Central Intelligence is a film starring Kevin Hart and Dwayne Johnson. This film revolves around two guys who known each other from high school, but a little incident happened to the “then” Dwayne Johnson character, and it was hard to get back up from that. At the same time, Kevin Hart was voted student of the year, he was most likely to succeed, and he was probably the most revered person in the entire school. Keep these in mind when you see the movie. Eventually Kevin Hart is lured into working with Dwayne Johnson for his skills in accounting in order to save the US spy satellite system.

Years later, these two find each other on Facebook, Kevin Hart’s character doesn’t even know who this guy is, but Dwayne’s character seems to clearly know who Kevin Hart’s character is. Eventually they are both in a bar and they find each other. Dwayne Johnson looks like he lost a lot of weight, he shaved his head, and it seems he buffed up. Kevin Hart lacks hair too, and he was pretty much the same height he was in high school. It turns out that Kevin Hart, despite his success in high school, ended up becoming an accountant, while Dwayne Johnson became involved with the CIA. It shows a role reversal from high school to adulthood. It kind of reminds me of a stereotypical high school, where basically all the jocks are rewarded with praise, while the nerds remain at the bottom of the food chain. So when you look at Dwayne Johnson in this movie from high school to adulthood, it’s kind of like he had a “Revenge of the Nerds” moment, specifically when I refer to the speech at the end of the first movie. OK that happened in a college but whatever, the example works in my opinion. Although in that stereotypical high school sort of environment, Kevin Hart would probably be the one kid who liked everybody and was liked by everybody. He seemed like one of the popular kids that wasn’t actually a jerk.

As a duo, Kevin Hart and Dwayne Johnson work really well together. You can tell in a lot of the shots, based on the dialogue of the film, you can tell they were enjoying themselves. I actually happened to see bloopers of the movie, and it seemed like they were having a fun time on set. Throughout the movie there have been moments where I really felt the chemistry between these two. Like when they meet in the bar, it feels like what would happen if two long lost folks reunite.

There’s also a bit of action in this movie, which honestly was pretty good for an action comedy. The dialogue during the action scenes was pretty funny as well. There’s even a reference to Patrick Swayze in Road House that I couldn’t help but laugh to. Also during the action sequences, the people behind this movie did a fine job with establishing characterization and personality. This goes specifically with Kevin Hart, specifically where he says “I’m out.” This was recurring throughout one scene but apparently Dwayne Johnson doesn’t even listen to him. It shows the amount of fear he had throughout the scene, along with Dwayne’s dare devil personality. It kind reminds me of another action-comedy with Kevin Hart, specifically “Ride Along.” Kevin Hart’s relationship with Ice Cube worked in that movie because of the differences the duo had between each other. Although if I had to choose between the two duos, I’d choose the one in Central Intelligence. In Ride Along, Ice Cube at times seemed like a pretty bland character. Also while the two were different from each other throughout a good chunk of the film, it felt like at times that they were too different. Ice Cube seemed 1-dimensional in the movie for the most part while Kevin Hart’s character developed. Granted unlike Kevin Hart, Ice Cube wasn’t the main character of the film, but it’s still something I have on my mind. In Central Intelligence, both Dwayne Johnson and Kevin Hart develop in a way which I can approve. I felt like I can appreciate both of these characters because they were both friends before the movie gets serious, while Kevin Hart and Ice Cube in Ride Along for the most part didn’t seem too friendly.

Kevin Hart is also married in this film. His wife is played by Danielle Nicolett, and while watching the movie, the subplot between the couple was not the most necessary thing in the world (well, a good portion of it). Although I will admit towards the end of the movie, it felt kind of necessary and somewhat gave the movie a few extra points in my book, it was sort of humorous too. This subplot although brought a pretty funny moment involving Dwayne’s character, I won’t say what it is though. Although in the end, part of me feels like the plot played out the way it played out just for the cliche of the main character being in problematic relationship.

In the end, I like this movie. I recommend it to anyone who wants a good laugh. If you’re a fan of Kevin Hart you’re gonna love this movie. If you like Dwayne Johnson as an action star, or as a comic, you’re gonna love this movie. I actually went to see this movie with my mother and sister, they enjoyed it, and apparently my mother said she is the “new Mrs. Dwayne Johnson.” One scene made her think that, I won’t say what. I give Central Intelligence an 8/10. By the way, pretty soon I’m expecting to have reviews up for Warcraft, the new movie based on Blizzard’s video game and Independence Day: Resurgence, the sequel to the alien invasion film from a couple decades ago. Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

Today I want to bring up an interesting topic that’s been on my mind for a long time, which is theatre seating. When one goes to the movies, what does one seem to traditionally expect? In my mind, I’m expecting to go somewhere with a bunch of people I didn’t particularly invite, but nevertheless still glad to have with me, and watch a movie with them. It could be good, it could be bad, but I still go for the experience of escaping my own world, and escaping into someone else’s world. Not to say I don’t entirely shut off my brain, I review the films I see and rate them. One thing I always I try to keep in my mind when I go to the movies is, how will I be able to fulfill my experience? In no particular order, I ask myself the following questions: Should I see the movie in 2D? 3D? IMAX? IMAX 3D? What time should I see the movie? What day should I see the movie? Which location should I go to in order to watch the movie? These are questions I always keep in mind, and I usually keep these in mind because it’s inevitable that almost every time I go see I movie, I’m the one choosing the theater. One other question I ask myself is this: “What kind of seats should the theater have?” This is a fundamental concept I take into advantage and thought about during multiple trips. Today I’m going to talk about the concept and dig deep into it. Let’s start with reclined seating.

Since the early 2010’s, the big trend most movie theaters have had is installing recliners inside cinemas as seats, in order to see a movie. When I first found out about this, I thought it would be interesting, and it might add relaxation towards the experience. In fact on my first time attending one of these reclining seat theatres, I was unaware of what I was getting into. I was heading to the AMC Burlington 10 cinema, which according to Cinema Treasures, opened in 1994 with standard seating, and it’s the kind where you go down the aisle so it wasn’t stadium seating. I was going to see “Divergent” with my mother, we got the tickets, our refreshments, and unfortunately our soda wasn’t even in an actual cup, but little did we know that the place was going under renovation. We were walking into theater 3, it was kind of scary walking in because it seemed that the walls were too dark and it kind made the floor uneven with it, therefore reminding me of a haunted house. I didn’t think that was normal because the time prior to this one at this theater (July 2011), it looked a bit different. Then we see the auditorium itself, mom and I were in shock. We sat down on these leather chairs and start reclining, we loved it. The only con I could give towards that experience is that I overheard construction outside while watching the movie. That’s unlikely to happen now that renovation ended but still, it was a minor point. This was going to inevitably become a big thing. Interestingly enough, there was another movie theater nearby that was replacing its older seats with recliners. The location in particular is Showcase Cinemas Woburn. Before going to see “Alexander and the Terrible, Horrible, No Good, Very Bad Day,” which in my opinion was a terrible, horrible, no good, very bad movie, I knew that they were putting recliners in this theater. Besides my sister’s friends who were coming with us to the movie, I was probably the only one out of everyone in the group who was aware this theater had reclining seats. I was going into the theater, and I saw the capacity, I felt completely ripped off. I saw a capacity of 48, which I actually now know is not true, because I went to the same theatre to see “Joy” (I didn’t want to see it there specifically, but it was only for timing purposes), I actually checked each theatre one by one, and none of them had that capacity. The auditorium I was in either had a capacity of 40 or 28. THAT’S SMALL! By the way, the biggest auditorium they have at that theatre is a capacity of 146. That’s not a bad capacity in the least bit, but when it came to around 3/4 of the facility’s auditoriums, I wonder if they should have double checked their brains. The experience was just as terrible, horrible, no good, and very bad (haha) as the movie, and the front of the theatre no longer had the amazing neon sign that had the “Wizard of Oz” castle and King Kong on it, so that was another disappointment, which I can’t remember if I found out immediately but was still utterly disappointing. When I left the theater, I said this: “I’m just excited to see Interstellar tomorrow.” Turns out my excitement was fulfilled. I went down with my aunt to Providence, RI, which had the nearest IMAX with 70mm equipment, and it was one of the best movie experiences of my life. For every positive there’s a negative. In case you’ve been living under a rock, most teens don’t like going to the movies. They would rather sit at home, watch Netflix, and check their phone. I can understand that someone may feel this way, although I don’t agree with them, because I collect hard copies and go to the theatre. I do although have a feeling that despite its flaws, reclined seating will make teens want to go to the movies more often. The only thing I hope won’t happen from them though, is constant use of their phone throughout the movie. If it’s an emergency I get it, but don’t go hardcore with it. The next trend I’m going to discuss has been around for a longer time, but just like AMC has been doing with reclined seating, they’ve been trying to expand with the dine-in concept.

If you have ever been in a relationship, you’ve probably gone out for a dinner and movie. Now imagine both concepts at the same time. Several theaters have installed what some like to call dine-in technology. At your seat, you have a trey nearby in which you can place food/drinks on, and it also has a cupholder. Sure, you can just put a bucket of popcorn and a drink on there, perhaps some candy as well, but what about meals? Go right ahead! Now, this is the way most chains do it, however, there are older theaters out there that do it in other ways. For instance, I saw this historic theater in Bridgeport, CT. It has regular seating in the center, and on the sides there are tables similar to those you’d find in a Starbucks. I haven’t been to that theater, but I once saw it online. Also, to go a different route, there’s a small chain called Chunky’s. If you are not from the Massachusetts/NH border area, this is a chain of theaters with three locations: Haverhill, MA, Nashua, NH, and Pelham, NH. Each location has chairs that come out of vehicles, such as Lincolns. These chairs surround a table used to place your food, drinks, meals, etc. Honestly, these theaters wouldn’t be my first choice because I can go to an actual restaurant and end up having a better meal. Not to mention, you can have a conversation with your friends before or after the movie. Surprisingly I’d even choose McDonald’s or Burger King over this, I don’t know why but that’s just on my mind. Although if you enjoy the movies and going out to eat, this is likely to take your interests to new dimensions. Speaking of dimensions, let’s talk about motion enhanced theaters.

Most moviemakers have had the idea of releasing their movies in 3D. A lot of these movies include Marvel movies, Disney animations, The Hobbit, Dreamworks animations, and Transformers. While many people in Hollywood love this technological aspect in movies, the general public either loves it or hates it. Those who love it see it as the future of movies, where everything on a screen pops out at them. Those against it see it as a way for those in Hollywood to grab extra cash out of people’s wallets. Personally, I’m in between both of these classifications. I enjoy 3D, I do think it adds to the experience, but not every movie needs it. In fact, a lot of movies that are released in 3D, aren’t really in 3D, they’re converted. Almost every 3D movie released in 2015 can be used as an example. Let’s list some of these movies. Jupiter Ascending, Mad Max: Fury Road, Jurassic World, Star Wars: The Force Awakens, Insurgent, The Avengers: Age of Ultron, Terminator: Genysis, Ant-Man, Pixels, San Andreas, Everest, In the Heart of the Sea, and Pan. Want more cash to waste? Let’s go for motion enhanced experiences. One common branch of motion enhancement in the seats goes by the name of D-Box. These seats are known to move along with the movie, which sounds pretty awesome, but I’ve yet to experience a movie with this. Although to my knowledge, not every movie was spectacular with this, because I heard the tickets are around $20 per seat, and the seats sometimes don’t move during big action scenes from what I’ve heard. YouTube user Jeremy Jahns has explained it himself a few years back by using Christopher Nolan’s Inception as an example. “But the second time I saw Inception I saw it in D-Box and the movie’s still amazing but the D-Box, is more like s***box. Inception’s more about dialogue and concept more than action, you see this when you’re in the D-Box seat because there were scenes when my D-Box seat didn’t move for like 30 minutes. It just sat there, kind of like the seat I’m sitting in now. (he was sitting in a desk chair) And at 8 bucks more a ticket for D-Box, yeah that’s like $8 on top of the $10 you already paid for a ticket, I felt ripped off. And all of the movie theater prices for everything do stack, so if you go see a 3D movie in D-Box, that’s 10 dollars for the movie ticket, 3 more dollars for the 3D, and 8 more dollars for the D-Box, which comes out to twice as much as a normal movie theater ticket.” Rants such as these make me question whether this is worth the money. I’d try it because into seeing movies and into discovering ways to experiencing them, and if you are the type of person that is into the experience more than the movie itself, you should go here. The same can also be said for MX4D. I haven’t been to one of these theaters either, but one actually just opened 15 minutes from where I live so I might actually check it out eventually. However it’s around the $20 range so I need to be careful, especially considering it around double the price of a matinee ticket at this theater ($10.50 for an adult matinee), which in my opinion isn’t really that cheap compared to AMC (specifically from showings that start at times before 12PM). The difference between MX4D and D-Box is that there is more provided with MX4D. Not only do the seats move, but you also have random scents, plus there are simulations of precipitation and wind. Personally, I like all of these features except for the scent, because imagine one scene if it forces you to smell a baby’s messy diaper. I wouldn’t mind it in person if I happened to be a parent one day, it would be responsibility after all, but why would you have to make us do it in a movie? We didn’t come for that! Although if you do come for that and enjoy it, good for you, it’s my personal taste (Should I say smell?) and I shouldn’t get in the way of your own thoughts. Thought the gimmicks were over? Nope. We shall move onto my personal favorite gimmick and movie experience, IMAX.

The closest theater to my house happens to be an IMAX theater, not only that, but I have the privilege of one of the few “real” IMAX theaters in existence. It doesn’t have 70mm film like it used to, but now it has laser projection, which is just like 70mm film in a number of ways, only it is in a digital form. In fact, according to Wired Magazine, this theater was one of the top 7 places to see Star Wars: The Force Awakens, and I actually saw it there, which was in fact one of the best decisions I ever made in my life. One of the best parts of this theater in my opinion happen to be the seats. This theater consists of around 500 seats and they all contain a subwoofer underneath, otherwise known as “buttkickers.” This is exclusive to the location in which I am mentioning along with one more that is 40 minutes away from me. The only difference between the two is that the one closer to me is bigger, newer (2002 vs. 2004), has better projection (dual IMAX digital vs. IMAX laser), and more seats (approx 278 vs. approx 500). These seats are special and what I would call one of a kind. Although if you go into either of these theaters and look at the layout, you may notice how similar it is to other IMAX theaters if you’ve ever been to another one in your life (unless it’s dual digital). In a “true” IMAX theater, it’s traditional that the seats would be placed geometrically to the point where the row curves from left to right towards the center. Not to mention, in front of the front row, there would be a barrier. Below the barrier is ground with a floor on it. In certain theatres, there are seats down below there and entrances/exits. Although if you think about it, you’re technically watching a movie on a balcony because balconies are above ground, you might be on ground, but there could be a concourse below, you never know. The geometrically placed seating in my opinion, is genius. Sure, a lot of other theaters have the same layout, but I’m also saying that this in particular adds to the IMAX experience overall.  It means you don’t have to turn your head as much while watching the movie. That’s the good, now let’s move onto the bad. In 2004, IMAX installed its first MPX projector, while I actually saw it using film, it didn’t have as big of a screen as other IMAX theaters did. On the bright side, the sound was still the same, although the seats weren’t. I can’t complain too much, because I’ve been to one of these so called “liemax” theaters and still had an enjoyable experience, but the seats are in a straight line in each row. It’s kind of annoying because I don’t recall many IMAX theaters that weren’t installed until the 2000’s looking like this. Unless you’re sitting in the center it can be kind of annoying to have to look to the side. This is one of multiple reasons why I’d recommend sitting near the back in an IMAX. There have also been several IMAX ripoffs throughout recent times. The seating layouts are vastly similar. Some of these include: Regal’s RPX, Dolby Atmos, AMC Prime, Carmike Big D, Cinemark XD, AVX, and BTX. Here are some images below of some of these large formats, along with IMAX screens. I won’t go into detail about them but you may probably notice some similarities.

AMC Prime

 

Cinemark XD

 

Regal RPX

 

Carmike Big D

 

Bow-Tie BTX

 

IMAX (Digital)

IMAX (15/70mm, laser)

The screens here overall don’t matter much other than providing similarities, but you may notice that the number of seats in each theater is alike in each picture. Not to mention, in almost every picture, the seats are in a straight line. At these theaters, you’re not getting the same as a traditional IMAX experience. I’d go to these theaters, but IMAX is number one. Also I’d also be careful and see how much each experience costs as well. If you’re not a fan of these so called gimmicks, than let’s move onto something simpler. We’ll begin with traditional aisle seating.

I have one sister in my family, and I’ve been to almost every single one of her dance recitals. Each and every time, it was in an auditorium where I had to walk down an aisle to get to my seat. If you’ve been to an older movie theater, they’ve probably been laid out in the same fashion. I’m not saying new theaters don’t do this too, but it seems to be the common layout of an older theater. Stadium seating seems to be a newer thing, which we’ll get to later. If you can’t already tell, I’m one for big theaters. This doesn’t just mean big screens, high quality projection, all that jazz. I’m a fan of those as well. Although I’m also a fan of theaters with big capacities. If a theater has less than 50 chairs I sometimes freak out because a movie might still be new or popular and with a capacity that small that might mean that you have to get your tickets VERY QUICKLY, this also means if you don’t have smart mobile device such as an IPhone or Android, or a computer, you’re screwed. Sure, you can go to the theater in person, but there may be times where you can’t as well. Maybe it’s not close to your home, maybe it’s not close to where you work, maybe you’re on vacation, etc. It’s worse with reserved seating, which we’ll get to later. This is mostly unlikely to happen and all, but it still bugs my mind. While some people prefer the new and hip reclined seating that many theaters are starting to offer, to me, it’s like 3D. It’s only good under certain circumstances. Mainly the fact that the capacities must be adequate, which I made more than likely made absolutely clear already. 3D is only good if the movie was shot in 3D and not converted (not always the case though), and if the movie uses 3D in a effective way and doesn’t just show it off for shiggles. When it comes to aisle seating, I’m just glad to see a theater that has it, it always has good capacities. The only con I can think of at the moment is that you might have a tall guy in front of you. It might block the view towards the screen as a result. Sitting in the front is no picnic either, but it could be worse, there’s no spikes in the seats. The tall guy thing usually doesn’t bother me, but I know some people hate it. I like aisle seating, but I don’t have anything against those who don’t. If you hate the tall guy thing, go to a stadium auditorium.

Ever go to a ball game and have to walk up a bunch of steps in order to get to your seat? If your two legs function well, good for you, if not, I feel bad if you’ve ever been in that sort of situation. Nevertheless, when you put the type of seating you’d find at a place like a ballpark in a cinema, only good comes as a result. One of the theaters I usually go to has all stadium seating, and I must say that it is one of my favorite theaters because of that. Not to mention it hasn’t jumped on the recliner bandwagon as well. Stadium seating in general is a bit like aisle seating, but the difference is that when you sit down, you may notice you have less of an interference when it comes to viewing the screen. You can have a tall guy sit in front of you and it won’t end up ruining the experience completely. Let’s go onto another advantage, the capacities. I mentioned already one of my local theaters has stadium seating. It has 20 theaters overall. According to Cinema Treasures, the capacities (from 2005 so results are likely to vary) are as follows when it comes to each auditorium in order from auditoriums 1-20: 207, 185, 232, 224, 90, 84, 90, 90, 315, 315, 315, 193, 492, 192, 194, 177, 90, 186, 192, 192. Now you may notice, that these capacities are relatively high. Although you may notice some in the smaller range. While I do think some of these are small, I will state that the theater does a good job at choosing which movies go into which theater because I notice the unpopular movies in the smaller theaters, not to mention the movies that have already been out for a while. Also, let’s refer back to Showcase in Woburn, a theater that used to be aisle seating and now has recliners. the biggest capacity is 146, in this theater it says 492. That’s in theater 13, which is currently an IMAX. At the time of which these stats were pointed out, it wasn’t an IMAX because the digital projection wasn’t put into theaters until 2008. The theater was converted in 2009. The capacity plate says 493 today. Either the capacity plate is wrong and the chairs have always been the same as ever, or someone decided to put in one more chair since they converted the theater. Let’s do some math, what’s 146*3? The answer comes out to 438, if you add the Woburn capacity once more you get 584. What exactly is in between these two numbers? Well, let’s figure it out. To do that, we’ll have to state the halfway point to 146. The result comes out to 73. Let’s take either 438 or 584 and work from there. 438+73=511. This also means if you subtract 73 from 584, the results come out to the same number. These all suggest that the capacity of theater 13 at Danvers is almost 3.5 times more than the Woburn capacity. Am I cheating? I wouldn’t say so, after all, the capacity between theater 13 today is similar to how it was back in 2005. Although if I am, let’s try theater 9, which has the same capacities as theaters 10 and 11. These three theaters all come out to a capacity of 315. Let’s do the math again. 292 is the result of multiplying 146 twice. If you add 23 to 292 you get the capacities of theaters 9, 10, and 11 at Danvers. I won’t go any further with it, because in all simplicity, these capacities are over twice as much as Woburn. As a matter of fact, when Woburn had standard chairs, it was like a normal movie theater. I remember it having enough chairs for a decent amount of people. Some theaters may have been puny but there were decent sized theaters overall. Stadium seating is my second pick behind IMAX, which by the way, has stadium seating. Think this is all over? Nope! We went over what is basically every type of seat you’d find in a cinema, but the thing I never touched upon in a paragraph is reserved seating. A trend which has been going on for years at several events, but movie theaters are now starting to do as well. How’s that going to work? Well let’s see!

Baseball games. On-ice shows. Concerts. These three events all have reserved seating. When it came to that, I never complained about it because it felt like you were getting to sit somewhere for a purpose. But what about movie theaters? In most movie theaters, you don’t have any balconies or any other special sections that you may see in any random playhouse or theater. Since you don’t, pricing for each seat in the theater doesn’t usually vary. I personally want to debate whether that’s a good idea because there are some people who prefer the back, some who prefer the middle, and some prefer the front. Also maybe you should make the seats a bit cheaper if an attendee is handicapped, although in that case maybe the attendee should avoid ordering online tickets. Now if you recall my paragraph on motion-enhanced seating, I mentioned one of the bigger names in that particular industry is D-Box. Why are they relevant here? They usually do reserved seating, although it’s occasionally different than your average reserved seating system. In just about every reserved theater nowadays, each one is usually with recliners. Sometimes I question why they just do it with that and not standard seating. Although with those recliners, they are taking up the entire theater. With D-Box, they take up about 20 or so seats in the theater. The rest of the theater is regular seating. Why is this the case? Not sure. If I had to guess, it’s probably to save a few bucks when it comes to seat installation. Now, back to the recliners. Most of the theaters in my area now have recliners, AMC, Showcase, Regal, they all have recliners, a while back, I would have said it’s awesome, NOW IT SUCKS. I mentioned this in the beginning, but let’s get real here. Showcase Woburn, the closest ACTUAL movie theater to me, has 14 auditoriums with small seating capacities, and reserved seating. Keep that in mind. Imagine you’re coming here with others, let’s say you’re going to see a new movie that has been pretty trendy lately. You go to buy tickets online, it BARELY has seats left, but there are enough for you and the others you’re going with. Although, they are split up from each other. If you like that sort of thing, good for you. Although when I go to movie theaters with other people, I like to sit with them, NOT away from them. Sure, you go to the movies to see a movie, not to talk to a friend, but movie theater chains, CAN YOU LET US SIT WITH OUR FRIENDS? Seriously, let’s say it’s date night, you want to go to the movies with your girlfriend, and suddenly you realize the movie is nearly sold out, on top of that, there are no seats next to each other that are vacant. How romantic indeed. Nice job, movie theaters. How do you solve this problem? Simple, just get rid of reserved seating.

Does seating matter? Maybe. I personally try not to get too fancy when it comes to seating, I’ll take my traditional seating and go, maybe IMAX. If you have a favorite theater seating type, mention it on Twitter, along with the theater that best exemplifies quality with this type of seating. Mention with the handle @JackDrees, and maybe I’ll retweet it. Hope you stick around, because Scene Before is your click, to the flicks!

“Neighbors 2: Sorority Rising” is the sequel to the 2014 movie “Neighbors.” If you’ve seen the last movie you probably remember that a couple played by Seth Rogen and Rose Byrne are living in a house and there’s a fraternity that moves in next door, and the couple has some complaints about the new neighbors. Although this time instead of a fraternity, it’s a sorority living next door.

Seth Rogen and Rose Byrne also have a kid in this movie (well, technically it’s the one from the first movie) and it is kind of hilarious to look at throughout at the beginning. I know this is a comedy so some of it is supposed to be far fetched, but despite that you’re able to buy the fact that these two are a realistic couple and their chemistry works well for the movie.

Let’s just get something out of the way here, I never been in college. I never attended due to age, I never had any attempts to visit anyone in a college so I basically know almost nothing about what happens in college in person other than what I see through the media and research. This made me kind of shocked during the movie to find out sororities don’t party. It made me kind of feel bad for the sorority in this movie despite their viciousness towards the main characters. Sure, I always picture fraternities partying more than sororities because of the typical maturity level between males and females, but it kind of got me interested to see what was going to unfold throughout the film.

Remember Zac Efron from the last movie? In case you don’t remember he was part of the fraternity from the movie, it turns out in this movie, he joins forces with the couple and helps them try to stop the sorority from causing possible havoc. It shows some character development for him between movies and some maturity as well. This kind of adds something to the movie a bit in terms of characterization because Zac’s character is kind of dependent and it’s not really coy to watch in my personal opinion. It made me feel bad for both the couple and Zac’s character.

In terms of humor for this movie, this movie pretty much followed the same formula as the first movie. A lot of the jokes were sexual, and some happened to develop the plot. There’s even some comparisons between boys and girls when they are young, yes some sexual jokes were there too. I personally had no problem with these jokes because it made sense for the type of movie I was seeing, not that I ever had a problem with these type of jokes but I think you may get my point. Some jokes in fact happened to be a homage to the first movie, I won’t say which because I don’t want to ruin the effect if you go see the movie yourself.

This movie overall is very similar to the first in terms of character motivations, although how they get there and what revolves around them happen to be a little different. The lines in this movie although compared to the first movie are rather unmemorable. Neighbors 2: Sorority Rising gets a 7/10. Personally, I would give the same rating to the first movie basically because it is almost the same movie and while it is a hilarious comedy at times, it’s definitely no Hangover or Anchorman. In terms of comedy sequels, my favorite is probably Night at the Museum 2, this was good and would be one of the better sequels I’ve seen for the genre, but it doesn’t match with the previous movies I mentioned. Stay tuned for more reviews, because Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

 

*SPOLIER ALERT*

Captain America: Civil War released on May 5th of this year. This was actually one of my highest anticipated movies of this year, and because of that, I wanted to go to the premiere. I got the chance to do so the Thursday night it came to theaters around the globe. Fun fact, I was at the IMAX experience for this movie and I have to point out that if you see it in IMAX, there is a scene in which the aspect ratio of the screen will expand to fill up the screen. I’m not sure if this applies to all IMAX locations because I saw this in digital IMAX at an AMC which is actually not as clear as other IMAX theaters, so that’s saying something. Anyways, just a little tidbit for you. The overall story of the movie is reflecting upon the events of the previous Marvel Cinematic Universe movies. It basically takes moments where civilians are affected during big fights that we saw throughout the movies. Now these aren’t shown as movie shots from those movies that were just moved into this movie for the sake of reflection, these actually had camera footage that looked less fancy, and a bit shaky, and it shows that the folks behind this movie knew what to do during that scene and avoid laziness. Captain America and Iron Man had different opinions on this particular matter so they get into some discussions and we have one side of the movie’s plot.

Another side of the plot has to do with what happened to the last movie’s antagonist, Bucky, or the Winter Soldier if you prefer to call him that. Now I will remind you, I have only seen the second Captain America movie once, so I apologize if I get some of the facts wrong. At the end of the second movie, Captain America is saved by Bucky from being harmed in a river, and they meet in a museum together in an end credits scene. Now in the third movie, they are labeled as friends. Sure, they disagreed with each other throughout the movie, but they were still companions, as suggested at an important hint of dialogue which I won’t state. There’s more to Bucky than this but I don’t want to get into too many spoilers.

Now one thing this movie does very well is introduce certain characters into the Marvel Cinematic Universe. For example, Black Panther is introduced in this movie. T’Challa, the man behind the mask, had a motivation to join Tony Stark’s side that was shown pretty clearly in the movie to become this hero that once again, would probably get some people mad because of spoilers. The first scene with this guy in action was not the best action scene in the movie, but it definitely did give me some thrills.

Now we get to my favorite part of this movie, for fanboy reasons and criticism reasons, the introduction of Peter Parker. As you may or may not know, Spider Man was brought into the Marvel Cinematic Universe in 2015. He wasn’t in any movies that year, after all, it would have been a struggle to put him in based on how production works, but he was in this movie, and I am at a loss for words. THIS is Spider-Man. Spider-Man was played by Tom Holland, and when he took on this role, he was in his teen years, which totally worked considering Parker himself is a teenage boy. If you have seen or heard about the other Spider-Man live action interpretations, you may notice that Spider-Man was played by an adult. I personally don’t have a problem with it because of how they did it. As matter of fact, Spider-Man 2 is my favorite movie of all time so I can’t say anything negative about it. Although when I was watching the movie, I suddenly got the vibe that Spider-Man was a nerdy teenage boy. Spider-Man was actually asked by Tony Stark to join in on the fight, and he says “I can’t, I’ve got… homework.” That is ME in a nutshell, a nerd who always tries to put homework before anything else (except family). Also another thing about him, apparently Spider-Man has been around for a few months, which was something I saw coming when going to see this movie, and when the video of him flying around on the streets is shown, you get a glimpse of Spidey’s suit, it looked horrible. Now, I for one don’t have a problem with this. Why? Because this guy is a teenager. Looking at Spider-Man’s suit here is like looking at a movie made for a high school class. It’s very junky compared to what someone around the age of adulthood could possibly make. Although Spider Man wears a better looking suit in this movie, which I can see considering there’s more people to help him now.

You know that fight you may have seen in the final shot of the trailer to this movie? The one where all the heroes are coming up to each other and about to throwdown? Yeah, that one. This may be one of the greatest throwdowns in movie history. It shows what the heroes can do to each other, and what some of the newer heroes can do. Also when it comes to unleashing everyone’s personality, it’s done pretty well, especially with Spider-Man. If you’ve read the comics you probably remember Spider-Man always ranted during battles. I couldn’t help but laugh out loud at some of the things Spidey says. Some examples include (after Captain America uses his shield) “That thing doesn’t obey the laws of physics at all!” (stands on top of vehicle with Captain America’s shield in hand) “Hey Cap (points), big fan.” (holds Bucky’s hand in self defense) “You have a metal arm? That is awesome!” There are more than just what I stated, but I don’t want to reveal every little detail about this magnificent character. Am I overstating myself and going on for too long about Spider-Man? Personally, I don’t think so. This is a guy that you should your eyes and ears towards throughout the film.

Before going into this movie, there were two teams that fans of Marvel, and this upcoming movie joined in particular. The teams were: Team Cap (short for Team Captain America), and Team Iron Man. I can’t back myself up with much evidence here so I’ll speak for myself. I was on Team Iron Man for the hero in general, in fact, just to show that off, for the two times I saw this movie, I wore an Iron Man t-shirt. Although when watching this movie, and when walking out of it for the first time, I was able to root for both heroes. I stand by my statement that Iron Man is the better hero, but Captain America in this movie, had a more likable motivation. Also, the last half-hour of this film, I have to say, it started out dull, then it got nitty-gritty real fast for a big reason. The change in tone made me really pumped and the dialogue sugarcoats it. The CGI in this film is some of the best I’ve seen in a movie. Everything moved so fast and it is not used to fill up the screen. It’s kind of like the film’s darker moments, the film is not R, but the film uses certain tones at the correct times, and I personally don’t see how they can be changed.

In the end, Captain America: Civil War is the best Captain America movie I’ve seen to date, one of the best Marvel movies I’ve seen to date, and also one of the best movies I’ve seen in general. I give Captain America: Civil War a 10/10. As of right now, I consider the Captain America movies to be Marvel’s answer to Christopher Nolan’s Batman trilogy. I don’t have enough data to say whether each trilogy is exactly the same in terms of ratings of each movie in rank, but audiences seem to have liked Batman Begins, disliked The First Avenger, liked the sequels to those movies better than the original, and the movie after that according to most people for the Batman trilogy wasn’t as great as the second but better than the first. For what I know, Civil War was better than The First Avenger according to most people, but do audiences like it more or less than The Winter Soldier? I don’t know, something to think about. I really enjoyed this movie, I highly recommend it to big action lovers, and anyone who is looking for a good movie that they’ll remember for a long time. Stay tuned for more reviews. Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

Hardcore Henry is a rather unique film. I saw this last Sunday and the thought I had on my mind was if the first person aspect was going to work. In all honesty, it did for the type of movie it was. Keeping that in mind, it wasn’t really the best movie in the world. I saw this last Sunday in the afternoon. I already had seats reserved, and I was waiting for the screen to stop with the commercials, to play a video game in the cinema (sort of). If you have no familiarity with this movie, it is the movie equivalent to FPS games such as Call of Duty, Battlefield, Star Wars: Battlefront, Half-Life, Halo, etc. This is due to the fact that the entire movie with the exception of a couple scenes, is in a first person view, which is the view in which all of those games are presented in. When I say first person view, I don’t mean that the main character is narrating throughout the movie’s entirety, but you see the movie from his eyes and the view is as if you, the viewer, are actually seeing what Henry’s seeing.

Let’s go over the characters, Henry is basically never actually fully seen throughout the whole movie. You see parts of him, such as his legs, hands, arms, etc. His wife that you are introduced to at the beginning of the movie provides a very interesting vibe for what’s to come. The way she’s talking makes you kind of feel like you actually are Henry. I’m a single teen, but in this moment, I felt like I was actually double my age, and married. I kind of liked the supporting characters, they were kind of interesting, although one of them I won’t mention, kind of confused me in terms of plot.

The action in this movie, is pretty cool to see. The action in this movie is constant and while it may get boring in some movies, it was fun to see what would happen. Like for example Henry would get punched in the face and it would feel like you were punched in the face too. Although I admit, when it came to explosions, I wish Henry’s ears were ringing, after all, this movie is essentially virtual reality in a sense, while VR machines such as Oculus Rift don’t really do this, it would be interesting for this movie to focus on the sense of hearing as well. Also when Henry was flying in the air it was like you were being force pushed off a cliff and hitting a random object, so that intrigued me.

Also fun fact, stay for the credits. There’s no end credit scene so when I say that, I essentially mean stay for the beginning when the cast comes up. In the cast, it says that nobody actually played the main character, Henry. Sources suggest that several stuntmen and cameramen took turns playing him. I don’t know, just thought that was interesting. Speaking of cameramen, the entire movie was shot on a GoPro, which is not that commonplace for a movie. Surprisingly it didn’t take much away from the movie at all. Also, I saw this movie in a theater with reclined seating, and I had the extension all the way back and front, the question I ask myself now is if the action would have felt any bit different if it were viewed from a standard chair. If I see it again I’ll find out.

Next thing I want to touch upon is the ending, without spoiling much, the music could have been better and personally I felt like Henry was kind of a lunatic in the ending, specifically at the VERY END. It personally reminded me of what experienced people think of younger people who play Grand Theft Auto. Although at the same time, I’m wondering if this would have been better if this was a video game. After all, the main character had no voice in the film, it’s in first person, and everyone else is talking around you. Those are cliches you’d find in multiple modern day video games.

In the end, I found Hardcore Henry to be an entertaining film, there were problems involving the plot, the story, some sequences fell flat (not going for humor by the way), but I can still give credit to the crew trying to unleash what they believe is a revolutionary style of filmmaking. I give Hardcore Henry a 6/10. Now that I think about it, this almost reminds me of Christopher Nolan or Quentin Tarantino, although instead of “going back in time” to make their movie, they go after unused ideas. I say this because if you’ve seen either one of these two directors’ movies, instead of using the digital cameras most people use today, they use film. Not to mention, they try to get modern day cinemas to play the movie in film, and that brings a different experience to a movie rather than a traditional movie we’ve probably seen recently. That’s all for the review, but just a reminder if you’re going to see this movie, just be sure not to bring your grandparents. There were signs entering the theater stating this movie can cause motion sickness, so keep that in mind. Remember, Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

“Who is Spider-Man? He’s a criminal, that’s who he is!” In the new “Captain America: Civil War” trailer, a lot was on the minds of the viewers. We got to see an important part of the plot that may affect the movie in a big way, we got to see Ant-Man for the first time, if not the first “noticeable” time, because I didn’t notice him in the first trailer. Not to mention, we got to see a bunch of Avengers in action fighting against each other, not that we haven’t seen that in the first trailer, but in here, it’s actually more memorable based on the choices of shots put into this trailer. Although perhaps the biggest thing on everyone’s mind, is the first look at Spider-Man. If you are wondering why Spider-Man is in this movie? Sony is the responsible studio for all of the Spider-Man movies, which include Sam Raimi’s “Spider-Man” trilogy and Marc Webb’s “The Amazing Spider-Man” films. The second of the “Amazing Spider-Man” movies was a bit of a letdown for hardcore fans. From common opinion, it was for the same reason as “Spider-Man 3”, that being that the film had too many villains. In “Spider-Man 3” the villains included: Harry/New Green Goblin, Sandman, and Venom, which interestingly enough didn’t even have his villain name mentioned ONCE during the film. In “The Amazing Spider-Man 2” the villains included Electro, Green Goblin, and Rhino (which was in only ONE SCENE and the movie ended up cutting to black and credits). “Spider-Man 3” got a lot of negative criticism from fans so Sony ended up rebooting it with “The Amazing Spider-Man” which released 5 years after that movie. Now the fans, while it doesn’t seem to be as rampant as “Spider-Man 3”,  happen to hate this movie too. From what I’ve heard, it’s more of a disappointment instead of hating it off the charts, but fans still detest it. One year after the release of “The Amazing Spider-Man 2,” it was announced that Marvel Studios got ahold of the rights to put Spider-Man in their movies. Sony still owns him too and they actually have the right to make movies based around the character himself, but Marvel can still put the character in any of their films. Fans were unbelievably happy to hear this. Another reboot will be made too, but it isn’t that much of a complaint among most fans, myself included. Now, we’re here. One thing I want to go over is Spider-Man’s costume design. When I saw “The Amazing Spider Man,” that was my favorite Spider-Man costume design, it was one of the darkest ones I’ve seen, and those eyes were pretty sweet. The eyes are kind of interesting on this one too. When Spider-Man speaks in the trailer, the size of his eyes (specifically the white part) changes from big to small. I’m honestly OK with this, I may have to get used to it because despite being OK, it most certainly would not be my first choice for a costume such as this. It works better with Deadpool in my opinion. Next up is the actor playing Spider-Man himself, Tom Holland. For the upcoming Spider-Man reboot, the casting crew was seeking an actual teenager, since that is the age group Peter Parker can be associated with. This is a difference from the other Spider-Men we’ve seen: Tobey Maguire (Approximately a decade older than Peter’s assumed age when filming the first Spider-Man), and Andrew Garfield (Around Tobey’s age when he filmed “Spider-Man 2” when Andrew himself was filming the first “Amazing-Spider Man”). People wanted Asa Butterfield to play him, but they were let down when he didn’t get the chance. Although from the one line I heard from Holland, I can’t say much about him, but I don’t think I’ll be disappointed. Now that I think about it, I might be a little scared for what people might think of Spider-Man’s appearance. This is based on my prediction on his role in the movie. I have a feeling that he might just end up being a cameo for the sake of fan service. I understand this movie is revolving around mostly Captain America and Iron Man (despite his name not appearing in the title), but it would be nice to introduce Spider-Man to the Marvel Studios universe with at least a few memorable minutes of screen time. I could go on, but I don’t want to ramble. What are your thoughts on Spider-Man? What do you think will be his role in “Civil War?” What do you think of his costume? How do you feel about Tom Holland? Did you cry when Asa Butterfield got rejected? Leave a comment and stay tuned for more posts!

Just last week, the first trailer for the new Ghostbusters movie has released, and what did fans think about it? After seeing it a few times, checking back for curiousity reasons, scouring more than one video on YouTube of that trailer and watching a few reactions, I can just see that fans of this movie will bash all over it. I personally believe in reboots, I think they can be done right under certain circumstances. For example, I enjoyed Charlie and the Chocolate Factory released made in 2005 (I know, bad example, but it’s one of my favorite movies). Although with the case of the new Ghostbusters coming out this year, I have a feeling this movie is going to ruin the franchise. Just to clarify, I have not seen the original Ghostbusters nor did I see its sequels, I saw the beginning of the first one but I fell asleep. Although I know a few things about the movie to make me somewhat aware of what the movie is like. First thing I’m going to state is the new female characters, the actresses I know of the female leads are Kate McKinnon and Mellissa McCarthy, I somewhat appreciate McKinnon for how she was as Hillary Clinton on SNL, but for McCarthy, while I do recognize why people like her, she wouldn’t be my first choice as a humorous actress, and that is saying something, because in a way this is supposed to be a comedy. Sure, you can also say it is an action movie, but it is also a comedy. I don’t know the rating for this movie considering how it has yet to be announced. I’d guess it’s PG or PG-13 once the time comes for the MPAA to make a decision, but I kind of see this as an action movie, but it’s also one that you would take your family to see. I mean why not? It has elements of horror movies that look unbelievably cartoony. Now for other characters I will have to go off of that African American that says an Exorcist reference at the end (Leslie Jones), in the movie she plays a girl named Patty. She says she “knows New York” in the trailer, now here’s one thing I’m wondering based off of this. I have not seen the original movie, but this leads me to wonder what would happen if all of these ghosts spread out into another city, perhaps Boston or Las Vegas or even Paris. Will they have to find someone who knows the area in that region? To be honest, if I go see this movie this summer, out of all the movies I see this year, I think this will be my least favorite character of all the movies I’ve seen and will see this year. Now one thing that caught my eye in the trailer was the CGI. All of the ghosts in this movie have a cartoony vibe to them thanks to how they look in CGI. The effects, while they actually do look impressive, look like they are a bit overdone. It kind of reminds me a bit of the Star Wars prequels. Surprisingly I have not yet mentioned the very beginning of the trailer. I imagine fanboys everywhere thinking either thoughts of confusion, anger, or ignorance. It says in the beginning “Thirty years ago four scientists saved New York.” and not to mention “A new team will answer the call.” Then we get to see the female team we are going to have to care about in this movie, I imagined that was the first part of the trailer where fanboys lost their minds, and it wasn’t going to be the last. Let’s talk about the comedy in the trailer. I didn’t laugh once. There you go. What more can you ask for? Next up is something I noticed while watching a reaction video, there is product placement in the trailer. It is certainly noticable to have product placement in movies, especially those directed by Michael Bay. This is not a Michael Bay movie, and I’m beginning to wonder if stuff like this will become more noticable. Then again, the scene this happened in actually took place in Times Square so I guess it MAY be OK (Really shot in Massachusetts). I must say now that this trailer is starting to remind me of another summer blockbuster that I actually enjoyed, but others trashed, that blockbuster being “Pixels.” First off, Sony is involved with both those movies, the fonts in the trailers are similar, if not exactly the same, not to mention the style the movies convey themselves. I went into Pixels realizing that it was actually a comedy, when I was hoping it would also be an action movie. The movie succeeded in that manner. Also, the lead characters are also in similar “battle” outfits, just like the lead protagonists of Pixels. I don’t have much more to say about this trailer, but let’s go on towards the very end. We see the title about to appear, it shows the well known ghost behind a circle with a line, but guess what they didn’t show? THE ACTUAL TITLE. I don’t remember ANY trailer where that has happened. Perhaps those who worked on the movie, or at least the trailer thought everyone knew what that symbol meant so they may have thought, “Eh I don’t care, they’ll figure it out.” I did, but part of me feels this is inexcusable. On the bright side, we still don’t know if the title is not in the movie. We’ll just have to see in July or whenever I see this movie. I honestly don’t think I’ve seen such a poorly received trailer in my life, especially for something that is such a big blockbuster such as this. I haven’t seen this movie, but I will go as far to say that even the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles reboot from 2014 might even look better than this judging from the trailers, and I heard that movie was awful (unless you were a kid). This new Ghostbusters trailer had very little to impress me with, some of the CGI looks pretty good. What about everything else? I just don’t believe this. I have a feeling that if this actually does become a box office success, it would only be because families went to see it, and fanboys wanted to roast it to death, although there is no talking in the theater so I’m not too sure about that. I have absolutely no hype for this movie, and if you’re planning to see this movie, let me remind you that if you see this movie and you hate it, you might think back to what you have read here today. What did you think of this trailer? Fanboys, admit you ripped it to shreads, I know nothing about these movies, but I’m here to talk (insert smiley face here).