talk about the movie itself, let’s talk about the lead actor in this movie, Ansel Elgort. Going into this movie, one of my biggest concerns happened to be how Ansel Elgort would perform in it given his role. Why? Because when I think of Ansel Elgort, action star is not the first thing that comes to mind. Granted I have seen him in “Divergent,” a movie with action in it, but he is neither the main character nor is he the most memorable character in my eyes. When it comes to Ansel Elgort, the first thing that would usually come to mind is “The Fault in Our Stars,” a romance movie which came out a few years back and has gained a following among many in the teenage girl demographic. I have not seen the movie, I’ve heard mostly positive things, but I’m not rushing to see it. How is he in this movie? Well, I’d say he was a lot better than I expected. I’m not saying Elgort was once a bad actor, I’m just saying he wasn’t necessarily an actor I expected to see in an action film like this. To me, Ansel Elgort now somewhat reminds me of Tom Cruise. You may have some of these folks’s early work which contain more of a romantic vibe, yeah, I’m sticking with romantic, in various segments such as “Risky Business” (Cruise) and “The Fault in Our Stars” (Elgort). But now Cruise, much like Elgort who is in this film, has become this action star that I want to see more of in future movies. Also, another thing that kinda makes the two resemble each other, is this…

Just, look at that! When I saw those sunglasses, I could tell these two weren’t the same person, but it might as well show the similarities between the two folks as actors. By the way, Ansel Elgort is on the left and Tom Cruise is on the right.

Speaking of actors and characters in this film, Kevin Spacey is also in this movie. Now, Kevin Spacey is one of the most revered actors of all time, so it probably wouldn’t be a surprise on how well he does in this movie in terms of his performance. I also got to give kudos to the well-written screenplay as well. Some of his lines are pretty sick and when you combine that with Kevin Spacey’s excellent acting ability, you’ve got a pretty cool character. Now that I’m thinking more about it, this somewhat reminds me of Colin Firth’s character in “Kingsman.” Also, yes, this very likely will make you forget about Kevin Spacey in “Nine Lives.” I haven’t seen that movie, but it’s a movie that came out last year and it is about a businessman that has little to no time for his family. He decides to get a cat for his daughter, because her birthday is coming up, and every year she wants a cat. So he goes to a pet store, and when Christopher Walken’s character shows up with a cat Spacey intends to give to his daughter, a strange turn of events causes Spacey’s character to be trapped inside the body of the cat. So not only does that sound stupid, but it almost sounds like a ripoff of “The Shaggy Dog.” OK, I’ll stop there.

If you notice the title of my review, I said that this film is basically a mix of “La La Land,” “Fast & Furious” and “Guardians of the Galaxy.” Here’s why. This film involves a main character who often listens to music, similar to Peter Quill’s character in “Guardians of the Galaxy,” although in this movie you may notice Baby using an IPod and Peter from “Guardians” using a Sony Walkman, and much like “Guardians of the Galaxy,” I would probably say a good number of people might end up buying this movie’s soundtrack. It probably won’t end up selling as many copies, but still. The film overall is an action film, much like a number of “Fast & Furious” installments, and much like “Fast & Furious” the action consists of multiple car chases and the film contains a heist. Why is it like “La La Land?” Well, there is a romance thrown in the movie as well. I wouldn’t say it was forced, sure, it’s kinda Hollywoodish, but still, I say that with the movie’s writing and characterization, it worked. The romance also felt kinda cheesy at times, but in a way, I’d say it was forgivable, because the chemistry between the characters worked in my book. In fact, this movie at times, felt like a musical. There were no original songs that were done by crowds of people or anything like that, but there were times that the characters were listening to the songs and they were singing, mainly Ansel Elgort, but I believe more than one character got involved in this. Not to mention I kinda moved my hand, head, and foot (I don’t remember if the foot thing happened, but still) to the music.

Since I recently mentioned there’s a love interest in this film, let’s talk about her. Her name is Debora and she’s played by Lily James. When she was introduced in this movie, I thought the connection between her and the lead character of Baby was kinda cute. As mentioned, the romance did feel like a somewhat fantastical Hollywood romance, although in a way, I was able to buy into it, and it didn’t really bother me. In fact, one example is when the two are talking with each other and having a conversation related to music. Yeah, they were talking about songs that have their names in it, so they’re basically referring to these as “Debora songs” and “Baby songs.” Also on a little sidenote, I would like to thank everyone behind this movie for not putting Justin Bieber’s “Baby” into the movie. I probably would have walked out if that were the case. I mean, there’s a reason why the music video for it has so many dislikes on YouTube.

Overall, the action in this movie was fun to watch. It was very well shot, much like some other parts of the movie. There were some cuts here and there, but it wasn’t all jumpcutty or anything like that, it all flowed naturally. In fact, during parts of the movie, it would take a long time for the camera to cut, and I have to say it worked. There are times when movies are like that and it ends up working, and funny enough, “La La Land,” a movie I compared this to, is one of those movies. There are a lot of great action sequences throughout the movie, and if you look above, you’ll see a Suburu car. If you go see this movie, you’ll notice that car in the opening action scene. And once again, here’s another comparison to “La La Land.” The opening sequence in “La La Land” wowed me and set a tone for what’s to come. The same can also be said in “Baby Driver.” When that first action sequence was over, it did end up giving me thrills, but it also gave me the desire to see more action. I also recently mentioned that this movie occasionally has moments that are all showcased in one very long shot. That happens not long after this first action scene, I won’t go into detail, but it did amaze me.

Also, a little fact for you, this movie also contains a little reference from the Pixar animation, “Monsters, Inc..” I’m not gonna dive into what the reference is or anything, but let’s just say, if you go see this movie, pay close attention and keep an eye out for that, because overall it gave me a laugh.

In the end, “Baby Driver” is definitely one of the most entertaining action flicks I’ve seen recently. It’s a very unique experience and had a lot of great characters, including some supporting ones I didn’t mention. However, the film does have flaws. I recently mentioned the cheesy romance, although that complaint I can forgive, and also there was one line that was uttered by Jamie Foxx’s character, Eiza Rodriguez’s character said something that made Foxx’s character say it’s almost like listening to an Oscar speech. It was almost as if Foxx was trying to be funny and the just ended up falling flat. As far as the ending goes, it is really compelling, I understood most of it, but there is one segment that I feel I need to look over. I have a feeling it can be resolved over a second watch, but this complaint still stands. But overall, I had fun watching “Baby Driver,” and I wouldn’t mind watching it again, so I’m gonna give “Baby Driver” a 9/10. This movie is not your average action film. Sure, it’s got your car chases, your gun fights, witty dialogue given on various occasions, while at times it almost reminded me of films like “Interstellar” and “Arrival,” both of which I consider to be great movies. Is this movie as good as those? No, but it doesn’t change the fact that I enjoyed this film as a whole. Thanks for reading this review, pretty soon my series of reviews related to past “Spider-Man” movies are gonna come to an end. The last movie I’m doing for this series is “The Amazing Spider-Man 2” and the reason why I’m doing this is because in a week from now, “Spider-Man: Homecoming” will hit theaters everywhere, and I do plan to see that as soon as possible. Stay tuned for my “The Amazing Spider-Man 2” review, along with my “Spider-Man: Homecoming” review when I get around to it, and even more reviews! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

Transformers: The Last Knight (2017): How Much Must I Explain?! *SPOILERS* (Well, Sort of) (Plus Rant on Aspect Ratios)

Posted on by Jack Drees

 

mv5bzgvjody0zwitzmewzs00ymnjltg1mzgtmthkm2zhnty0mte3xkeyxkfqcgdeqxvymjm3mdm5mdu-_v1_sy1000_cr006401000_al_

“Transformers: The Last Knight” is directed by Michael Bay and it is the fifth installment in Michael Bay’s “Transformers” series. I mean… People probably knew this was gonna happen… The last film didn’t get good reviews… But it made a lot of money… (Sigh). This film stars Mark Wahlberg, Anthony Hopkins, Josh DuHamel, and Isabella Moner in yet another movie called “Transformers” and yet the main focus is directed towards the human characters, so ultimately this movie should be called “Humans: The Last Knight.” All in all the plot to this film (laughs), is that humans and Transformers are fighting each other. Optimus Prime, who is one of the Transformers, is not on Earth. Apparently, the key to preserving the future is in the past, the past of the Transformers on Earth that is.

If you want to know my personal thoughts on Michael Bay’s “Transformers” series, I think some movies are good and some are forgettable. I also feel that if a certain installment in the series is bad, there are still glimmers of enjoyment which I can grasp out of it. I have not seen 1986’s “Transformers: The Movie,” which has no relation to Michael Bay’s series, so I can’t judge that apart from this. Even though I can enjoy at least some parts of any Bayformers film put in front of me, one of my biggest complaints, in fact a number of people’s biggest complaints, is that they are kinda the same. Sure, a couple things have changed over the years, but formula-wise, it’s similar from movie to movie. There’s always an important entity, it’s probably gonna have some impact on the movie in one place or another. You’ve got your human characters, if there is a girl who is a main character, they need to be f*ckable, those people need to be introduced. You’ve got the military and the government or some big organization, perhaps a company, they need to be introduced. You’ve got Transformers, they need to be introduced, throughout there’s some action, explosions, visuals everywhere. I’ve definitely seen worse layouts and I do enjoy stuff that has similar layouts from one installment another, most notably TV shows. As a kid I watched “Power Rangers,” right now I watch “Family Guy,” and pretty much every single sitcom on TV might have a similar layout. Does this layout work? I guess, but even “Fast and Furious,” a series which just had its eighth installment come out last April, knew when to change things around. There’s some similarities from movie to movie, but they spiced things up from time to time. They still have all the street racing stuff, but they focused on it less in later installments and instead focused on all sorts of action-packed popcorn movie s*it. How was this movie in the very end? Honestly, it was awful. Just simply, awful. I think Michael Caine’s interpretation of Alfred Pennyworth said it best in “The Dark Knight…”

“Some men, just want to watch the world burn.”

I guess after watching this so-called “film” I now realize I’m clearly one of those people. Somebody get me a flamethrower and I’ll begin burning my house down!

Alright, where were we? Oh yeah, we’re still on the same topic. After watching this movie, I honestly think that basically a lot of people behind the project think there is no other idea to take on other than the same one every single time. I can accept a number of TV shows being extremely formulaic, it works there, it can give off a consistent vibe from episode to episode that way you feel like you’re watching one show as opposed to another. These movies although, need to change. In some ways, there was change brought to this one, but the change as a whole just happened to be simple tweaks. The overall story and formula however are considerably similar.

The main character in this movie, Cade Yeager, is played once again by Mark Wahlberg, who was actually introduced in “Transformers: Age of Extinction,” the franchise’s fourth installment. Why was he introduced in that movie? It’s kind of interesting actually. If you are familiar with these movies, mainly the first three in the series, you may know that there was a different lead instead of Mark Wahlberg, that lead being Shia LeBeouf. He left because he thought there was nowhere to really take his character for a fourth installment. He enjoys working with Michael Bay, but he felt he should leave. Anyway, Wahlberg personally was a more fleshed out character in this movie as opposed to the last one, although not entirely because he still does that thing where he constantly brings up the fact that he’s an inventor. Also, he’s kind of a badass in this film, the first scene with him, is fun to watch. Speaking of repetitive behavior, and this is something that is not entirely a fault of Wahlberg, he once again has to shove BLATANTLY OBVIOUS product placement down our throats. Now I bet you’re wondering if the product placement was as excessive here as it was in the previous film? Not really. Sure, it’s there, but it’s not a near 150 minute commercial break.

Remember this? If not, this is the Bud Light product placement featured in the previous film. Overall, it is probably up there with the most obvious product placement in movie history.

One of the characters I’m desperate to talk about is the character of Izabella, played by Isabella Moner. This is the first “Transformers” film featuring this character and when I saw a trailer for the film featuring her, I thought this was quite a turn when it comes to Michael Bay. Why? Because of three girls who go by the name of Megan Fox (played Mikayla in Transformers 1 & 2), Rosie Huntington-Whitely (played Carly in Transformers 3), and Nicola Peltz (played Tessa in Transformers 4). What do these three girls have in common? Well, they’re basically sexualized in the prior “Transformers” films. After watching all of the prior “Transformers” films, these women did turn me on in some way or another, but sexiness is probably the only redeeming quality for these characters, as characters, much like a number of other characters introduced throughout the series, the overall characterization for them was pretty weak. You can argue Megan Fox’s character did s*it, and you’d be right, just watch the finale for the first movie when she was driving a vehicle and Bumblebee was on it, but her doing all of this s*it isn’t really something that many people recall her for. I mean, these characters in my eyes were primarily sexualized, although they were never naked or anything, so I can’t really say kids should stay away from the past films, but this is something I wanted to spit out. Going into this film, I thought this new character was gonna be a much more progressive character that females, specifically those in the younger demographic, can aspire to be. Also, she was a bit younger than some of the girls we got in the past, so I didn’t really expect many ass and cleavage shots on this girl. Now, how was she in this film? As far as acting ability goes, she wasn’t bad, and that says something because there aren’t that many girls, mainly including the recently mentioned sexualized girls, whose acting ability stood out in the previous films. This girl did do some s*it, not really as much as I expected, but still, she did some s*it…

Ah, who am I kidding?!

Yes, it is true. Isabella Moner’s character did some s*it, but the typical Michael Bay sexualization was in this movie too! No, the sexualization is not directed towards Moner’s character, instead, it is directed towards Laura Haddock’s character. This character goes by the name of Vivian Wembley. How was she sexualized? Well, when we first meet her and she’s walking around, she’s in this dress, it almost looks like something you’d wear if you’re going out to a fancy restaurant in a major city and it happens to be a special occasion. We don’t get any shots of her where the camera gawks at her butt or boobs or anything, but I think at one point multiple characters are in a room with her, the girl’s attractiveness is brought up by someone, possibly Wahlberg’s character. Could’ve been more than one person, I don’t know. Perhaps it could’ve been nobody and I’m just imagining things. Although that just goes to show you the quality, or lack thereof, of this film. One thing I also noticed from this character, is that compared to all of the other sex objects featured in the series thus far, is that this one’s considerably smart. So yeah, you can say as far as sexualized characters go, this one is not as stupid as some others. I mean, I’m not saying sexualized characters in general are brainless, they’re just not as smart as this one, at least from what I’ve observed throughout the film.

You can argue that due to her intelligence, she’s not a sex toy, but I ain’t buying your arguement. If Michael Bay had at least one sex object in each of the previous “Transformers” movies, would it really be that shocking for him to insert one in this movie?

I just realized how much my reviews are like these movies, the Transformers aren’t getting much of a focus. Well, that changes now, because we’re gonna talk about Optimus Prime. I’m gonna invent a new term, and hopefully I’ll have it patented before Cade Yeager from this movie does, and I’m gonna call it the “Reverse Jared Leto Joker.” Why is that? Because you barely see both characters in their individual movies. Not to mention, they were featured as a key role in various forms of advertising. In 2016’s “Suicide Squad,” you see the Joker throughout a good chunk of the movie’s beginning, once the movie advances past the halfway point, you see him less, then you get to the end of the movie where he just pops up. This happens here too, but in reverse. You see Optimus in the beginning, his main contribution to plot begins, we get introduced to a character who goes by the name of Quintessa, he gets put aside for about a half of the film, then he comes in at the end and stays on camera for the rest of the movie. By the way, Quintessa, that character I mentioned earlier, honestly may have one of the WORST voices I’ve ever heard from a character. I mean, if the voice was normal and no special editing was added to it, it would have been fine, but this voice, if it makes any sense, sounded kinda rumbly. I went to see this movie with my father, and when we left the movie and we were in our personal vehicle together, I described her voice as “degrading.” Like, as in, in terms of the character’s sanity, and perhaps to my own sanity. Speaking of sanity, we’ll get to a couple of moments where I nearly lose my sanity a little later on. But before that, let’s talk about one of the movie’s redeeming qualities.

What is the redeeming quality I’m referring to? A better question would start with “who,” but still. I’m talking about Jim Carter’s character of Cogman. This is the first movie in the series featuring this character, and out of every single character made for the purpose of comic relief, this may be the best one of all when it comes to Bayformers. At one point, another character refers to him as a discount C-3PO, which had me laughing, and believe or not, I was probably the only person laughing at that out of everyone in the theater. Another lovable moment from this character is when a bunch of people are talking, I remember it being key to the overall plot. During the scene, you have the score going on in the background, then we go up to Cogman breaking the fourth wall. How so? By playing the organ which goes along with the score. He’s told to cut it out and then he says that he’s trying to make the moment more epic. Then more talking ensues, and he just starts vocalizing. I don’t recall seeing that type of humor anywhere. The closest I can say that has come to this, is during one scene from a “Family Guy” episode called “Baby, You Knock Me Out,” at one point, Survivor’s “Eye of the Tiger” is playing in the background in a way that no character can hear it, much like the recently mentioned score in this movie. Then suddenly, we cut to Peter Griffin who starts singing the lyrics of the song until Quagmire comes in and pushes Peter out.

Admittedly, as I much as I hated the crap out of this movie, the humor is something that is somewhat pleasing at times. Don’t get me wrong, sometimes it fails, but there are moments that had me laughing. This has also been something that has happened in other “Transformers” installments as well, whether it be during action sequences or when people are randomly talking.

Also to make sure I can keep a focus on the topic of the movie’s robots, you may already know one of the series’s recurring characters is Bumblebee, so let’s talk about him. There’s not really much to say about him honestly. He’s just here because, well, he’s a main character. The only thing that Bumblebee adds to the film is one segment having to do with his voice and the fact that he’s in many scenes, including fights.

On the subject of recurring characters, Megatron is also in this film. Honestly, the only stuff I remember vividly from this character is from the beginning. Speaking of that, I actually want to dive into specifics there. One thing I noticed during the start of the film is that a bunch of the Decepticons were getting introduced, and the way they were introduced may have been helpful because if you look at a bunch of Decepticons standing right near each other, they look pretty similar. That’s a plus, but part of me wonders if this was inspiration from last year’s “Suicide Squad.” This isn’t a huge complaint of mine and it’s more of something I am curious about. If you look at a bunch of the Autobots, the robots in the movie who fight for good, as opposed to the Decepticons in the film who fight for evil, the Autobots vary from one another in terms of personalities, quirks, and colors. All of these factors probably make it easier to get attached to them and appreciate them more when they go up against the Decepticons and attempt to take them down.

There’s also this one character I want to bring up. He’s a scientist, I don’t give a crap about his name or an image for him. Because for one thing, I don’t recall his name, and also if this movie has the right to be lazy then why can’t I have the right to laziness? Anyway, the point is, there’s this scientist who appears in multiple parts of the film, he’s trying to convince people the way to solve this whole war on Earth is through his particular scientific viewpoint. A sixth “Transformers” is going to be made without a doubt, and I already know they’re making a “Bumblebee” spinoff, so if the sixth installment actually happens, or if the spinoff takes place somewhere in modern times, here is something I’d like to see. There’s a battle taking place somewhere, maybe a city, which in my eyes would my preferred choice for this. The scientist is running around the city, Hound, an Autobot played by John Goodman, who is also known for playing Coach Harris in 1984’s “Revenge of the Nerds” could get a glimpse at him and shout, “Nerd! Nerd! Nerd! Nerd! Nerd! Nerd! Nerd! Nerd! Nerd! Nerd!” which if you watch the movie, is almost similar to a constant chant given off at multiple parts of the film. He could also look at the scientist and simply say “Goddamn nerd,” or “What a nerd,” or “I wanna find his frat house from when he went to college so my pals can take it over.” This doesn’t have to be with the scientist, this could be with someone else that’s nerdy, maybe even a group of nerds. Perhaps for the next movie, the casting crew could ask if several cast members from “Revenge of the Nerds” could make appearances as people running away from destruction and Hound happens to be right near them.

Remember the sanity thing I mentioned earlier? Because now we’re gonna get into a complaint I’m not surprised I’m bringing up, because after watching the first trailer for this movie, this annoyed the hell out of me. And this is also a complaint you probably wouldn’t hear from many people. That my friends, has to do with the aspect ratio. When my dad and I were leaving the theater, we start talking about the film and I bring up this particular complaint. He asks what an aspect ratio is. Since he asked that, I might as well explain it in case you are wondering what an aspect ratio is as well. An aspect ratio is essentially how high or wide an image will expand. It doesn’t necessarily depend on the size of your screen, it does however depend on your type of screen.

Let’s say you own a modern day flat screen TV, the aspect ratio for that would be 16:9, which can also be referred to as 1.78:1. This aspect ratio will allow you to watch all of your shows in a widescreen format that covers the screen from both top to bottom and left to right.

Now lets take this CRT TV shown above. This was the big thing before flat screens and HD became a household necessity if you will. These TVs are presented in a format called 4:3, which is also referred to as 1.33:1. This format is also often labeled as “full screen.” If you watch something in widescreen on here, it wouldn’t feel as authentic as opposed to watching it on something with an aspect ratio of 16:9 or wider. Nowadays, they’re still making DVDs, but it is an overall rarity to find one that comes out with an option to watch in full screen. It’s usually just widescreen, because tube TVs aren’t cool anymore. If you find a DVD in the widescreen format and play it on a device hooked up to a tube TV, chances are you will find some black bars on the top and bottom of the screen, which is sometimes called a letterbox. The only way to get rid of those black bars (depending on what you’re watching and TV or device settings) is to change the picture view settings or switch the settings to stretch the top and bottom portions of the image. Varying on the content, the black bars could still be visible even with the settings change, and the image would, based on what you just did, appear stretched out.

Wow that was a long rant. Worth it. Sorry if I bored you, but I assure you that rant was ten times as entertaining as “Transformers: The Last Knight.” Sticking with my main point, there are multiple aspect ratios in this film, and there have been films in the past that have done this, including 2 other installments in the series. The second and fourth. As far as the second one goes, I don’t remember where the aspect ratio changed. The aspect ratio changes didn’t bother me much in the fourth one when I watched it, but I wonder if my opinion would change now. In this movie, the aspect ratio changes between almost every single shot on screen! It’s just HORRIBLE to watch at times. I may have tuned it out a couple of times, but when I noticed it at times, it somewhat pissed me off. In fact, when I watch movies that have different aspect ratios, it’s usually only two ratios featured in the whole thing. Let’s take “Interstellar” for example. Much like this film, this was partially shot on IMAX cameras. The types of cameras were specifically different from each other and the footage shot with them was presented not so similarly on screen, the IMAX screen to be specific, but still, that’s how they were shot. In “Interstellar,” there’s a scene where multiple characters are on a distant planet, tensions start to increase at the spur of the moment. That sequence was shot in IMAX. Then we cut to a situation on Earth, tensions increase there as well. Although that is being shot with a different camera, a 35mm camera to be specific. The different situations are cut from one another back and forth and it is all shown using their respective camera in order to build up to where the movie goes next. That film was directed by Christopher Nolan, who has also used the IMAX camera for other purposes in his films, such as certain sequences involving action during “The Dark Knight” and “The Dark Knight Rises.” Here though is a different story, I can just imagine that someone thought it would be fun, either the editor or Michael Bay to just play around with aspect ratios and be inconsistent with them! It’s just so jarring! It makes my head EXPLODE! There were even moments I noticed where the aspect ratio would be one thing, then it changes to something else for literally less than a millisecond, and the next thing I know I’m looking at another one! I’m just glad I didn’t notice absurd quick cutting or I probably would have ran out of the auditorium screaming! The worst part about this is that this is not only something that applies to the IMAX Experience. One movie I went to see multiple times in the theater is “Star Wars Episode VII: The Force Awakens.” It had most of the movie shot with 35mm film and nearly 5 minutes of footage shot in the IMAX format. When seeing this film in a regular theater, the aspect ratio stayed the same the whole time. However, during the escape from Jakku scene, the IMAX Experience changed the aspect ratio. Although I went to see “Transformers: The Last Knight” in a regular theater, so this was utterly displeasing to look at.

Simply put, this aspect ratio bulls*it may be some of the WORST editing I’ve ever seen in a movie. There’s this other movie I reviewed earlier this year called “You Can’t Have It,” if you haven’t seen it, or even heard of it for that matter, I wouldn’t be too surprised. Nevertheless, I mentioned earlier this year when I reviewed that film that the editing was awful there too. Although instead of video, this had to do with audio. The levels from shot to shot in particular scenes was overall pretty infrequent to the point where it got annoying. The video wasn’t spectacular either because I noticed multiple jumpcuts, and I actually recall seeing one in this movie too. So yeah, that’s something these two pieces of garbage have in common. (Sigh)

One thing that usually doesn’t disappoint me in “Transformers” is the action, and while it was fun to watch, it honestly wasn’t enough to save this disaster of a movie. During action sequences, there was some enjoyment to be had, but also a big question to be asked. That question being, “What is happening?” I cannot even believe I got bored watch all of this s*it go down, it made me think that out of all the “Transformers” movies, this is the film in the series that I would probably put on at night when I go to bed and I need something so boring it’ll make me fall asleep. This installment in the series would probably do the trick. Oh yeah, and what was the other thing? Oh right, THE ASPECT RATIOS KEEP CHANGING!

I know I’ve been going on forever, but I need to talk about one more thing before I deliver my verdict to you all. There’s this YouTube channel you may be familiar with called Channel Awesome, one of its most popular series is the “Nostalgia Critic,” which is done by a guy named Doug Walker. One of his most recent uploads is called “Transformers: The Last Knight NON-Review.” In this video, he mentions that he has done a tradition which he reviews each Michael Bay “Transformers” film that comes out, but right now, he wonders what’s left to talk about it that’s new. With that being said, he decided he wouldn’t review the new movie and instead he attempted an “artistic experiment” which features him predicting the overall structure of “Transformers: The Last Knight.” After watching the movie and this video, Doug pretty much nailed the entire structure, there may be some differences here and there, but this prediction was overall pretty much the entire movie. If you’re reading this and you haven’t seen the movie but watched the video, I probably just spoiled the movie for you, same can also be said if you decide to click on the video from here. I just thought I’d share that because this was an interesting experiment and it reveals a lot about how similar these “Transformers” movies really are when you compare them with one another.

In the end, “Transformers: The Last Knight” sucked. I liked numerous segments of the film, but to me, various segments aren’t enough. Not to mention, we are once again being exposed to yet another copy-paste story and structure. I briefly brought up the whole, oh my, it’s the last “Transformers” thing, but let’s face it, it most likely won’t be, which is another thing I absolutely hate about this movie. There’s a scene shown during the credits that might contain some key info that might be covered in the future. I don’t mind seeing another movie, well, sort of, as long as they try on the next one, but I don’t like liars. Maybe Michael Bay won’t direct it and he’ll hand it off to somebody else, perhaps they could do better. As far as blockbuster films go, this one fails on so many levels, and it did not need to be like this. I’m gonna give “Transformers: The Last Knight” a 3/10. This is my score because while I did enjoy some things in the movie, there were a lot of things I didn’t enjoy. I seriously wonder if my score will be lower in the future. Only time will tell. Last year that happened with “Suicide Squad” and “Independence Day: Resurgence,” so we’ll see. Thanks for reading this extremely long review that ultimately has more effort put into it than “Transformers: The Last Knight” itself. Either listen to everyone and stop making these movies, or listen to everyone and either make a good movie, or a movie with a different formula. Even better, a good movie with a different formula. Thanks for reading this review, I’m not sure yet what my next review will be, but I’m thinking maybe “Baby Driver” or something like that, we’ll find out where the road takes me. Stay tuned for more reviews, along with other content that I assure you has greater quality than “Transformers: The Last Knight.” Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

 

Phil Lord and Christopher Miller DROP OUT of HAN SOLO STAR WARS FILM?! Who’s Directing Now?

Posted on by Jack Drees

mv5bmtywmtmznti2nf5bml5banbnxkftztgwntyxodc4nje-_v1_sy1000_cr0013961000_al_

Hey everyone, Jack Drees here! If you know me in real life, you may already know I’m a mega “Star Wars” fan. There’s a lot to love about it in my book, and with that love comes a bit to hate as well.

Ah! Not this little prick! Seriously dudes, f*ck this guy! F*ck him! Just f*ck this CGI piece of dogs*it! Ugh, I apologize to the majority “Star Wars” who are in agreement and absolutely hate this f*cking tool… that… you… had to see this picture. At least you aren’t seeing him talk, so that’s some good news… Anyway, where was I? Oh yeah, right.

If you have been following “Star Wars” at all recently, you may have been aware that a standalone Han Solo “Star Wars” film is in the works. It’s gonna have Allen Enrenreich (Blue Jasmine, Hail, Caesar!) as Han Solo, my personal pick for the role would have been Miles Teller (Whiplash, Divergent), but we’ll see how Allen does. We also have Donald Glover (Community, The Martian) as young Lando Calrissian, Joonas Suotamo as Chewbacca, along with some other big names like Woody Harrelson (Zombieland, No Country for Old Men) and Emilia Clarke (Game of Thrones, Terminator Genisys). As far as directing goes, that was given to Phil Lord and Christopher Miller, but now, all of a sudden, they’re dropping out.

If you don’t know who Phil Lord and Christopher Miller are, they usually work together on several of their projects. Some of these projects include “21 Jump Street,” “Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs,” and “The LEGO Movie,” one of my favorite animations of all time. Based on this some other aspects of their background, they’ve had a more lighthearted or comedic focus when it comes to their films. And when I heard that there was gonna be a Han Solo standalone “Star Wars” film, I was rather excited about it, although I had no clue these two were directing.

Why did these two leave you ask? Well, apparently it’s due to “creative differences.” Down below I have a quote supporting the two’s thoughts.

“Unfortunately, our vision and process weren’t aligned with our partners on this project. We normally aren’t fans of the phrase ‘creative differences’ but for once this cliché is true. We are really proud of the amazing and world-class work of our cast and crew,”

What are my personal thoughts on these guys leaving? Well, they’re mixed. These two have mostly done animations or comedies, and this kinda had me worried when I looked at their background. “Star Wars” is science-fiction, well, if you want to be more technical, science-fantasy. And while there is occasional humor injected in the films of the past, most notably “The Force Awakens” from what I recall. I have to say that the humor for that movie, worked, the comedy was delivered at the right times and a lot of it didn’t feel forced, no pun intended. However, these two have done a lot of films that interject humor in a lot of places. Some family friendly, some a bit over the edge. If these two were going to do a “Star Wars” film with humor in there, I’d say it’s fine, but you also have to be serious, just think of how the MCU films work. A lot of those films nowadays interject humor and still manage to have a vibe of seriousness at hand. The only exception I can think of when it comes to this is “Guardians of the Galaxy,” and the fast paced humor in that film, personally worked, it helped set a tone. But this is “Star Wars,” not “Guardians of the Galaxy.” Maybe my mind would switch around on this topic, but this is where I stand for now.

Although I will say that if these two continued on with this film, it wouldn’t be the first time they did something “Star Wars” related. “The LEGO Movie” actually had a cameo featuring Han Solo, Chewbacca, Lando Calrissian, and C-3PO, which had Billy Dee Williams and Anthony Daniels reprising their roles.

Earlier I mentioned I was somewhat worried about Miller’s and Lord’s departure, why is that you ask? Simple. The release date. This Han Solo film is supposed to come out next year, May 25th to be exact. While that may seem like a while, there’s another “Star Wars” film that is coming out soon, that being “The Last Jedi.” That is due in December and according to IMDb, they finished filming last July. If you ask me, I think another director should be hired or these two should come back. If they don’t come back, here are some suggestions of people who I personally should direct the Han Solo film along with what they’ve directed in the past.

George Miller (Mad Max, Happy Feet)
Sam Raimi (Spider-Man trilogy, Oz the Great and Powerful)
Patty Jenkins (Wonder Woman, Monster)
Chris Columbus (Harry Potter 1 & 2, Home Alone)
The Wachowski Siblings (Sense8, The Matrix)
Doug Liman (Edge of Tomorrow, The Bourne Identity)

These are just directors who already know what it’s like to direct a film, and honestly, if we are talking about a film such as “Star Wars,” an experienced director is most likely to be a director I prefer. If none of these people are acceptable, I’d say find someone who is good at directing, they have never done a big feature before, but they know the material of “Star Wars” by heart. This could allow opportunities to prevent a bloat of continuity errors, and maybe add in a little fan service. Although remember 2016’s “Rogue One?” That was done by a director who barely did anything big. He did 2014’s “Godzilla”, (mumbled talking from a mysterious person) err, hang on a second.

(mumbled talking from a mysterious person)

Oh yeah, right. He did 2014’s “Aaron Taylor-Johnson” which has Godzilla in it. Thank you, person I don’t even know. Other than that, there’s not too much else. I ended up loving the hell out of “Rogue One” when I saw it and I bought the steelbook Blu-Ray the day it came out. Even with that, when it comes to “Star Wars,” I want someone that has experience not just crafting films, but crafting likable films.

I may have listed the Wachowskis and sure, they have had a lot of misses with movies like “Jupiter Ascending” and such, but they’ve had a huge hit with “The Matrix” back in 1999. They also wrote and produced “V for Vendetta” back in 2006 which says something about them.

OK guys, I need to tell you something. Apparently, the Han Solo movie actually found its new director and the news came out about it as I was writing this. I didn’t expect this, I was expecting this director search to go on for some time, so I’d have some time to analyze my thoughts, but as I was doing so, the search ended. So I can officially say the director of the Han Solo “Star Wars” film is Ron Howard. Personally, I think this is a fine choice. He made a lot of movies that were loved by both critics and audiences, he has a ton of experience in the film industry, and if you ask me, he knows how to make a good film. Just watch “Apollo 13,” it’s a good time.

This is an interesting twist to say the least. I heard a lot of people wanted Ron Howard to take over based on my experience of getting through yesterday and I guess they got their wish. I can’t wait to see how he does, if he drops out, hopefully someone from my choices could take over. Thanks so much for reading this, tomorrow I’m gonna go see “Transformers: The Last Knight,” which isn’t looking too good right now… Yeah, the movie currently has a 16% on Rotten Tomatoes, which means as of now it is the worst entry in the Michael Bay’s “Transformers” series. Just… Wish me luck, OK? Stay tuned for that review, hopefully the movie’s actually good. Also, July is almost here, which means it is almost time for another “Spider-Man” review. I’ll be reviewing Marc Webb’s “The Amazing Spider-Man 2,” which many consider to be Sam Raimi’s “Spider-Man 3” for a new generation. And if you hear their thoughts on both films, they don’t mean that in a positive way. Stay tuned for that review, and stay tuned for more great content! Scene Before is your click, to the flicks!

Why Dunkirk MUST Be Seen on 35mm Film, 70mm Film, IMAX 70mm Film, or IMAX Laser

Posted on by Jack Drees

mv5bndmynwy1yzetnjc3yy00ymfilwe0njktmjq1y2nhzmrimtfml2ltywdll2ltywdlxkeyxkfqcgdeqxvyndu3mjixnza-_v1_sy1000_sx675_al_

Hey everyone, Jack Drees here! Let me ask you a question, when it comes to movies, who is your favorite director? If you ask me, my personal pick would probably be Christopher Nolan. I haven’t seen all of his films, but I have seen a number of them, even if I don’t LOVE his films, I can still highly appreciate them in one way or another. The biggest way that comes to mind is how a number of his movies are shot.

If you don’t work in the film industry or you don’t really care about a film’s technical aspects, you might not be aware that most movies nowadays are shot with digital cameras. I will say that these cameras have brought various benefits. One of the biggest benefits in my opinion is that digital cameras had allowed greater opportunities for movies to be shot in 3D and look good in 3D. Granted, 3D films can also be shot in 2D, whether it be shot on digital or not, and be converted. But I remember seeing films shot in 3D and looking amazing on screen. However, let’s talk about an older technology…

If you have seen an movie that someone may consider “older,” chances are extremely likely that it was shot on film. From my experience of someone who has done research on various cameras and movies, film is superior in a number of ways. These are all based on resolution, grain, and not to mention from personal experience, how it looks on a projector. Part of that is why I want to talk about “Dunkirk,” which is Christopher Nolan’s next movie, it is due to come out next month.

According to the image above, “Dunkirk” will be in theaters everywhere, but it is also letting us know that it will be watchable in various film formats. These formats include 35mm film, 70mm film, and IMAX 70mm film. Nowadays when you go see a film, it is projected digitally, and from experience it would usually be shown in a format that is higher than full HD, which is 1080p. To my knowledge, a good number of theaters which happen to be equipped with digital projectors show movies in formats such as 2K which is higher than the resolution of high definition and 4K which is higher than that. Based on research I’ve done, 35mm is greater than even 4K. When I was born, this was still a standard in cinemas, digital was on the rise, but that doesn’t mean 35mm was completely dead. 70mm was pretty common before I was born. This was shown in a resolution that is greater than 35mm and I also heard the sound is greater with this format. This was also typically shown in a theater with a considerably big screen. 35mm is shown a screen which is a size similar to that of your standard digital presentation but the 35mm is as mentioned, higher in terms of quality. I will say, as much as I could talk about 35mm and 70mm film, I’m not going to. I think I’ve said what needs to be heard at this point. They are both ancient pieces of technology that would honestly still hold up compared to what’s used nowadays in most movie theaters.

Now let’s get to the big guns, IMAX 70mm. When I really got into movies and their technical aspects, this was something I did a lot of research on. Why did I do research on this? Well, I just got into 3D which made me start going to the IMAX more and one day I came across more on the company. Such information included the movies they did, their logo history, and their projectors. Little did I realize I was being lied to. Let’s trace this back to the beginning…

Up above we have two images. On the left we have an image of an IMAX screen, not just any IMAX screen as a matter of fact, but it is also is the IMAX screen of the theater I always went to as a kid. The theater is now known as the Sunbrella IMAX 3D Theater, but before, this has been under multiple sponsors including Comcast, Verizon, and Tempur-Pedic. This is located in Reading, MA. I saw multiple movies here and I ended up having fun during all of my experiences, even during “Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen,” which I hear many people hate. The reason why I bring that up is because I threw up during that experience. Sounds eccentric, I know, but still, it’s something that happened in my past so I feel it is worth discussing. At the time, this theater was equipped with an IMAX 3D 70mm film projector. This projector is known as the GT (Grand Theatre) projector. There is a projector that is similar to this that is capable of fitting in smaller IMAX theaters but has the same technologies, it is known as the SR (small rotor). Unfortunately, with the rise of digital, the film projector in this theater wasn’t going to last forever. In 2012, the theater switched to digital, which still allowed a cool IMAX experience to be had and a greater contrast ratio to be displayed on the screen, but the overall experience was missing something. A TRUE EXPERIENCE. Fun fact, before this theater was converted, there were other IMAX theaters introduced with new projectors, one of them being the projector in this theater that was the successor to the film projector, these projectors were supposed to fit on an IMAX MUCH SMALLER than the one in this theater, not to mention any older IMAX theater in existence. Here’s a chart I want to show you…

Right here is a comparison between two IMAX theaters in New York City, both of them operate under the well known cinema chain, AMC, but they have key differences, one of them is big, the other is small, and I say this by the standards of IMAX. The bigger screen is something you’d find in an older IMAX, and the smaller screen is something you’d see in a newer IMAX which is traditionally found in multiplexes.

Right here is a demonstration of the IMAX difference with footage from last year’s “Batman v. Superman: Dawn of Justice.” This film had select footage shot with IMAX cameras, the same type which was partially used during this film, if that footage was shown in a regular theater, the entire film would have been shown at an aspect ratio of 2.4:1, if it was shown in IMAX digital, then the film would have been presented mostly in 2.4:1, but have select footage shown in 1.9:1, which covers the entire screen of an IMAX digital setup if this were shown in a multiplex, but not if shown in an IMAX which originally had a 70mm projector. In a classic IMAX theater with the true IMAX experience, this would have been at an aspect ratio of 1.43:1, this ratio covers the entire screen. This is something you would see with an IMAX documentary or something like that, but it’s once in a blue moon that you get to see this with an IMAX film that is digitally mastered for the experience like all of those big blockbusters made in Hollywood. In fact, here’s a list of IMAX digitally mastered films that have been able to cover the whole screen simply because they’ve been shot with IMAX cameras.

1: The Dark Knight
2: Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen
3: Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol
4: The Dark Knight Rises
5: Star Trek: Into Darkness
6: The Hunger Games: Catching Fire
7: Interstellar
8: Star Wars Episode VII: The Force Awakens
9: Batman v. Superman: Dawn of Justice
10: A Beautiful Planet

As you can tell, there aren’t that many times when the screen has been full except for IMAX documentaries. Apparently, according to IMDb and Wikipedia, there are a couple of Dreamworks Animations that have also gotten the true IMAX treatment, but I’m not listing those because those weren’t shot with a camera. Granted I saw the ones which were associated with this identification (Kung Fu Panda, “Madagascar: Escape 2 Africa), but still.

With these specs in mind, I would like to tell you that I have been through said experiences at least once. When I went to see “Interstellar” in 2014, I saw it in IMAX 70mm, when I went to see “Star Wars Episode VII” one of the showings I went to was in IMAX digital, and I’ll use the same film as an example for the regular theater. IMAX 70mm wins by a long shot because you can get a view of the screen as if it is actually your eye. It fills up a good portion of your vision and when you add in the amazing sound quality, it’s bliss. For IMAX digital, it’s a fun experience, but it doesn’t realy make you feel like you’re in the movie. It’s close, but no cigar. Although I will say it is better than a traditional movie theater experience due to IMAX digital have a slightly bigger screen, not to mention having a screen that goes from ceiling to floor as well as wall to wall. I will say, I did see “The Force Awakens” in true IMAX too. Well, sort of. Let’s talk about IMAX laser.

Right here is IMAX’s 4K laser projection system. When this all started, this was a project that was being developed in cooperation with Eastman Kodak since April 2012. This was designed to be a digital projection system not only capable of surpassing the quality of IMAX digital, but also meant to replace the older IMAX film equipment. Not many of these projectors exist for what I know, although do you recall that theater I mentioned earlier? The one I went to as a kid? Well turns out I still go today, and now I have a better reason to go than I did in times from 2012-2015. Why? In the summer of 2015, the theater closed its doors for a period of time, this was to make some upgrades. One of them was a superior sound system. What’s the difference? The old sound system has 6 channels, the new sound system has 12. Not to mention, you even got speakers on the ceiling now. There aren’t many places you can find this! Also, let’s dive into the gem of focus, the laser projector. As mentioned, it is capable of displaying images of 4K and have a contrast ratio which is double that of an IMAX film projector. While this is a brighter projector, I wouldn’t say you can see more of an image on it. You can definitely see A LOT, but it is not at the maximum quality. However, the biggest thing this does resolve from my view is the inability to fill up an entire screen, so when I saw “Star Wars: The Force Awakens” in this format, 5 minutes of that film, the escape from Jakku to be specific, was presented in a 1.43:1 aspect ratio as opposed to 1.9:1. I will say though, at the laser theaters, the sound is probably better than the film theaters based on the number of channels.

So ultimately, if you ask me, IMAX laser is worth the ticket price you’re paying, especially when you compare it to IMAX digital, which is cool, but not extraordinary. Although if you ask me, I would rather pay to see a film in IMAX 70mm, and that is only to see a superior image, embrace older technology, and based on previous experiences, get something I wouldn’t usually see. Because IMAX laser is capable of playing a lot of films that are presented in IMAX digital, but the same cannot be said for films playing in IMAX 70mm. Want to know what I mean? Here’s a Wikipedia page displaying all of the films that have gone through the IMAX DMR (digital media remastering) process, and it shows the projection options that have been available for certain films.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_IMAX_DMR_films

So if you want an experience that is truly unlike any other you’re getting nowadays, and I say that now more than ever because this movie exists, please go see this movie on film (any format) or in IMAX laser. I personally am excited because there is a theater in Providence, RI, which is just over an hour away from my house that is getting the IMAX 70mm treatment (OR SO I HEAR, I WONDER IF THAT’S EVEN HAPPENING), and if this is the case, this is probably the first time the equipment is being used for a DMR film since “Interstellar,” which is directed by the same guy doing this film. I went to see “Interstellar” at this theater and I am more than thankful of my aunt Jenni for taking me and keeping a promise we had to do so. I also am aware that Coolidge Corner Theatre and The Somerville Theatre, which are both close to my house, happen to be getting this movie in 70mm film. I’d personally go see this movie in IMAX 70mm first because that is my personal favorite experience of the bunch, and if I end up liking the film and want to see it again, I can make a trip to one of the closer theaters and get a regular 70mm experience. I mean, I probably am gonna like this movie, it’s done by Christopher Nolan, and to me, it’s hard NOT to like his work, so I have absolute confidence that this upcoming film will be good. Anyway, thanks for reading this post, “Dunkirk” is in theaters everywhere July 21, but special engagements in 35mm, 70mm, and IMAX 70mm film will be available on July 19. Also, this upcoming weekend, I have plans to see the film, “Transformers: The Last Knight.” *Pause* *Chuckles* That’s so cute, I just called it a film. Based on what you just read, you can probably tell I don’t have much hype for it, but I’m seeing it anyway because I’ve seen all the others and I want something to review. Stay tuned for that along with more reviews! And when “Dunkirk” comes out in July, stay tuned for that review! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!