#Adventure

The Wild Robot (2024): DreamWorks’ Incredible Story On the Beauty and Struggles of Parenting

Posted on by Jack Drees

“The Wild Robot” is directed by Chris Sanders (How to Train Your Dragon, The Croods) and stars Lupita Nyong’o (Star Wars: The Force Awakens, Black Panther), Pedro Pascal (The Mandalorian, The Last of Us), Kit Connor (His Dark Materials, Heartstopper), Bill Nighy (Emma., The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel), Stephanie Hsu (Everything Everywhere All at Once, Joy Ride), Mark Hamill (Star Wars, Kingsman: The Secret Service), Catherine O’Hara (The Nightmare Before Christmas, Beetlejuice), Matt Berry (The SpongeBob Movie: Sponge on the Run, What We Do in the Shadows) and Ving Rhames (The Garfield Movie, Mission: Impossible). This film is about a robot who goes by its product name, ROZZUM Unit 7134, or “Roz” for short. The story dives into Roz’s adventures in the wild, including an unexpected encounter with a baby goose, which leads to her becoming said goose’s parent. Now she must do all she can to master something that goes beyond her programming.

“The Wild Robot” is one of my most anticipated movies of the year. It is easily my most anticipated animated film of the year. I have been super excited for this film ever since I saw the teaser trailer before watching “Kung Fu Panda 4” in the theater. The footage contained tons of beautiful shots, an interesting color scheme, and even though it did not give a lot the story away, I had a strong feeling this movie was going to be deep. It was going to make the audience think. I had a feeling that “The Wild Robot” would be the 2020s version of “Wall-E,” both in terms of material and quality. Before I get into my thoughts about the movie, I can say the movie has some similarities to “Wall-E,” it has the same DNA, but it is a much different animal.

“The Wild Robot” is what you get when you strip certain parts of “Wall-E” and insert them into a movie whose story is primarily about parenting. Whereas “Wall-E” is about a robot finding love with another robot and saving a plant, this film is about a robot finding out who she is while also dealing with what some would argue is one of the hardest tasks you can ever be given.

While this movie’s protagonist is dealing with a hard task, it is easy for me to say that “The Wild Robot” is one of the best movies of the year. As far as animated movies go, it is hard to say it gets better than this. As much as I am happy for “Inside Out 2” becoming the biggest animated film of all time, “The Wild Robot” clicked with me more. That said, you cannot go wrong with watching either film. But if I had to pick one, “The Wild Robot” would be my choice.

“The Wild Robot” is perhaps an answer for the parents who are forced to take their children to the theater to watch these kinds of movies. Of course, animated movies often appeal to children, but it should not be forgotten that the parents are probably the ones paying for their tickets. I want to know how parents will view this movie by the time it is over. Because I believe this is a story that will appeal to a lot of them.

I see movies as escapes from reality, so if I were to pitch a movie like this to a parent and tell them that this story is perhaps an encapsulation of something you are already dealing with, there could be a better way to sell it. I do not know. But some of the best movies are those that relate to the audience, that speak to them. They are movies that people can identify with containing characters whose personalities and experiences are similar to their own. I think a lot of parents will find something to relate to when they see the character of Roz and everything she goes through. Now you may be wondering, will kids enjoy this movie? Of course they will! It is funny, it is action-packed at times, and it contains characters that easily appeal to that demographic. The main character is a robot and by her side are a variety of wild animals. Kids love those! For all I know, for some younger viewers, this is going to be one of those movies, kind of like “The Incredibles” was for me, that I enjoyed watching as a kid because of its adventure and action elements, but rewatched as an adult with a greater appreciation for how it handles its characters’ struggles of getting older. I honestly would want to know if parents will have more fun with this movie than their own children. But I can say I saw this movie in a theater full of children on a Sunday morning. They seemed to be positively interacting with it for much of the runtime, so it definitely has their appeal.

I would also like to talk about the voicework of “The Wild Robot.” I have seen the trailers for this film, so I did see the typical casting list where they flash a ton of celebrity names. This movie continues the cliche where we use celebrity voice artists as opposed to certain people who primarily do voicework. Although to be fair some of the cast has some notable voiceover experience, like Mark Hamill. With that in mind, not only does everyone do a good job here, I could not tell that they were voicing their own characters. I almost forgot these actors were in the movie. Sure, I knew Lupita Nyong’o was the lead. But as I heard her voice, it sounded more hyperactive than what I used to hearing from her. I am not sure if she piped herself up or if there is a filter being applied to her recordings in post. But it works. I have seen Pedro Pascal in a number of projects, and I not tell he was Fink the fox. Ving Rhames was also in this movie, and I guarantee many of you reading this recognize his voice. From “Mission: Impossible” on the big screen to the current Arby’s commercials on the small screen, Rhames always has a commanding presence. And his character, Thunderbolt the falcon, is also a great example of such a presence. He sounds bold and god-like with every line. But even then, I could not tell that was Ving Rhames. This is not a dig, if anything it is the highest of compliments.

Even though this movie’s cast is recognizable, most, if not all of these cast members put on a disguisable performance. The movie does a much better job at masking the actors doing these voices than say “DC League of Super Pets,” whose leads’ voices I could recognize and become distracted by in a heartbeat. When the credits rolled, I whispered to myself, “Wait, Mark Hamill was in this?!” Looking back, I believe I knew that in advance. But for one thing, I did not see the trailer in awhile. And again, it goes to show how good these voice performances are. These are characters, not celebrities playing themselves.

Going back to what I said about this film being like “Wall-E,” “The Wild Robot” never specifies when exactly it is set. But I was able to pick up that like “Wall-E,” this movie was set in the future. Both films tend to highlight the mistakes we have made as humans. Whether it is not solving climate change or trying so hard to find a new home to the point where we may have forgotten to preserve the one we have. Also, the central protagonists of these movies are robots, which you could argue we are over-relying on for our many conveniences as we speak. Both “The Wild Robot” and “Wall-E” feature several robots created by large corporations. Both robots who we know as these films’ protagonists serve their respective purposes, but they are also tasked with making people’s lives easier. In the case of “The Wild Robot,” we see that Roz’s attention extends to other animals. Although to be fair, “Wall-E” mostly had human characters. I remember there being a cockroach in the movie, but that may be it.

This film also reminded me of “The Iron Giant.” By that I mean the movie is in a sense an edition of that movie where the roles are reversed. Kind of… If you have ever seen “The Iron Giant,” you would know the robot is the fish out of water character, and the main protagonist, Hogarth, helps him adapt to being on earth. In this film, we see Roz go from adapting to her environment on earth, to teaching a gosling everything she knows. There are plenty of animated movies out there featuring robots. Heck, my last review was for “Transformers One,” and that movie has plenty of them. But I am proud to say that “The Wild Robot” is just as masterful as “Wall-E” and “The Iron Giant,” two movies featuring robots that deserve every ounce of praise that they can possibly get. If you want me to be real though, of these three movies, I think “The Wild Robot” is the weakest of the bunch.

This leads me into my problems with the movie. For one thing, the animation style, while definitely creative, sometimes feels unfinished, perhaps on purpose. Sometimes it works, other times it feels cheap. There are several environments that caught my eye. The design of the robot is well done. I loved seeing how this movie represents foliage in certain scenes, which makes it a proper release for this time of year. But there are also certain places or effects that come off as less textured than others. Part of me also questions the way this movie addresses communication between Roz and the animals. We see Roz spending time translating the animals’ language, so we learn after some time that Roz can understand the animals. But we are seeing Roz communicate and have full-fledged conversations with these animals in English. I get that a lot of movies tend to personify animals and have them speak English. But I am surprised on how well both the robot and these animals understood each other. Perhaps all the conversations were in English for us, the audience. It is a minor complaint, if that. Maybe with a rewatch that complaint will go away. Besides, the movie has good dialogue. It has a lot of funny lines from several characters, even those who barely appear in the film at all.

The script itself is an impressive look at what it is like to be a parent. I say this as if I have kids. I do not. But from what I have heard and seen about parenting, this movie presents parenting as a concept that no one really understands until they try it, until they do it. There is a moment where Roz finds out she is the first point of contact of a newborn gosling. Pinktail, a possum played by Catherine O’Hara, explains to Roz that she is now said gosling’s mother. Roz responds by saying she does not have the programming, to which Pinktail tells her “No one does.” I was a first-born child. I can only imagine what my parents were thinking when they first had me. I am sure they were happy, but also in a neverending state of asking questions. I probably presented them with situations that they did not see coming. Even if I was a second-born child, chances are I could have done the same thing. But I recognize that raising me was a learning curve. I can only imagine how hard it is for Roz, who is not only of a different kind than the gosling, who we eventually know to go by the name Brightbill, but is programmed specifically for helping humans. Did she ask for something like this to happen? No she did not. But she handles it as best she can because while parenting is not in her programming, as a robot she is designed to complete tasks, and to her, this is just the latest one she has been given.

It is also rather refreshing to see an animated movie about a parental figure like this. When I look back at DreamWorks’ animated slate for example, the movies are normally about younger or childless characters. Sure, Shrek and Fiona have children, but they progress to that point after multiple movies. Yes, you can say Hiccup from “How to Train Your Dragon” is parent-like, but his relationship sometimes presents itself somewhat similarly to that of an owner and their pet as opposed to a parent and child. That, and the first film spends time showing complications between Hiccup and his own father. Although in “How to Train Your Dragon: The Hidden World,” the movie ends on a note that is perhaps reminiscent of what it must feel like for a child to leave the nest after so many years. Age is not the biggest topic or concern in “The Wild Robot,” but whereas we have seen several movies of this nature where there is a mentor figure hanging somewhere in the background, maybe as a prominent supporting character, Roz, our main hero sort of becomes a mentor figure herself. Yes, she is a fish out of water, and you could also argue that Fink the fox and other characters are helping Roz in her journey. But it is nevertheless refreshing to see a movie of this kind where we focus on Roz’s concern on whether her goose will be able to fly, as opposed to one where the goose must learn how to fly no matter the cost.

And it is not like the movie refuses to give depth to Brightbill the goose. The movie decently highlights his journey and his individualities. This movie represents a journey that many parents can relate to, but also does a great job at showing Brightbill’s struggles of fitting in. He is kind of an outcast. Not only did I see his struggles that came with being different, but in the case of a character like Roz, I could only imagine her struggle realizing how others treat her child times. But this is ultimately not Brightbill’s movie, it is Roz’s movie. And I can guarantee, Roz’s movie is a fantastic one.

In the end, “The Wild Robot” is one of the year’s finest films. The animation is sometimes iffy, and the climax feels oddly bigger than I would have expected out of a film like this, but it does not change the fact that this is one of DreamWorks’ most unique movies. Is it my favorite DreamWorks animation? Probably not. Given time to marinate over the past week I thought of a few movies I enjoyed more. The first two “Kung Fu Panda” movies come to mind. “Puss in Boots: The Last Wish” has gotten a few watches out of yours truly since its release nearly two years ago. “How to Train Your Dragon: The Hidden World” is one of those films that came out at a perfect time for me and I find it to be a marvelous story. But if I had to round out my top 5 DreamWorks Animations, “The Wild Robot” would probably be up there at this point. And it deserves to be. It is a deep story showcasing both the beauty and the struggles of parenting. It is about a robot who learns to become more than what it was designed to be. It is a movie that kids will probably enjoy when they are younger, but will probably see in a different way as they age. If there is one movie in theaters you should see right now, this might be it. I am going to give “The Wild Robot” a 9/10.

“The Wild Robot” is now playing in theatres everywhere. Tickets are available now.

Thanks for reading this review! My next review is going to be for the brand new sequel, “Joker: Folie a Deux,” which I will give some credit, the movie is prompting conversations. As far as whether my addition to the conversation is positive or negative, you will find out about that soon enough. If you want to see this review and more from Scene Before, follow the blog either with an email or WordPress account! Also, check out the official Facebook page! I want to know, did you see “The Wild Robot?” What did you think about it? Or, what are your favorite DreamWorks Animations? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

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

Posted on by Jack Drees

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Elemental (2023): Pixar’s First Mishap

Posted on by Jack Drees

“Elemental” is directed by Peter Sohn (The Good Dinosaur, Ratatoullie) and stars Leah Lewis (Nancy Drew, The Half of It), Mamoudou Athie (Underwater, Jurassic World: Dominion), Ronnie del Carmen (Inside Out, Soul), Shila Omni (The Illegal, Tehran), Wendi McLendon-Covey (The Goldbergs, Rules of Engagement), and Catherine O’Hara (Schitt’s Creek, Second City Television). This film is set in a world where elements, such as water or fire, are living, breathing creatures. They all live their own lives and often follow one rule. Specifically, they cannot mix with other elements. When the fiery Ember and watery Wade meet each other, they become friendly, but as others discover their connection, they fear the consequences.

“Elemental” ended up being one of my most anticipated movies of 2023. Compared to some of the other animated titles like “The Super Mario Bros. Movie” or “Ruby Gillman, Teenage Kraken,” “Elemental” had an unfair advantage. Specifically, its attachment to Pixar. Of the animation studios working today in Hollywood, Pixar is by far my favorite of the bunch. Because they have continuously pumped out quality movie after quality movie. Even some of their lesser fare like “Cars 3” and “Onward” has been enjoyable if you ask me. Though if you also ask me, I think their latest movies have not been the best efforts they have given. I have often considered Pixar to be the gold standard of modern animation with films like “Toy Story,” “The Incredibles,” and “Wall-E” for instance. But ever since the beginning of the pandemic, I have seen a streak of Pixar titles that do not live up to their predecessors. Although I thought “Turning Red” was incredible and was robbed of a wider theatrical release. Perhaps the greatest example of this is “Luca.” I thought the protagonist was shallow, the stakes and characters were not as up to par as I would have expected, and by the time we got to the end, the movie lacked a climactic feel. I saw “Lightyear” twice. But I will admit that I have no plans to watch it again in the future despite the positive times I had with it.

But “Elemental” looked like it could turn things around. At least from the teaser. I thought it looked promising, and the thought of Pixar doing a love story of sorts intrigued me. Sure, Pixar has had romantic connections in the past, but none of them appeared to drive the film as much as this one. If anything, the marketing promised something with a “Romeo & Juliet” vibe. The structure is totally different, but much like “Romeo & Juliet,” the film suggests that the two love interests cannot interact for the good of everyone, including themselves.

Sadly, it did not turn things around. And it is not like “bad” Pixar in the sense that the movie was good but not great. It is worse. For the first time in my life, I can say that I have seen a Pixar film I disliked. For the record, I do not have every Pixar feature under my belt. I still need to see “Brave,” “Monsters University,” and “The Good Dinosaur.” Other than that, I have seen everything. Of everything I have seen, this is the worst of the bunch, and distinctly so.

Though before I get to the bad, I will talk about the good. Leah Lewis and Mamoudou Athie click as Ember and Wade. The two are well cast and play off each other fantastically. As far as other voices go, I also liked Ember’s parents, Bernie (Ronnie del Carmen) and Cinder (Shila Omni). I bought into these two as a long-married couple who have been through a lot with each other and everything around them. Their voices were excellent for their parts. For the most part, the voicework, like many Pixar projects, is pretty good. The animation is also pretty stellar. Not only is it colorful and vibrant, but there is a scene towards the end of the film, where I thought I was looking at real interior. The frame cut to this concrete area and my eyes lit up. I could not believe what I was seeing. Going back to Pixar being the gold standard, one reason for that is because they always tend to make their films look incredible. Good animation is essentially a requirement in 2023, but one way Pixar separates themselves from the competition is that they will have at least one increment of the movie that looks lifelike despite being made on a computer. And this is not an exaggeration. While “Toy Story 4” is my least favorite of the franchise, one thing I still think about is how realistic a particular cat looks in it. My mind is still blown by it.

Though if I have to be real, this film bored me. Pacing-wise, this might be the weakest of the Pixar films yet. If I were watching this as a child, there is a good chance that I would be bored. One of the compliments I give to Pixar films like “Inside Out” is how much more adults might end up liking it than their children, but I say that while acknowledging that the movie would also appeal to children. Then again, I remember being a child and it was a rarity for me to think a movie could be “bad.” But if I were a child watching this movie, I would probably pick “The Incredibles” or “Up” before watching this one again. There are more fantastical elements about those titles that would appeal to me at the time, and honestly, still appeal to me today. I like the idea of this film, as it is inspired by Peter Sohn’s parents and their story of being immigrants in the United States, but it did not translate well to a movie. Maybe if it were translated into another movie, I would feel different. But this is what we have, and unfortunately, it kind of blows.

For the most part, Pixar films have decent humor. I still think one of the greatest visual gags in not just Pixar’s history, but in all of cinema, is the scene in “Toy Story 2” where Al exposes he needs “to go all the way to work on a Saturday.” He drives from his apartment building to his place of work located, of all places, across the street. America. Scenes like this highlight why it pains me to say the worst thing about “Elemental” is the humor. Not only does just about every joke and gag in the film fail to land, but they feel interchangeable. Every joke in the film is a play on words or actions regarding the element at hand. This would have been fine if I were laughing, but again, I was not.

Perhaps the worst example of the bad humor in this film comes from the supporting character of Clod, a teenage tree. This character has a crush on Ember, somewhere between casual and to the point of desperation. That would be fine, but every line and visual gag of out of this character regarding that made me cringe. I could tell the movie was trying to be funny, it was trying to be clever. But in doing so, it kind of resorted to basic puns the whole way. For the record, I do plays on words and puns all the time. Though I recognize to some capacity, they are on the lower end of the humor scale. They do not take much time or effort to craft. And they can land phenomenally, but there are plenty that if you mention them, you should be… PUNished.

I have no idea if this is inside joke or not, but there is a scene in “Elemental” where it honestly comes off as a parody for the entire Pixar brand. There is a game the water characters tend to play, specifically “the crying game.” Okay…? First off, regarding the inside joke thing, I would not be surprised if this is written in response to Pixar’s history of making viewers cry during certain movies. Movies like “Toy Story 3,” “Inside Out,” and “Coco” just to name a few. Second, I know this is not a real world, but even if it is not, what a ridiculous game! I mean, if these people played it on occasion maybe I would not be CRYING about it, oh boy, here we go with the wordplay… Why would you want to play a game where you cry all the time? It is actually kind of cringeworthy to be honest. Yeah, maybe there is a water joke attached to this, but I did not find the scenes in which these games were attached to amusing or entertaining whatsoever.

In the end, “Elemental” is Pixar’s worst film yet. This is an easy call to make because, again, it is the first one I saw that I walked out of saying I did not have a good time. I have a long history with Pixar. “Cars” was my first movie in the theater. For years, “The Incredibles” stood as my favorite animated title. I love Pixar. But their last few films, minus “Turning Red,” have not met that standard I am used to the studio achieving, and “Elemental” is just the latest film to avoid the prestige many other Pixar titles have acquired. If you want to go see a killer animated title in theaters right now, just stick to “Spider-Man: Across the Spider-Verse.” You will thank me later. I am going to give “Elemental” a 4/10.

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

Thanks for reading this review! I have more reviews coming soon including “Ruby Gillman, Teenage Kraken,” “Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny,” “Joy Ride,” “Mission: Impossible – Dead Reckoning Part One,” and “Oppenheimer.” If you want to see this and more from Scene Before, follow the blog either with an email or WordPress account! Also, check out the official Facebook page! I want to know, did you see “Elemental?” What did you think about it? Or, what is a film that destroyed your positive track record with either a studio or a filmmaker? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

Black Panther: Wakanda Forever (2022): Marvel’s Phase 4 Ends with a Fine, But Not Perfect, Sequel

Posted on by Jack Drees

“Black Panther: Wakanda Forever” is directed by Ryan Coogler, who also directed the previous “Black Panther” installment. This film stars Letitia Wright (Sing 2, Black Mirror), Lupita Nyong’o (Star Wars: The Force Awakens, 12 Years a Slave), Danai Gurira (Treme, The Walking Dead), Winston Duke (Us, Person of Interest), Florence Kasumba (Wonder Woman, The Lion King) Dominique Thorne (If Beale Street Could Talk, Judas and the Black Messiah), Michaela Coel (I May Destroy You, Chewing Gum), Tenoch Huerta (Mozart in the Jungle, Narcos: Mexico), Martin Freeman (The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey, Sherlock), Julia Louis-Dreyfus (Seinfeld, Onward), and Angela Basset (Akeelah and the Bee, Soul). This film is the sequel to “Black Panther” and follows Wakanda as its people attempt to defend their home from the king of Talokan, Namor.

I have always wondered what a “Black Panther” sequel could look like, especially given how successful the first film was. If you are Disney and/or Marvel Studios, there is no way you would just sit pretty after earning a billion dollars at the box office. Sure, you might pop a few bottles. But once you are done drinkin’, you must soon be back to grindin’. Although my wonder supposedly peaked towards the end of 2020. For one thing, the predecessor’s lead, Chadwick Boseman, passed away. This brought a gigantic question. What is going to happen to T’Challa?

On December 10, 2020, the world got its answer. During a Walt Disney Company Investor Day event, Marvel Studios president Kevin Feige announced that the character of T’Challa would not be recast and the sequel would explore other characters in Wakanda. While I am under the philosophy that actors can be replaced to a degree, I understand the tough decision that had to be made here. Boseman’s character was more than a guy who looked cool on screen, he was a symbol for the black community.

While there have been other black protagonists and superheroes on-screen, very few had the impact that Boseman’s T’Challa/Black Panther did over recent years. If you ask me, I liked the first “Black Panther,” but I did not love it. That said, I recognize there are plenty of people who do and I nevertheless celebrate how the film remains a symbol for a specific audience. I still remember where I was when Chadwick Boseman died, sitting in my room, browsing on my phone. While this may not be my first idea for a “Black Panther” installment, I like that the film went for an angle where art somewhat imitates life.

This movie dives into how the Wakandans live after the death of T’Challa. The execution of this is brilliantly realized and delivers certain segments of the movie that I consider to be phase 4 highlights. If I were to judge this movie simply as a tribute to Chadwick Boseman, I would give it two thumbs up. Unfortunately, there is also the rest of the movie. Some of which is solid, some of which is not.

“Black Panther: Wakanda Forever” is by no means a bad movie, but I think it comes down to the classic saying in regard to sequels. It goes bigger, but it does not make it better. It goes to new places, introduces new characters, but the execution is not as stellar as it could be. The first movie succeeded partially because of how it handled the character of T’Challa as a protagonist. As mentioned, he is not here for obvious reasons. Sadly, while the tribute to Chadwick Boseman delivered the feels, something was missing because T’Challa’s character was not replaced with another actor. What may have been missing is an escape. Because the first film at its core, even in its more dramatic moments, is fun. Kind of like the recent “Thor: Love and Thunder,” there are clashing tones that do not mix together all the time. This tries to be a traditional MCU movie with some of the flair of the original “Black Panther,” but falters because it unsuccessfully mixes this with a grieving process for T’Challa, and the actor who played him. This is not to say all of it did not work. Some happier moments worked. Some sadder moments worked. But I did not feel as happy or sad as this movie maybe wanted me to feel by the end of it.

It is time to talk about the villain, which in regards to MCU movies, are often considered a weakness. Thankfully, for the case of “Wakanda Forever,” Namor is serviceable. Although not perfect. While Namor had his moments, I think if you were to compare “Black Panther” and “Wakanda Forever” side by side, the first film clearly has the superior villain with Killmonger. His fleshing out was better, Michael B. Jordan gives a compelling performance, and I had a bit of an emotional attachment to him by the end of the film. Namor is threatening and there are some highlights with him on screen, but his motivation did not feel as prominent as it could have been. The best thing about Namor is how our heroes deal with him. There is a particular scene past the halfway mark into the film where from the heroes’ perspective, I got a sense of what they must have been thinking, what they were feeling. While 2018’s “Black Panther” did a good job at handling both the perspectives from the protagonist and antagonist, I think the former’s perspective was done better here than the latter’s.

A lot of Marvel movies, including good ones, often fail to deliver on the villain. I was not a huge fan of Ronan in “Guardians of the Galaxy,” but the movie nevertheless worked for me. But almost every time the film slips on the villain, I am still onboard when it comes to understanding and rooting for the hero. I feel like I am given enough justification to continue liking them, to keep cheering them on. “Black Panther: Wakanda Forever,” while its villain is not a dumpster fire, is no exception to this rule. That said, when I say that I am siding with the protagonist in this case, the movie comes to a decision as to who “the protagonist” is, but much of it does not resemble a centered story. There are so many things going on in this movie that until the end, it almost feels like there is no main character. There is ultimately a main character, but at times, it feels like there is not. The movie feels overstuffed, which I hate to say, because I liked some of the concepts in it.

For me, the highlight of “Black Panther: Wakanda Forever” is Angela Basset. I liked Angela Basset in the original “Black Panther,” but her portrayal of Ramonda in this sequel is an improvement over the original in every way. Part of it is because the script gives the character a reason to perhaps have a more prominent presence on screen, and when it comes to the Wakandan society grieving over the loss of their king, I often connected with her based on her position in said society, in addition to knowing that her child is gone. Going back to what I said about art imitating life, Basset’s performance, alongside others in this film, came off as more than the characters going through their own reality. At times, Basset seemed to channel herself in regard to her connection to Chadwick Boseman. I bought into Basset’s performance, and as sad as Boseman’s death is, it may have enhanced Basset’s ability to deliver an excellent screen presence, one that could potentially be a talking point this awards season.

This movie is 161 minutes. Just over two and a half hours. At moments, I felt the runtime. Some of the exposition, specifically in regards to Namor, went on for way too long and I almost tuned out. In addition to being a “Black Panther” film, “Wakanda Forever” also somewhat doubles as an ad for Disney+ with the addition of Riri Williams, also known as Ironheart. Other than that, another notable flaw, and maybe this is just the case of my theater, maybe not, the sound mix was not perfect. There were select lines of dialogue that were hard to make out. It is not “Tenet” bad, but as far as the MCU goes, this is probably the first time I can recall having a problem like this during one of the movies in this series. Then again, I just turned 23 a little more than a week ago, therefore this is a possibly a sign that my hearing could be slightly deteriorating. Do not grow up, it is a trap.

If I had to compare “Black Panther: Wakanda Forever” to anything else right now, it would have to be, of all things, the television series “Impractical Jokers.” …Hear me out.

“Black Panther: Wakanda Forever,” much like the most recent iteration of “Impractical Jokers,” loses one of its core cast members, tries to reinvent itself while also keeping certain elements audiences are familiar with, and fails to recapture some of the magic of what made its previous material great, but through a situation that it cannot fault itself for. “Black Panther: Wakanda Forever” is a film that I would have been terrified to be a part of if I were a higher-up at Marvel. I know “Black Panther” is a popular IP and there is no question as to whether or not a sequel should be made. But my question from the beginning was how the heck the story could go on without the title character.

If you look back at films like “Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness,” you would notice in the posters and marketing that the subtitle is a tad bigger than the title itself. The same is true for “Black Panther: Wakanda Forever.” One could argue this is coincidental, but I would contend there is a reason why “Black Panther” is tiny and “Wakanda Forever” is enormous. This film, while it is ultimately a “Black Panther” story, is ultimately about the Wakanda community. How they come together. How they deal with grief. How they engage in politics. There is no way this film would not have had “Black Panther” in its title. Because if it did not, it would probably lose money. Although at the end of the day, this is part of what I mean when I say the film is overstuffed. Again, there is almost barely a center character. If anything, Wakanda itself is debatably the central character.

Now that I have seen all of phase 4, one of the commonalities during some of phase 4’s stories is the concept of grief. If you ask me, despite being an example of art imitating life, I think “WandaVision” and weirdly enough, “Spider-Man: No Way Home” had better execution when it comes to grief. Maybe it is because of my connection to one specific character either during the story itself or in previous installments and how they end up dealing with it. “Black Panther: Wakanda Forever” dealing with grief was perhaps unavoidable because of a real life event. There are moments, especially towards the film’s end, where grief comes into play that continue to stick with me. But part of what made “WandaVision” and “Spider-Man: No Way Home” more fulfilling is that I knew who to root for. Wanda and Peter Parker. Of course, “Wakanda Forever,” a movie where, again, Wakanda itself may as well be considered the central character, presents a scenario where an entire society is mourning. But because the movie had an overabundance of characters and things going on at times, it becomes less powerful for me.

Although if there is one thing “Wakanda Forever” does well despite its flaws, it would be consistency. “Thor: Love and Thunder,” the previous MCU film, was like a seesaw in terms of tone. At certain points, it is as goofy as can be. At others, it is wildly dramatic. There is almost no in between. “Black Panther: Wakanda Forever,” again, like “Thor: Love and Thunder,” clashes in terms of tone, but it is probably the most somber MCU film to date while also having pinches of much needed fun in between. Much like many other Marvel movies, there are moments of levity, but the film itself is a consistent downer. From scene one, the movie does everything it can to remind its audience that not everything is happy go lucky in Wakanda. Much like “Wakanda Forever,” “Love and Thunder” made grief a paramount topic. The film however goes too extreme on both ends to the point where it fizzles the goldilocks zone. While “Black Panther: Wakanda Forever” is more depressing than the average MCU film, including other movies that have their downer moments like “Eternals” or “Avengers: Infinity War,” it is at least both steadily, not to mention believably, sad.

Although because this movie is sad, does not mean there are no ounces of joy to be had. In addition to the recently mentioned levity, which is noticeably not as prominent as say “Shang-Chi and the Legend of the Ten Rings,” I liked the chemistry between Shuri and Okoye. The action, during this film’s collection of sequences, is well-done and kept my attention throughout. There is even a segment where someone catapults into the air via fish. I do not remember if it was a dolphin or a whale. I would have to watch the movie again, but that caught me off guard. This has to be arguably the craziest cool sight I have witnessed in a comic book movie since that one scene in “Aquaman” where an octopus plays the drums.

With all this sadness though, some of you might ask, can you bring your family and children to this movie? After all, Marvel movies, in addition to being box office hits, are also traditionally fine options for large groups like families. Even for children despite the usual PG-13 rating. To answer the question, I would say yes. This may not be as fun as “Guardians of the Galaxy” or “Spider-Man: No Way Home.” Although there is nothing absolutely offensive, nothing overly gory, and despite the film’s serious nature, there is nothing in it that I would think would instantly turn off younger viewers or the parents trying to entertain said younger viewers.

Before we move on, without giving a ton of detail, there is a fantastic joke in the movie about MIT. You will know it when you hear it. It got a good laugh out of me, and I think many people reading this will react similarly.

In the end, “Black Panther: Wakanda Forever,” while still a decent movie, is a step down from the original. It is the neither the best or worst film of phase 4. It is somewhere close to the middle. The film is ambitious, but cannot quite fill the massive void that Chadwick Boseman left. I admire that “Wakanda Forever” took the risk of killing off one of its core characters and making that a backbone as to where things go in the film. Unfortunately, it led to a movie of both hits and misses. Is the film worth watching? The answer would be yes. It has its flaws, but in a thumbs up/thumbs down world, “Black Panther: Wakanda Forever” is a thumbs up, not to mention a 7/10.

Well, that is the end of phase 4! If I have to be honest, while this is not my favorite phase in the MCU, I will give it credit. Unlike phases 1, 2, and 3, every movie that came out in phase 4, had some semblance of decency at minimum. In phase 1, I was not a fan of “Captain America: The First Avenger.” In phase 2, I did not like “Thor: The Dark World.” In phase 3, I disliked “Captain Marvel.” Phase 4’s movies, from “Black Widow” to “Black Panther: Wakanda Forever,” were all entertaining, fun, and worth watching. They all had flaws, but they were also worth watching. I have no idea what phase 5 is going to be like, but I hope that like phase 4, the movies continue to be solid.

“Black Panther: Wakanda Forever” is now playing in theatres everywhere including premium formats like IMAX and Dolby Cinema. Tickets are available now.

Thanks for reading this review! My next review is going to be for the brand new Searchlight Pictures film “The Banshees of Inisherin.” I just watched the film this weekend, and while I look forward to reviewing just about every movie I see, I mean it with this one. I cannot wait to review “The Banshees of Inisherin,” I hope to drop it soon.

If you want to see more of my thoughts on phase 4 of the MCU, check out my reviews for “Black Widow,” “Shang-Chi and the Legend of the Ten Rings,” “Eternals,” “Spider-Man: No Way Home,” “Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness,” and “Thor: Love and Thunder.” If you want to see this and more from Scene Before, follow the blog either with an email or WordPress account! Also, check out the official Facebook page! I want to know, did you see “Black Panther: Wakanda Forever?” What did you think about it? Or, what are your thoughts on Marvel’s phase 4? What is your favorite movie or television show from the timeline? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

DC League of Super-Pets (2022): This Movie’s Biggest Kryptonite? Predictability and Familiar Faces.

Posted on by Jack Drees

“DC League of Super-Pets” is directed by Jared Stern and Sam Levine, and stars Dwayne Johnson (Doom, Skyscraper), Kevin Hart (Ride Along, Night School), Kate McKinnon (Yesterday, Saturday Night Live), John Krasinski (A Quiet Place, The Office), Vanessa Bayer (Saturday Night Live, Office Christmas Party), Natasha Lyonne (Orange is the New Black, Big Mouth), Diego Luna (Rogue One: A Star Wars Story, Narcos: Mexico), Marc Maron (Maron, GLOW), Keanu Reeves (The Matrix, John Wick), Ben Schwartz (Parks and Recreation, Sonic the Hedgehog), and Thomas Middleditch (Godzilla: King of the Monsters, Silicon Valley). This film follows Krypto the Super-Dog, as he must figure out how to rescue his owner, Superman.

I love comic book movies. And I know I am not alone. If the box office for most of the films within this classification have shown anything, it is that films of this type are hotter than they have ever been. Marvel Studios is on fire right now with the release of “Shang-Chi and the Legend of the Ten Rings” in addition to the massively successful “Spider-Man: No Way Home,” both of which ended up in my top 10 best of last year. DC is also doing well for themselves. I enjoyed “The Batman” despite some pacing issues I had with the film, and I thought last year’s “The Suicide Squad” might just be the best movie to ever have the DC logo attached. And in the midst of all of these movies that I either looked forward to or saw and really enjoyed, I never thought “DC League of Super-Pets” would live up to the quality standards that we have seen in other comic book-based works. If anything, I thought it would probably be on the same level as “Morbius,” only slightly more comedic and family-friendly.

I will be real. I cannot remember the last time I asked for a movie about Superman’s dog, but here we are. Why did I see it? Because I have reviews to get done and AMC A-List is a dynamite investment. I love not paying for movies that I feel the need to see to stay in the loop. Although at the same time, if you have names as big as Kevin Hart or Keanu Reeves, that should bring something promising to the table. And this brings me to my first positive, which I will dive more into later, Keanu Reeves was the highlight of the film.

What did I think of “DC League of “Super-Pets?” It’s predictable, mediocre, and I do not think the comedy landed that much. I have heard some differing opinions, but if you ask me, even some of the more clever jokes in this movie did not garner much of a reaction out of me. Some of the comedy attempts either felt tired, forced, or obvious. There is a “Paw Patrol”-related joke that probably would have been funnier if I did not make a “Paw Patrol” comparison before the film came out. Speaking of “Paw Patrol,” one thing about that show is that it is specifically made for kids. That’s the vibes I got from “DC League of Super-Pets’s” marketing campaign. All kiddy, no maturity. Turns out there is some adult humor in this film, but even that did not land. I can only hear the censor bar so many times before the gag becomes tiresome. This is honestly unfortunate considering the film is written by Jared Stern and John Whittington, who previously wrote another animated DC flick, “The LEGO Batman Movie.” Regardless of its comic-based origins and spinoff placement, it is one of the funniest animation scripts done in recent years. That movie had five writers! I hope for the sake of Stern and Whittington that they came up with at least one of the clever jokes that script contained, because “DC League of Super-Pets” feels like a far cry to the 2017 “LEGO Batman” spinoff.

The story of “DC League of Super-Pets” does not reinvent the wheel. I never asked for this movie to begin with, and therefore I never asked it to reinvent the wheel, therefore I did not know what to expect. But the movie itself sort of reminded me of a longer episode of a Saturday morning cartoon, but not necessarily a great one. I also think the script of “DC League of Super-Pets” is probably going to land better with those who are dog or cat people. People who have pets and consider them part of their family. I live in a space where there are pets, but they are not necessarily my pets, so this script did not connect with me maybe in the way the writers hoped it would.

I want to talk about the biggest problem in this movie, and this is the problem that the movie has built up ever since its first teaser. Going back to the big names. Having big names like Dwayne Johnson in your movie always builds intrigue and promise. It’s like when a printer gets endorsed by Shaquille O’Neal, or Mark Cuban becomes a quasi-mascot of a new, innovative product, or when Howie Mandel fist bumps everything in your store for some reason. When this film’s first teaser released, the primary focus was on the stacked cast this movie managed to acquire from Dwayne Johnson to Kevin Hart to Kate McKinnon to John Krasinski and so on. I want to talk about those first two names. Dwayne Johnson is arguably the biggest movie star in the world, and Kevin Hart, in addition to being a relevant comedian, has worked with The Rock in the past on “Central Intelligence” and the “Jumanji” movies. This is their third property together, and I do not mind actors or crew joining forces more than once. Ryan Gosling and Emma Stone have worked together numerous times in “Crazy Stupid Love,” “Gangster Squad,” and “La La Land.” Their chemistry is undeniable.

I have no idea if this is coincidental or not, but the Gosling/Stone pairing is a match every time. The difference between Ryan Gosling and Emma Stone compared to Johnson and Hart is the ability of the former pair to show range. Ryan Gosling can be the sexy boy toy, he can sing, he can be stoic. Emma Stone can be a quirky young woman, she can be an aspiring actress, she can be someone from a couple centuries ago. The two are “actors,” not stars. Johnson and Hart, despite having personality, are not the greatest thespians, and it shows in “DC League of Super-Pets.” When I look at Krypto, I see The Rock. When I look at Ace, I see Kevin Hart. In my imagination, they are just playing versions of themselves in animated dog form. This is why part of me is often worried when I think about the upcoming “Super Mario Bros.” movie because like “DC League of Super-Pets,” I am just worried that Chris Pratt is going to do another version of Emmet from “The LEGO Movie” or something. Chris Pratt, like The Rock, while he is definitely a better actor, is not the greatest of the performers working today. Pratt’s voice is recognizable, and that is part of why it felt weird hearing said voice in Pixar’s “Onward.” I am not saying live-action movie stars should not voice animated characters. Some have as much talent as those who primarily do voice-acting. But these roles show Johnson and Hart’s lack of range as actors. Dwayne Johnson and Kevin Hart always do the same schtick or some variation of it in their movies. Sometimes it works, sometimes it does not. Not having a live-action environment hinders that and makes this film the weakest of their collaborations. And the fact that I am looking at these dogs’ faces and seeing nothing but Johnson and Hart makes their performances creepier than they should be.

I said I will get back to Keanu Reeves. A promise is a promise. Reeves is easily this film’s best part. Not just because of his voice, but the character he plays, that being Batman. Much like “The LEGO Batman Movie,” this interpretation of Batman or Bruce Wayne is on the more parodic side, and rightfully so. I said earlier that I was slightly concerned that Jared Stern and John Whittington possibly never came up with any solid jokes in “The LEGO Batman Movie.” Although after reminiscing on Batman in this film, part of me has second thoughts. I was not a huge fan of the film’s comedy, but the parts where I was almost rolling on the floor were the scenes where Batman shows up. His screen time in this film is minimal. Think of it as a funny Stan Lee cameo where he plays himself except it happens ten times. Despite this movie’s lighthearted tone, it also pokes fun at the darkness of the Caped Crusader. Everything from his lone wolf mentality to his lack of parents. It’s hilarious, and I might every once in a while look on YouTube for the scenes in this movie containing Batman just to get a laugh.

In the end, “DC League of Super-Pets” is, to my surprise, not the worst comic book movie of the year. Again, “Morbius” exists. You’re welcome, Warner Brothers! You are going to have to settle for the dishonorable mention. Some of the voice acting is hit or miss. When I watch an animated movie, part of me wants to forget that I am watching something that has The Rock in it. I think as far as voice performances go, Johnson’s performance in “Moana,” while not my favorite in history, is slightly better than the one he gives to Krypto. But I also do not know if I can blame it on his ability, because his voice is recognizable. When it comes to Kevin Hart playing a house pet, I’d rather listen to his performance as Snowball the terrier in “The Secret Life of Pets.” I often watch films for an escape. If I want an escape with The Rock and Kevin Hart, I would rather watch “Central Intelligence.” This is not a film that is going to stand the test of time. As far as DC goes, it is surprisingly better than “Wonder Woman 1984,” but unlike “DC League of Super-Pets,” I had higher expectations for that film. I am going to give “DC League of Super-Pets” a 5/10.

“DC League of Super-Pets” is now playing in theatres everywhere. Tickets are available now.

Thanks for reading this review! My next review is going to be for the film “Vengeance,” directed by B.J. Novak. Also be on the lookout for my review for “Bullet Train,” the new action flick starring Brad Pitt as he and assassins crowd up a speeding train in Japan. If you want to see this and more from Scene Before, follow the blog either with an email or WordPress account! Also, check out the official Facebook page! I want to know, did you see “DC League of Super-Pets?” What did you think about it? Or, what is a movie with a stacked cast that disappointed you? For me, that big disappointment was 2017’s “The Circle,” starring Emma Watson, Tom Hanks, Patton Oswalt, John Boyega, among others. Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

Jungle Cruise (2021): Dwayne Johnson and Emily Blunt Sail Through a Mediocre Run Through the Amazon

Posted on by Jack Drees

“Jungle Cruise” is directed by Jaume Collet-Serra (Unknown, The Shallows) and stars Dwayne Johnson (The Fate of the Furious, Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle), Emily Blunt (Mary Poppins Returns, A Quiet Place), Jack Whitehall (The Nutcracker and the Four Realms, Mother’s Day), Edgar Ramírez (Gold, Point Break), with Jesse Plemons (Game Night, Judas and the Black Messiah), and Paul Giamatti (12 Years a Slave, Sideways). This film is based on the Disney theme park ride of the same name and is set during World War I. Throughout the film we see the mysterious ship captain Frank Wolff, who gives cheap tours through the Amazon River, join forces with Lily Houghton as they search for a tree that contains magical healing powers. While their intentions are to use it for good, Germany has other plans to utilize the power of the tree in order to win the war.

I saw “Jungle Cruise” on opening Thursday in the theater and safe to say, I had moderate expectations going in. I was not expecting Shakespeare, in fact most movies starring The Rock, regardless of his acting talent, are not usually taken as seriously as others. The trailers looked okay, they seemed to have promised a generic adventure that is somewhat family friendly despite being PG-13. In fact, the more I think about it, it kind of looked like a better version of “Dolittle,” as the plot of that film also involved finding a specific tree for healing purposes. There were plenty of people at my screening. It was not a sold out show, but it was good to see families returning to the theater. I went by myself, because I’m awesome, I’m important, and goddamnit, I’m the absolute best! But is “Jungle Cruise” worth the trip? In addition, is it worth $30 on Disney+?

“Jungle Cruise” certainly ain’t no “Indiana Jones.” Or “Pirates of the Caribbean” if you want to get into other theme park ride-based films. Well, the first one to be specific. If anything, “Jungle Cruise” is more in line with the fifth “Pirates of the Caribbean.” It’s a fun film to watch once and then forget about. I will admit, I had quite a few problems with this film as I sat down trying to take it all in. This is one of those rare times where I watch a film and think that Dwayne Johnson is not exactly likable. I mean, sure, I can probably find one or two other films where that is the case. “Tooth Fairy” is another one that comes to mind. But if I have learned one thing in recent years, it’s that regardless of his acting ability, Dwayne Johnson is one of the most charismatic movie stars out there today. He’s up there with Tom Hanks and Ryan Reynolds. Two actors who I think are more talented than The Rock, but there is no denying that they have delivered dumptrucks of likability over the years just from their personalities and how they present themselves on screen.

I’m not saying The Rock is a dick in this film or anything. I just find the way they wrote his character to be somewhat of a letdown. You know, one of the best things about movies like “The Empire Strikes Back,” “Memento,” and “Parasite,” without getting into detail, are the twists and turns these movies take along the way. “Jungle Cruise” is no stranger to this idea, but there was one subversion of my expectations that happened in the first twenty minutes of the film regarding The Rock’s character that made him go from a badass hunk of a man to… Somebody. I dunno. The point is, right off the bat, the character did not leave me with the best first impression. In fact, one of first scenes in the movie with this character, Frank Wolff, is him giving a tour through the Amazon River. The tour itself is notably cheap and lacks an oomph factor. That was the intention on the script’s part, therefore I am not calling this a critique. But the thing is, the whole scene is just The Rock trying to give a boring tour while delivering so many dad jokes. And that’s a thing throughout the movie. Dad jokes! Dad jokes everywhere! Who wrote this movie? 7 year olds? I have never ridden the ride this movie bases itself upon, but apparently, according to what I’ve heard about the Jungle Cruise ride itself, there’s a tour guide on the ride, and that tour guide will spew out dad jokes here and there. While I appreciate the nods to the source material, I’ll be blunt and say this doesn’t rock.

Goddamnit.

I will say that one of my regrets, despite seeing this in the theater, part of me wishes I saw it in 3D or some large premium format. I ended up seeing the film in regular 2D as that was the most convenient timeslot. But if you want a visual feast, this may be worth the trip. The same cannot be said for the story though, at least from my perspective. Because while it is unpredictable at times, it is surface level and the unpredictability is not precisely impressive.

Although I will say that one of my highlights of the film would be some of the supporting cast. Jesse Plemons has been great in everything I’ve seen him in so far, so naturally he is also great in “Jungle Cruise.” Here he plays Prince Joachim, an over the top German aristocrat who stands in the way of the heroes. Plemons does not even feel like himself in this movie. He feels like he’s playing someone from another world at times. Granted, it is a Disney film, where a little over the top sprinkles are encouraged. I will also note Jack Whitehall as Lily’s brother, MacGregor, who comes along for the cruise. Whitehall comes off as a likable coward who almost tries to be the voice of reason but does so almost poorly. I think he is easily one of the better parts of the film the more I think about it.

Disney has tried time and time again to recreate the success of “Pirates of the Caribbean.” Whether “Jungle Cruise” gets a sequel or not is still somewhat questionable on the surface because of the pandemic. The movie did not do too great thus far theatrically or on Disney+. But when it comes to movies based on Disney’s theme park rides, this feels more focused on gimmicks and immersion compared to story. The story is okay, but it is most certainly not great. If you have a family and are looking for an excuse to leave the house, I’d say see this in the most immersive format you can afford. It may be fun for a couple of hours, but I cannot guarantee you will remember it much after.

In the end, “Jungle Cruise” is mediocrely paced, more focused on style over substance, and MY GOD the dad jokes never end! That’s a weird complaint coming from me, because if you know my family, specifically my father’s side, we get together a lot and we are no strangers to puns. In fact, for those of you who do not know, my last name is Drees, and on my father’s side of the family, we call puns and other related jokes “Drees humor” just because of how commonplace it has become when we are around each other. Either way, they did not work in “Jungle Cruise.” I think Dwayne Johnson and Emily Blunt are a fair pair. Although I wish the script served the actors better, especially Johnson. The film does look nice, but looks are not everything. I want a good story too, but “Jungle Cruise” failed in that regard. I’m going to give “Jungle Cruise” a 5/10.

“Jungle Cruise” is now playing in theaters and it is also available through Disney+ with Premier Access for $29.99 on top of a subscription.

Thanks for reading this review! If you enjoyed this review for a film based on a Disney theme park ride, why not read five more?! Be sure to check out my reviews for all five “Pirates of the Caribbean” films including “The Curse of the Black Pearl,” “Dead Man’s Chest,” “At World’s End,” “On Stranger Tides,” and “Dead Men Tell No Tales.” I reviewed all of these films as part of recognizing Scene Before’s 5th anniversary in an exclusive series titled “Pirates of the Caribbean: The Chest of Reviews!”

Continuing down the road of Scene Before’s 5th anniversary, this Monday I will be unveiling my thoughts on the 1984 sex comedy “Revenge of the Nerds” as a starting point of the upcoming review series, “Revenge of the Nerds: Nerds in Review.” As I’ve said previously, my in-depth thoughts on this film, not to mention franchise, feels like it is long overdue.

Speaking of things we’ve all been waiting for, this weekend we are finally getting to watch “The Suicide Squad!” I have IMAX tickets for Saturday, I cannot wait to share my thoughts with you. James Gunn, I have faith in you, do not let me down. If you want to see all this and more on Scene Before, follow the blog either with an email or WordPress account! Also, check out the official Facebook page! I want to know, did you see “Jungle Cruise?” What did you think about it? Or, did you ever go on the Jungle Cruise ride? What was that like? Leave your thoughts and opinions down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man’s Chest (2006): Jack Sparrow Goes Bigger, and the Rules Get Dumber

Posted on by Jack Drees

Hey everyone, Jack Drees here! Welcome to the second entry of the Scene Before exclusive review series, “Pirates of the Caribbean: The Chest of Reviews!” Today, we will be diving into the second film in the franchise, “Dead Man’s Chest.” If you read my review for “The Curse of the Black Pearl,” you’d know that I had a lot of fun with that film. It’s a solid mix of old fashioned Disney vibes mixed in with some darker and more mature elements to create something special. Can this sequel capture the same feeling that I got from the original? Here’s my review!

“Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man’s Chest” is directed by Gore Verbinski, who also directed the first “Pirates of the Caribbean” film. This sequel once again stars Johnny Depp (Sleepy Hollow, Ed Wood) as Jack Sparrow alongside Orlando Bloom (The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring, Ned Kelly), Keira Knightley (Star Wars Episode I – The Phantom Menace, Bend it Like Beckham), Stellan Skarsgård (Good Will Hunting, King Arthur), Bill Nighy (Shaun of the Dead, The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy), Jack Davenport (This Life, Coupling), Kevin McNally (Doctor Who, Conspiracy), and Jonathan Pryce (Brazil, Glengarry Glen Ross). This film once again follows Jack Sparrow as he embarks on a quest to find the heart of Davy Jones to avoid enslaving himself to his service. Meanwhile, others are after the heart as well, but for their own reasons.

I really enjoyed the first “Pirates of the Caribbean” film. It’s pretty to look at, it’s fun to watch, it is overall simply crafted with a sense of sheer magnificence. Gore Verbinski did a good job at not just making a great film that I will likely watch again in the future, but also finding a fine line between genius and stupid. In my review for “The Curse of the Black Pearl,” I pointed out that if anything, the film is essentially a modern day version of “The Princess Bride” because it is a great watch for both kids and adults, it’s got terrific sword fights, and both films seem to place themselves in a position where they can be goofy while also realizing it can be smart. When it comes to Johnny Depp as Jack Sparrow, I will stand by him being perfectly cast, and his presence in this sequel certainly proves my point. Jack Sparrow feels like a role that only someone like Johnny Depp can play. I cannot imagine anyone else taking on this role after watching these two films.

Unfortunately, this sequel is not as good as the original, as the old saying goes. However, it is not a bad movie. The second half is what kept my attention. This is not to say that the first half was bad, but compared to the second, it is kind of forgettable. On top of that, the one specific part that I remember most from the first half is perhaps the film’s biggest deterrent. In the current post-modern era, there is a tendency from studios, distributors, and producers to constantly create content that lacks originality. Sometimes it’s a good thing, sometimes it’s a bad thing. In case of these first two “Pirates of the Caribbean” movies, I’d say it’s a good thing, but it does not mean it is perfect.

As you may or may not know, this property started out as a theme park ride. A lot of movies these days tend to have a theme park-like experience. The Marvel movies are varying visual feasts for the eyes and ears. The “Fast & Furious” movies are ridiculous in concept and crazy in execution because of their messing with physics and what could be done with supercharged cars. In fact, “F9” honestly took that theme park-esque experience a little too far for me to continually suspend my disbelief. Honestly, I do not know where the next “Pirates of the Caribbean” movies are going to go, but part of me worries that they’re going to go down the same path that “Fast & Furious” followed since the fourth movie. Now to be clear, I am not saying that every “Fast & Furious” has sucked since the fourth one. The only installment I hated since the fourth one is “F9.” But the reason why I hated “F9” is because each film manages to surpass the last in some degree of absurdity that it is too much for my brain to handle. There’s one or two scenes in “Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man’s Chest” where Jack Sparrow arguably should have been seriously injured or dead, but he isn’t! He walks off every other incident as if nothing happened! I am keeping an open mind at this point given how this is a fantasy film, but this is nevertheless something that does irk me internally. The first “Pirates of the Caribbean” film, even though it was a bit ridiculous, it still felt like there were rules. In “Dead Man’s Chest,” there is less verisimilitude and a greater sense of absurdity.

This complaint does not take anything away from the fun that I had.

Throughout, the film has a lot of the strengths that the first one has. Some great lead characters. No seriously, I love Johnny Depp and Orlando Bloom when they’re put together. I think they would make a great pair for a buddy cop movie one day. The visuals are breathtaking and hold up fifteen years later. In fact, I am not totally surprised considering how this film happened to win the Best Visual Effects Oscar for the year it came out. The entire encounter with the kraken is worth the watch alone. Keira Knightley is back as Elizabeth Swann and I really liked seeing her here too. There’s this funny scene towards the end of the film where Sparrow is supposedly flirting with her and her reactions to this are one of the better parts of the movie.

As for new characters, this movie adds Naomie Harris as Tia Dalma, and I think she was a perfect addition to this movie. She has this fantastical presence to her that could only work in a movie like this. I’m not gonna lie, by the end of the movie, I almost had a crush on the character. Naomie Harris shines as this mysterious being who used to be a sea goddess, Calypso specifically, and her voice is perfect for someone who helps someone else who happens to be trying to fulfill their destiny. I like this character and of the many supporting characters this franchise has introduced so far, this one was perfectly cast.

Without spoiling anything, I also really like the way they end the film. It is exciting, thrilling, and gets me stoked to see the third movie the more I think about it. I feel like Gore Verbinski is really passionate about everything that he has put to screen in these first two films and he has a serious idea on the direction to take the third film. They got a couple of the writers who worked on the first film to come back as well. Something tells me they all work very well together and love what they do. I am very excited to see where they go from here.

In the end, “Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man’s Chest” is worth a watch, but compared to “The Curse of the Black Pearl,” it is not exactly as Shakespearean. “The Curse of the Black Pearl,” despite being in the fantasy genre like “Dead Man’s Chest,” seemed to acknowledge that there were some rules that had to be followed. Maybe if I were a young kid watching this I’d let the absurdity of the film fly over my head, but at this point, it didn’t, and it is a reason why the movie lost some points. Nevertheless this is a serviceable sequel with a kick-ass second half. I cannot wait for the third movie, part of me thinks that it will be better than this one. I’m going to give “Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man’s Chest” a 6/10.

“Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man’s Chest” is available wherever you buy movies including DVD and Blu-ray, and you can also watch the film on Disney+.

Thanks for reading this review! Next week we dive into the deep waters of world’s end! My review for “Pirates of the Caribbean: At World’s End” will be available on Thursday, July 15th! Stay tuned!

This weekend I have a couple new posts coming your way including a brand new installment to the CINEOLOGY podcast, where I am once again joined by my good friend Millie as we talk movies. Also, I will have a review up for one of the biggest movies of the summer, “Black Widow!” The film drops in theaters and on Disney+ this weekend, I’ve already got my tickets, and I cannot wait to share my thoughts on this movie that we REALLY should have gotten three or four years ago! I cannot wait to see this! I love Marvel! I love Scarlett Johansson! I love the fact that we are getting big movies again! The experience will hopefully be worth the wait! If you want to see this and more on Scene Before follow either with an email or WordPress account or check out the official Facebook page! I want to know, did you see “Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man’s Chest?” What did you think about it? Or, what is your favorite Johnny Depp film? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

TENET is Delayed Again: New Release Date: August 12th, 2020

Posted on by Jack Drees

mv5bndhizte2njutmdlkns00ngi5lwjkmjytmjjhnzrhzmfkytuxxkeyxkfqcgdeqxvynjmwmzc3mje40._v1_sy1000_cr006741000_al_

Hey guys! Welcome to the latest apocalypse-related update of 2020! A year so bad that it made fully regret ever giving “Cats” a negative review. That hour and fifty minute movie which really ended up feeling like an utter eternity was a blessing compared whatever the f*ck is going on right now! Remember how I posted this s*it down below just a couple weeks ago?

TENET Gets Delayed to July 31st, INCEPTION Returns to Theatres July 17th

Guess what? That s*it’s outdated! Welcome to 2020! A one-way ticket to a dark room full of deadly lasers, accompanied with a bloody water tank with a giant shark that is about to eat you whole! WORST! YEAR! EVER! With that being said, I’m going to try my best… My absolute… Best. To avoid going ABSOLUTELY OVER THE TOP WITH THIS POST! Gah! I already failed! Let’s just do this!

Hey everyone, Jack Drees here! In case you’re reading this, I have somehow survived being disintegrated by tons of deadly lasers and a giant shark that was about to eat me. For all I know, maybe the shark thought I was pitching a terrible product, and said “I’m out.”

…Which reminds me, I gotta cross that shark-raid whistle thingy off the pitch list. Here we go.

mv5bnwq1y2yxmzmtymrhmi00otdhlwizytatmzm4njq2nzm0ymi4xkeyxkfqcgdeqxvynjuwnzk3ndc40._v1_

A couple weeks back, we have had an announcement that “Tenet” was getting a pushback, which I think at the time, could have arguably been the most shocking pushback for a film we’ve seen all year. “Tenet” was one of the few pictures to not move a muscle so far in 2020, so to see it gravitate towards a later, granted two weeks later, but later nevertheless, release date on the calendar is a little shocking. However, in my post talking about it, I mentioned there was probably a good reason, one of the notable pieces of news sticking out to me being the plan to rerelease 2010’s “Inception,” allowing for a perfect reason to recognize the film’s 10th anniversary. Not to mention, I thought it was just a damn fine consolation prize. “Inception” will be brought back to theaters around the same exact time it came out, it would be a good way to get audiences back into the theater, see how many people are willing to go to the theater, and as for me, I get to see one of my favorite movies on the big screen, which I did not get to do when I was younger. However, this week, it was announced that “Tenet” has been delayed once more. Time runs out? More like, we need more time to put out our movie.

Before we go any further, “Tenet” is not the only film moving in this case. “Inception” is in on this as well. “Inception” is now going to be taking up the July 31st release slot previously held by “Tenet.” As for “Tenet,” that film will be taking a spot in the middle of the second week of August, allowing it to come out on August 12th.

Let’s start with the good news. The good news, I can’t believe there is good news available in 2020… It’s not that big of a delay. That can be a sign of pure optimism from Warner Bros., Christopher Nolan, or both. While we don’t know where we’ll be in days or weeks from now, it does show that somebody somewhere is sticking to a commitment to put the movie out in theaters. Let’s face it. If I were to shoot a movie on the largest format possible, which Christopher Nolan did. Release it on the largest format possible, which is currently planned. You bet I, as a studio executive, would surely keep a promise to put this damn movie in the theater. I saw previews for this film on my TV, and it looks good on my TV. But why does it look so good? Because it gave me the urge to get off my ass, into my onmyassmobile, and head to a freaking movie theater to enjoy myself for hours!

Wait, that sounds very familiar…

“This film (Dunkirk) is what actually going to the theater is all about. Not renting a movie on DVD, not streaming it on Netflix, but getting off your ass, getting in your onmyassmobile, and heading straight to the movie theater.” –Top 10 BEST Movies of 2017

Nolan is all about the “get off your ass” mentality when it comes to releasing films, and that is part of why I will remain committed to checking out his work. I am all about the experience when it comes to moviegoing. There are very few feelings like entering a movie theater and seeing a movie in general, but when Nolan makes a movie, it’s almost guaranteed to be a ride. To see at the very least, the notion regarding this movie not losing sight of the theater experience delights me to no end.

Now, for the bad news… What if this is not the last delay? Because I feel like the factors determining whether or not we will get to see this movie in theaters as soon as possible have little to do with whether or not theaters are ready. In fact, the major chains including AMC, Regal, and Alamo Drafthouse, have all announced plans to open in July, with precautions in mind. Some of these include deep sanitizing of the auditoriums and often-touched spaces through advanced equipment and materials, allowing extra time to clean auditoriums, reduced capacities and spaced seating to encourage social distancing, and enforcing the use of masks. And yes, I’ll wear a mask, because I’ll happily allow my mask to possibly smell like popcorn. Just because they’re ready does not automatically equate to the public being ready. Am I ready to head back to the movie theater? I’ve been motivated to go pretty much as soon as everything shut down. Granted, knowing myself, I am a little biased. I would have risked my life during the pandemic to go see new movies because this was the routine for my blog. Go to the movies. See a new release. Review said new release. Repeat. Instead, I had to take a break, report whatever fresh hell was happening during the apocalypse to point where I wanted to smash my F*CKING BRAIN INTO SPIKES! Save myself some money so my family and I don’t go broke. Occasionally review a new movie if possible, and so on. I would not deny that there is at least some sort of craving from various demographics to live in some sense of normalcy at this point. Movie theaters are a part of that normalcy. But would the public automatically leap themselves back into theaters? That’s going to depend on who you ask. Some would definitely go back in a heartbeat, but if you scour social media, there are some that are hoping for more at-home releases and those sorts of things.

Not only that, but let’s also look at statistics. One of the biggest catalysts that likely caused this delay in the first place is the notion that New York had no plans to reopen theaters in phase 4, which supposedly starts in a couple weeks for a great portion of the state. New York is one of the biggest movie theater markets out there. They have a large moviegoing population and a ton of theaters to back them up. New York City has also been home to many big film events, including premieres. Although if I’m not mistaken, if “Tenet” releases on time, if Manhattan remains closed, the run could still work if many other theaters in the state as long they remain open in other areas. Speaking of which, New York, Massachusetts, Connecticut, and New Jersey, are trending pretty positive right now when it comes to handling the virus overall. This is as opposed to states like Florida, Texas, Arizona, and California, where the virus is proving to be a little more effective and deadly. Hospitals are filling up by the second, states are seeing record cases, and if they keep going up, who knows what’s gonna happen next? And besides, I just mentioned California, like New York, it is one of the biggest movie markets in the world. It’s where many red carpet events occur, the culture in various cities revolve around film, and it’s home to many historic venues. Plus, Los Angeles county is currently the most populous of the U.S. counties, if you don’t let them for example go see a movie in their local area, that’s potentially a lot of lost customers.

Not to get sidetracked, but I wonder if this means anything for the other big movies coming out soon like “Unhinged” and “Mulan.” Will they bump their dates somewhere else as well? Although Regal Cinemas, the second largest chain in the United States, is supposed to reopen the day that movie comes out, so I doubt they want to move as they have a sweet spot. As for “Mulan,” I feel like Disney could move it, but they also have a good spot should things turn around. They don’t have to worry much about what could be opening the week after, and a lot can happen in a month from now. As much as I would not be TOTALLY surprised if they put the movie on VOD eventually, I feel like from an executive standpoint, this is a movie that like “Tenet” is specifically made to be seen in a theater. Putting the film on VOD would be a sacrifice from one kind of perspective. Plus, based on what I’m hearing from people who have already seen the movie, it may have solid enough verdicts to avoid getting dumped onto Disney+ like “Artemis Fowl” did, which currently has a 10% on Rotten Tomatoes.

One thing I will point out, when it comes to this new release date, it presents a fairly interesting idea given by a Warner Bros. spokesperson.

“In this moment what we need to be is flexible, and we are not treating this as a traditional movie release. We are choosing to open the movie mid-week to allow audiences to discover the film in their own time, and we plan to play longer, over an extended play period far beyond the norm, to develop a very different yet successful release strategy.”

Before this delay, in fact, even before the first delay, what I thought was going to happen was that Warner Bros. was going to attempt to pull the throttle as far ahead as possible. What could have been done is that they’d release the movie, allowing it to play on virtually every available screen in the facility, say this is all happening in a multiplex, allowing for everybody to go see this one movie at practically anytime, with an outright guarantee for social distancing. Granted, with the current plans to bring throwback releases into the mix, that would now be impossible, but again, I’m talking about the past. Now I’m noticing a fairly slow approach that Warner Bros. seems to be taking. I don’t know how well it’ll work out. But if they keep it in theaters for a long enough time, there’s a solid chance that it could be profitable. It’s likely going to depend on word of mouth, positive reviews, and maybe even some hint of rewatchability. For all I know, it could also depend on cases. But this blog is being documented by someone who lives in the United States of America, where we are perhaps all brainwashed into thinking the economy is more “essential” than lives. Am I sick of staying home for the longest time? You betcha. I have gone through several periods of not even exiting my house doors. In fact, this entire post pretty much sums up my distaste with the fact that I’ve had to stay home. But if we all really get back outside, we need to understand that the world is not going to be pretty. We need masks (which I detest, but I understand why we need them). We need clean hands. We need to do our best to stay apart. If we want to have what we love in front of us at some point during 2020, we need to understand the meaning of sacrifice amongst ourselves. And how this even became a political issue here in the United States, I will never understand! Apparently in this country, science equals politics! It’s global warming all over again!

Just so you all know, if you didn’t already, I hate needles with a burning passion. This is the one time, I repeat, the one time in my life, where I want a vaccine for something! I don’t care if it kills me quicker than the virus, but I just want to have a sense of normalcy at this point. I’ve had it with all this! I just want to go see a movie! It’s the one place where I can feel like I’m at home, because I’ve been at my house for so long that it doesn’t even feel like a home anymore! I love my house, but with isolation and everything! It has basically become a prison with people who love and care about you, not to mention better food options! I need to get out at least once to cleanse my brain from whatever spasms it has at this point! Walking won’t do the trick! Am I overreacting? Most likely! But this is my life! Art is the quintessential element that makes me whole, and now I feel like that has been snatched away. I turn 21 in November, so I think I have picked the wrong time to supposedly “build my life.” I want safety for all. But I want to do things.

“Tenet,” please help me. I’m more excited for “Dune” to come out in December, but as of now, I don’t know if there has ever been a movie I wanted to see succeed more than “Tenet.” It’s from my favorite studio, my favorite director, and will be shown in my favorite format. And I surely hope this delay is the last one we get. For all I know, should things continue to trend positively in certain states, I can almost see Warner Bros. releasing the movie in states that are trending positive, then adding a phase 2 to areas that trend positive later. It’s like the government, but it’s all about a $200 million+ movie. “Tenet” HOPEFULLY, and I cannot stress that enough, releases in theaters August 12th, 2020. The film will be available in digital, various large formats including IMAX, 35mm, 70mm, and IMAX 70mm. And you bet I will be striving to catch an IMAX 70mm presentation should one pop up in my area, and given how I don’t live far from Providence, RI, and I do expect the movie to end up playing at their IMAX venue, I will probably make it to one of these shows whatever it takes.

Thanks for reading this incredibly emotional post! And by incredibly emotional, I mean a post where I turn into an absolute brat who simultaneously wants what’s best for society. How did we get here?! Do we even deserve to live at this point? Bring on the alien invasion! Bring on dinosaurs! Bring on giant asteroids! Bring on dogs and cats living together! Mass hysteria! What are we still doing here anywhere? It’s not like we’re… DOING ANYTHING! By the way, right now on Scene Before I am focusing on Tom Cruise Month here in June, which will conclude next week with my review for “Minority Report!” Until then, check out my review for “Top Gun,” a movie which had a sequel that was supposed to come out this exact week, but of course, COVID sucks. It really does. July is coming up, and I’m hoping for my sake at this point that I get to talk about at least one new movie. I’ve spent so much time talking about the past that the future looks mighty fine right now. This universe is punching me in the gut every day. Be sure to follow Scene Before if you want to see new content, and check out the blog’s official Facebook page! I want to know, what are your thoughts on the “Tenet” delay? Personally, I kinda saw it coming, but unlike the last one, this one hurt me a little more. I am more than likely overreacting, but as a guy who doesn’t really care if sports come back at this point, I at least want a movie. Or, here’s another question. Do you plan on going back to the movies anytime soon? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

Oblivion (2013): Non-Cyberpunk 2077

Posted on by Jack Drees

TOM CRUISE MONTH POSTER

Hey everyone, Jack Drees here! Fun fact, ever since I have started my journey here on Scene Before since 2016, I have talked about 10 Tom Cruise movies. Granted, 60% of those films happen to be in the “Mission: Impossible” franchise, but still. I have talked about “The Last Samurai,” “Risky Business,” “The Firm,” “American Made,” and as recently suggested, all six of his “Mission: Impossible” movies. Over the years I have missed a few new releases of his that I had a chance to review while it was in the theater such as “Jack Reacher: Never Go Back” and “The Mummy,” but between life, a lack of motivation, and those kinds of weird-ass excuses, I have not gotten around to them.

So the question is, after all this time, will I finally get to these movies?! No! I will not!

Instead, I’m gonna focus on some other Tom Cruise films, one of which includes the 2013 post-apocalyptic science fiction flick “Oblivion.” This film, along with a few others are going to be reviewed in place of what could have been reviewed in June, “Top Gun: Maverick,” which was supposed to release at the end of the month. But, you know, coronavirus. It’s the talk of the town. While Tom Cruise felt the need for speed in 1986, things must have slowed down in 2020, which at this point is asking 2016 to hold a crapton of beers. Nevertheless, let’s stop dilly-dallying and start diving into the first review of…

*LIGHTNING CRACK*

TOM CRUISE MONTH

mv5bmtqwmdy0mta4mf5bml5banbnxkftztcwnzi3mdgxoq4040._v1_sy1000_cr006311000_al_

“Oblivion” is directed by Joseph Kosinski, who coincidentally is also helming the upcoming film “Top Gun: Maverick,” which like this movie, stars Tom Cruise. Aside from Tom Cruise, this movie stars Morgan Freeman (The Dark Knight, The Shawshank Redemption), Olga Kurylenko (Quantum of Solace, To the Wonder), Andrea Riseborough (Welcome to the Punch, Disconnect), Nikolaj Coster-Waldau (Game of Thrones, Mama), and Melissa Leo (Frozen River, The Fighter). This film takes place during post-apocalyptic times in the year 2077 and it follows Tom Cruise’s character of Jack Harper, who currently lives on Earth as a technician who is responsible for maintaining drones as remaining resources are extracted in order to complete a five-year mission. Once this mission is completed, Jack and his partner will join the rest of humanity on their new home, Titan, a moon near Saturn.

Going into “Oblivion” for this review, it was my first time watching it and I was relatively curious as to what it would contain. I figured from the title and Tom Cruise being put in the center that it would be somewhat blockbuster-esque. When it comes to Tom Cruise movies, it kind of sounded like an “Edge of Tomorrow” type of deal. After all that film is sci-fi and action based. Much like “Edge of Tomorrow,” “Oblivion” does have its moments of action, but it does not seem to commit as heavily to it. From what I remember of “Edge of Tomorrow,” the action in that film is almost nonstop. After all, the concept of “Edge of Tomorrow” completely warrants it. It’s “Groundhog Day,” but the same day over and over is in the middle of futuristic battle. “Edge of Tomorrow,” even though there are other things to like about it, shines mostly from its concept.

Similarly, the writing and story for “Oblivion” is not all that bad, but it is two of the main characters, at least to me, that give this movie its overall watchability. And even though Morgan Freeman is the second actor I mentioned when introducing this film, he is not the highlight, even though his voice is worthy enough of its own relaxation album. In fact, his character, is probably one of the few that I’ll probably forget as time goes on. But from the very beginning, Jack and his communications partner have terrific chemistry. This movie takes place in a post-apocalyptic 2077 and not only do the characters played by Cruise and Riseborough match the vibe of the time, but I was able to buy into the stakes regarding their partnership. Together, their goal as partners is to be an “effective team,” which plays heavily into how the movie unfolds. One of the things that I notice a lot about futuristic sci-fi, or maybe just sci-fi in general for some cases, is that compared to the world we live in today, there is some lack of emotion in certain spots. Even with the lack of emotion in place, there is still a sense of realized chemistry between Cruise and Riseborough. And when the dramatic moments do hit, I feel it. This movie is a post-apocalypse story first, but if I were to judge it as a relationship drama, I’d give it a thumbs up. Also, sidenote, I like how at the beginning of the film he travels in his ship with his personal bobblehead to keep him company. It’s like his own little hula girl you put on the dashboard of your car or something.

“Oblivion” came out in 2013, and when it comes to the effects in this film, they feel pretty clean despite being in this rather depressing environment, but that’s not a bad thing. It does add a little glamour to something that doesn’t have much life in it. Specifically, I’m talking about the world, not the movie. This is not me bashing on the movie. I mean, the drones look very well put together and even though we just saw a new “Sonic the Hedgehog” movie that came out this year, the drones in this movie look twice as detailed and polished. I like the drones from a sound perspective as well.

I will say, having watched this movie in 2020, it does feel a bit weird, because even though we are living in a time where things are getting back to normal, one of the major plot points of the movie involves Tom Cruise’s past. Without really diving into spoiler territory, the way “Oblivion” handles this is likable, and as of now, kind of relatable. The movie starts out with Tom Cruise in an industrialized New York City, and it goes into his emotions in terms of how much he longs for the good days of old to return. Back when we had toilet paper and less masks and gather–wait, I think this is the wrong timeline! From this moment, and a few others during the movie, I got a sense of who the character of Jack Harper really was. A guy who went about his daily life with his partner, appreciating one moment after the next, but he also wanted the past to return, back when the Earth had numerous fun activities.

And even though Jack Harper is… (sigh) a Yankees fan, I understood his character because he wanted activities like sports and those sorts of things to return. Although given the circumstances, bringing those back would be a near impossible task.

I also really like the character of Julia, played by Olga Kurylenko. As mentioned, this movie focuses a lot on Jack Harper’s past, and the same can be said for this character. The way this was handled was very well done and made for one of the better parts of the movie. If I am not mistaken, “Oblivion” is my introduction to Olga Kurylenko, so I would like to see what else is put on her resume in the future.

Now onto the negatives, the film honestly starts much better than it concludes. I think the best parts of the movie take place through exposition and buildup. Even though the climax is somewhat entertaining, it misses an oomph factor to take it up a couple notches. Once again, I will mention, as much I like Morgan Freeman, this is probably one of his roles that I will end up forgetting. Granted, per usual, he is charismatic, but compared to other characters in the film, he does not climb up the ladder for me.

In the end, I went into “Oblivion” thinking it was kind of going to start off as this big action extravaganza, like “Edge of Tomorrow,” but it turned out to be something somewhat smaller in scale, which I am fine with. The shots in this movie are very well done, I admire most of the characters, and when it comes to Joseph Kosinski as a director, seeing this film makes me somewhat faithful that he can pull off a “Top Gun” sequel. Although when it comes to his past work, “Tron: Legacy” is definitely worth your time. Would I watch “Oblivion” again? Sure I would. In fact, this might be one of those movies that might be better the second time. It may have one or two moments or things that I missed that could make for a relatively fun second go. As far as Tom Cruise movies go, not bad. I’m going to give “Oblivion” a 7/10.

Thanks for reading this review! This is the first installment to my Tom Cruise Month review series, I hope you enjoyed it, because I want to remind you that this is just the beginning. My next film in the series is going to be the 1983 flick “All the Right Moves…” I wish I’m doing something else, but here we are. That review is probably going to be up on Monday or Tuesday, depends on when I watch the movie. But next Friday is my current deadline. I wanted to get the post I’m doing right now up by this previous Tuesday, but between everything going on in the world, and I will admit, laziness, I was a little late on this. By the way, if you are reading this, happy June! …Or whatever time in the world it is, I lost track I don’t know how many centuries ago. If you want to see more content like this, please consider following Scene Before either with an email or WordPress account! Also, head on over to my Facebook page! WE HAVE TOILET PAPER! That’ll get everyone in, right? I want to know, did you see “Oblivion?” What did you think about it? Or, do you have any bobbleheads? List em’ down in the comments, I want to hear about them! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

Scoob! (2020): Scooby-Don’t See This Movie

Posted on by Jack Drees

mv5bntm5ywzimzqtndqxzs00odi0lwjjntqtzmq3owu3njg4nwyyxkeyxkfqcgdeqxvynzc4ntu3njg40._v1_sy1000_cr006741000_al_

“Scoob!” is directed by Tony Cervone (Back at the Barnyard, The Looney Tunes Show) and stars Will Forte (The Last Man on Earth, The LEGO Movie), Mark Wahlberg (Transformers: Age of Extinction, Ted), Jason Isaacs (Star Trek: Discovery, Star Wars: Rebels), Gina Rodriguez (Annihilation, Carmen Sandiego), Zac Efron (Neighbors, High School Musical), Amanda Seyfried (Mamma Mia!, First Reformed), Kiersey Clemons (Angie Tribeca, Transparent), Ken Jeong (The Masked Singer, The Hangover), Tracy Morgan (The Last O.G., Rio), Simon Cowell (The X Factor, America’s Got Talent), and Frank Welker (The Smurfs, DuckTales). This film is yet another addition to the “Scooby-Doo” franchise created by Hanna-Barbera, but this was a rare case for the franchise in which this was supposed to be a big theatrical movie.

…If only more theaters were open…

Now, it has premiered on streaming services and On Demand. Nevertheless, the film’s ideas themselves remain the same. “Scoob!” centers around the popularized gang of characters who split up as the vicious Dick Dastardly plans to unleash a “dogpocalypse” to the world and its people.

I saw the main trailer for this film and I was pretty indifferent about it. I had no strong feelings of excitement towards the movie itself, nor was I thinking it would be the worst thing I’d ever see. When it comes to children’s content, I was pretty sure that “Sonic the Hedgehog” was going to get on my nerves more, which didn’t turn out to be the case whatsoever as it might be my favorite movie of the year so far. But, judging this year’s resume of films, that really doesn’t say much as the highest score I have given to a film so far this year remains at a 7/10. Speaking of things that get on my nerves, “Scoob!” is a crime against humanity that has officially engulfed my brain in flames.

Let’s start out with the positives, and I’m not saying there are positives because I’m a nice guy, in fact, isolation is probably turning me into an entitled asshole, but nevertheless. The film is decently animated. A lot of the images are shiny and vibrant. Then again, it is 2020, and at this time, good animation is a requirement. Plus, I did rent the movie in 4K. The other thing I liked about the film, and while I wouldn’t call it some of the best material I have ever seen, are the introductory scenes. The way that Shaggy and Scooby-Doo meet is kind of nice to see. Granted, I saw it in the trailer, but the way it plays out in the movie makes for a somewhat entertaining scene. However, there is one moment in the scene that I probably consider to be a little too far-fetched. Even so, it’s still a delightful scene. I will also add that getting Iain Armitage to voice young Shaggy is a perfect casting choice. The first scenes of the film where Shaggy and Scooby grow up together make for good buildup while also focusing on the mysterious and spooky elements of the “Scooby-Doo” franchise. The way the gang meets and sticks together makes for a fun scene and montage and even though it did not seem to promise an absolute masterpiece, I did at least expect to be somewhat amused throughout the hour and a half runtime of this movie.

As soon as we get around the first scene with Simon Cowell playing himself, I lost any and all interest I could have possibly had with this film. Because as soon as the main course starts, this movie basically becomes the latest incarnation of *insert superhero title here*. “Scoob!” is essentially an attempt to turn the “Scooby-Doo” franchise into a superhero movie. Everyone at Warner Bros. must have been thinking, “Marvel’s popular. Our very own DC is popular. Scooby-Doo? Not cool enough.” I guess this is one reason why Warner Bros. thought it was okay to release this film in May and not October. The movie takes place during Halloween, geniuses!

As for the heroes in this movie, both super like Blue Falcon and Dee Dee Sykes and less than super such as Scooby and Shaggy, I basically rooted for none of them. Everybody felt stupid, underwhelming, and even though Scooby and Shaggy have probably never been a part of a superhero mission in their lives as this movie likely suggests, some of the things that go on in this movie make me think that they need to look The Official Encyclopedia of Predictable Superhero Movie Actions. That sort of thing does not exist, but goddammit I would buy it if it were out there! There are one or two moments in this movie that drove me so mad, both as a fan of superhero movies and as someone who wants the characters in “Scoob!” to be competently written. Now I do not mind predictable movies as long as the people behind the project can make it fun. I just talked about “Onward,” which I could think through, but the overall fun and emotion provided within the movie makes up for its predictability. But “Scoob!” reached a level of predictability that I did not only avoid expecting to see, but as far as how the characters handled it, it angered me to the moon and back. When a decent amount of your movie’s characters are morons, why should I root for them?!

As for the villain, Dick Dastardly, he kind of feels like a D-list Thanos. He’s heavy, he’s got kind of a punch-able face, and he might honestly be the best character in the movie. Keep in mind, compared to Thanos, he’s nothing. But I liked the way they handled his character because there was some depth to him. Granted, they tried to dive deep into some secondary superheroes who play a role in the plot, but I couldn’t even come close to rooting for them. There is a saying that a movie is only as good as its villain, but when the heroes turn me into a villain, then it probably doesn’t matter how much I liked the antagonist of “Scoob!.”

May I just remind everyone that four people are credited for the screenplay for “Scoob!?” How did we get here?! Also, three people worked on the story. When it comes to these bloody genius writers, some of their previous credits include “Playing with Fire,” “Norm of the North,” and “Alvin and the Chipmunks: The Road Chip” just to name a few.

I’m not lying when I suggest that this movie is basically trying to copy the success of a superhero film. There’s a big team trying to stop the bad guy, there’s a couple scenes with hi-tech gadgets and techno wizardry that develop the plot, and you know how I mentioned that Dick Dastardly is basically Thanos in this movie? Guess what his plot is? Trying to find a series of bones to complete his collection! We get it! “Avengers: Infinity War” is one of the most successful movies of all time! It happened! Just be “Scoob!!” Actually, you know what? I take that back. Don’t be “Scoob!,” “Scoob!” is terrible. Be a better movie.

To add on to the superhero craze, you know what Warner Bros. is planning on doing in the future? Well, if you look at the Wikipedia page for “Scoob!,” it suggests that “Scoob!” “is intended to be the first installment in a series of films set within a Hanna-Barbera shared cinematic universe.” F*cking hell.

If you have ever been remotely interested in the Marvel Cinematic Universe, you should be thankful that critics gave “Iron Man” positive reviews, otherwise the MCU probably wouldn’t even exist today. As far as I am aware, “Scoob!” is getting mixed verdicts across the board. Who knows what’ll happen there? But nevertheless, if I have to sit through a cinematic universe full of material as bad as this, I am officially no longer a movie person.

In a world full of superhero and comic book movies, “Scoob!” is like that kid trying to join the cool kids table saying, “Hey, I like Fortnite,” but everyone else thinks the kid is just trying to get attention. I will give a ton of credit to the animators behind “Scoob!,” because the film does look nice on a screen. Again, I watched it in 4K, the colors really stood out to me. The one thing I wish I could do right now as a movie-watcher is declare whether or not something is worth checking out in theaters. But, I can’t do that. So instead, I shall pose the question, is “Scoob!” worth renting for $19.99? As far as I’m concerned, that question earns a strong “no.” This film feels like a Marvel flick that doesn’t even know who its audience truly is. The film tries its hardest to “modernize” the “Scooby-Doo” property, which I honestly think was a big mistake. Well, at least they got Frank Welker to voice Scooby. There’s even a joke regarding the character of Fred Jones that involves him being compared to one of the Hemsworths! This film is infuriating and unbelievably forgettable! In the end, “Scoob!” is ninety-something minutes of “what the f*ck just happened?” and I’m going to give it a 3/10.

Thanks for reading this review! I usually don’t talk about movies that avoid a theatrical release, but as long as movies are not hitting theaters or as long as there are no theaters open to play them, I will be talking about movies that hit streaming or DVD early. There will likely have to be some sort of previous intention to have the film theatrically released, but that’s just what I currently have in mind. I just want to watch movies that are better than “Scoob!” at this point, that’s all I care about. Be sure to follow Scene Before either with an email or WordPress account so you can stay tuned for more great content! Also, be sure to check out my Facebook page, which will hopefully be updated with content involving much better movies in the future.

Also, movie theaters, PLEASE COME BACK.

I want to know, did you see “Scoob!?” What did you think about it? Or, what is your favorite Hanna-Barbera property? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!