#Drama

Annihilation (2018): NOT Now In Theaters Everywhere. Will I See/Review It?

Posted on by Jack Drees

mv5bmtk2mjc2nzyxnl5bml5banbnxkftztgwmta2ota1ndm-_v1_sy1000_cr006401000_al_

Hey everyone, Jack Drees here! Before we go any further with this current post, I made a promise to someone recently. Her name is Genevieve. If you have followed my blog or know me in real life, you’d know that I’m a tremendous fan of “King of the Nerds.” I don’t watch much reality TV, but that show shaped my life. Genevieve was on that show as a contestant, and she even worked on it after she appeared on camera. Since she was a part of something that altered my life for the better, I’ll return the favor by… well… letting you know about her own life. Genevieve and her husband, Paul, are having a baby. The journey to get there, provided a level of irritation that you probably couldn’t imagine unless you were in their position… is all explained… in “What the IVF?.”

As mentioned, “What the IVF?” focuses on the recently stated couple, Genevieve and Paul, who make a two year journey through Painsylvania just to have a baby. This will be a series on YouTube where the couple document their way through various struggles, such as sex, tests, math (can’t wait to see what formulas there are when it comes to having a baby), costs, and ahh! The needles! Get them away! For those of you who are actually reading this post not long after it got published and want to know how you can watch it, I’ve got some news, you can’t. I’m sorry, there is positively no way you’re allowed to watch this, there’s no absolute way you can even hack the system to allow yourself to view this content. I’m sorry, this promotion is completely pointless, and I shouldn’t have done it.

*VOICE IN BACKGROUD*

Wait, what’s that?

*VOICE CONTINUES*

It’s not even out yet? What a revelation!

*VOICE SPEAKS*

Oops! I mean, what a thing that I previously knew that also happens to be a revelation!

“What the IVF?,” or if you’re a mega acronym enthusiast, “WTIVF?,” is gonna have its first episode uploaded on March 5th, be sure to stay tuned, so you can enjoy the unfortunate hardships and the wonderful successes between Paul and Genevieve. If you want to watch the trailer for this, the video’s located up above. Also be sure to click the links to their website, their YouTube, their Facebook, their Twitter, their Instagram, all those links are down below, make the couple happy, and if you want, tell em I sent ya over!

WTIVF? WEBSITE: http://www.whattheivf.com/

WTIVF? YOUTUBE: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCILXSidkzWgwrQ5Oa1py78w/featured?disable_polymer=1

WTIVF? TWITTER: https://twitter.com/WTivF

WTIVF? INSTAGRAM: https://www.instagram.com/wtivf/

WTIVF? FACEBOOK: https://www.facebook.com/What-The-IVF-288868031634125/

If you have followed this blog recently, chances are that one of my recent posts may have caught your eye. That post goes by the name “Why I Won’t Review “The Cloverfield Paradox (2018).”” In that post I explain that I have seen “Cloverfield” and “10 Cloverfield Lane.” I enjoyed both movies and I even reviewed “10 Cloverfield Lane” since it was 2016 and I figured I’d talk about a recently released title (by that I mean a title released in what was then the current year). But the one thing holding “The Cloverfield Paradox” back for me, despite its clever marketing, the fact that it’s a another “Cloverfield” movie, and it being a film that looked good from the spots I saw on TV, is where it was placed. Specifically, Netflix. I said I refused to review the movie simply because of where it was placed. With some exceptions (mainly “Sharknado” films), I only review movies released in theaters. Not to mention, I despise Netflix mainly because of what they’re doing to video rental stores like Blockbuster, what they’re doing to physical media, and what they’re doing to movie theaters. Netflix is a streaming service, and while I do happen to use Amazon Video and Crackle from time to time, I much prefer watching movies on physical media. Also, for a company that’s known for making effective content that doesn’t belong on a time slot a “straight to TV” film could take, why aren’t they putting their movies in theaters? And apparently people aren’t even caring, because the movie’s right there in front of them. They don’t have to get off the couch and head to the theater. Heck, they might not even be watching the film on a TV, maybe a phone!

Weeks later, another movie comes out, named “Annihilation.” This has nothing to do with “Cloverfield.” If you watch this movie and think to yourself, “Wow! That was a good “Cloverfield” movie,” just do the world a favor. Either seek some help, or if you SOMEHOW manage to have a movie buff card, turn it in. This movie has recently been released all over the world and people are loving it, calling it a masterpiece, a tour de force, a movie that’s not a sibling to something such as “Batman & Robin.” How is it to me? I don’t know, I didn’t see it. My first memory of hearing about “Annihilation” was when I went to see “Star Wars: The Last Jedi” on opening night. One of the trailers that played was for “Annihilation” and I was pretty freaking stoked simply because of one guy. And that guy… is Alex Garland.

If you don’t know who Alex Garland is, he’s the director of a film that despite how I have praise for it, I don’t really think I have as much praise for it as other people do, but I still think it’s amazing nonetheless. That film by the way is “Ex Machina,” a beautiful looking film about a guy (Domnhall Gleeson) who is flown into this man’s (Oscar Isaac) house. While he is there, he is observing the owner’s work, specifically his AI. From there, it’s a well written, well directed, visually appealing film. From seeing promotional material for “Annihilation,” I didn’t exactly know entirely what to expect, although I thought the movie was gonna be sick, and much like “Ex Machina,” it would be like walking through an art museum at times. Although once I found out something that shocked me harder than electricity, I questioned whether or not this movie was really worth seeing. That something, involved Netflix.

I can’t recall exactly when the first instance happened to be when I saw the name Netflix somewhere in association with “Annihilation,” but still, it doesn’t leave out the fact that a part of me panicked. I wondered whether or not I would need to rethink my decision to go see “Annihilation.” My thoughts on going to see “Annihilation” could have been, well, you know, annihilated. I even told everyone on this blog in the past that I had an “Annihilation” review planned sometime in the future so this would end up being a broken promise depending on the decision I had to make. And that decision was, should I watch the movie? Let me tell you the whole story.

This movie was being released by Paramount Pictures, and it still is, but a deal was struck with Netflix on December 7, 2017. Why? There was a test screening for “Annihilation” and a Paramount financier who goes by the name David Ellison, wanted changes made to the film because he was concerned that it was “too intellectual” and “too complicated.” Garland didn’t approve of any sort of alteration, and a Paramount producer known as Scott Rudin sided with him. The two clashed and this eventually resulted in what exactly cannot be called a total loss in distribution rights, but it’s more of a partial removal than anything else. While Paramount was still set to release the film theatrically in the US and China, those were to be the only two areas they were going to release the movie in that fashion. Netflix would handle the rest of the distribution in other areas and it would go out on their streaming service seventeen days after the film’s theatrical release by Paramount. Alex Garland represented his personal disappointment about this, as shown below.

“We made the film for cinema. I’ve got no problem with the small screen at all. The best genre piece I’ve seen in a long time was “The Handmaid’s Tale”, so I think there’s incredible potential within that context, but if you’re doing that – you make it for that and you think of it in those terms. Look… it is what it is. The film is getting a theatrical release in the States, which I’m really pleased about. One of the big pluses of Netflix is that it goes out to a lot of people and you don’t have that strange opening weekend thing where you’re wondering if anyone is going to turn up and then if they don’t, it vanishes from cinema screens in two weeks. So it’s got pluses and minuses, but from my point of view and the collective of the people who made it – [it was made] to be seen on a big screen.”

Personally, I side with Garland for a number of reasons.

As someone who is such an advocate for movie theaters, I know, sounds political, I don’t care, it rolls off the tongue. I can totally see this as a film that can come off as a success in the theater. I know various films based on books and other material have been released in mediums that aren’t theatrical. Although my view is this, if you want more money, release your film in the theater. Sure, I sound like a greedy moron, but in reality I’m just stating the truth. You’re paying a good amount of money for what perhaps could be an exhilarating experience. In some places, it’s cheaper than others, but it’s usually pricey. If you actually want to watch your movie on your phone instead of in the theater, you’re either a millennial or you don’t know what you’re missing. Also, if it adds anything, I’m a millennial.

Also, what I don’t understand is the request to change the movie to be simpler. Yes, I don’t mind simple movies. Anything, even Emojis, can make a great movie, no matter how simple or complex it is. It depends on how it’s written, directed, etc. With that being said, it’s obvious that Alex Garland had a vision of how this would turn out. Maybe it’s not just Garland, but since this movie’s based on a book written by Jeff VanderMeer, maybe he had a vision too. If the book was complex for a lot of people, I can’t say it is or isn’t, I never read it, I don’t know. It has occurred to me recently how much I appreciate it when studios don’t interfere with films. I mean, look what happened to “Risky Business!” While it’s a near-perfect film, if they kept the original ending, I would have given the film a minor boost in terms of likability. But no, Warner Brothers just had to get in the way! Also, another thing, experience has taught many people that movies that have complex layers, make people think, or take their time at telling a story are artistically well done pieces of work that turned out to be absolute masterpieces. Why do you think people are still talking about movies like “Inception” to this day?

While I didn’t fully form my opinion for “Annihilation” due to my lack of seeing the movie, I know a guy wo did. That guy, is freaking Jeff VanderMeer, who as mentioned, is the author of the book this movie’s based on! According to Collider, after VanderMeer witnessed “Annihilation,” around nine months prior to the film’s release, he said it was “extremely horrific” and “mind-blowing.” Here’s an actual quote from the author.

“It’s actually more surreal than the novel. There are a couple places where I was like, ‘I might need an anchor here.’ The ending is so mind-blowing and in some ways different from the book that it seems to be the kind of ending that, like “2001” or something like that, people will be talking about around the watercooler for years… Visually, it’s amazing. I must say that and that’s all I probably should say.”

Let me just say, I can understand a director getting mad or disappointed over having to change something that they might perhaps be proud of due to studio interference, but this is actually extremely horrific, and not the kind VanderMeer thought of. When the author of a book sees their own story on screen done by somebody else, praises it to the tenth degree, and even calls it better in various aspects, you better respect that author! Yes, it’s Alex Garland’s movie, but you got to remember, this was also Jeff VanderMeer’s book! Let the two have their way!

Although then again, Stephen King hated the movie adaptation of “The Shining” and there’s evidence of Rohld Dahl disapproving of “Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory” and yet those are considered absolute classics so what do I know really? It all comes down to personal taste, but when there is LITERAL CONCRETE EVIDENCE of an original storyteller adoring a piece of work which happens to be an adaptation of their story, other people BETTER KEEP THEIR STINKING PAWS OFF! You know, kind of like how I said Netflix should have kept their paws off “God Partic– err I mean “The Cloverfield Paradox.”

I said in “Why I Won’t Review The Cloverfield Paradox (2018)” that my reason behind what the title suggests has to do with Netflix and my personal disconnect with the company. I can’t imagine myself reviewing a Netflix movie. I can’t imagine myself passionately looking at trailers for Netflix movies. I can’t even imagine myself watching a Netflix movie. But here’s the thing about “Annihilation…”

I ALSO said in “Why I Won’t Review The Cloverfield Paradox (2018)” that Netflix doesn’t release movies in theaters. I might not be serious about this, but I said I’d probably get rid of my Netflix boycott if they start putting films in theaters And while Netflix is keeping this like their other films and keeping it away from theaters, Paramount isn’t. And as far as my country (USA) is concerned, we’re getting it theatrically released here. So, to answer the question, will I see the movie? Yes I will!

Well… Maybe… If I get the opportunity.

I’m really looking forward to “Annihilation.” I never read the book it’s based on, I don’t know if I will, but this movie looks like a great sci-fi film! I said before, I loved Alex Garland’s work on “Ex Machina,” and who knows? Maybe this movie will be even better. Yes, from what I heard from a racial perspective, the characters apparently aren’t accurately presented, but that’s a topic I might touch on a little more if I a post a review for this movie. So yes, “Annihilation,” you’re not on my enemy list. Thanks for reading this post, pretty soon I’ll hopefully have a review up for “Annihilation” as mentioned before, but I also might go see “Game Night” in the near future, and who knows, maybe I’ll go see “Red Sparrow” if the opportunity comes up.

Also I want to make an announcement, I’m not exactly sure when I’ll start this, but I can tell you it is happening at some point, I’ll be doing a series of “Mission: Impossible” reviews. I don’t have exact dates planned out for each one, because I’m not exactly what you call a schedule follower, I can tell you my plans are to do one “Mission: Impossible” film per month and these are going to be all the Tom Cruise installments. In March I’m gonna be doing “Mission: Impossible” from 1996. In April I’m gonna be doing “Mission: Impossible II.” I’m gonna follow up from that in May with “Mission: Impossible III.” I’ll then continue on in June with “Mission: Impossible: Ghost Protocol.” And I’ll conclude the series in July with “Mission: Impossible: Rogue Nation.” This is all being done in preparation for “Mission: Impossible: Fallout,” which is due to come out in theaters July 27 of this year. Stay tuned for those reviews, should you choose to accept them. Also, stay tuned for other great content as well! I want to know, what are your thoughts on this Paramount/Netflix deal? Do you think it’s a good idea? Also, since it’s still somewhat relevant, what are your thoughts on “The Cloverfield Paradox?” Did you see it? I know some people weren’t exactly satisfied with it, but I want to know if you’re in that territory or somewhere else! Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

The 15:17 to Paris (2018): Don’t Always Be Yourself

Posted on by Jack Drees

mv5bmty0njuznjywov5bml5banbnxkftztgwmzy1mdm0ndm-_v1_sy1000_cr006741000_al_

“The 15:17 to Paris,” unfortunately, is directed by Clint Eastwood (American Sniper, A Fistful of Dollars) (sigh). This movie stars Alek Skarlatos, Anthony Sadler, and Spencer Stone as themselves. The film is based on a book known as “The 15:17 to Paris: The True Story of a Terrorist, a Train, and Three American Soldiers,” which is based on a true story of three Americans who grew up together and find themselves discovering a terrorist plot while they’re aboard a train in France.

Now you may be wondering why you just read the word “sigh” in this post. Clint Eastwood is a beloved figure in Hollywood. I can’t say I’ve seen much of his work, but the man has proven himself to be talented as a director, as an actor, and as a producer. And in “The 15:17 to Paris,” the man comes off more like some American-loving guy than a filmmaker. I’m not trying to say that I hate America, I’m not trying to say that Eastwood can’t love America, but I’m saying that this film about three Americans who obviously were courageous, needs improvement.

This film is an hour and thirty-four minutes long, which is actually just a couple minutes shorter than “Sully,” another film directed by Clint Eastwood which is based on a true story. “Sully,” much like this movie, wasn’t as good as it would have, could have, and should have been. Although it was barely passable unlike this one. What worked in “Sully” is that the film is centered around the event people now refer to as the Miracle on the Hudson and the entire film focused on it in some way. The main event that really should be the nucleus of the movie this review is directed toward, which is the train fight, doesn’t feel like a major part of the picture. One of the other differences between this and “Sully” is that “Sully” has actors playing the lead roles and this movie doesn’t. I will be fair in saying that the three guys also written a book on this information, which eventually lead to this movie. The book even has mostly five-star ratings on Amazon. Although they had no involvement in the screenplay. Maybe if they wrote the screenplay and gave their own insight, maybe the movie will be better. Although that’s hard to say too because these guys are not professional screenwriters. This movie honestly becomes more and more of an enigma the more I think about it.

As mentioned, “Sully” mainly focused on an event that the lead character had major involvement in. This movie doesn’t. Not only that, but I didn’t even care about most of what happened in this film at all. The film starts off telling about how long the three major characters have been friends. They were troublemakers, they went to a Christian school, they didn’t have girlfriends, they enjoyed taking out some guns and playing War. That was somewhat intriguing. Then they all get older, the movie’s starting to lose some steam, but it’s still competent, and then we get to Europe and I ask myself, “What is happening?” This movie made me ask the same question I asked myself as I was forced to read “Pride and Prejudice” in school! Nothing happened! I will give the movie credit, at least it was technically more entertaining to me than “Pride and Prejudice,” but keep in mind, I’m not some girl who lived in 19th century Britain. Although this is a film DIRECTED BY CLINT EASTWOOD! I expect greatness from a movie like this! Once again, competently shot and entertaining in ways, BUT NOTHING EVEN HAPPENED!

I will also be fair and mention the hour and a half runtime again. Even if Clint Eastwood didn’t direct “The 15:17 to Paris” and it instead happened to be directed by Michael Bay, I’d probably have somewhat similar thoughts on both final products. Also, for the record, Eastwood didn’t do the screenplay. I’d have similar thoughts on both products because they’d still be barely long enough to qualify as a feature length film. Down below I have a description regarding feature length films taken from Wikipedia.

“According to the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, the American Film Institute, and the British Film Institute, a feature film runs for at least 40 minutes, while the Screen Actors Guild states that it is 80 minutes or longer.

The majority of feature films are between 70 and 210 minutes long.”

I have never really watched too many films that are forty minutes long, but this a film that could easily be a lot shorter, although in the end, a number of viewers who went to see this film would probably skip on it because it’s too short to be a “movie.” Heck, I think a large number of theaters wouldn’t even accept the film if it were forty minutes! Although it has Clint Eastwood’s name on it so…

In my reviews it’s traditional that I provide a section I where I go into the major characters and some characters that perhaps stood out to me, but I’m not gonna do that here. Instead, I’m gonna introduce each character, and I’ll provide some actors that could potentially play the role these folks have played themselves.

Here are the three heroes from this movie. The first one we’re going to “talk about” is Alek Skarlatos (left). This guy could have been played by a number of people in my book. The first person that comes to mind is Matt Damon. They look somewhat similar physically, granted Damon’s twenty-two years older than Skarlatos, but I think a role like this can be pulled off. Another person I bet could pull this role off is Alden Enrenheich, and if this name doesn’t sound familiar to you, let me have you know he’s been in films such as “Beautiful Creatures,” “Blue Jasmine,” and “Hail, Caesar!.” He’s also going to be playing Han Solo in “Solo: A Star Wars Story,” which at this point is more like “A Star Wars Product” given material I’ve seen thus far. Another possible candidate to me is gonna be somewhat surprising and that is New England Patriots’ tight end Rob Gronkowski. I know, weird, right? I will say though that he, just like some other notable sports stars such as Dave Bautista (Blade Runner 2049, Guardians of the Galaxy), Dwayne Johnson (Central Intelligence, Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle), and John Cena (Daddy’s Home 2, Trainwreck) had some acting gigs and it’s now a regular thing for them. Although I wonder if this kind of thing would have worked out because this movie went into production over the summer and certain announcements concerning it came in around preseason time. Also since I just mentioned John Cena, he probably would have done fine as this character given his physique.

Onto the guy in the middle, Anthony Sadler, his character is a–wait a minute, I don’t want to lose my sense of focus… The guy could have been played by Chadwick Boseman, who is playing Black Panther in, well, “Black Panther.” Sadler could have been played by Winston Duke, who will be playing M’Baku, another character in “Black Panther.” He could have also been played by John Boyega, who you may know as Finn in the “Star Wars” sequel trilogy. Yes, he’s British and this is an American character, but if you have seen John Boyega, he can do one hell of an American accent. Maybe Eastwood could have gotten J. Lee, who you may know for playing John LaMarr in Seth MacFarlane’s “The Orville.” Maybe Lakeith Stanfield would be a good pick. He was in movies such as “Selma” and “Get Out.” I can’t say I’ve seen much of his work, but he has proper looks for the role.

Moving onto Spencer Stone, he is the guy on the right of the photo which is located a couple paragraphs above where you are now. I’m not saying that this guy should play Spencer, but given one thing that happens in this movie, I wouldn’t mind seeing Russel Crowe taking on the role. I say this because there’s a meme-worthy “Gladiator” reference in this film. Remember how I said Rob Gronkowski would be a good pick for Skarlatos? If he had a buzz haircut, then he would probably be suitable for this role as well. Channing Tatum might be a good pick if he ever does a buzz to his hair too. Perhaps if Andrew Garfield did some shaving too his placement in this role could have been rather effective.

This movie is not exactly the end of the world, but it is lacking professionalism. Yes, you have a very experienced director helming it all, but you have a multiple actors who are playing themselves. Sure, this movie has its fair share of big names such as Judy Greer and Jenna Fischer, but this also has a screenwriter that hasn’t really done much of anything. Sure, experience doesn’t always equal skill, although it doesn’t change the fact that the level of skill put into this film wasn’t completely visible. Maybe the main trio wanted to play themselves for authenticity, but you have to consider, how skilled are they? They weren’t terrible in this movie, but their acting ability happened to be at a low level of some sort.

Some of you might be thinking, “Hey! Jackass! You’re forgetting about such instances like when Kumail Nanjiani played himself in ‘The Big Sick!'”

I didn’t. You’re missing the point.

You see, Kumail’s a f*cking actor.

In the end, this movie happened to be underwhelming as s*iiiiiit. If this movie lacked a tad more professionalism than what was already there, I might be a little more understanding and give a higher verdict, but this movie just got worse the more I thought about it. It’s difficult to care about the heroes, the filler is all over the place, and pretty much the only positives include the well directed action and the proper cinematography. Clint Eastwood, I’m sorry, I didn’t feel lucky, and this movie is a punk. A punk which stole my friend’s hard earned money! I’m going to give “The 15:17 to Paris” a 3/10. This is a hard movie to rate. I didn’t really know what to expect before going in since I haven’t really seen much in terms of marketing compared to some other films I know, but a movie with Clint Eastwood’s name attached to it should have been miles better than how this turned out to be. And sadly, this MIGHT POSSIBLY be the best movie, at least the best one that a number of people actually give a s*it about, to come out this weekend! What else is coming out this weekend you ask? The climactic (in more ways than you’d imagine) “Fifty Shades Freed,” and from Sony Pictures Animation, the absolute gods that brought you “The Emoji Movie,” live-action “Peter Rabbit!” Thanks for reading this review! Pretty soon “Black Panther” will be out in theaters, and given my ambitions, I have plans to see that as soon as possible. I’m also working on another post which will be out soon, which includes my personal thoughts on the upcoming “Super Mario Bros.” film. Stay tuned for more great content! I want to know, did you see “The 15:17 to Paris?” What did you think about it? Or, what is your least favorite Clint Eastwood film? He can do anything in it. He could act, he could direct, anything. Leave your comments below and maybe they might have more quality than “The 15:17 to Paris!” Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

Molly’s Game (2017): Passable, but with “High MIstakes”

Posted on by Jack Drees

mv5bntkzmzrlyjetmtq5yi00owy3lwi0nzytngq4zdkzztu0m2iwxkeyxkfqcgdeqxvymtmxodk2otu-_v1_sy1000_cr006741000_al_

“Molly’s Game” is directed by Aaron Sorkin (Steve Jobs, The Social Network) and stars Jessica Chastain (Interstellar, Zero Dark Thirty), Idris Elba (Pacific Rim, Thor), and Kevin Costner (Man of Steel, Dances with Wolves) in a movie based on a book of the same name. It’s about the true story of Molly Bloom, a former poker entrepreneur and Olympic-class skier who was charged with running the world’s most exclusive high-stakes poker game.

I haven’t really followed much of Aaron Sorkin’s previous work. This movie is actually his directorial debut, and if you have followed Sorkin’s work, you’d know he’s typically known for his writing. Sorkin is responsible for creating “The West Wing,” which he often wrote. As far as movies go, he has written “Moneyball,” “Steve Jobs,” “The Social Network,” “A Few Good Men,” and “Charlie Wilson’s War.” I was actually going to watch “Steve Jobs” in 2015 during its theatrical run, but I never got around to it. Nevertheless, I heard the fellow can write. Having seen this movie, I’d say he can direct too. I can appreciate the vision this movie contained. Going at a quick pace, all the while providing a serious tone. There were a couple of moments that I really liked from a lighting perspective as well. The colors just meshed together almost like a very small lens flare that didn’t feel obnoxious in any sort of way. As far as writing and editing goes, here are my thoughts.

I totally see what people are talking about when it comes to Aaron Sorkin and writing, the two go together like FedEx and that arrow between the “E” and the “x.” What’s that? You didn’t know about the FedEx arrow? Google the FedEx logo and observe it closely. The opening sequence of this film has Molly Bloom talking like I’m listening to what happens when an auctioneer and a motivational speaker combine into a single person. Not only was the diction well done, it was funny, it was informative, and it set a proper tone for the movie. This movie’s based on a book, and I apologize to books, but I never read the book for this film. I don’t know how similar this movie’s introduction is to the book, but if the writing resembles the book here, I’d say this is great writing in general. Props to both Bloom and Sorkin if that’s the case. Still, at the very least, props to Sorkin. I’ve heard a saying that the best directors make the best editors. As far as directing ability goes, this was mostly competent. I have a couple of issues, but this can apply to either the script or the editing instead of just directing.

A couple of shows that really make me uncomfortable are “The Office” and “Modern Family.” I heard a lot of people like both programs. Personally, I can’t watch them. Maybe I’ll give “The Office” a try because I hear a lot of folks talking about it like it’s the greatest thing between Netflix and the idea of Netflix and chill. Also, f*ck Netflix. However I don’t think I can watch “Modern Family” ever again. It’s not only unfunny despite how many people watch it and revered it is, but it’s also shot in a style that tries to make you feel like you’re there, but it just comes off like a student film to me. It almost reminds me of the shaky cam from “The Hunger Games!” “Molly’s Game” is not as bad, it’s not as shaky, it’s not as handheld, it works for what it’s doing. …For the most part. When it comes to editing, this movie cuts way too quickly sometimes. It tries to maintain this very quick style of filmmaking, and it just doesn’t work. I noticed one or two jumpcuts here as well. As far as writing goes, it’s tonally inconsistent. While most of the movie is fast and stays fast, it sometimes just slows down to a point where it’s horribly slow. Throughout the entire film, Jessica Chastain is narrating as Molly Bloom and it almost feels like something that should keep you going towards the edge of your seat. There are moments here that just don’t match what the movie feels like the entire time. It feels like a couple movies meshed into one. It’s like combining one movie, “The Grand Budapest Hotel,” with another movie, “Manchester by the Sea,” although it’s a million times happier. The editing combined with the screenplay is like a hotel room with a comfortable bed, no bugs, it’s got a clean carpet, the TV is 4K, everything looks nice, but the toilet isn’t working, the shower’s water system is screwed up, and the sink handles for hot and cold are grungy and hard to operate. It just all needs minor tweaking on perhaps major flaws before absolute perfection.

However let’s move our attention to the best part of the movie, Jessica Chastain as Molly Bloom. Some people may go see this movie for a number of reasons. Some people are interested in the story of Molly Bloom, some people like Aaron Sorkin’s writing, and some will say that the cast looks promising. I’ve observed Idris Elba and Kevin Costner in this film, and while both give competent performances, Jessica Chastain trumped them both. If the writing wasn’t excellent enough, this movie had an amazing actress to go off of it. I must say, despite my love for Jessica Chastain, I haven’t seen too many performances from her. However, much like the other movies where I saw Jessica Chastain performing, this is another fine example of how someone should act in a movie. They transform into a different person, and they allow the audience to see them as more than someone on a screen.

In the end, I got to say that “Molly’s Game” is not really a movie that I’d recommend to everyone, but I wouldn’t say to shy away from it either. It’s one of those movies that can impress you in a number of ways, but isn’t entirely screwed together to the point of perfection. I like the acting. I like the directing. I like the writing. However, the movie itself is sloppy when it comes to pacing. At times it wants to accelerate, and at others it wants to drag. There are times where I just nearly wanted to fall asleep, and I must have felt that during the fast parts due to the inconsistency of pacing. Although I will say this, Jessica Chastain f*cking rocks. I’m going to give “Molly’s Game” a 6/10. Thanks for reading this review! On Thursday, I’m going to start off my “Maze Runner” review series by talking about the first installment in the movie franchise, “The Maze Runner,” so look forward to that. Also, depending on what happens, tomorrow I’m going to upload a surprise post. I won’t tell what it is. But January 17th is a special day in my heart. That’ll be your hint. I might not post this, but that’s if I don’t finish it in a certain amount of time. Stay tuned for more reviews and other great content! Did you see “Molly’s Game?” What are your thoughts? How do you think Aaron Sorkin did as a first-time director? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

Downsizing (2017): More Like Upboring

Posted on by Jack Drees

mv5bndyxndq5otyxov5bml5banbnxkftztgwotcyodkxndm-_v1_sy1000_cr006401000_al_

“Downsizing” is directed by Alexander Payne (Sideways, The Descendants) and stars Matt Damon (The Martian, The Bourne Identity), Christoph Waltz (Django Unchained, Inglorious Bastards), Hong Chau (Inherent Vice, Treme), and Kristen Wiig (Bridesmaids, The Secret Life of Walter Mitty). This movie is about a guy who shrinks down after the realization that this action would change his life for the better.

I went to see this film with my mother, and both of us knew very little about it. I knew basically what I just described up above. Matt Damon plays a guy who at one point gets shrunken down. I found out a lot of things about this movie as it went on. For example, I found out the movie’s garbage. I also found out the people who are shrunken down go on and live in a tiny land. Another thing I also found out is that the shrinking was an idea to save the environment and the Earth from overpopulation. What’s another thing I found out? Oh yeah, and I found out the movie’s garbage! Allow me to explain the unbelievable boredom that you’ll experience watching “Downsizing.”

Have you ever watched C-SPAN and thought to yourself, what if something like this was full of fictional characters? No, this movie isn’t full of political discussions, but try watching C-SPAN for a number of minutes and try not to change to channel. Speaking of boring, have you ever read a terms of service agreement from beginning to end? This movie has one, it’s short, but if it were longer, that’s basically what this movie is. It’s a long terms of service agreement. Something you don’t want to look at, and in some cases, makes you wonder why you intended on signing up, or in this case, bought tickets, for what you’re experiencing. F*ck this movie!

This movie stars Matt Damon as the character of Paul Safranak. He and his wife decide at one point to shrink themselves down because if they do that, their lives will be better. They can live as large as a king, and work as little as Kim Kardashian. By the way, f*ck Kim Kardashian. Matt Damon gave a rather competent performance as his character. In fact, seeing Damon perform was one of the more redeemable parts of the entire film. There’s something about Matt Damon that makes you appreciate him. I thought his performance here was better than another stinker which came out this year, specifically “The Great Wall,” but it wasn’t enough to make a good movie.

I’m not even gonna get into the other characters. Because I don’t even care about them enough to talk about them! I almost fell asleep while watching this film, which I will say I’ve never done once during a movie while I watched it in the theater. Let me just say that Matt Damon’s wife is played by Kristen Wiig, there’s an Asian chick who doesn’t understand English that well played by Hong Chau, and there’s LITERALLY NOBODY ELSE that I feel should be talked about here in detail because I’d probably have to watch the film again in order to get information on them.

There are so many things that are wrong with this film. Aside from being a total borefest, there are tons of questions that sparked in my mind as I dredged through this atrocity. For instance, why the f*ck am I watching this? But also, how the f*ck is some of this s*it happening? While the film is logical in ways, it doesn’t have any noticeable physics errors for example, there are many questionable things that just come together to create one gigantic mess. As everyone gets downsized, literally all of their hair is shaved. Why?! Another thing that I questioned during the film is how all of these small people got a lot of their items. I mean, the movie never goes into it, but a lot of it is explainable. I’ve got a couple valid reasons in my mind. A big thing I wonder is how these folks get their money. Is money downsized? Are wallets downsized? Also, when everyone gets downsized, they’re naked. Therefore, they don’t have their credit card on them. Another huge question, does the government approve of financial downsizing? I don’t know when this takes place, but it has to either take place in the future or present day. By that logic, I imagine people would still be addicted to their phones. When one person shrinks himself or herself down, it’s a total life changer. Would phones suffer from downsizing? Yes, the downsized world would contain factories producing products like phones and everything along those lines. But why can’t you downsize products? This really makes me concerned about that money thing I just mentioned. I remember Matt Damon using a phone when shrunken down, but I can’t remember if it was one he had before the shrinking process. Also, since downsizing’s a life changer, I gotta say, that s*it doesn’t make any sense. Yes, you’re changing the way you live, not to mention where you live. Ultimately, you’re still the same person. The movie makes it sound like you’re never going to talk to the people you know again. Not only does Matt Damon talk to someone he knows who doesn’t shrink, but in general, how do you talk to people you can’t communicate with easily? Do it on the phone! You can still talk to your family on the phone! Also, once a person gets downsized, this process can’t be reversed. So they couldn’t make a separate machine for upsizing? Or make upsizing an option on the machine? At least say that there’s no way to do that! This movie is nothing but garbage!

I don’t have much else to say, but there’s this awesome pun given during the movie. Matt Damon is on the phone talking to one person in particular, which, yeah, more phone s*it. He says something to get the person to say “Don’t get short with me.” As terrible as this movie is, hearing that line might be worth the price of admission.

In the end, “Downsizing” sounds like an interesting movie on paper. A guy shrinking himself down to live a better life isn’t that bad of a concept, but this film not only bored me, but managed to make me question it more than I intended to. So for that, I wanted only one thing to shrink at this point, which was my anger. Unfortunately, it only grew as the movie progressed. F*ck this movie! I’m going to give “Downsizing” a 2/10. Thanks for reading this review, pretty soon I’m going to have my lists for my top 10 BEST movies of 2017 and my top 10 WORST movies of 2017. I’ve been working on those for quite a bit, and I can guarantee you that as of now, this movie made the worst list for sure! Stay tuned for more reviews, those countdowns, and more great content! I want to know, did you see “Downsizing?” What did you think about it? Or, what are some of the most boring movies you’ve ever seen? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

The Disaster Artist (2017): Oh Hai, James Franco!

Posted on by Jack Drees

mv5bognkmzlimgmtmdi5ni00otzkltgymtytnzk5zty1njvhyjvmxkeyxkfqcgdeqxvyntazmty4mda-_v1_sy1000_sx675_al_

“The Disaster Artist” is directed by James Franco (Spider-Man, 127 Hours), and is based on a true book written by Greg Sestero. This movie also stars James Franco alongside his brother, Dave Franco (Neighbors, Now You See Me), and Seth Rogen (Sausage Party, Pineapple Express). “The Disaster Artist” revolves around the making of the 2003 disasterpiece of a film, “The Room.” The book which this movie is based on is written by a cast member of “The Room” who played the character of Mark (played by Dave Franco here). So, essentially Greg is one of the main characters, and he meets Tommy Wiseau (played by James Franco) in an acting class. The two form a bond as time passes, which leads them to try tackling their dreams in Hollywood together.

I just want to get two things out of the way. I’ve never read “The Disaster Artist.” I almost picked it up once, but I put it back before taking it. However I did watch “The Room.” I managed to find it on YouTube and someone had a post showing the movie from beginning to end. I watched it recently and I TOTALLY see what everyone is talking about. From the cheesy and poorly written dialogue, the so-called acting, and the establishing shots of San Francisco that feel like something out of say, “The Golden Girls,” this movie is a mess, but it was so f*cking fun. The movie itself, is capable of having most of its viewers say it’s terrible, but at the same time, it kind of has a feeling that other bad movies don’t give you. This is more along the lines of a movie like “Batman & Robin,” where it’s bad, but you can also have some fun watching it because of all the cheese. It’s not like watching “The Emoji Movie.” For the record, that movie did not suck ass, it sucked EVERY ass. “The Disaster Artist” is like neither of those films. This is because “The Disaster Artist” is definitely one of 2017’s best films! Not only that, but it also has to be one of the most ironic films I’ve ever seen! “The Room” is in a word, abominable. “The Disaster Artist” is in a word, admirable. It’s amazing how “The Disaster Artist,” a movie based on the making of one of the worst movies ever made, specifically the kind where it’s so bad that you have to experience it, became one of this year’s best movies, a film so good that you have to experience it. And I did. I’m just gonna warn you, I’m gonna be digressing here, and it’ll be a matter of time before my actual review of the movie appears on here. And I know a reason why a lot of people are here is to read my thoughts on “The Disaster Artist,” not to hear about my personal life. So if this bores you, makes you want to stab yourself with a knife, encourages you to go on a killing spree, or makes you want to jump out a window, DON’T DO THOSE THINGS, and instead, either stop reading the post and rethink what you’re doing in life, or just skip ahead to the next paragraph where I get back on track. So let’s move on.

I’m a high school student currently living in eastern Massachusetts. It took me three weeks to see this movie. I wanted to see it right away, but I had other things going on at the time. Then “winter break” came, note the quotation marks, stating sarcasm of how my winter break lacked any time to sit down and relax. Due to a complicated schedule, I was somewhat worried that I wouldn’t get to see this. I did however once time was on my side, not to mention my father’s. There were barely any times available and the closest town I could go see the movie was Somerville. I don’t usually go to Somerville to see a movie, I’ve only done it twice. In fact, I barely go to Somerville period! But I did it, because I was committed. That and I had gift cards to AMC Theatres that I felt would be useful for an occasion such as this. Somerville is nearby as far as I’m concerned but I barely go anywhere that’s urban, I’m usually in the suburbs when I go to movie theaters. It’s easier parking-wise, it’s easier in terms of traffic, not to mention there are theaters that are closer in terms of distance and time. I like the AMC in Somerville better than some theaters I go to (except price-wise), but I think the auditoriums are nice and the sound’s amazing. Traffic and time to get to the theater weren’t an issue for my father and I. Parking almost did however. My father’s vehicle can’t fit in garages, and admittedly, I didn’t mention to him that Assembly Row, the plaza where the theater happened to be located, was mainly garage based. There is parking available in non-garage areas, but it’s a busy place, not to mention it was a Saturday night and the following day was New Year’s Eve. The unusual trip to Somerville, was worth it from the quality of the movie alone.

Out of all the films I’ve seen this year, this one is BY FAR the funniest. Not only that, but it also managed to be rather serious. One thing that I imagine some people who know about “The Room” might have expected walking into this film was the possibility that it might mock Tommy Wiseau to the tenth degree. The movie, in terms of its screenplay, makes almost anything Tommy does on screen hysterical, but I wouldn’t say it makes fun of him. Tommy, at the time which this movie takes place, is a mystery man. He goes on saying to Greg Sestero that he can’t talk about his interactions with Tommy to anyone. We as viewers don’t even know that much about his background. We don’t know how the money that went into the making of “The Room” appeared. It’s explained that this movie took $5 million to make. That’s what I recall the film’s screenplay suggesting, but according to IMDb it cost an estimated total of $6 million to make the flick. Speaking of IMDb, if you look at Tommy Wiseau’s page, it says he was born on October 3rd, 1955 in Poznag, Poland. According to the Wikipedia page dedicated to Tommy Wiseau, it says he gave an age in interviews after the release of “The Room” that would suggest he’s either born in 1968 or 1969. He claimed to have lived in France a long time ago, he grew up in New Orleans, and he had an entire family in Chalmette, Louisiana. Greg Sestero’s identically titled book, which James Franco suggested in an interview based on the words of Tommy is “40% true,” suggested that his brother’s girlfriend obtained copies of Wiseau’s immigration papers, which said Tommy was born earlier than he claimed. Rick Harper, AKA the creator of “Room Full of Spoons,” a recent documentary based on the making of “The Room,” did research on Tommy Wiseau’s background, coming to the conclusion that Tommy is Polish and originally from the city of Poznan. In November 2017, Tommy confirmed in an interview he was originally from Europe. The following month, he was interviewed by Howard Stern. He mentioned he speaks French and happens to be Catholic. While we may be progressively getting more and more information, the man’s still a mystery, and the movie does a very good job at telling that to its viewers.

Just for your information, the earliest this film actually released was on March 12th, 2017. According to IMDb, it was a work-in-progress at the time. I can’t say how much of the film was released to the public, if it wrapped it’s filming entirely, how much editing got done, none of that, but it was a work-in-progress. This was shown at the time to those who went to “South by Southwest.” The next release was on September 11th at the Toronto International Film Festival, and IMDb doesn’t have it labeled as a work-in-progress unlike the release for South by Southwest. The movie for what I recall, never mentions Poznan, or Poland in general for that matter. Despite the film lacking that detail, it does a fantastic job of explaining the total mystery that is Tommy Wiseau.

Speaking of Tommy Wiseau, let’s talk about him as a character, not to mention the guy who plays him. Tommy’s played by James Franco, who also directed this film. This is without a doubt, one of the best performances ever given by James Franco. As mentioned, Tommy Wiseau is mysterious, and Franco captured that quite well. Franco also had an accent that Tommy gave all the time, and he didn’t sound like James Franco like you’d hear in content such as “Freaks and Geeks” and “Spider-Man,” where does give passable performances, nothing groundbreaking, but you can still see that shred of Franco. Here, he turns into Tommy, giving perhaps my favorite performance of the year. There are a number of performances I admired in 2017. Some of my favorites include Mark Hamill as Luke Skywalker in “Star Wars: The Last Jedi,” Harrison Ford as Rick Deckard in “Blade Runner 2049,” Ryan Gosling as K in “Blade Runner 2049,” Ansel Elgort as Baby in “Baby Driver,” Gal Gadot as Diana Prince/Wonder Woman in “Wonder Woman,” Tom Glynn-Carney as Peter in “Dunkirk,” Fionn Whitehead as Tommy in “Dunkirk,” Jayma Mays as Dana Sibota in “American Made,” and Holly Hunter as Beth in “The Big Sick.” I just saw this film, so this could change, but James Franco as Tommy Wiseau might be better than just about every single one of these performances I’ve listed. Am I overhyping this? I really don’t think so! It might be a tie between this and the recently mentioned performances by Ryan Gosling, Harrison Ford, and Mark Hamill until further notice. The future will probably provide more certainty.

In fact, in terms of direction, James Franco outdone himself as well! “Spider-Man 2” may be my favorite film with James Franco in it, but out of all the films he’s worked on, this may be the one which James as an individual worked the hardest on. All of the actors seemed like they had no problems on set while they played people who had problems on set. The film is well shot and well lit. In fact, towards the end of the movie, it actually shows “The Room” during its premiere, and not long after that’s over, we cut to two side-by-side moving images. One is actual footage from “The Room” and another is recreated footage, which was specific for this movie. That footage contained actors playing the characters originally played by other actors. Some examples include Josh Hutcherson (The Hunger Games, Journey to the Center of the Earth) as Denny (originally played by Philip Haldiman), Zac Efron (Neighbors, High School Musical), who played Chris-R (originally played by Dan Janjigian), Ari Graynor (Bad Teacher, I’m Dying Up Here), who played Lisa (originally played by Juliette Danielle), Dave Franco who played Mark (originally played by Greg Sestero), and let’s not forget James freaking Franco, who played Johnny (originally played by Tommy f*cking Wiseau). Is this my favorite film of the year in terms of direction? I wouldn’t say that, but it is close however.

Going into this film, I knew a lot about “The Room,” but based on various scenes, I picked up on some things I didn’t expect to pick up on involving “The Room” as a movie. You know how you notice an extended amount of the movie’s runtime, the characters are playing football? This movie kind of goes into that.

This movie is more than just something that’s telling the story of the production behind another movie. It’s also a story about friendship. As mentioned, Tommy Wiseau isn’t being mocked throughout this picture, and I really appreciate the film going in that direction because it made you understand Tommy as a person. Not only that, but this movie also has a major focus on Dave Franco’s character of Greg Sestero. This is almost a lot like “Lord of the Rings” in ways. Think of Tommy Wiseau as Frodo and Greg Sestero as Sam. Tell me that comparison is terrible. They’re there for each other, they respect each other, they even do a pinkie swear in the film, which occurs more than once to be accurate. As friends, they decide to make a movie together.

As Tommy and Greg make “The Room,” it’s clear that they don’t do know s*it on how to make a movie. When the two are trying to get cameras to shoot the movie, they decide to buy them, not rent them. While buying cameras isn’t exactly something that hasn’t been done for movies before, it’s traditional for people to rent them. Not to mention, when they’re asked if they want 35mm or HD, they respond saying they want both types of cameras. They’re lit differently, they work non-identically, and it might result in a weird final product depending on how things go. Overall, their friendship is shown in this film to the tenth degree and I love it.

In the end, “The Disaster Artist” takes an absolutely horrible film, and incorporates it into a different, astoundingly incredible film. The story behind “The Room” is honestly, a movie I never asked for, but once I heard about it, and saw the teaser trailer for it back in July, I was instantly in anticipation mode. On paper, this idea sounded amazing. As a final product, this idea is even better. Before I give my final verdict, I’m gonna let you in on a little fact. My dad and I saw this movie together, he went to see this film without watching, or even knowing all that much about “The Room.” He walked out of the theater alongside me, saying he enjoyed the film. So ultimately, you don’t need to watch “The Room” to appreciate this film. You can do it if you want to, which I must say if you do, is an experience, but it’s not necessary. However, I imagine at least knowing about “The Room” or watching it might add it a bit to the movie. With that being said, I loved this movie and it’s undoubtedly one of the best of the year. I’m going to give “The Disaster Artist” a 10/10. One last thing before I go on with a wrap-up, this movie has an end credit scene, so stick around after the credits if you don’t want to miss that. Anyway, thanks for reading this review, this is one of my favorite movies of the year, and speaking of that, once 2018 starts, one of the earliest published posts on this blog will be a countdown of my top 10 BEST movies of 2017. This movie will have a spot on the list for sure. I won’t say which, because it could change, plus I might go see one more 2017 movie in the theater and review it. That potential movie by the way, is “Downsizing.” One list I assure you this movie won’t be on, is my top 10 WORST movies of 2017, which I plan on releasing after I reveal my top 10 BEST list. Stay tuned for more reviews, and also stay tuned for those upcoming countdowns! I can’t wait to finally release them, because I have so much fun making them! I want to know, did you see “The Disaster Artist?” What do you think about it? Did you see “The Room?” What are your thoughts on that? Or, what are some movies that you personally think are so bad that they are actually good? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

(FROM THE ROOM)
JOHNNY: I did not her, it’s not true! It’s bulls*it! I did not hit her! (throws water bottle) I did *not*. Oh hi, Mark.

You can laugh, you can cry, you can express yourself, but please don’t hurt each other. –Tommy Wiseau

How to Be a Latin Lover (2017): Perhaps 2017’s Most Awkward Event Since the US Presidential Inauguration

Posted on by Jack Drees

mv5bytawzdk5nzitm2u0ms00nduxltgwmdatnzvmzdmxmzmxmwyxxkeyxkfqcgdeqxvyntawodk1nzy-_v1_sy1000_cr006481000_al_

“How to Be a Latin Lover” is directed by Ken Marino, an actor with a ton of credits who also directed episodes of various TV shows such as “Children’s Hospital” and “Burning Love.” This movie stars Eugenio Derbez (La familia P. Luche, Jack and Jill), Salma Hayek (Grown Ups, Once Upon a Time in Mexico), Raphael Alejandro (Olympus, Once Upon a Time), Rob Lowe (Parks and Recreation, Wayne’s World), Kristen Bell (Frozen, The Good Place), Raquel Welch (The Three Musketeers, Legally Blonde) Rob Corddry (Hot Tub Time Machine, Children’s Hospital), and Rob Riggle (The Daily Show, The Hangover). The plot for “How to Be a Latin Lover” is that Eugenio Derbez’s character of Maximo is dumped by his 80-year old wife. Because of that, he has to move in with his sister and nephew which leads to the rest of the movie’s events.

I did not see this film in the theater, I managed to find it used on Blu-ray in a store. I knew about this film beforehand, but it didn’t catch my interest. Ah, simpler times. I wasted ten bucks on this film and after watching this, I felt that I’d feel better watching another film that came out this year, “Transformers: The Last Knight.” Why’s that? BECAUSE I GOT TO SEE THAT FOR FREE! “How to Be a Latin Lover” is the epitome of a comedy that doesn’t impress. Rather cliche jokes, a fish out of water segment that was done better in movies like “Elf,” and a tale that at times, makes you question mankind itself. Seriously! There is a point in this movie, where the main character is with a kid he’s formed a bond with throughout the runtime, and he’s teaching the kid how to be sexually attractive. This story wouldn’t be as awkward if the kid were in, say, the teen years, but he’s f*cking ten! TEN! Essentially this kid has a crush on a girl, and I don’t think it’s entirely wrong for the kid to learn to IMPRESS the girl, but not to get her to have sex with him! In a way, it might associate well with the main character’s personality, after all, he was a gold-digger who admired women for their money and physical figure. It doesn’t change the fact that this movie was as awkward as going to a Super Bowl party and thinking it’s soccer.

Eugenio Derebez plays the main character in this movie, well, that is if you can call it a movie. His name is Maximo and he’s basically the s*ittier version of Derek Zoolander. Think about it, he basically has some of the mannerisms, although it’s not exactly the same because his voice isn’t as robotic or striking, but that’s just who he reminds me of. Maximo’s not really a male model either. He’s more of a guy who cares about no one but himself, doesn’t contribute to society as much as other people, and just seems to have sex on his mind a lot. Granted, there’s a stereotype that’s all that men think about, but I can guarantee you not all men show their thoughts on sex. So in a way, you can say he’s also the s*ittier version of Donald Trump (I can’t believe I’m saying that), because Donald Trump actually does s*it. He fired people! He licensed his name to things! And there’s a possibility that he’s part of what’s making Twitter thrive today.

Staying on the topic of things that men often think about, let’s talk about Salma Hayek. Salma Hayek plays the character of Sara, who is Maximo’s sister. Her character is overall, pretty pissed that Maximo is staying with her, after all, she has a job, Maximo doesn’t. She’s got money, Maximo doesn’t. I didn’t find her to be the worst character on screen, although she a has a job where she’s just trying to move up from where she stands in the company, but she just can’t get there. This brings perhaps, one of the most forced, moments of comedy, I’ve seen all year! She’s talking with this woman, and the woman says that Sara’s a fine person but she wants someone with “more experience” to take a certain occupational task of discussion. Although before this woman says “more experience,” Sara interrupts her assuming she’s about to say “more experience.” This causes the other woman to say that she must finish her sentence and she needs to get out what she needs to say. When your movie plummets down to a level of comedy as low as that, you know you have a s*itshow on your hands!

There are two kids in this photo as you can see, the one we’re gonna be focusing on is the one on the left, which is the son of Salma Hayek’s character, who happens to be played by Raphael Alejandro. This kid’s name is Hugo. I will say one thing, I did care for this kid more than I did for the main character, but you also have to consider how much of an influence the main character was on him. There was a point in the movie where I felt bad for him in a way, but at the same time, I just couldn’t bear seeing him, or anybody else in this stinking picture for that matter. Also, he did this one science experiment that I saw in his room that basically took up the entire space! For what I recall, this was something he was going to present at a science fair, and I just questioned why it would be in his room given what the experiment was and if it would even make it to the show. It almost crushed Maximo, who was sleeping on an air mattress laid out in this room. It almost reminded of “Daddy’s Home” when the Ford Flex goes through the house. I get the movie’s a ridiculous comedy, but the mind can only go so far in suspending disbelief. Just… have some sanity in this universe.

Kristen Bell is also in this film as a character who appears in a number of scenes. I mean… Why? Is “The Good Place” not giving her enough money? Her character is named Cindy, and she’s a crazy cat lady who works at a yogurt place. Her character reminded me a lot of Holly from “King of Queens,” which if you’ve never seen the show, she’s a dog walker with blonde hair. So both have some sort of connection with animals but the big difference between these characters is that the one in the movie we’re focusing on annoyed the living crap out of me. She felt like a cartoon! She may as well be a female Ghostbuster! This character just felt one dimensional, and I didn’t care about her enough to get to a point where I come across her buttload of cats later on in the picture.

These two characters above are enemies that Maximo meets along the way during this film, as if divorce and a lack of money weren’t enough. The one on the left is named Nick and the one on the right is named Scott. The pair remind me of the henchmen from “Super Mario Bros.: The Movie,” a movie that if you never watched, pretty much suggests that you didn’t have your childhood ruined by a dumbass and his equally stupid sidekick who both go by the last name “Mario” for some reason. The good news is, as characters, I think these two are better than the henchmen. They’re less cartoony. The bad news is, they aren’t good enough. They just spit out standard jokes and they just sound like something that are written by a three year old!

I know that I’m being hard on this film. Although there is a part of me that thinks this movie really could have worked… If it were Opposite Day. I don’t even think there is a way something like this could work. At least one that I can think of. Gosh! This movie probably just made my IQ shrink to a new low! “How to Be a Latin Lover” relies way too much on sexual humor, a lack of realism at times, and things that happen in the movie that could come off as a bonding experience between a wise person and a young person, but just come off as awkward in the end. You guys ever seen “Big Daddy?” The Adam Sandler movie? That movie displays a similar relationship between a wise person and a child. The experienced man wasn’t exactly teaching what’s right to do towards the child, but simultaneously you couldn’t help but admire what’s going on because it was funny and it wasn’t as awkward. He wasn’t teaching “the joys of getting into a girl’s pants,” it was letting the kid make his own decisions, being a brat at the park, how to get Halloween candy in unpredictable manners, stuff like that! Sure, it’s somewhat immature humor but ultimately I can’t help but admire it for working and making me laugh. In fact, if getting a girl to have sex was taught to the child in “Big Daddy,” it would have been even more awkward considering the child in that film was five!

In the end, “How to Be a Latin Lover” has a new hater. As time as passed, I wonder if I’ve seen a lot when it comes to comedy and I just don’t find much of anything funny anymore. Heck! I was one of the people who barely laughed during “Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2!” Nevertheless, I think this movie’s crap and I’m going to give “How to Be a Latin Lover” a 2/10. There have been films, like this one, where I’ve seen sexual comedy work. This doesn’t associate with the ones that work. Part of me even wonders why I bought this movie, oh right! It came out this year! I’m seeing as many 2017 movies as I can by the end of the year! What a stupid question! Agh, thanks for reading this review. If you want to see reviews to better movies, I’ll post links to those down below. Be sure to check out my reviews for “Justice League” and “Wonder.” Stay tuned for more reviews! Also, I want to know, did you see “How to Be a Latin Lover?” What are your thoughts? Or what is the most awkward comedy you’ve ever seen? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

“JUSTICE LEAGUE” REVIEW: https://scenebefore.wordpress.com/2017/11/23/justice-league-2017-what-does-this-mean-for-the-dceu-plus-talk-about-the-movies-box-office-return/

“WONDER” REVIEW: https://scenebefore.wordpress.com/2017/11/25/wonder-2017-face-the-facts/

Wonder (2017): Face the Facts

Posted on by Jack Drees

mv5byjfhowy0otgtndkzmc00ywjkltk1ngetywuxnjhmmmq5zjyyxkeyxkfqcgdeqxvymjmxote0oda-_v1_sy1000_cr006481000_al_

“Wonder” is directed by Stephen Chbosky, and stars Jacob Tremblay (Room, The Smurfs 2), Julia Roberts (Pretty Woman, Ocean’s Eleven), Owen Wilson (Wedding Crashers, Cars), Izabela Vidovic (About a Boy, The Fosters), and the movie revolves around a young boy named August Pullman. He is what one would consider unique, and if you watch this film and observe his face, you’d understand why. The movie covers what’s going on as this boy enters the fifth grade and goes to a regular elementary school for the first time.

This movie is based on a New York Times Bestselling Novel. Now, I’m gonna restate something I said about books in a review I made prior to this one, specifically in my review for “The Firm.”

“…movies are more fun! Sorry, books!”

As a movie reviewing moron, you might already know I enjoy watching movies as opposed to reading books. Even though I imagine this book is very good, I just haven’t gotten around to reading it. Although as for the movie, I’d say it was enjoyable, but not perfect. It has a great cast, I like Owen Wilson in a lot of the stuff he’s in and he’s great here. In fact when it comes to casting, the resemblance between him and the young main character is hard to top! Just look at their hairstyles! Julia Roberts was also on her A-game, I haven’t really seen much of her work, but I know how much others praise her. Jacob Tremblay proves that he means business. I honestly think he’s one of the best child actors working today. Months before going to see this, I’ll have you know I watched “Room” and I thought that was one of the best movies of 2015. It’s in my top 3 with “The Martian” and “Star Wars Episode VII.” That movie had one of the best screenplays of the decade, Brie Larson and Jacob Tremblay had some of the greatest chemistry in a movie released that year, and there’s a part of me that wants to talk about it with everybody. Seriously! If you haven’t watched “Room,” see it now! If you have Amazon Prime then it’s free to watch!

This movie also has an intriguing screenplay that offers moments of happiness, sadness, and laughs. However, it also offers moments that I just want written off entirely. I remember having my verdict in mind as the movie was coming to an end and I hear this one line given by Owen Wilson’s character given to Jacob Tremblay’s character and it took that grade I had and I shrunk it down. I won’t say what it is, but it made me think of the line as unrealistic not only by the standards of what’s happening in the film but it also made me think that if I were the age of Jacob Tremblay’s character, I’d go through the scene reacting in a much different way. Let’s just say it starts with Jacob Tremblay freaking out over something and then he suddenly is calmed down by a line I assume that was supposed to get the audience to remember what this movie’s main point is. Speaking of Jacob Tremblay, let’s move onto him.

Jacob Tremblay plays the film’s main character, August Pullman. He has a facial deformity, which triggers a bunch of reactions from various characters. While his family seems to understand what happened to his face, after all, it’s his family I’m talking about, I don’t know why they wouldn’t understand, other people are either freaked out by it, think he’s a loser, or simply different. I honestly don’t know many people with facial deformities, but I’d say for younger viewers watching, this character can be important for those who have deformities or even if they don’t, regardless of whether or not they know someone with deformities. Luckily this movie is PG, so I’d say parents would be more likely to bring their kid to the movie theater to see this than some other films. I will also say I can relate to this character, and it kind of has to do with the part that makes him a kid. I say this because legally speaking, I’m an adult, but simultaneously, I still have childish traits, mainly the fact that I have a deep fanaticism for “Star Wars.” Yes, many adults enjoy “Star Wars,” but George Lucas, director of several installments of the “Star Wars” saga once said “it’s a film for 12-year-olds.”

Speaking of “Star Wars,” this film also interjects brief appearances from multiple “Star Wars” characters, including Darth Sidious and Chewbacca. I can only wonder how much this cost because this film is from Lionsgate, and “Star Wars” is owned by Disney. I never read the book, and it’s possible that this is faithful to the source material, maybe it cost nothing and Disney thought this was cool. By the way, the guy who plays Chewbacca (Michael Alan Healy) actually pretty much only plays him and nobody else. I checked his IMDb and that’s the only character that would show up on his page. He played Chewbacca on the “Today” show, he was on two “Nickelodeon Kids Choice Awards” shows as the character, he was Chewie on “Jimmy Kimmel Live!,” and he was even on “Deal or no Deal” as the same wookie. In fact, I remember the episode he was on because I’ve seen it, and it was a special episode with a “Star Wars” theme where it was a “Winner Take All” match between two contestants. Chewbacca appeared alongside R2-D2 to support the contestant. Also, the other contestant actually had Carrie Fisher rooting for her! Not only that, but for the Carrie Fisher contestant, she was playing a game where the models were Stormtroopers. And Darth Vader was the banker for both contestants!

Alright, those are my “Star Wars” and “Deal or no Deal” rants for now, sorry if those inconvenienced you. Anyway, back to business.

As far as the parents go in this movie, I already said a few things about them, but in all seriousness, their chemistry with each other was completely believable. I also bought into the chemistry between them and August. This is an interesting moment when you have a child actor playing a major character in the movie and instead of the traditional situation where the child can’t act and the adults can, the adults tend to be more of a highlight than a downfall, everyone here however tends to shine. It doesn’t really surprise me. All of these people have received positive criticism as time passed, and honestly, Jacob Tremblay might even be a better actor than a lot of adults. Although to be fair you can put any kid up against Tommy Wiseau from “The Room” and consider them to be a better actor.

JOHNNY (played by Tommy Wiseau): (GOING THROUGH DOOR ONTO ROOFTOP) I did not hit her, it’s not true! It’s bulls*it! I did not hit her! (WHILE THROWING WATER BOTTLE ONTO GROUND) I did *not*. Oh hi, Mark.

August also has a sister in this movie named Olivia, or Via for short. There weren’t too many good images I could find of this character, so I hope this poster isn’t too bad. What kind of surprised me about her character is how nice and considerate she was to others, even to her own brother. I often come across and imagine many relationships where siblings fight each other. In reality, this would be rather odd considering Via’s age, but still. I liked her story, for the most part. I say for the most part because she does interact someone in the movie and at times I felt that the way their relationship was going just came off as a bit forced. Not to mention, some of the dialogue regarding this relationship was rather cheesy, not as bad as say “Star Wars Episode II” but it felt like I was reading some crappy fanfiction written on someone’s Blackberry. No, not “Fifty Shades of Grey,” I’m thinking of something imaginary and a lot less on the mature side of the spectrum.

There are a number of kids August meets in the movie, one of the first ones he talks to when he enters school goes by the name of Julian, who you may know as Herman from “Walk the Prank,” and there was one moment of the movie that just caught my eye. There was a point where the film basically villainized him and he was talking with the school’s principal. Speaking of the principal, his character goes by the name of Mr. Tushman, played by Mandy Patinkin, who you may know from “The Princess Bride” and “Homeland.” His character honestly brought some very forced humor that just didn’t land. Going back to Julian, he was talking with the principal and his parents are there. The focal point of the conversation is August, and Julian is basically saying that he is against August and his parents side with him. They even say there’s a reason to be against him just because of the way he looks. It just makes me wonder, how many people are like this? It might as well show that either parents will defend their children no matter what, maybe they think their kid is “always right,” the parents might have a bias because their kid says something, and not everyone has the same experiences with certain people. It also sometimes just goes to show how people will judge you based on your appearance. I can’t really say I’m male model material, but I imagine some people think I look presentable. How often do people get past what they see and just focus on what they learn through basic conversation? What if Meg from “Family Guy,” a character usually considered ugly not only by society, but also by her own family, had more friends just because they were interested in what she had to say? By the way, it’s always interested me she’s that way because she’s played by Mila Kunis and she’s f*cking gorgeous!

In the end, “Wonder” is a film that I believe many people wouldn’t mind watching at least once. I’d say it’s got problems, but at the same time, I don’t think people should stay away from it completely because it is a good story for families and children. I really do think that younger audiences can enjoy and take something from this movie, and not just because it partially involves “Star Wars” but because the movie’s about inclusion, fitting in, and how certain friends can surprise you in both pleasant and unfortunate ways. Upon looking at his IMDb, this is the third thing I’ve seen featuring Jacob Tremblay, the other two things were “Room” and one episode of “American Dad!,” I can’t wait to see him in future works if I get the chance. I’m gonna give “Wonder” a 7/10. Thanks for reading this review, I just want you to know if you haven’t already, you should try checking out Stardust.

Stardust is a free app you can download on the App Store and Google Play. It can be used by people to provide reactions to movies and TV shows. Let’s say you finished watching the latest episode of “Game of Thrones,” you can record a thirty second video (at maximum) where you reveal your thoughts and you can provide a rating from 1-5 stars towards the episode you’re focusing on. Worried about revealing spoilers? Keep those worries away! Stardust has an option that can warn others that your video contains spoilers! In fact, you don’t even have to see whatever it is you’re watching. If you haven’t seen “Revenge of the Nerds,” by the way, watch it, you can still talk about it. Maybe you’re about to watch it and you decide to give your thoughts going into it, or maybe you’ve seen the trailer or something, I don’t know. You can do all of that and you can also follow other people to see their latest reactions, by the way, follow my handle, JackDrees! Be sure to download the app, I recommend it, the app’s free, which makes it even better, and I hope to see you there!

I just want you to know that I’m a nerd, I might even be king of the nerds, and as the possible ruler, I want you to know that I recently posted a piece of nerdy material, otherwise known as my post documenting my time at 2017’s Rhode Island Comic Con. I went there, met more people than I’ve met at any other con I went to. I met someone who I’ve met in the past, and I even confused one guest for another! So if you’re interested in reading that post, I’ll have the link down below, that way you can go to the post and enjoy it! Stay tuned for more great content! Also, I want to know, what are your thoughts on Jacob Tremblay? Do you like him as an actor? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

RHODE ISLAND COMIC CON 2017 REVIEW AND HAUL: https://scenebefore.wordpress.com/2017/11/15/rhode-island-comic-con-2017-review-and-haul/

The Wall (2017): Wait, Where’s John Cena? *STRONG LANGUAGE IN OPENING PARAGRAPH*

Posted on by Jack Drees

mv5bmtc5odmynze4of5bml5banbnxkftztgwntm0mzc4mti-_v1_sy1000_cr006741000_al_

The f*cking movie known as “The Wall” is f*cking directed by the motherf*cker known as Doug f*cking Liman (The Bourne Identity, Jumper), stars Aaron f*cking Taylor-Johnson (Godzilla, Nocturnal Animals) and f*cking John Cena (American Grit, Trainwreck), and is f*cking about two American f*cking soldiers, there’s a lethal f*cker, err I mean sniper that is standing in their f*cking way, but the two are divided by a f*cking wall. …Now I could make a f*cking paragraph, illustrating my motherf*cking point that the movie is full of f*cking language, especially f*cking f-bombs that are f*cking shoved down your throat as f*ck. To be extra clear, this paragraph had fifteen f-bombs. “The Wall” had more, in fact, the exact total came out to 185 in the whole movie. Can you f*cking believe that?! And there’s sixteen!

The word f*ck can associate with this movie significantly. In fact, I’d personally go as far to say that the word can associate with more than just the screenplay which has the word bloated all over. I’d even say the movie in general can associate with it. One of my biggest problems with the movie is the marketing, specifically, the poster.

According to the poster, John Cena is in this movie as one of the starring roles. Well guess what? He’s barely in it! Now, I don’t know how much people appreciate John Cena as an actor. I know he gets plenty of appreciation as a wrestler and a prank call meme. He’s also going to be in the “Bumblebee” movie which is scheduled to come out next year. Speaking of sports stars who also do acting on the side, I’d also like to say this isn’t the first time I’ve seen something like this happen this year. There was this movie that came out in select theaters and digital services in March called “You Can’t Have It.” On the main poster for the film, the one that’s actually the only image of the movie on IMDb, and the poster you’d find for the movie when searching for it on Amazon, Rob Gronkowski, tight end of the New England Patriots, was in the center of the poster. This pretty much suggests that Gronk’s character would have a big role in the movie. His character however, didn’t even come in until the end. In fact, when he came in, I felt like I was watching something that was very tacked on. Now, this movie was not as bad when it came to this, but Cena’s barely in this movie, and there’s one guy that should have been on the poster as opposed to John Cena, and that is Laith Nakli. Now, his face isn’t really shown all that much in the film so I wouldn’t really put it in the poster. Just put Taylor-Johnson’s character in the poster by himself, or make a silhouette of Nakli’s character, any of that would have worked in my book!

This movie’s directed by Doug Liman (left), a director who I personally like. He’s done some movies I’ve seen before, including a movie that came out this year, in fact it came out months after this one, and that’s “American Made.” That’s a better movie in my opinion, but let’s not get into that. Regardless of how this movie in particular is, Liman’s vision is not a bad one. The location which this film was shot is Antelope Valley, which is in Lancaster, CA. By the way, if you are wondering where that is it’s in a spot between Los Angeles and Bakersfield. This location gave me a feeling of silence but the silence wasn’t peaceful, it was completely deadly. It almost reminds me of “No Country for Old Men,” which is kind of funny because both this and that movie barely have any music. Speaking of things that I find amusing, this movie was shot on 16mm film. This format was also used to shoot “The Hurt Locker,” which is interesting considering the locations where the films take place and how similar they look. Also if it means anything, I have yet to watch “The Hurt Locker.” This fact amuses me because when it comes to shooting movies, it’s either usually digital nowadays or if a movie is shot on film, it would be 35mm.

Let’s talk about Aaron Taylor-Johnson, who plays a character named Isaac. I thought his performance was very well done in this movie given the script, which again, is f*cking full of f*cks. Also I didn’t really find the movie as a whole, all that interesting. It was mostly boring, I tuned out for part of it, I was making fun of how much it wanted to “f*ck” with the audience. Some of you reading this might think that my opinion should be adjusted because this movie comes off as slow and it’s just how it is. I’m not saying the movie should be fast, but I just want it to be interesting. And it wasn’t interesting in this circumstance.

I will say though that the slow pace of the film, might add a bit to the movie in terms of realism. However despite the realism, I still wasn’t able to appreciate the movie. Also, you may be aware of another war movie, specifically one that came out months after this one. The movie I’m talking about is “Dunkirk.” Now I consider “Dunkirk” to be one of my favorite movies of the year and part of it was due to how realistic it was as far as war goes. And keep in mind, this movie was PG-13. If it added in blood then it would have been just slightly realer, however it’s pretty realistic already. Although one thing I consider great about “Dunkirk” that I found to be missing from “The Wall” was investment in the story. I could have been invested in the story here, but little problems came up as the movie went on, which bogged down my interest for the movie on a complete scale. Now I saw “Dunkirk” in theaters, I saw “The Wall” at home. Maybe if I saw “The Wall” in theaters I would probably not be talking about this all that much, but I made a choice to wait on this movie because I’m an Amazon Prime member and I figured this movie in particular would be free for Prime members by the end of the year.

In the end, I’d say that I need a wall to separate me from the pile of boredom known as “The Wall.” This is a movie that looks great, has a talented director, and a good performance by Aaron Taylor-Johnson despite the fact that the script is f*cked up in a bad way. I don’t mind when the word f*ck is used in movies or TV, but part of me wondered if the amount of f*cks given in this film was even f*cking possible. I’m gonna give “The Wall” a 4/10. Thanks for reading this review, next Monday I will have my review for “Thor: The Dark World,” so stay tuned for that, along with more reviews coming soon! Speaking of which, this is not official, but on November 5th, I’m thinking of posting a review for “V for Vendetta,” and if you ever seen the movie you’d understand why. Also, I have a question. If you could magically create a wall to separate yourself from something for the rest of your life, what would it be? Keep in mind, I mean literally separate yourself. Just imagine that this thing can’t climb the wall or go around it. Let me know about that down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

The Space Between Us (2017): I Need More Space

Posted on by Jack Drees

mv5bnjyzodu1otkwn15bml5banbnxkftztgwmda3mtmwmdi-_v1_sy1000_cr006751000_al_

“The Space Between Us” is directed by Peter Chelsom who also directed “Hannah Montana: The Movie” and “Serendipity” and stars Asa Butterfield, Carla Gugino, Gary Oldman, and Britt Robinson. This movie revolves around a guy who was born a Martian, he travels to Earth and hangs with a girl which leads to eventual self-discovery.

I’ve heard about this movie months ago when it released in theaters, but I’m reviewing it now considering I found it for ten bucks at Newbury Comics, which if you’re from New England or Long Island, you’d probably already know they’re a chain of stores whose main focus happens to be products in the realm of nerd culture. Interestingly enough, it’s where I buy a good portion of my movies. I also know someone who saw this movie. If you ever notice the header of my blog, you may notice this blog’s operated by “the #NerdArmy’s film critic.” The Nerd Army is a social media group I’m a part of, and one of my pals in that group, Kayla, saw this movie too. She thought it was horrible, so maybe I wasted ten bucks on a piece of crap. Guess what? Kayla was right! I honestly think “The Space Between Us” might just be up there with movies like “Star Wars Episode I” and “Battlefield Earth” as one of the worst science fiction movies ever made.

On paper, this sounds like a cool concept. You’ve seen movies with Earthlings on Mars like “John Carter,” now we have a Martian on Earth. Now, that has been done before generally speaking, just look at all the alien invasion movies we’ve gotten over the years. And I will say this film does look nice at times. Not as nice as Ridley Scott’s “The Martian,” that’s a whole different ballgame. While I may be praising this film from a cinematography perspective, it’s not perfect, because there are jumpcuts in this film and I have seen films like “Manchester by the Sea” where you might just find one and let it slide. Here however, I found three of them. They were all quickly paced and they aggravated the crap out me! Going back to the concept, if you take out the whole interplanetary idea and have the two main characters on the same planet, you might as well have a love story as cringeworthy as Anakin and Padme’s love story when they’re in “Star Wars Episode II.” Although I will say, the movie’s tone had been set far before the romance.

As mentioned, this movie is about the first person born on Mars, or Asa Butterfield’s character of Gardner, who we will get to. It’s established in the very beginning that one character is pregnant with him. The birth of Gardner is soon shown for us all in order to prepare ourselves for what we’re about to suffer through. And speaking of which, we as an audience aren’t the only folks suffering, because the mother dies. By the way, a pregnant woman has never been in space, so I can’t talk about any scientific inaccuracies there. Also, the mother’s death is not a spoiler because this is less than ten minutes into the film. It’s almost as if the mother dying instantly is a signal for how either this movie will make you want to die or the movie itself feeling like it’s going to die.

Asa Butterfield plays the character of Gardner Elliot, the character isn’t exactly someone I hate, in fact that would be directed towards the next character I’m gonna talk about, but the script makes him look like someone I will be eternally ashamed to hang out with. Granted he’s from Mars, but regardless of wherever the heck he’s from, seeing his character was the equivalent of a mom that tries to sound enthusiastic about something when she’s really not as enthusiastic as she sounds. …Or Tyra Banks when she hosts “America’s Got Talent.” By the way, if anyone from NBC or “America’s Got Talent” is reading this, please replace Tyra Banks in season 13 of the show.

Britt Robinson plays Tulsa and as suggested in the recent paragraph, I don’t like her. Sometimes she’s rather annoyed by Gardner which I can understand because they’re from different planets so they wouldn’t behave identically. However as I got to see more of her character, I became irritated with her for a brief period. I wouldn’t say she’s one of the worst characters of all time, but seriously, she was a nutjob!

Also in this movie you have Gary Oldman, or as I like to call him, Robert Carradine with long hair. I don’t even know if that’s all that good of a comparison, but as I watched the movie I thought that was what he looked like at a point. So Bobby–err I mean Gary plays Nathaniel Shepard. Now Oldman probably gave the best performance out of everyone in the movie, but despite what I said, it doesn’t really make the movie that much better. Because I’ve seen good performances in bad movies, such as Emily Blunt in “The Girl on the Train.” For the record, that performance was better than this one, how much better you ask? Well that one would have probably been nominated for a Golden Globe or an Oscar in my book had the movie been better! Oldman’s performance is alright, but there’s not much of anything all that redeeming about it.

Now the love story could definitely be worse. This isn’t like, love at first sight, the movie seemed to establish that the two grew a connection between each other. But the way the movie in general plays out when the love story builds is that it goes from random conversations on videochat to the point when the character of Gardner Elliot travels to Earth making the movie develop a fish out of water story. There was a movie that released this year that actually came out after this one, that being “Wonder Woman.” The fish out of water cliche worked in “Wonder Woman,” but it didn’t work in “The Space Between Us.” In this movie, the fish out of water segment was just awkward, it made me engage in untypical body movements, so based on that you can tell it was just plain awful. There are also moments when I can easily tell it’s supposed to be funny, and maybe it got some chuckles in theater auditoriums, but I watched this movie alone in my room, the only laughs that are going off in here are… actually none. I have not much else to say there. And when we get to a moment when the love takes full effect, guess what happens? Cheesy dialogue! WHO SAYS THE STUFF THAT IS SAID IN THIS MOVIE?! Granted, I’ve never been in love nor have I gone out with anyone with the exception of a prom night, but in real life, this isn’t how people talk! For the record, the guy from Mars is actually saying this mumbo jumbo, but it’s still cringeworthy as hell! I said part of this before, but I’ll say it again! When it comes to the Earthling, I hated her. She reminded me of that teenage girl from “Independence Day: Resurgence” who I actually recall more than a good number of the characters from that movie. Annoying, angry, and unfriendly. This was just a relationship that was just hard to watch, and when the love is in the air, you can’t just help but think about putting a gun in your mouth.

In the end, “The Space Between Us” is simply a movie I’d never want to watch again unless I was being paid. My friend Kayla wasn’t lying after she saw this movie, this really was a meteor that was about to destroy a planet. This movie was originally scheduled to come out December 16, 2016, which is the same day that “Rogue One: A Star Wars Story” came out, although STX pushed it back to February 3, 2017. While it may be good for STX because they didn’t have to compete with a much bigger film, it might just be bad for the viewing public because this probably increased chances of people suffering. By the way, when I said this movie didn’t have to compete with a much bigger film I might as well be lying to you because it competed against “Rings,” which made over thirteen million dollars in the United States as opposed to this movie which made over three million dollars in the United States. Granted the ratings for “Rings” on IMDb at least are lower than “The Space Between Us,” but it doesn’t change the fact that this was pure s*it. I’m gonna give “The Space Between Us” a 1/10. As an idea, this movie sounded cool in ways, but so did “The Girl on the Train.” My next mission is to find a t-shirt that says I survived “The Space Between Us.” One last thing is that there’s an alternate ending to this film. I was watching the Blu-Ray and it was in the bonus features. I’d probably have to watch the original ending again to compare completely, but for now I gotta say the alternate ending’s better. Thanks for reading this review. On the subject of sci-fi, I am planning to see “Blade Runner 2049” sometime soon, I think that’ll be, without argument, a better movie than this crap. Also, if you are currently in a “Blade Runner” frenzy, be sure to check out a post where I talk about what “Blade Runner” has gotten right about the future ahead of its release. Stay tuned for more reviews, and also, I have a couple questions, what is your favorite movie involving Mars? Or, what is the worst science fiction film you’ve ever seen? Answer those questions in the comments! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

WHAT “BLADE RUNNER” GOT RIGHT ABOUT THE FUTURE: https://scenebefore.wordpress.com/2017/10/06/what-blade-runner-got-right-about-the-future/

The Firm (1993): Life’s a Mitch

Posted on by Jack Drees

Hey everyone, Jack Drees here! This Friday, there will be a new movie out called “American Made.” It stars Tom Cruise, it’s directed by Doug Liman (The Bourne Identity, Jumper), and it’s not the first time these two are teaming up together. They worked on “Edge of Tomorrow” together. By the way, an “Edge of Tomorrow” review isn’t going to be done now or anytime soon, if I had the movie I’d probably look at it and review it, but I don’t. Also, good movie, check it out. Anyway, this review is the last installment of my past Tom Cruise movie series, so far I’ve done reviews for “The Last Samurai” and “Risky Business.” What’s my last movie? If you’re seriously asking that, look at the freaking title! But seriously, today I’ll be reviewing “The Firm.” After watching this movie, I have a good number of things to talk about, so let’s get to it!

mv5bmtgwoty0mjgzov5bml5banbnxkftztgwndezmjk2mji-_v1_

“The Firm” is directed by Sydney Pollock (Tootsie, Out of Africa), and stars Tom Cruise, Jeanne Tripplehorn (Waterworld, Basic Instinct), and Gene Hackman (Superman, The French Connection), and revolves around the character of Mitch McDeere, a young lawyer who went to Harvard who goes to work at a firm which he soon discovers has a dark side.

For the record, this is the first time I watched “The Firm.” Last month I got a Triple Feature Blu-Ray pack featuring three Tom Cruise flicks: “Collateral,” “Days of Thunder,” and this one. When I told my mother I was watching this movie, her reaction almost sounded like she founded the Fountain of Youth. She loves this movie, and she also loves the book. By the way, the book is written by John Grisham, writer of novels such as “The Chamber,” “Skipping Christmas,” and “A Time to Kill.” After watching “The Firm.” I don’t know what to think. Part of me feels the need to read the book, and I don’t mean that in a positive way. “The Firm” made me rather want to take a bar exam as opposed to watching the movie. Before we dive into negatives, let’s dive into some positives.

The cast for “The Firm” is undoubtedly outstanding. Tom Cruise is, well, Tom Cruise. This isn’t really his best performance, you can still see a bit of Tom Cruise himself while watching this, but you can totally buy into his character. Jeanne Tripplehorn as Cruise’s wife, Abby, does her job well, the chemistry between the two is believable and there’s a scene that personally stands out. Although admittedly I didn’t really care about their relationship in the end, which I will come back to. Gene Hackman was also pretty good as the character of Avery. Also, some of the supporting characters are played by respectable actors who gave good performances throughout the picture. For example, Holly Hunter (Raising Arizona, The Incredibles), she played he character of Tammy Hemphill, Hunter’s performance delivered a lot of charm. It almost sounded fantastical and was almost shot up the sky high enough to reach over the top territory, but it doesn’t mean it wasn’t charming. Hunter’s performance was also nominated for an Academy Award by the way. One of my biggest surprises I encountered during the movie’s runtime is that Gary Busey (Point Break, Lethal Weapon) has a role in it. His performance is definitely one of the best in the entire movie and it was aced from scene one. He’s barely in it, but if you check this movie out, look forward to Busey.

The cinematography for this film, while somewhat conventional, was pretty good. This was shown during the scene towards the end of the movie with Tom Cruise running, which I personally like because it doesn’t really do any quick cutting or jumpcutting or anything like that.

Now let’s dive into my first negative of the film, and this is something which if you have seen the film, you’ll probably disagree with me on, and that is the music. Here’s the thing about the movie’s music, at times, it meshes well with the movie, but at other times, it could have been altered. In fact, the film is using a piano in a lot of it’s music, the way the piano’s being used almost reminds me of a silent film. If you like the movie’s music, that’s great! You’re allowed to like it, but it really just didn’t flow that well at times. On a sidenote, one reason why I brought up the possibility of you disagreeing with me on the music is because it received an Oscar nomination. By the way, the composer of this movie’s music, Dave Grusin, is also the composer of music featured in various films which came out before this one such as “The Goonies” and “Tootsie” and Grusin also happens to be the musical composer of various films which came out after this one such as “Hope Floats” and “Selena.”

Also, the pacing of this film seems to be all over the place. I don’t know about you, but I felt like I was watching a completely different movie than my mother (refer to third paragraph). While this is mainly a thriller, it almost felt like it wanted to focus a lot as a romance film. It almost felt like it wanted to be two different movies at once. Now don’t get me wrong, films that are about something in particular can have romances interjected in there, but this romance almost felt like unnecessary filler at times. Not to mention, I almost didn’t care for anyone because the movie itself bored me at times. There’s a moment where it becomes interesting, then it just goes back to the slow-paced borefest I was already used to. The runtime is 2 hours and 34 minutes long, I’ve witnessed longer films that are better than this, also to be fair I witnessed longer films that are worse than this. As someone who hasn’t read the book, this makes me kinda curious, why is the movie this long? I did a Google search and I found out that the book is 412 pages long, and part of me wonders how much of this movie was taken from the book. Was everything taken from the book? Was everything that was considered “necessary” taken from the book while other stuff was left behind? I kind of want to know. Although with school and everything I don’t really have much time to sit down and read right now, not to mention, movies are more fun! Sorry, books! I’m not saying the movie should completely eliminate the romance which is included in it, but the movie honestly, as a whole, feels convoluted. If it removes various things from the film, things I can’t really come up with right now due to my boredom making my brain lack material from this movie, it might be a better movie.

Before we get into the section where I deliver my verdict, I have a rather humorous story to tell you. I only watched “The Firm” once, meaning I only watched it for this review. I have a Twitter account, by the way, the handle is @JackDrees if you’re interested. On that account, one thing I do occasionally is promote my upcoming material here on Scene Before. When I promote my upcoming material, one thing I would usually do is search for GIFs, otherwise known as the video file that might as well have started a pronunciation war. When I search for GIFs, I try to find footage of something that correlates to the focal point of a post. For example, when I reviewed “Risky Business” as part of this Tom Cruise series, I searched for GIFs related to that, and in a couple promotions I went with a GIF which had Tom Cruise sliding across the floor in his underwear. Now when I decided to review “The Firm,” I went searching for GIFs right away. I typed in “the firm” and “the firm tom cruise.” Both times, I got GIFs featuring Tom Cruise, then I chose the first result. I didn’t even know what it was, it had Tom Cruise in it though, I thought it was good enough because I needed something to promote my review for “The Firm” which you are reading right now. So I inserted the GIF, tweeted, and soon started watching the movie. About an hour or so in, I go to Twitter, and I have a notification waiting for me. Some user I don’t even know who goes by the handle @MrsPetitions replies to me saying “This is from Rain Man though 😂.” First, I’d like to thank @MrsPetitions for the little factoid. Second, I’ve never seen “Rain Man,” so if you’re going to accuse me for my lack of movie knowledge, just be glad it’s not from a movie I’ve seen or a movie that doesn’t have Tom Cruise in it. Third, upon review, there were barely any GIFs I saw for “The Firm” whatsoever. Fourth, this almost set the tone for the movie. It’s almost like Twitter suffered brain damage and immediately forgot what “The Firm” was, you know, kind of like me right now. This movie is forgettable.

In the end, “The Firm” was disappointing. I went into it with, not necessarily high expectations, but based on my mother’s thoughts towards the movie, I was expecting it to be good. I like the cast of the movie, sometimes the dialogue works, the cinematography isn’t all that bad, the film does look presentable, but there aren’t really many qualities that stand out about this film. “The Firm” got some things right, but ultimately needs some improvement. Is the book any better? I don’t know, I never read it, but it will be some time before I come back to this film unless I need something to fall asleep to. I’m gonna give “The Firm” a 5/10. Thanks for reading this review, that’s the end of this Tom Cruise series, I hope to see “American Made” this weekend or some other time soon. I’ll also have you know this Wednesday I’ll be seeing “Kingsman: The Golden Circle,” which I’m really excited for. As far as other upcoming movies go, I’m desperately hoping to catch “Blade Runner: 2049” on opening weekend, but I don’t know whether or not that’ll happen.

Also, I want to let you know that in the future I do have other reviews in mind for past movies, for example, next month I’ll probably review “Thor” and “Thor: The Dark World” in preparation for “Thor: Ragnarok” which comes out November 3rd. If you have any movies in mind that I should review for one reason or another, let me know about it and I’ll keep it in mind. Also, if you want to check out my other entries in this Tom Cruise review series, links to those are down below if you want to read those posts! Stay tuned for more reviews! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

“THE LAST SAMURAI” REVIEW: https://scenebefore.wordpress.com/2017/09/11/the-last-samurai-2003-not-a-perfect-blossom-but-not-a-bad-one-either/

“RISKY BUSINESS” REVIEW: https://scenebefore.wordpress.com/2017/09/18/risky-business-there-is-no-substitute/