Helen Mirren

Fast X (2023): Xtremely Atrocious

Posted on by Jack Drees

“Fast X” is “directed” by Louis Leterrier. It was originally supposed to be helmed by Justin Lin, who has done a few of the franchise’s installments, including the recent “F9.” However, due to drama with star Vin Diesel (xXx, Guardians of the Galaxy), he left the directorial position. So that’s fun… Although he does have a screenplay credit. Speaking of Vin Diesel, joining him is a cast including Michelle Rodriguez (Dunegons & Dragons: Honor Among Thieves, Widows), Tyrese Gibson (Morbius, Black and Blue), Chris “Ludacris” Bridges (Karma’s World, Crash), John Cena (Peacemaker, Blockers), Nathalie Emmanuel (The Dark Crystal: Age of Resistance, Game of Thrones), Jordana Brewster (Dallas, Lethal Weapon), Sung Kang (Power, Obi-Wan Kenobi), Scott Eastwood (Suicide Squad, The Longest Ride), Daniela Melchior (The Suicide Squad, Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3), Alan Ritchson (Reacher, Titans), Helen Mirren (Skyfall, The Queen), Brie Larson (Captain Marvel, Room), Rita Moreno (West Side Story, 80 for Brady), Jason Statham (Crank, The Transporter), Jason Momoa (Aquaman, Slumberland), and Charlize Theron (A Million Ways to Die in the West, Bombshell). This series of moving images that technically qualifies as a blockbuster film once again centers around Dom Toretto and his “family” as they must stop Dante Reyes from ending their lives.

We did it folks! We have reached TEN of these films now. ELEVEN if you count that one “Hobbs & Shaw” spinoff that was quite entertaining. …Yay? To be honest, I could not have been less stoked about “Fast X.” I have seen plenty of bad movies, including some to major franchises like “Star Wars,” “Jurassic Park,” and “Transformers.” Few movies like “F9: The Fast Saga” have reeked of such an abominable aftertaste. Why did it not work? Because it treated me like an idiot.

The “Fast and Furious” franchise has evolved to such idiocy over the years. It has gone from being “Point Break” with street racing to taking on a shark-jumping identity that only gets bigger, not to mention dumber, with each installment. From “Fast & Furious,” the fourth movie, to “Furious 7,” everything that resembled such shark-jumping never took me out. “The Fate of the Furious” and “Hobbs & Shaw” came close, but I still enjoyed the movies for what they were. “F9: The Fast Saga” feels like a lowest common denominator tentpole. Between John Cena’s stiff acting, Dom Toretto’s lack of charisma, and the forced space scene had me chuckling at it for the wrong reason, I cannot see myself watching “F9: The Fast Saga” ever again.

But I am one who believes in second chances. Therefore, for that reason, in addition to the fact that I feel somewhat obligated to put out a review, I decided to check out “Fast X” on opening night a couple weeks ago. The trailers honestly did nothing to excite me. In fact, I felt like was spoiling the movie for myself through whatever the heck the marketing campaign was. But I tried to act mature and let the movie speak for itself.

Safe to say, there were enjoyable moments. Maybe, one, two, or three. Because there are many others that I would rather forget.

This is, unfortunately, just about as bad as “F9.” I left “F9” feeling appalled as to how this franchise got to where it was, but I thought it had a couple cool ideas. I left “Fast X” feeling like I got punched in the brain. By the end of the film, I had perhaps the quickest 180 degrees shift I have ever experienced as a movie watcher. I went from liking where things were going, to wanting to scream like an unsatisfied customer at Disney World. Because there are times where the film has inklings of fun in it. But they are never enough to justify me paying money to watch the movie in the first place, and even in a couple more entertaining moments, they include some of the dumbest ideas and realizations ever brought to the big screen. I think I figured out what the X in “Fast X” stands for. No, it does not mean the number ten. It stands for Xcrement.

There is so much nonsense that happens in “Fast X” that I need to split this review into two or three parts to definitively explain all of what I need to say. I am not going to, however, because I would be a jerk. So, let us widdle down some things.

For starters, I am convinced that “Fast X” does not know how cameras work. Not that the film is poorly shot, it is in a word, fine. That said, there is a scene at the beginning of the movie that serves as a reminder of who the Toretto family happens to be. Not only is this as expositional as can be with a couple core characters standing in a large room doing nothing, but the footage used to talk about the Toretto family, are movie shots. Not security camera footage, not raw video that could have been uploaded to social media, but carefully crafted shots that are used in past films. It reminds me of “Batman & Robin” where a particular shot of Poison Ivy is reused for plot purposes, but that shot came from the camera shooting the movie with no inserted gimmicks, tricks, or added context. So either the “Fast & Furious” franchise is secretly one of the world’s most ambitious documentaries or this scene is as lazily set up as public transit in almost every corner of the U.S.. It does not take long for me to be taken out of the film, which is unfortunate because the film does try to give some stakes in certain situations. But even when that happens, it is difficult for me to appreciate it because I am not convinced anything in this movie will matter.

This movie has a ton of characters. But size does not matter, it is what you do with it. Not much is done with it to be frank, because there is almost no charisma from any of the characters! This includes the lead!

Domenic Toretto is arguably the most overpowered, unlikably boring protagonist who continues to maintain some semblance of relevance in our cultural zeitgeist. I remember when these movies made the heroes feel superhuman, but they continued to have some degree of verisimilitude to their actions. Dom is God at this point. Vin Diesel may have chosen to be Superman in “The Iron Giant,” but as far as I am concerned, if Dom Toretto were forced to fight Superman, Toretto has a chance of clobbering him at this point. Other protagonists, even in movies I do not enjoy, will have me guessing if they are going to make it out of a sticky situation. If anything, Toretto practically is the sticky situation in every scene. He is not the villain, but he is a man without weakness. And while anything’s possible, this franchise proves it, I would rather see characters who have to deal with their troubles because the reality is that nobody’s perfect. Sure, there are some added stakes in this film with Dom having a kid, and Jason Momoa plays a compelling antagonist. But those two things are not enough to make a good movie. This is where the “Mission: Impossible” franchise often succeeds where “Fast & Furious” does not. Because while the movies are fictional spy adventures, they have fewer fantastical elements and more interesting characters that keep me engaged in the picture.

In fact, going back to Dom’s kid, Brian, he is nicely portrayed by Leo Abelo Perry. I am not convinced that he looks like the offspring Dom and Letty would have, but nevertheless. He is good in the film. What is not good in the film, is Dom’s parenting skills. I know this film defies logic, physics, and science, but is it the dumbest time for me to ask why the heck Brian is able to drive at eight years old? I mean, he can… But, are there like, laws… Against that? Ah, who am I kidding? The only law this movie knows is Murphy’s Law.

Although there is one good cameo in the middle of this film. I will not say who the individual of interest is, because I had no idea they were in the film going into it. But they are seen while the film is set in London. Additionally, this individual has some of the funniest lines in the film by a long shot.

Also, if any characters were improved, it would have to be John Cena’s Jakob. Unlike the last movie, he is actually charming, more than just a buff body, and kind of funny. One of Cena’s strengths as an actor is comedy. Since his last outing in the “Fast” universe, he has definitely improved himself as a performer, and I think the writers have similarly improved on his character and relied on some of what made John Cena’s performance in “The Suicide Squad” pop. The character himself is a bit of a diversion from what we have seen in “F9,” but it does not change the fact that Cena’s continued commitment to his craft is shown here.

I am going to do my best to talk about the end of this movie without giving a ton away. Inside I am vomiting just thinking about it. There is, an absurd, albeit the tiniest bit engaging moment where Dom flees from a couple oil trucks. Okay… At least no one is in space. Then we get an out of nowhere cliffhanger. While somewhat abrupt, that moment gave me hope. I thought the movie for the most part was mediocre at best, but that scene nearly redeemed everything else because it hinted that there could be at least one ounce of stakes in this universe. THEN we get to the ACTUAL ending. Where we find a couple other characters witnessing something, then another something happens. Once the other something happens, I think I witnessed an achievement in storytelling that could only be awarded with a Razzie. I said “F9” gave “Sharknado” ideas. That honestly feels like the tip of the iceberg at this point for how ridiculous things get in this franchise. What happened?!

One of the common things I hear about another popular series of films, specifically the MCU, is that those movies are more like theme parks than actual films. There are a few theme park-like elements in the MCU, but they are just a small part of what makes the films themselves exciting. They are still entertaining stories with likable characters. That said, if Martin Scorsese watches “Fast X” and walks out thinking that it is less theme park-esque than anything in the MCU, then he may as well be entitled to his wrong opinion. I would rather watch “Iron Man 2.” I’d rather watch “Black Widow.” Dude, I would rather watch “Thor: The Dark World” instead of not just “Fast X,” but both of this franchise’s most recent outings! How bad do you have to be to compared to a franchise of 32 movies, and I would watch all of those instead of these last two duds?! This movie has thrills, but little character growth. This movie has style, but no substance. This movie has action, but no stakes. And what we get is one of the worst movies of the year, not to mention one of the worst cinematic efforts of the decade.

When I walked out of “F9,” I lost any excitement I had for “Fast X,” and the trailers lowered it even more. As for “Fast X,” I think the most positive thing I can say about this movie is that people got paid to make it. Just because you have all these big stars including Vin Diesel, Brie Larson, Charlize Theron, and Jason Momoa, does not mean the film can get away without delivering a good script to back them up. After the first act, everything in this film feels as haphazard as a carnival ride. Whereas MCU movies are debatably theme park rides instead of cinema, “Fast X” feels more like a carnival ride that was shipped in and set up at the last minute. It is wobbly, squeaky, and its roughness cannot match its acceptable appearance. The film looks okay. The cinematography is pedestrian, although the editing is a bit over the top. Maybe too much for its own good. There is no way I can convince myself that “Fast X” adds anything fresh or exciting to this franchise. Its old tricks, despite their remixes, are honestly tired at this point.

In fact, speaking of old tricks, if I have to be honest and state what I think could be the most enjoyable moments of the film, they may be the ones from the beginning. While that may seem vague, let me remind you that much of that is really just a flashback to “Fast Five.” Do not get me wrong, I like “Fast Five.” But after watching “Fast X,” I was not convinced that I should watch it again. Instead, I thought I would rather watch “Fast Five” again. While some may take this as a compliment regarding the franchise’s longevity, if the franchise wants to save itself in the future, it might as well craft something good to release in the present, and maybe not indulge a whole ton in its past.

Movie franchises are only as good as their last project. Granted, money also talks. “Fast & Furious” makes money. But sometimes the two go hand in hand. Look at “The Divergent Series.” The third movie comes out to less than stellar reviews, the box office is equally unsatisfying, and not only was it announced that the fourth film would go straight to television, the film never saw the light of day following said announcement. Or for a more recent example, Look at “Ant-Man and the Wasp: Quantumania.” The movie ended up receiving some of the worst verdicts in the MCU and ended up having significant drops during following weekends at the box office. Sure, the movie made quite a bit of money, but by current MCU standards and with the diminishing of the COVID-19 pandemic, it is below what it could have made.

Going back to “Fast Five,” this movie utilizes that predecessor to tell a story of its own. Because the villain, Dante, is the son of Hernan Reyes, the antagonist of “Fast Five.” If I have to give this movie one compliment, its villain is one of the more redeemable elements of the experience. I am not going to pretend that it saves the film from being a disaster, but Jason Momoa steals every scene he is in. Every one of his mannerisms reminded me of a more adult version of Jim Carrey’s Doctor Robotnik from the “Sonic” movies. In fact, I am not surprised Momoa pulls off his performance. Having seen one of his most recent projects, “Slumberland,” he has a bit of a fun side to him that I have not uncovered through his time as say “Aquaman.” Not to diss on his performance as Aquaman, but “Slumberland,” despite its flaws, showed perhaps a likably cartoony side to him. At times, this film feels like a cartoon that tries to ground itself too much. Jason Momoa feels like the one performer who showed up to do a different project than those around him. Everyone showed up to be an action star while he showed up to be a goofball with guns and an endless motive to kill. I do not recommend going to see “Fast X,” but if there is any reason I would argue you should, Jason Momoa is the first idea that comes to mind.

There is nothing wrong with a franchise evolving from its roots. But “Fast & Furious” shows what happens when evolution goes too far. Adding a little ridiculousness is fine. In fact, it is actually kind of cool. Although what does not work is seeing that ridiculousness turn into chaos. Sure, this movie harkens back to the street racing element that was utilized in prior installments. But it is overshadowed by the many negatives that result from the franchise’s evolution. I do not have as much emotional attachment for these characters as I once did, because I am convinced that they are going to make it out of any situation they find themselves in. They say the definition of insanity is doing the same thing multiple times and expecting different results. “Fast X” defies reality just as much, if not more, than “F9.” Therefore, this franchise fits the bill to where it could be called insane. It is just about as insane as I would be if I ever watch this movie again.

In the end, “Fast X” somehow managed to go below my already miniscule expectations. A bad “Fast & Furious” movie is one thing, but two in a row destroys my faith in the future of this franchise. I have a feeling this movie was designed with an ending to get me to ask “Where are they going with this?”. Only thing is I saw that ending and thought, there is almost no possible scenario where I tune into the next movie and it compels me from the first scene. I have seen some solid cliffhangers over the years in film. I have seen them in movies like “The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug,” “Back to the Future Part II,” “Inception,” and the “Incredibles” installments. These are endings that either give me solid questions, make me beg for solid answers, or sometimes both. For “Inception,” it leaves my mind to wonder what could be happening. These are solid endings that build extended promise. “Fast X” might be promising something, but I can only assume it will be empty. But before that ending happens, things are not too great either. Between all the nonsense, the boring characters, and lackluster dialogue, this is easily one of the worst movies of the year. I am going to give “Fast X” a 2/10.

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

Thanks for reading this review! Pretty soon I am going to have reviews for films like “The Blackening,” “Spider-Man: Across the Spider-Verse,” and “Hypnotic.” Stay tuned! If you want to see more from Scene Before, follow the blog either with email or WordPress account! Also, check out the official Facebook page! I want to know, did you see “Fast X?” What did you think about it? Or, what is the most abysmal, rotten, downright awful travesty of a blockbuster film you have seen in recent years? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

Shazam!: Fury of the Gods (2023): A Marvelous Spectacle That Goes Bigger Than Its 2019 Predecessor

Posted on by Jack Drees

“Shazam!: Fury of the Gods” is directed by David F. Sandberg, who also directed the previous “Shazam!” movie. This film stars Zachary Levi (Chuck, Tangled), Asher Angel (Jolene, Andi Mack), Jack Dylan Grazer (It, Luca), Rachel Zegler (West Side Story), Adam Brody (Ready or Not, Promising Young Woman), Ross Butler (13 Reasons Why, K.C. Undercover), Meagan Good (Think Like a Man, Brick), Lucy Liu (Charlie’s Angels, Kung Fu Panda), Djimon Hounsou (Furious 7, Guardians of the Galaxy), and Helen Mirren (Gosford Park, F9: The Fast Saga). This sequel is set two years after Thaddeus Sivana, the main antagonist of the last installment, was beaten. This time around, Billy Batson, otherwise known as Shazam, must team up with his “family” to stop the daughters of Atlas from destroying the world.

Before I give my thoughts on “Shazam: Fury of the Gods,” here is a recap on my thoughts on the comic book movie genre in recent months.

I remember a time when comic book movies were not taken as seriously as they are today. Right now we are getting so many of these projects, particularly ones inspired by Marvel and DC properties, at various times of the year. “Shazam!: Fury of the Gods” is just the latest addition to the collection. I have no problem with the excessive amount of comic book movies we are getting as long as the people making them recognize one thing as we move along. Quality. Sadly, in 2022, comic book movies, while still good, have taken a bit of a dip.

When I look at the MCU, I enjoyed every movie they have done that year, but I had notable problems with each one they released. These could range from the visual effects to the humor to the pacing or certain lines that I was not able to believe once they were spoken. Part of the problem, if you ask me, is the MCU going for such an ambitious, perhaps overcrowded route with its Multiverse Saga and also balancing movies with straight to Disney+-content. This has made the MCU lose some of its novelty in addition to its polish.

When it comes to DC, the last couple years has had its hits and misses. “Black Adam,” the last DCEU film before this one is a barely passable time that only delivers as much charm as it does thanks to its stylized action sequences and performances that are perhaps as well delivered as they could have been by the main cast. I liked “The Batman,” but I thought it overstayed its welcome.

2022, again, while still enjoyable, felt like a significant step down from the year before where Marvel delivered a couple of my favorite movies they have done. Specifically, “Shang-Chi and the Legend of the Ten Rings” and “Spider-Man: No Way Home.” I went back for repeat viewings on both of these films. I have seen the latter four times in theaters specifically, including the extended version. On DC’s turf, “The Suicide Squad” ended up not only being my favorite movie of 2021, but also my favorite DC movie I have ever seen. It is such a perfect balance between heart, humor, and action that I cannot stop thinking about it. It also inspired HBO Max’s “Peacemaker,” a brilliant series on its own.

Now we move forward to “Shazam!: Fury of the Gods,” which follows up what I thought to be quite an entertaining film we got four years ago. I was looking forward to this movie, but I thought the marketing was awful. If anything, the first trailer felt too light for a movie about gods trying to destroy earth. Also, I assumed the second trailer basically revealed the whole movie. That said, I was delightfully surprised. I had a good time with this film. There is a lot to like about it. It has a lot of cool fights and visual effects, which are two mainstays in this genre by now, but I also like how they handled the characters. Especially when it comes to a subplot involving Freddy. Rachel Zegler, who is still developing her career, is one of my favorite parts of this film. I loved the way they handled her character, and while her performance is not as awards-worthy as Maria in “West Side Story,” it had my attention from the moment she appears. I was shocked, not to mention full of joy, to find as many positives as I did in this movie.

If I have to note a standout from “Shazam!: Fury of the Gods,” it would be the action sequences. This movie contains some of the more thrilling scenes this genre has provided in recent years. Is it a lot of it big, bloated CGI shenanigans? Sure, but some of the utilizations of the CGI make these scenes worthwhile. They are a ton of fun to watch. There is also a fun scene towards the beginning of the film where the Shazam family tries to save a ton of people from danger on a bridge. There was one song choice that I was a bit iffy on in that scene, specifically Holding Out for a Hero by Bonnie Tyler. Although one of my favorite parts of the movie is when Billy, AKA Shazam, is holding onto a car, hears the song playing, and he asks the driver if he seriously saved them while they were listening to that song. First off, I think a younger superhero would totally say something like that. Second, it kind of goes to show how much that song has become a part of our culture in terms of heroism. Not just because of the name. I mean, look at how it was used in the climax of “Shrek 2!”

Speaking of which, the Shazam family themselves have fantastic chemistry. We got a glimpse of them in the previous film, but this film features them prominently and they are properly utilized from start to finish. Not only do they try to save the world together, but I found it fun to see how they hang out in their off time. And they actually do feel like a “family.” Sure, they stick together, but they are not afraid to occasionally bicker and argue. Yes, they technically are family, they always have been. But they show the positives and negatives to being with a family on a consistent basis. I think this movie shows that perfectly.

Pacing-wise, “Shazam!: Fury of the Gods” could not be better. The film is 130 minutes long, but it honestly feels shorter than it actually is. It is not rushed, it just goes to show how much fun I was having with everything being thrown at me. This movie never has a dull moment in it. Even in lesser moments, I was never uninterested or bored. The third act in “Shazam!: Fury of the Gods” is nowhere near my favorite third act of all the comic book movies that have come out, but it is also one that had my attention more than several others in recent months. In fact, once it starts, it feels like it never wants to stop. I felt an adrenaline rush from the moment it began.

But of course, we must also address the negatives. While this is a fun, entertaining movie, it is also predictable. It occasionally has its own flair but the structure feels like a comic book movie from a decade or two ago. While I love certain comic book movies from a decade or two ago, they have their shortcomings. The villains, while intimidating and threatening, have basic motivations. Destroy the world we have so they can build a new one of their own. Granted the way they go about it works for what this movie delivers, but a cliché is a cliché.

If I have to name a cream of the crop for my negatives, it would involve a personal pet peeve of mine in films. Product placement. As I have said on posts in the past, product placement is an understandable motive. People need to make money, and companies want their products exposed. That said, if you have ever seen a Skittles commercial and thought it should have unicorns, you are in luck. There is something that goes down in the third act involving Skittles, I will not say what, that continues to grind my gears. It is weirdly written, oddly executed, and even stranger wondering how such a thing came to be. This is possibly the most mind-numbingly obvious instance of product placement I have witnessed since “Sonic the Hedgehog” and its sequel’s blatantly obvious and masturbatory tribute to Olive Garden. Because when I think of “Sonic the Hedgehog,” I think of underwhelming, Americanized Italian food.

Although going back to what was said earlier about the second trailer revealing the whole movie, I can say there are segments of the movie that were never shown. There is also one big surprise at the end that I had no idea about. The final ten minutes of this movie put a huge smile on my face. Apparently this surprise was revealed in the marketing, but I did not see said marketing prior to watching this film, therefore I had a heart-stopping reaction when the scene of interest came up.

In the title of this review, I suggest that “Shazam!: Fury of the Gods” goes bigger than the original, which is an effort several sequels, perhaps stereotypically, aim to achieve. This time around you have multiple threats, a giant dragon, and more heroes trying to save the day. I had fun with what this movie had in store. But as I have suggested with some other sequels in the past, bigger does not always mean better. But unlike say the “Matrix” sequels, going bigger in the case of “Shazam!: Fury of the Gods” is not a hindrance. It does not burn the movie to the ground. I get why “Shazam!: Fury of the Gods” would try to do such a thing, and it works in more ways than one. I think the heroes are likable. The villains, despite their lack of depth at times, are somewhat well realized and nicely performed by their individual actors. The CGI is honestly better than some of what Marvel has put out as of late. Heck, I think when it comes to CGI, I think this is better overall than the last big comic book movie to hit theaters, “Ant-Man and the Wasp: Quantumania.” I liked the movie, and some of the effects are quite good. But at times, some of them are so out of this world that I had trouble believing in them. M.O.D.O.K might just be the MCU’s strangest-looking insertion of effects work yet.

Although speaking of “Ant-Man,” I would say if I learned anything about “Shazam!” after two movies, it is very much the “Ant-Man” of the DCEU. The heroes and stories have their differences, but both are played by tall white men with black hair. Both are naturally snappy and occasionally hyper. And they both have to significantly change their physicality to become their alter egos. But what I have also noticed is that both of their movies, in addition to their franchises, play out in similar fashions. On the surface, both movies feel much smaller than their sister movies. In terms of scale, “Ant-Man” is no “Guardians of the Galaxy.” Similarly, “Shazam!” is no “Aquaman.” “Shazam” might occasionally feel large in scale, but compared to most of the cinematic universe to which it belongs, it is puny. And now, with their latest sequels, “Quantumania” and “Fury of the Gods” respectively, they try to unleash something much bigger than they’ve had before. How they go about doing so is completely different from one another, but they nevertheless try to aim higher in terms of their concept than their other movies. This is not to say 2018’s “Ant-Man and the Wasp” feels smaller than 2015’s “Ant-Man,” but I would say the leap from “Ant-Man and the Wasp” to “Quantumania” is much bigger. While not as seismic, the shift between “Shazam!” and “Shazam!: Fury of the Gods” definitely feels noticeable. There is a lot more action, more world-building, not to mention, more potential world-destroying. Bigger does not always equal better, but in the case of “Shazam!: Fury of the Gods,” going bigger led to a movie that is serviceable in more ways than one, but does not reinvent the wheel. It is a step up from “Black Adam,” but it is not the DCEU’s best work either.

In the end, “Shazam!: Fury of the Gods” is not a masterpiece of the comic book sub-genre, it has its wins, it has its losses, but I had a grand time with it. This film is packed with superpowered, monstrous joy and entertainment. It is not going to win any awards. But I do not say that as a negative because it certainly is not going to take home any Razzies. It is simply put, a decent time at the movies. To those who want to avoid this movie because they are tired of the superhero genre or because the DC universe is getting a reboot at some point, I hear you. I get it. I thought the marketing for this movie looked awful, but I went to see it anyway. Safe to say, I am glad I shelled out a few bucks to see it on the big screen. It is worth your time. I am going to give “Shazam!: Fury of the Gods” a 7/10.

“Shazam!: Fury of the Gods” is now playing in theaters everywhere. Tickets are available now.

Thanks for reading this review! My next review is going to be for “John Wick: Chapter 4!” The film just hit theaters this weekend, and I am very much looking forward to checking it out tonight. My thoughts will be up next week. If you want to see this and more from Scene Before, follow the blog either with an email or WordPress account! Also, check out the official Facebook page! I want to know, did you see “Shazam!: Fury of the Gods?” What did you think about it? Or, did you see the original “Shazam!” film? What are your thoughts? Which of the “Shazam!” movies do you prefer? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

F9: The Fast Saga (2021): Go F9 Yourself

Posted on by Jack Drees

“F9: The Fast Saga,” otherwise known as the egotistical title of the ninth installment of the “Fast & Furious” franchise, is directed by Justin Lin, a veteran director of this ongoing franchise, and stars Vin Diesel (xXx, The Last Witch Hunter), Michelle Rodriguez (Smurfs: The Lost Village, Widows), Jordana Brewster (Dallas, Lethal Weapon), Tyrese Gibson (Transformers, Ride Along 2), Ludacris (Show Dogs, Crash), John Cena (Wipeout, Bumblebee), Nathalie Emmanuel (Game of Thrones, Maze Runner: The Scorch Trials), Sung Kang (Better Luck Tomorrow, Motel), Michael Rooker (Guardians of the Galaxy, Slither), Helen Mirren (RED, Hitchcock), Kurt Russell (Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2, The Thing), and Charlize Theron (Bombshell, Atomic Blonde). This film, as recently suggested, is the latest installment to the “Fast & Furious” franchise. The film follows Dom Toretto and his car-obsessed “family” as they take on their latest mission of high-speed hijinks. This time, Dominic must face off against his younger brother Jakob (John Cena) as they reunite after years of separation.

Wow. We’re actually here. The Hollywood machine continues. It is time I update you with my status regarding the “Fast & Furious” franchise. I like all these movies except for maybe 2 and especially not “Tokyo Drift.” The first film is kind of like “Point Break” with cars, but I like it because I enjoy media where we see a ton of customized vehicles and people gathering to street race every now and then. I spent much of my childhood playing racing games so to see a movie like “The Fast and the Furious” out for public viewing is quite fascinating. I will also say, having seen every “Fast & Furious” installment, including “Hobbs & Shaw,” I’ve noticed every movie since the fourth one seems to obviously embrace shark-jumping to some degree. And usually it works. “Fast Five” and “Furious 7” are neck and neck to be my favorite films in this franchise. “The Fate of the Furious,” the eighth movie, was kind of on the brim of top tier crazy where the main characters have to outrun a submarine in ice, but it was still enjoyable, and I was nevertheless attached to the characters. I liked the story where Dom turned his back on his family and the consequences he had to face along the way. I also liked the end of the movie where they paid homage to Paul Walker’s character because the actor passed away before “Furious 7” came out and Dom decided to name his kid Brian. “Hobbs & Shaw” also had some absurd stuff going between Idris Elba being “black Superman” and the skyscraper freefall. But that movie showed great chemistry between the two leads and had some hilarious writing.

Now let’s move onto “F9.” If you know me, you’d know that I have been anxious to see this movie. I’m not saying it was my most anticipated of the year or anything. But when ticket sales were announced, I jumped the gun. I bought my tickets three months in advance to secure my seats (and possibly win a chance to go to the world premiere of the film in Los Angeles).

That was in 2020. But of course, the inevitable happened. The film was delayed, movie theaters shut down, and most big movies had to be put on hold. So even though I did not have “F9” as my top movie to see this year, I did recognize my pent-up desire to see it as the release date got closer. If “Godzilla vs. Kong,” a film with mostly action and little story, taught me anything, I could definitely use a big dumb movie every now and then.

But instead of a big dumb movie, I think I got a braindead one. There are things to like about “F9.” There are some occasional funny lines, although not as many as some previous films, the chemistry between Tyrese Gibson and Ludacris is not bad, and the same can be said for the chemistry between Dom and Letty. These characters have been with us for so many years that returning to a world like this can feel occasionally palatable. But this franchise has become so massively associated with absurdity that I left this movie talking with my dad and I told him, “This movie gave Sharknado ideas.”

There are no stakes in “F9,” at least none that stand out. Yes, there are things that go on in “F9” that could potentially mean life or death. The fast family is on a mission in Central America where they have to investigate a plane and avoid a ton of land mines. Dom reunites with his younger brother, and the two are now rivals. There are some occasional spur of the moment things that come up, but overall, I had no reason to think that any of these characters would not get out of any situation alive. I can think of particular situations where the movie tries to convince me otherwise, but I am watching the movie realizing, these characters are basically superheroes without costumes or actual powers. Are they lucky? Are they aided by gods? I don’t even know! These movies are becoming so ridiculous that they are boggling my mind!

I like Vin Diesel as much the next guy, but I am concerned that this franchise is really going from “Fast & Furious” to “Watch Vin Diesel Grow His Ego.” Dom Toretto is insanely overpowered in this film. There is a scene where he’s fighting at least twenty dudes at once and he beats them all without assistance from another human being. Why? Because he’s Dom Toretto. No other reason. If Vin Diesel has a production credit, you gotta let him have all the spotlight! That’s how things work, right?!

I also find it hilarious that “Fast & Furious” has always been, perhaps beyond a memeable degree, about family, and now apparently we find out Dom has a brother named Jakob. By the way, Jakob is played by John Cena, who quite frankly served his purpose within his role. John Cena has played a number of roles over the years. He is improving his craft, but I still think he’s got a ways to go before he is pristine. Although I do think he’s an okay comedy actor, so if you want my recommendation, dump “F9” in a fire and go watch “Blockers” starring John Cena! Please, it’s a much better movie.

Harkening back to why I found this movie so unwatchably absurd, I was watching a particular moment from the first twenty minutes of the film, where Dom needs to get from one piece of land to another, but he does so in a way that reeks of convenience. Watching certain portions of this movie reminds me of why I make fun of certain commercials. You ever see a car commercial for something like a Nissan and the driver is trying to escape an impending doom where debris is continuously falling behind them? They’re not screaming, they’re not happy, they literally have no emotion whatsoever. While there is definitely more on-screen emotion displayed in “F9,” I feel like I can read the inside of Dom’s mind, and as Dom drives in danger, his mind is almost likely stoic.

I’m not gonna spill every detail about this movie, but if you watched the trailers, you’d notice that “F9” takes some leaps that the franchise almost to my surprise has not taken before. Han, a fan favorite character, is back. The way they address it is like the rest of the movie, it left me confused. I know the “Fast & Furious” franchise is not always meant to be taken seriously, but at least in the past number of movies, they’ve left in some semblance of reality. Remember that scene in “Furious 7” where Dom and Brian are in a car near the top of a skyscraper in Abu Dhabi? They drive that car out of one tall building to another without getting anywhere towards the ground? And because there is apparently no better solution, the duo has to stay in the car driving out of that building and landing into another one? Then they escape the car, letting it fall out of that building to its inevitable crash? Remember that scene? That was the perfect mix of escapism, humor, absurdity, and stakes! Those last two things are important. Because the characters in “F9” have become so invincible that I can no longer take them seriously or root for them to get out of a sticky situation because I already have a preconceived thought that they will make it out even if it means breaking every law of physics in existence ten times in a minute! These movies are beyond reality at this point. They feel like they come from another planet! I don’t mean that in a good way!

Heck, there’s even a scene where we see Ludacris and Tyrese Gibson together and they’re even making fun of how in the past, they’ve been on all these crazy missions and they wondered how they are still alive today. They’ve brought up the same ideas I’ve been talking about. Are they just lucky or invincible? Who knows? Having seen their main sequences in the movie, part of me wants to go with the latter!

I will admit, one thing I kind of sort of liked was seeing the magnet scenes play down. That was one cool idea they had for this movie, where everything in sight just flies around on the street, including cars, onto a moving vehicle. I kind of like the concept and it made for some okay action. I want to say, I have seen other movies where maybe I would throw out the critique, “this movie sounds like it was written by a nine-year old!” That phrase is often used as a negative because I think we as audiences can mostly agree that we want most of our movies to have a semblance of maturity and logic. Turns out, this idea of the film came from the Justin Lin’s son, Oqwe, who happened to be nine-years old. See? Some nine-year olds do have okay ideas! With that being said, I don’t think there’s a better opportunity to say this, “F9” literally sounds like it was written by a nine-year old!

“F9” in a way kind of reminds me of “Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker” because if I have to address a single observation from that movie, it feels like that movie tries extra hard to cater to the fans based on things they address through the Internet. In that movie, we see Luke diss his past self for “disgracing” his own lightsaber, and at the end, we see Rey and Kylo kiss… for… what reason exactly? Here in “F9,” Han is back, and the whole meme about “Fast & Furious” going to space becomes a reality here. The two big wishes I have seen on the Internet regarding “Fast & Furious” have been brought to life in “F9” and it makes me ask, where do they go from here? This movie really put the “Fast” in “Fast & Furious” and ended up blowing its load way too quickly. The only way I can imagine this franchise becoming any dumber is if it crossed over with “Jurassic Park” or “Sharknado.” That’s about it. I do not know at this point if I will be excited for the inevitable “Fast & Furious 10.” This movie has a mid-credits scene that seems to promise something interesting, but until I actually see some material, I am just going to assume at this point that the next movie will be unwatchable. Who knows? Maybe it’ll be more grounded. Maybe the characters will get into some serious trouble. Maybe there will actually be stakes. But until I get a greater glimpse, I cannot do anything at this point but assume that the worst has yet to come.

In the end, unlike the characters who have shown themselves off on screens for years, “F9: The Fast Saga” is nowhere near invincible. “F9: The Fast Saga” is honestly the worst “Fast & Furious” movie since “The Fast and the Furious: Tokyo Drift.” That film bored me, felt somewhat out of place in the franchise, and I have not watched it since my first viewing. Much like “Tokyo Drift,” I cannot see myself watching “F9” again anytime soon. Just a reminder, this franchise started out as a “Point Break” wannabe with street racing and people stealing electronics. Now apparently Dominic Toretto is the world’s most badass spy. Just… Because. No other reason. I absolutely hated this movie. I think it is a massive disappointment and it goes way too far in terms of how campy and unrealistic it wants to be. As Hogarth says in “The Iron Giant,” “You are who you choose to be.” Looks like this entire cast chose “Superman.” And frankly, I’m furious. I’m going to give “F9: The Fast Saga” a 3/10.

“F9: The Fast Saga” is now playing in theaters everywhere. It is also available in large formats including Dolby Cinema and IMAX.

Thanks for reading this review! I just want to remind everyone that this week I will be beginning my brand new review series in honor of “Jungle Cruise,” the upcoming film based on the Disney theme park ride, “Pirates of the Caribbean: The Chest of Reviews.” In this series, I will be talking about all five “Pirates of the Caribbean” movies, beginning in chronological order with “The Curse of the Black Pearl” on July 1st and ending with “Dead Men Tell No Tales” on July 29th. Stay tuned, mateys! If you want to see this and more, follow Scene Before either with an email or a WordPress account! Also, check out the official Facebook page! I want to know, did you see “F9: The Fast Saga?” What did you think about it? Or, what are some movies you personally enjoy despite acknowledging their stupidity? For me, I’d say “The Meg” and the “Bill & Ted” films come to mind. Let me know your dumb picks down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

90th Academy Awards Recap

Posted on by Jack Drees

mv5bmgu2ngnlmtqtzta5yi00nju5ltlmzgmtmgnlngjkymu1ndc0xkeyxkfqcgdeqxvynti5njiymw-_v1_sy1000_sx675_al_

Hey everyone, Jack Drees here! Before we go any further, let me just say, I admittedly put this post out a little later than I once anticipated. I had my mind going around on three posts at once, part of me was begging to nap this week, some distractions have gotten in the way, and I also had this thing going on over on my Twitter where I’m giving shoutouts to women on International Women’s Day. With those things in mind, you might as well say that if this blog or my posts happened to be my kid(s), I might not be the best of fathers. I’ve been distracted, wanting to fall asleep, and just didn’t have enough of a focus on the things that matter. Speaking of parenting, let’s talk about Genevieve and Paul. Who are they? Well, they’re a couple who are currently expecting, but their journey to get there was like trying to find a way to defy gravity. Impossibly long and stressful. Ladies and gentlemen, this is all documented in “What The IVF?!”

“What the IVF?” focuses on the recently mentioned couple, Genevieve and Paul. The two are happy together and one day decide to have a baby. Turns out they realize, the process of having a baby isn’t all fun and games, and now they’ve got to deal with various problems. These problems range in areas including: Sex, math, exams, and those freakin’ needles!  The first episode of the series up right now, it’s actually the video listed above, it’s a few minutes long, so if you need to waste some time and you feel like you should watch something, this is a good deal for you. And I said to the couple that I’d promote the material, and I’m not just saying this to be nice or push their buttons or receive a fat paycheck in the mail, in fact at this point they’d probably need it for baby food or something, I actually watched the first episode, and I thought it was very well done. If you look at this video, you’re in for a well edited treat. Be sure to catch up on the latest regarding Genevieve and Paul and to help you do that, I’ll post links to various “WTIVF?” social media pages, and if you check this stuff out, be sure to tell them that Jack Drees sent you 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/

Getting back on track, it’s official that the Academy Awards are now over, so now I can look back and say to myself, “What happened to the politics?” If you think I’m asking that negatively, think again. Because I know one thing for sure, politics and the Academy Awards associate with each other quite well, and at times, it’s not exactly annoying, but they seemed to tone it down this year. When it comes to the politics, it was basically a sigh of relief. There were barely any comments regarding our current administration and when the comments were uttered, they were actually quite funny!

“That’s not the point. We don’t make films like ‘Call Me by Your Name’ for money. We make them to upset Mike Pence.” -Jimmy Kimmel

Then again, this isn’t the Golden Globes, where political and social issues, at least from my eyes and ears, seem to be more prominent and forced. At this Oscars, the insertion of all this commentary regarding politics and society didn’t feel that awkward because while they were there, there seemed to be more of a focus on awards and film.

Not every single person made it a big deal to wear black. People either did or they didn’t. The jokes weren’t as cringe-worthy. And let me just have you know, the stuff that’s being represented in terms of social issues happens to be stuff I personally support! Racial equality! Gender equality! I mean, Barbra Streisand and Natalie Portman didn’t get up on stage and come off as depression lords. Yes, time IS up, but there are more important issues than having male nominees and winners for Best Director. One of my favorite quotes regarding social issues comes from Kumail Nanjiani, who you may know as one of the writers and actors in last year’s “The Big Sick,” which is one of my favorite movies of 2017.

“Some of my favorite movies are movies by straight white dudes about straight white dudes. Now, straight white dudes can watch movies starring me, and you relate to that. It’s not that hard. I’ve done it my whole life.”

Well said, Kumail!

One of the other highlights of the night was something I didn’t actually expect. I came in for an award show, not a game show. Now when I say that, you may expect me to follow up with something negative, that is unless you realize my fanaticism for game shows. So as Jimmy Kimmel is finishing up his opening monologue, he reminds everyone that the Oscars is “a very long show.” Before those words are spoken, he states that the first Oscars show lasted for fifteen minutes from beginning to end, he adds in humor by saying “and people still complained.” So in order to spice things up, the show was going to give away a prize. So I start hearing “The Price is Right” music and suddenly, I see Helen Mirren standing right next to a new jet ski. The total value of the jet ski is $17,999, and whoever was to give the shortest speech, will go home with the prize. Kimmel adds, “Why waste precious time thanking your mother when you can give her the ride of her life on a new jet ski?” The man claimed that he was going to be timing everyone who wins an Academy Award with a stopwatch. Once they pick up their trophy, the clock begins ticking. Some of Kimmel’s conclusive words are “And in the unlikely event of a tie, I need to say the jet ski will be awarded to Christopher Plummer.”

By the way, Mark Bridges, the costume designer for “Phantom Thread,” was the winner of the jet ski. Also, for those of you who never heard of or seen “Phantom Thread,” the main character of Reynolds Woodcock, played by Daniel Day-Lewis, is a dressmaker. So of course, a movie about making clothes, won a category which involves making clothes.

Before I tuned into the Oscars, I made a hope/prediction post, which admittedly I rushed in some parts, but overall it was a somewhat effective list coming in over 4500 words. Although to be fair, it was crunch time, and I was just trying to get my major category predictions down. Much like in that post, I’m not gonna go through all the categories and stick to talking about anything from the categories that stand out to me. In my post I didn’t talk about anything such as Best Animated Short Film, Best Documentary, stuff like that. I’m just gonna talk about a category if I have some sort of interest related to them or if there’s something to me in it that stands out compared to other categories. To start this off, I’m going to dive into a category that I didn’t discuss on my prediction post. Specifically, Best Animated Short Film.

Here are the results for Best Animated Short Film!

  • Dear Basketball (WINNER!)
  • Garden Party
  • Lou
  • Negative Space
  • Revolting Rhymes

Regardless of familiarity, this category interested me because of its winner, “Dear Basketball.” For those of you who haven’t seen or heard of “Dear Basketball,” I don’t imagine many people will blame you, including Lakers fans. It has less than 2,000 ratings on IMDb, but it appears the Academy liked it. I have no problem with them liking it. I haven’t seen the short, so I can’t judge all that much. Although the real shocker for me here is who happens to be behind this “Academy Award winner.” OK, well, John Williams composed the music, which may have partially contributed to the overall verdict. The animation was a different style than what I usually see, and while I don’t think that in itself is award-worthy, maybe the idea of being different contributed to it. The creative developer, Brian Hunt made this his first project as a creative developer, but he also had experience in the industry prior to this. Although when it comes to the entire world of diverse, differently-minded, and film-focused people, the Academy decides to give an award to…

Kobe Bryant.

Yeah, Kobe Bryant. Kobe. Bryant. KOBE… BRRRRYANT. A former NBA Basketball player who has won the NBA Finals in the past, achieved an Oscar! I’m not saying that this is the end of the world, but seriously! If you told me a week ago, that Kobe Bryant, a guy who angrily swears at his own basketball team during practice, saying that his teammates are motherf*ckers who don’t do s*it for him, was going to win an Academy Award, I’d die laughing, get up, and tell you to get out of my sight because I’d think you’re incredibly dumb.

But he did.

Although one thing I really liked about this is how Mark Hamill was presenting the award. Because for one thing, he’s f*cking Mark Hamill. And another thing, the joke he made right before “Dear Basketball” was announced.

“Don’t say ‘La La Land.’ Don’t say La La Land.'”

Speaking of animations, let’s dive into Best Animated Feature Film.

  • Coco (WINNER!)
  • Ferdinand
  • The Boss Baby
  • The Breadwinner
  • Loving Vincent

“Coco” won. What a surprise.

“The Boss Baby” lost. Big fat shocker as well, not to mention a sign that Earth is still sane.

Enough said. Moving on.

Next up is Best Actor, and here are the results!

  • Gary Oldman (Darkest Hour) (WINNER!)
  • Daniel Day-Lewis (Phantom Thread)
  • Timothée Chalamet (Call Me by Your Name)
  • Denzel Washington (Roman J. Israel, Esq.)
  • Daniel Kaluuya (Get Out)

In total honesty, it would have been nice to see Daniel Day-Lewis win. Not just because he’s a terrific actor, but because this is his last performance. I have not seen “Phantom Thread,” much like how I haven’t seen any of the other films listed above, but seeing Day-Lewis winning would have been a treat. I have nothing against Gary Oldman. I don’t have anything against him winning, I think he’s a fine actor, and he definitely has potential to take on some more great roles in the future. I didn’t think about this while I was doing my hope and prediction post, but I did find this out going into the show. If Timothée Chalamet ended up winning Best Actor, he would have been the youngest person to win that award. For the record, Chalamet could have possibly been a 22 year-old Oscar winner, beating out then 29 year-old Adrien Brody (The Pianist) who won an Academy Award for this specific category for the 2002 movie season.

Speaking of acting, let’s move onto Best Actress!

  • Frances McDormand (Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri) (WINNER!)
  • Meryl Streep (The Post)
  • Sally Hawkins (The Shape of Water)
  • Saoirse Ronan (Lady Bird)
  • Margot Robbie (I, Tonya)

Once again, a category filled with movies that I just haven’t gotten around to watching! OK, well except one, which was “Three Billboards.” Having seen it, I approve of McDormand’s win. Very well deserved! Part of me thought at one point that Margot Robbie was gonna win for “I, Tonya” based on a clip I saw for it, but I guess not. Meryl Streep… I have nothing against her. I still have to see “The Post.” But I seriously wonder if this nomination happened just because she’s Meryl and the Academy has a fetish for nominating her. Part of me is also surprised the Academy didn’t go with Saoirse Ronan for “Lady Bird.” Although at the same time, it surprises me how many people saw the movie and didn’t like it. I didn’t see it, but I’m trying to.

One of the next categories we’re gonna get into is Best Adapted Screenplay.

  • Call Me by Your Name (WINNER!)
  • The Disaster Artist
  • Logan
  • Molly’s Game
  • Mudbound

I’ll state something similar to what I said in my prediction and hope post. “Mudbound,” to me, doesn’t qualify as a movie that associates with the Oscars. To me, the Oscars is about celebrating cinema. While there are a number of people who clearly worship this movie for various reasons, I refuse to call it a technical “Oscar film.” To my knowledge, this movie has released in a couple theaters if that. And while I do think a movie with even the smallest theatrical release can qualify to win an Oscar, it’s mainly known to me as a straight to streaming film. Now don’t get me wrong, if Amazon or someone like that distributed this film, I would have possibly supported “Mudbound” more. But instead, Netflix did. And since Netflix doesn’t give movie theaters a chance (do some research on “The Cloverfield Paradox”), I refuse to watch it, review it, and call it a movie that others seem to call it. So unless Netflix starts releasing films in theaters as a tradition and not a special occasion, I refuse to review any of their films or consider them for awards like Oscars, or if you want to be more accurate on my end, my top 10 BEST movies of the year lists. Now “Call Me by Your Name” won. I didn’t see it, therefore I was in a somewhat of a shock when its, well, name was called. I was glad it wasn’t “Mudbound,” but I didn’t really expect this film to win, and I was actually rooting for a couple of other films. One film I saw earlier this year because I couldn’t get to it last year was “Molly’s Game.” The film itself? Barely passable. The screenplay though? If this were a film class and I were teaching, I’d give it somewhere around the A range just for the diction choices and the snappy tone it provided at times. I was especially disappointed that they didn’t pick “The Disaster Artist” because humor-wise, it was the funniest movie of 2017, maybe aside from “The LEGO Batman Movie.” Not to mention the way it was written was partially realistic and another part felt like a homage. And while this is based on a true event, I totally appreciate the callbacks to some things that happened that can be associated with “The Room.” A lot of people are kind of disappointed that “Logan” didn’t win this award. I haven’t seen “Logan,” I’ve heard phenomenal things, but I haven’t seen it. Part of me wonders if this is just coming from people who either have a bias towards comic book movies or just go see comic book movies and ignores everything else, or if it’s a bunch of people who appreciate the screenplay for its differences compared to other comic book movies. It’s darker, grittier, contains more violence and foul language, and it just contains things that makes anyone who works at Disney hide in the corner. I’m not gonna focus on Best Original Screenplay, I don’t really have much to say about it. Like I mentioned earlier, I’m gonna just dive into categories which can feel more like an essay as opposed to a couple of forced complete sentences. Either that or if I feel if it has some sort of relevance to me, that will play into this sort of thing as well.

Next up is a category containing something I often think about, Best Original Score.

  • Alexandre Desplat (The Shape of Water) (WINNER!)
  • Hans Zimmer (Dunkirk)
  • John Williams (Star Wars: The Last Jedi)
  • Jonny Greenwood (Phantom Thread)
  • Carter Burwell (Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri)

Before we get into discussion concerning the winner, let’s talk about John Williams. John Williams, without a doubt, is a great composer, and there’s a reason why people love his work. Not only has he done some of the most iconic movie scores of all (Raiders of the Lost Ark, Harry Potter, Jurassic Park, Home Alone, Jaws), but he’s proven to be talented for many many years. Although him being nominated for his work on “The Last Jedi” is just… Bogus. I have seen every single “Star Wars” film scored by John Williams, including the latest one in the franchise, “The Last Jedi.” The movie’s mediocre overall, I admittedly overhyped it when I first saw it, it was a whole thing. When it comes to John Williams, I honestly don’t see how he could have been nominated for an Oscar other than the fact that he’s the one doing the score. You remember the score for “Rogue One?” That one was the only score for a theatrically released “Star Wars” film that isn’t from John Williams. That score, while not recognized all that much for awards, was not only a delight to hear, but a different take on what could qualify as “Star Wars” music. I’ve given some sort of praise to “The Last Jedi” for being different, but one aspect that didn’t feel different was the score. It felt like it just took themes from “The Force Awakens” and other “Star Wars” films and shoved them right into this one. I still remember the climactic scenes and I’m hearing the “March of the Resistance” song and it just felt underwhelming unlike the first couple of times. I like John Williams, I think he’s skilled, but what the hell? There are other scores that weren’t even nominated that could have qualified! “Blade Runner 2049!” “Wonder Woman!” And even though this film wasn’t really that good, I’d be fine with live-action “Ghost in the Shell” because at least various aspects of the movie, such as the music, made it sound like it was trying. “Revenge of the Sith’s” score was never nominated for any Oscars, but if you actually think “The Last Jedi” had a better score than “Revenge of the Sith,” I’m gonna force-choke you. Now onto something that matters.

I wanted “Dunkirk” to win Best Original Score. Although in the end, it turned out to be “The Shape of Water.” And funny enough, the composer for the score in “The Shape of Water,” Alexandre Desplat was originally going to compose the music for the recently mentioned “Rogue One” before that job ultimately went to Michael Giacchino! Desplat has also scored 2014’s “The Grand Budapest Hotel,” which I saw, enjoyed, but can’t say I liked as much other people. You know, kind of like its score. Seriously? It lost to “Interstellar?” You done goof, Academy. I’ll say this is one of those wins, much like a couple of others that really make me interested in checking out “The Shape of Water.” It would be interesting to hear what music related to a woman and fish who wanna f*ck sound like. I thought “Dunkirk” would win for its grand and fast-paced feel, but I guess not. But seriously though, no love for “Blade Runner 2049?”

Speaking of that, let’s talk about the nominees and winner for Best Visual Effects.

  • Blade Runner 2049 (WINNER!)
  • Star Wars: The Last Jedi
  • Kong: Skull Island
  • War for the Planet of the Apes
  • Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2

From what you can tell, I love “Blade Runner.” I love both the original film and its sequel. An enormous part of me is beyond glad that it won Best Visual Effects. I will say though, I imagine some people have these every once in awhile. They have certain categories in award shows where they don’t care who wins because they think all of them are deserving of the prize. This to me, was one of them. I will say, part of me is shocked that “War for the Planet of the Apes” didn’t win because a lot of people were impressed by that film visually. Interestingly, that was the only film of the five nominees I didn’t watch at the very least in portions. I’ve seen part of “Kong: Skull Island,” and every other film including “Guardians,” “Star Wars,” and “Blade Runner,” were ones I watched from beginning to end. Part of me even wonders how many people are thinking right now that “War for the Planet of the Apes” got snubbed. Nevertheless, I’m happy “Blade Runner 2049” won. If you have not seen “Blade Runner 2049,” you might occasionally drop your jaw at the city of Los Angeles, the fact that they did a clear recreation of Sean Young who played Rachael in the original film, and how much you’ll be immersed that a part of you might end up wanting to jump in this world. If “War for the Planet of the Apes” won, I think it would have been a very much deserved win, but I’m incredibly happy that “Blade Runner 2049” took the cake.

One category that got a number of people talking was Best Film Editing. This is partially because of not only who DID win. But also because of who DIDN’T win. Here are the five films to have been recognized for their achievement here.

  • Dunkirk (WINNER!)
  • The Shape of Water
  • I, Tonya
  • Baby Driver
  • Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri

So “Dunkirk” came out on top as you can clearly see, and as someone who has watched the movie, I can understand why it won. It was told in a non-linear fashion, which only made the film a tad more interesting than it already was. Although it’s a Christopher Nolan movie, so this puzzle-like editing isn’t exactly a shocker. One movie that people were surprised didn’t win however was “Baby Driver.” I feel like part of why this didn’t win is because the Academy usually goes after dramatic movies like “Dunkirk” instead of movies that some people would refer to as “less serious” and “fun” like “Baby Driver.” Not only that, but I’m willing to bet part of it has to do with the whole Kevin Spacey scandal that’s been brought to the world’s attention months ago. Granted, this isn’t Kevin Spacey’s nomination specifically, but still. Am I disappointed “Baby Driver” lost to “Dunkirk?” Not really, I think both films are well edited in their own little way. “Dunkirk’s” non-linear fashion makes the movie more of a challenge to watch and ultimately more fun. Although with “Baby Driver,” the editing in that movie has given us some of the best action sequences of the decade. In my review, I praised “Baby Driver” for its thrilling action sequences and how it made me want more of them once one ends. I can see why “Dunkirk” won, but some love for “Baby Driver” would have also been appreciated.

If you remember the nominees for Best Sound Editing and Best Sound Mixing, something in particular may have stood out to you.

They’re the same nominees.

Not only that…

THE SAME MOVIE TOOK BOTH AWARDS!

  • Dunkirk (WINNER!)
  • Blade Runner 2049
  • Baby Driver
  • The Shape of Water
  • Star Wars: The Last Jedi

One thing I’d like to say about “The Last Jedi.” I actually beg to differ because I think it had 2017’s best LACK OF sound editing or sound mixing. Remember that scene where one ship goes into hyperspace and crashes through another ship in the process? HOLY. F*CKING. S*IT. As much as that movie could have been better, THAT. WAS. AMAZING. While I do think the general editing for “Baby Driver” was praise-worthy to the point where I can’t contain myself, the sound work is basically not a competition anymore when “Dunkirk” steps in the ring. The sound choices were authentic! The audibility was extreme! The immersion provided from all the noise was 100% pure! How can you go wrong with “Dunkirk” in these categories?! “Dunkirk” put me in a war zone, and if you tell me you missed out on seeing this movie in a theater, shame on you.

When it comes to Best Director, this was yet another one of those categories where I was left feeling a lack of a surprise.

  • Guillermo del Toro (The Shape of Water) (WINNER!)
  • Greta Gerwig (Lady Bird)
  • Jordan Peele (Get Out)
  • Christopher Nolan (Dunkirk)
  • Paul Thomas Anderson (Phantom Thread)

So… Del Toro won. Doesn’t shock me whatsoever. I don’t know what you may have thought as the one to come out on top, but this was rather predictable to me. And I feel like a big part of it has to do with his presence at other awards shows, how much del Toro’s name has been spoken recently, and also how many Best Director awards I’ve been aware of this film getting thus far. One that really stuck out to me was the Golden Globes, mainly because of Natalie Portman’s “all male nominees” comment, which honestly would have been better left unspoken due to its awkwardness. I wanted Nolan to win, partially because he’s my favorite director, and also because of the excellent job he did on “Dunkirk.” But yeah, you can’t have everything. Although, I will say, something in the same realm as Portman’s Golden Globes utterance occurred. Last year’s winner for Best Actress, Emma Stone (La La Land, Birdman), said this:

“It is the director whose indelible touch is reflected on every frame. It is the director who, shot by shot, scene by scene, day by day, works with every member of the crew to further the story. And it is the vision of the director that takes an ordinary movie and turns it into a work of art. These four men and Greta Gerwig created their own masterpieces this year.”

This was so much better than seeing Natalie Portman onstage and having myself hear what she said. Don’t get me wrong, Portman’s a fine actress. Although let’s take a look at the situation at hand with her. She was standing next to RON HOWARD, someone who has directed a number of films. Films that by the way, are still remembered to this day! Howard even recently directed a film in the “Star Wars” franchise! A franchise which Portman was once a major part of as an actress! The two are talking, they’re about to present the award, and at one point, I hear Portman say…

“And here are the all male nominees.”

Yes, it is true that female directors aren’t usually getting as much attention as males. It is also true, that more males are directing movies as opposed to females. But to literally shame a director just because they have a penis, is just unbelievably ridiculous. How do you think del Toro felt taking that award home? I imagine he felt happy because he won, but seriously, he won after being accused of simply being a man. Emma Stone on the other hand, didn’t exactly make an awkward joke and instead quickly stated some words before moving on. It’s actually kinda funny. It was presented in a setting and manner that didn’t have a forced vibe, and I don’t have any feelings of cringe to describe to you. This comment, while it does point out the lack of women in the director’s chair when it comes to filmmaking, doesn’t feel like something that a man should be ashamed of hearing. Because for one thing, it mentions a woman got nominated. Also because it’s still technically a comment of praise. Literally pointing out that nominees are male the way Natalie Portman did almost feels like a comment meant to point out disdain towards the potential winners. Just look at the difference between the tone, delivery, and choice of words between the two people. Just look and see what I mean!

Speaking of women making achievements, one of them was involved in Best Cinematography… Although to me, that’s not even CLOSE to the best part of this category. The best part, is who finally f*cking won, after FOURTEEN nominations.

  • Roger Deakins (Blade Runner 2049) (WINNER!)
  • Hoyte Van Hoytema (Dunkirk)
  • Rachel Morrison (Mudbound)
  • Bruno Delbonnel (Darkest Hour)
  • Dan Laustsen (The Shape of Water)

Best Cinematography. Sounds like a category that some people don’t care about. In reality, when it comes to filmmaking, I’m a writer. If there’s one thing I’m not, it’s a cinematographer. Although more than one name for me stood out on this list. You’ve got Hoyte Van Hoytema, who has to proven to be a great cinematographer with not just “Dunkirk” as a notable achievement, but also “Interstellar” and “Spectre.” I really admired “Dunkirk” when I saw it partially because of how well done the camerawork itself was presented from an immersion perspective, but also the fact that it was shot on mostly IMAX footage. If you didn’t go see this film in an IMAX theater, especially one with laser projection or 15/70mm projection, you may have just missed out on a one of a kind experience.

Another standout to me was “Mudbound,” and part of me thought the Academy was going to pick the cinematographer for that movie, Rachel Morrison. For the record, she was the first woman ever nominated for the award in all ninety of the Academy Awards shows. I’ll mention once again, I refuse to call “Mudbound” a movie. I have nothing against Rachel Morrison, I just have a problem with Netflix. I’d be rooting for Morrison more if she was given a movie that doesn’t associate with a company which will make me always say, as pervy as it may sound, “I’ll just take chill,” when asked the common meme-worthy question “Netflix and chill?.”

Then we have “Blade Runner 2049.” My runner-up for my favorite movies of 2017 list for a gigantic number of reasons. And speaking of gigantic numbers, let’s talk about the number 14. OK, in some realms it’s not really that huge, but you’ll see my point. Roger Deakins was the director of photography for “Blade Runner 2049.” And I imagine when some people heard his name, they got excited. Chances are, if these people have followed Deakins’ work, it might not be the first time they got excited about something like this. I can’t exactly relate, but having seen Deakins’ work in movies like “Skyfall,” “The Shawshank Redemption,” “Hail, Caesar!,” and “No Country For Old Men,” I agree with others when they say he’s one of the greats when it comes to cinematographers. Once again, the guy has been nominated for Best Cinematography by the Academy, FOURTEEN TIMES. Here is a list of all the times other than the one of focus when he’s been nominated. Note that the year listed is the year the film he shot came out and not the year he was nominated.

  • The Shawshank Redemption (1994)
  • Fargo (1996)
  • Kundun (1997)
  • O Brother, Where Art Thou? (2000)
  • The Man Who Wasn’t There (2001)
  • No Country For Old Men (2007)
  • The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford (2007)
  • The Reader (2008) (shared with Chris Menges)
  • True Grit (2010)
  • Skyfall (2012)
  • Prisoners (2013)
  • Unbroken (2014)
  • Sicario (2015)

What happened to Deakins when he was nominated those thirteen times? Well, that can be explained in a video by TIFF Originals that starts off with the statement: “Roger Deakins is a loser.” The video is called “Roger Deakins’ 13 Oscar Losses.”

After watching this video if you have done so, you probably got a thought on your mind, and it may have been “Roger Deakins is a f*cking loser.” I’ll be fair and say some of the competition he had were deserving of their awards, take “Gravity” for example. Although this year with “Blade Runner 2049,” I only thought Roger was deserving of HIS Oscar. We get to the big moment. I see Sandra Bullock holding an envelope with “CINEMATOGRAPHY” labeled on it. She says some words before introducing the nominees, and when they are introduced. I just thought this was gonna be a year where the Academy doesn’t give him the award and just gives an award to Rachel Morrison just because she has a vagina. Again, I have nothing against Rachel Morrison. She actually did the cinematography for “Black Panther” which was such a treat. It came out really well! I imagine she’s a very nice lady, but I was rooting for Roger. I’ll admit, I’m not that religious. My main philosophy is to be a nice person, I am however not that religious. But as the nominees were introduced, I had my hands, containing all sorts of cells, interlinked. I WAS PRAYING. People were cheering for Morrison, and the others seemed to get some applause, but I heard more for Morrison than anyone else. So they’re introduced, and it’s time. Sandra Bullock still has the envelope in her hand, and she says this as she quickly opens it for the result:

“And the Oscar goes to, Roger A. Deakins (crowd erupts in a roar), “Blade Runner 2049.”

My reaction to that can be described in many ways. Part of me wished I had fireworks to set off after that win! Part of me wanted to go around the house doing cartwheels after the win! Part of me wanted to find some confetti to throw around after that win! My reaction, quite possibly woke up my mother and sister. I might as well have been a young teenage girl at her favorite boy band’s concert! I might as well have been at an event where I find out my kid in school won student of the year! I might as well have been a Chicago Cubs fan at the end of the 2016 World Series, where they finally had a victory after years and years trying to get it. People may say that Leonardo DiCaprio waited a bit to get his Oscar, which I’ll say, when he won it, I kind of wanted Matt Damon to take it, but that’s just me. Although for Leo, he won it on his FIFTH nomination. When you’re nominated THIRTEEN times, it’s almost like you’ll be that one person who gets a nomination, but that’s all. What if Meryl Streep never won a single Oscar? All of her wins, “Kramer vs. Kramer,” “Sophie’s Choice,” “The Iron Lady,” they never happened. Streep received her TWENTY-FIRST nomination for a role she did just last year in “The Post.” I can imagine the crowd roaring like a bunch of T-Rexes in an argument if that turned out to be her first win. Let’s take another example, because why the hell not? Imagine the New York Yankees. Some people don’t like the New York Yankees because they always win. But they’ve been in 40 World Series Championships. Imagine all their titles where they were victorious, all gone. The 40th appearance is the charm. That’s how I feel about Deakins here, the fourteenth time’s the charm. I can wholeheartedly approve of Deakins winning not just because it took forever and a half to happen, but just look at these shots and tell me they actually look terrible. I dare y’all!

Nice shot now isn’t it?

Take a gander at this beauty.

Look at this bad boy and tell me it sucks. I’ll wait.

Is it just me or does this define the meaning of life?

This shot screams something that in some worlds, would qualify as one word. Fan-freakin’-tastic.

LOOK AT THIS SHOT!

LOOK AT THIS F*CKING SHOT!

LOOK AT THIS MOTHERF*CKING SHOT! NO! SERIOUSLY! THIS IS THE DEFINITION OF PERFECTION! THIS IS A F*CKING MASTERPIECE! I’M GOING F*CKING INSANE!

My point is made. Roger Deakins’ victory, to me, may be one of the most deserved Academy Award wins in history. THANK GOSH! So many people can sleep now and have less dreams and concerning nightmares!

And now, as mentioned, we won’t get through every single topic listed for the Academy Awards today, but here’s one that people look back on years and years from now, Best Picture. Before we get into that, you may remember the whole “La La Land” and “Moonlight” mishap from last year? Warren Beatty and Faye Dunaway come up onstage to present the award, they state the nominees, they’re looking at the card, and somehow awkwardness ensues. Suddenly, Dunaway announces “La La Land” won Best Picture, but the two had the wrong card. Celebration ignites! Cheering be heard all over the Dolby Theatre, and a moment later, Jordan Horowitz, a producer behind “La La Land” is onstage and he states “Moonlight” won Best Picture. He even showed the card! Turns out Beatty and Dunaway were handed the wrong envelope. So… What happens now? What idea could be better than bringing Beatty and Dunaway back? Jimmy Kimmel had some fun before diving into the nominees. “We’re in the home stretch. Nothing could possibly go wrong from here. Here, on the 51st anniversary of Bonnie and Clyde, are Warren Beatty and Faye Dunaway.” They come out, Beatty says, “We’re glad to see you all again.” Dunaway adds, “As they say, presenting is lovelier the second time around.” The two continue speaking, eventually arriving at the point where they announce the nominees and the winner. By the way, they had the correct envelope this time. Here are the movies that have been nominated for Best Picture!

  • The Shape of Water (WINNER!)
  • Dunkirk
  • Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri
  • The Post
  • Lady Bird
  • Get Out
  • Darkest Hour
  • Call Me by Your Name
  • Phantom Thread

In my prediction post leading up to the Oscars, I said this was gonna be a close race to the finish between “Lady Bird,” “Dunkirk,” “The Shape of Water,” and “Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri.” I will say however for “Lady Bird,” that kind of changed throughout the night because it was nominated for five awards during the show, but the four that were already presented were all losses on their end. For “Dunkirk,” I thought it had a solid chance. The Academy seemed to give a lot of praise towards this film and it already won a few Oscars throughout the night. For “Three Billboards,” I figured it could win solely because it won Best Motion Picture- Drama at the Golden Globes. It also made a sweep at the Screen Actors Guild Awards. And it was nominated for a ton of Oscars beforehand, and it ended up taking home two before getting as far as Best Picture. Although if there was one I “knew” was going to win, it was going to be a movie with thirteen nominations including Best Picture. It was going to be a movie that already took home a few awards. It was going to be a movie praised by many critics and average moviegoers alike. It was going to be… “The Shape of Water.”

…And it won.

I have nothing in particular against “The Shape of Water.” From what I’ve seen in promotional material, it’s very good from a visual perspective, but I haven’t watched the movie so I can’t really say much else. Funny enough, I take a film studies class in my school, and my teacher actually asked if anyone in our class has actually seen “The Shape of Water.” Once asked, the class pretty much unanimously declined to put our hands up. I wanted “Dunkirk” to win. But hey, it’s already got some well deserved awards, especially in the sound categories. Also, remember, Roger Deakins won. So I was beyond satisfied. Although if “Blade Runner 2049” were nominated for Best Picture, you’d know I’d choose it. Or “Colossal,” that was my #1 movie of last year. Although I can understand why it’s not exactly been nominated for anything. But seriously, check that movie out if you can! It’s on several streaming services as we speak! So congrats to “The Shape of Water” and its crew. That movie is actually going to be out on home video in a number of days, so maybe I’ll watch it very soon!

Guys, that’s all I have to say for the 90th Academy Awards! It was personally a great show on my end. All of the commentary for the most part, wasn’t all that awkward. I may be in the minority, but the monologue between Tiffany Haddish (Girls Trip, The Carmichael Show) and Maya Rudolph (Big Hero 6, Bridesmaids), despite how it’s on a topic regarding issues I can side with, just came off as something that would belong in a one of those “SNL” sketches that gets shoved in there when the writers have nothing else that they can come up with. It took a topic that I would, could, and should agree on, and it just sullies it. I imagine both Rudolph and Haddish are pleasant people, and I’M SORRY that Rudolph had to suffer through “The Emoji Movie,” but this just felt weird to watch. But other than that, it was one of the greatest nights ever. I’ve spent some time watching people react to their favorite team winning the Super Bowl on YouTube before, and when it comes to Best Cinematography, that’s legit how I felt. My team won the Oscars, which is MY Super Bowl. Congratulations to everyone who has been nominated and has won awards, I’m looking forward to seeing who will be in the 91st Academy Awards show, and finally. Finally. FINALLY! I can now call one of the world’s greatest cinematographers, Oscar-winning Roger Deakins. I’d like to thank the Academy for making that happen.

Thanks for reading this very long post! Pretty soon I’m gonna have my review for “Annihilation” up for you all to read, and if you are wondering, I don’t live in one of the countries where you have to use Netflix in order to watch it so if that were the case, I wouldn’t have seen the film. Also, stay tuned for my Tom Cruise “Mission: Impossible” review series which will have its first entry up this month. Stay tuned for more great content! I want to know, did you watch the Academy Awards? What are your thoughts? Did your picks win? Did they lose? Is there someone you really wanted to win or lose? Did you make any bets? Have you decided to check out any movies after watching the show? Let me know all of that info for an unofficial possible nomination for Best Comment. Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

“Hey thank you, thank you. I better say something or else they’ll give me a jet ski and I don’t see myself on a jet ski somehow. I want to share this with my wife of 27 years, James, whatever. I want to share it with Andrew, Broderick, and Denis Villeneuve. Y’know I really love my job, I’ve been doing it for a long time as you can see. But y’know one of the reasons I really love it is the people I work with. Both in front of the camera and behind the camera. Some of my crew on “Blade Runner,” I’ve been working with for over thirty years. And others-others I met for the first time in Budapest. And this is for every one of them. Every one of them. In fact, I gotta say, it’s for us, because it was a team. It was really team- a team effort. Thank you. Thank you very much.” –Roger A. Deakins