Jason Momoa | Scene Before

A Minecraft Movie (2025): Chicken Schlocky

“A Minecraft Movie” is directed by Jared Hess (Napoleon Dynamite, Nacho Libre) and stars Jason Momoa (Aquaman, Slumberland), Jack Black (Kung Fu Panda, Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle), Danielle Brooks (Peacemaker, Orange is the New Black), Emma Myers (A Good Girl’s Guide to Murder, Wednesday), Sebastian Hansen (Lisey’s Story, Just Mercy), and Jennifer Coolidge (American Pie, The White Lotus). This film is based on the “Minecraft” video game and is about a group of people who find themselves inside the mysterious “Overworld.” Together, they must use their imaginations to survive and make it back home.

Courtesy of Warner Bros. – © Warner Bros.

If there is a movie coming out this year I could not possibly be less excited about, it is “A Minecraft Movie.” I have never played “Minecraft.” However, I have seen tons of gameplay of it either through family, friends, or on YouTube when I am looking for something to fall asleep to. The game came out just before I was a teenager, but I was never one of the cool kids playing it. It was never my thing. If I were to play a building game as a kid, chances are it would have been “Mall Tycoon.”

In fact, I largely avoided “A Minecraft Movie” when it first came out due to competition. I wanted to see “The Luckiest Man in America,” which came out the same weekend. I still had not seen “Novocaine.” I was lucky to catch it in theaters while I still could. I ended up seeing “A Minecraft Movie” a couple weeks into its run with a friend of mine, who is clearly more into the game than I. Frankly, they seem to be much more into the movie than I as well. Whereas they seemed to be having a ball with everything in front of them, I was cringing beyond belief.

While video game adaptations seem to be getting better with movies like “Sonic the Hedgehog” and TV shows like “The Last of Us,” “A Minecraft Movie” fails to meet the standards of those two projects. Heck, even “The Super Mario Bros. Movie,” one of the most by the numbers hero’s journey stories in years, was more memorable. Granted, unlike “A Minecraft Movie,” I actually played the “Super Mario” games. So there could be some bias.

Thankfully though, this adaptation is a slight improvement over last year’s “Borderlands,” which despite a decent cast, is an intolerable mess. Aside from being bad, “Borderlands” and “A Minecraft Movie” share some similarities. As much as I was not a fan of the way both films are presented through their artificial-looking backdrops, they do seem to implement some key elements from their respective games. “A Minecraft Movie” is full of blocky textures, from buildings to weapons to even some of the characters. It does not change the fact that some of these textures fail to please the eye. The movie sometimes presents its Overworld as a place of wonder, but I never felt that as a viewer. It had an uncanny valley effect at times. It felt like something inside “Ready Player One,” except in that film’s virtual world, just about everything was distinctly animated whereas the Overworld often serves as a hybrid between live-action and animation. I questioned the filmmakers’ decision from the start to make this film live-action, and seeing some of the Overworld on screen makes me feel justified for reacting the way I did. What were they thinking?!

I am not a huge fan of the blocky graphics “Minecraft” tends to use in their games, but they are still undeniably unique. If you presented “Minecraft” to someone in the 1990s who was in the middle of playing “Super Mario 64,” and say this is coming out more than a decade later, they could think that video game graphics regressed heavily over the years. But the graphics are still a part of the “Minecraft” brand. I understand this is an adaptation, but the movie just looks off-putting. If I had one positive, if we are going by symbolism, the contrast between the people from the real world and the Overworld is distinct. Perhaps this distinction is an artistic choice. But if I want art, I will simply go watch paint dry.

Going back to “Borderlands,” another similarity that film has with “A Minecraft Movie” is that Jack Black appears in both projects. And just like “Borderlands,” Jack Black basically plays a cartoon. In some ways, Jack Black’s character, Steve, reminds me of my dad. He is pretty expressive, spends lots of time building things, and sings during the most random occasions. Although unlike my dad, I found Steve’s singing to be annoying and nonsensical. There are multiple instances where Steve sings. Not all of them impressed me. There is one song towards the film’s conclusion that I found mildly decent, but other than that, they were headache-inducing.

By the way, I have no idea how many people would be surprised by this, Steve is not exactly what one would call the main character of this film. Sure, the film is sometimes presented from his first-person perspective, but there is also a huge gap where he basically disappears. So, the question is, who is the main character?

Your guess is as good as mine.

The film starts with Steve yearning for the mines and later discovering the Overworld, until we eventually spend some time in the real world with a couple young adults, a retro gamer, a realtor, and some other faces.

In the real world, much of the screen time is dedicated to the young adults, who happen to be a brother-sister duo. The sister, Natalie (left) is raising her brother, Henry (right center) while trying to hold a job at a chip factory. The brother means well, but his creative mind seems to get him in trouble. If you were to break this movie down structurally, one can argue the brother is the main character as his arc tends to show him being creative and embarrassing himself in the real world, but having much better luck with such creativity in the Overworld. By the film’s conclusion, the script tries to implement an epilogue for each character, but sometimes they feel half-baked based on the little substance their characters are given during the runtime.

Sticking to the real world, there are a couple characters who come from there who caught my attention from their first appearance – Jason Momoa as Garret Garrison (right), and Jennifer Coolidge as Vice Principal Marlene.

I said earlier that Jack Black basically plays a cartoon, but whereas his performance felt overdone, Jason Momoa had an animated energy that kept me captivated. He plays a game store owner who endlessly brags about a particular accomplishment he made in his career, but ultimately, he comes off as a has-been. Momoa gives 110% with every line, no matter how idiotic.

Then you have Jennifer Coolidge’s character. She is not in the movie for long, but by the end, she is unhinged. I am not going to pretend her character was perfect. In fact, you could almost write Coolidge out of the film entirely and it would have little to no real effect on the main story. Does it change the fact that her material was mildly entertaining? No. I will admit, Coolidge oozed personality at times. I will also note that this is a film mainly aimed at children, but Coolidge’s character does utter some mature phrases and act out some equally mature scenarios. I think the teenagers might understand what she is doing. The children? Hard to say. Hard to know in this digital age.

“A Minecraft Movie” has five writers. This film is the textbook definition of too many cooks in the kitchen. Again, when it comes to naming a main character, the film is almost confused in who that ultimately is. Maybe I would be more forgiving if all the characters were likable, but several of them were dull or flat out irritating to watch. By the film’s conclusion, the atmosphere honestly feels as bloated as one of the Michael Bay “Transformers” movies.

My experience of watching “A Minecraft Movie” reminded me of when I saw “Avengers: Infinity War” in the theater for the first time. During both screenings, there was no shortage of people applauding and cheering at various points. Although there is a difference between the two experiences. The age range for my “Infinity War” screening skewed more adult, whereas “A Minecraft Movie” had noticeably more kids. I was also not one of the people cheering. Granted, some of the applause breaks were for in-game references, which I would not fully understand anyway. I was not the target audience for those jokes. But one reason why I was not applauding as much as the people around me is because I was not as engaged as they were with the film. I wonder if I would be clapping more if I played the game. I wish I could share the same passion about this film that seemed to be beaming throughout the rest of the auditorium, but I was bored. There is no way around it.

Although I will say, even though my audience seemed to applaud at certain points either out of pure contagion or simply for the sake of doing so, one positive thing about my experience is that no one threw food. On that note, “Chicken Jockey” got a lot of fanfare.

With that in mind, it leads me to something I typically say about movies. Just because the children end up liking it, does not automatically indicate that I had equally as positive of an experience and will therefore give the movie a positive score. There are good movies that are “made for kids.” “A Minecraft Movie” is not one of them. Go watch a Pixar movie or a Studio Ghibli movie if you want a fine example of masterclass visual storytelling. This is just visual noise. Heck, if you want a great commercialized film that kids and adults can enjoy, go watch “The LEGO Movie!” Who would have thought a movie on plastic building blocks would become a beloved hit? Go watch “A Minecraft Movie” and “The LEGO Movie” back to back and tell me which one you think is better. Personally, I think the answer is obvious.

In the end, there is not enough TNT in the Overworld to destroy my memories of experiencing “A Minecraft Movie.” This is a film that I imagine that the people making it will probably be happy to have on their resume, likely because it was popular, and not necessarily because it was good. If you are looking for cinema, look elsewhere. This is not the worst video game movie of all time. I just find a lot of choices in the final product to be questionable. Everything from casting Jack Black as Steve to the uncanny valley-esque live-action style choice to the paint by numbers narrative. I do not play the “Minecraft” game that much. It does not interest me. But I imagine I could have a more pleasant hour and a half playing the game as opposed to watching the movie that it inspired. I am going to give “A Minecraft Movie” a 3/10.

“A Minecraft Movie” is now playing in theaters and is also available to rent or buy on VOD.

Thanks for reading this review! My next reviews are going to be for “Sinners,” “Thunderbolts*,” “Rust,” “The Ruse,” and “Mission: Impossible – The Final Reckoning.” Stay tuned! If you want to see these reviews 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 “A Minecraft Movie?” What did you think about it? Or, have you ever played “Minecraft?” Is it fun? Let me know down below! Scene Before is click to the flicks!

Aquaman and the Lost Kingdom (2023): The DCEU Ends Not with a Bang, But a Whimper

Posted on December 30, 2023 by Jack Drees

“Aquaman and the Lost Kingdom” is directed by James Wan (The Conjuring, Furious 7) and stars Jason Momoa (Fast X, See), Patrick Wilson (Insidious, The Conjuring), Amber Heard (Her Smell, Drive Angry), Yahya Abdul-Mateen II (The Matrix Resurrections, The Trial of the Chicago 7), Randall Park (WandaVision, Fresh Off the Boat), Dolph Lundgren (Rocky IV, The Expendables), Temuera Morrison (The Book of Boba Fett, Once Were Warriors), Martin Short (Mulaney, Only Murders in the Building), and Nicole Kidman (The Northman, Eyes Wide Shut). This film is a sequel to the 2018 film “Aquaman” where the titular character, also known by the name Arthur Curry, must balance being a father in addition to the King of Atlantis. Meanwhile, Black Manta is planning his revenge plot against the powerful superhero. With the villain’s return coming his way, it is up to Aquaman and his imprisoned brother to save the kingdom.

Of all the DCEU movies, the one that has been most likely to get a sequel based on results alone is “Aquaman.” Yes, “Wonder Woman” was a huge hit financially, critically, and has done really well with a variety of audiences, including me. But “Aquaman” is the only title in the cinematic universe to make a billion dollars, and remains the highest-grossing DC film ever. Sure, maybe the Amber Heard/Johnny Depp shenanigans in recent years, in addition to other factors, may have decreased the chances of a sequel happening, but nevertheless. In fact, I really enjoyed the film when I saw it. I will also add it was extra special to watch on the big screen as it had some of the best visuals and sound of its respective year. It was an extravaganza for the eyes and ears. The film seems to make for a proper tech demo when first using a new television or surround sound system. When it comes to my DCEU rankings, it is somewhere in the middle. I liked most of the DCEU titles. I could probably count the ones I did not like on one hand.

But I am going to be real, of all the comic book movies coming out this year, I think I was looking forward to this one the least. The marketing for most of DC’s movies this year has not been fantastic, and I admittedly liked the first trailer for this film to some degree, but I have heard more than I wanted to know about test screenings. The behind the scenes shenanigans did not boost confidence. To some degree, the film very much struck a feeling of “been there done that.” And when it comes to the higher ups at Warner Bros. and DC like David Zaslav and James Gunn, they spent significantly more time boosting promotion and awareness for “The Flash,” another problematic movie on its own. Despite that, they and others basically summarized “The Flash” as one of the best movies of its genre. Having seen the movie, it is not. It is not even the best comic book movie of the year. It is not even the best DC movie of the year. That honor so far belongs “Blue Beetle.”

According to Wikipedia, “Aquaman and the Lost Kingdom” did not hold its official premiere until December 19th at a fan event in Los Angeles. Per Borys Kit of The Hollywood Reporter, there was no red carpet. No afterparty. And therefore, an absolute likelihood of no confidence in the film whatsoever.

But I am a trooper. I am a DC fan. I enjoy comic book movies. I am not feeling the “fatigue” some people claim to have. I think most of the comic book-based projects that came out this year were enjoyable. Yes, even “The Marvels.” Yes, even “Ant-Man and the Wasp: Quantumania.” Not sorry. “Aquaman and the Lost Kingdom” has the special distinction of being the only comic book movie I have seen this year that I did not enjoy.

And I didn’t just “not enjoy” it. This is one of the most bottom of the barrel, uninspired, and inconceivably boring wastes of time I have had watching a comic book movie. This is bad.

They say it is common for sequels to be inferior to the original, but the difference in quality between 2018’s “Aquaman” and 2023’s “Aquaman and the Lost Kingdom” is as massive as the Atlantic Ocean. I am not going to pretend the first “Aquaman” is the greatest movie ever made. But this is like going from a Nintendo Switch to a Virtual Boy. I am utterly shocked that James Wan was behind this project. I do not enjoy all of his movies. I think one of his latest films, “Malignant,” is an abhorrent waste of time. But he is one of the more prominent mainstream filmmakers working today. He has a decent reputation.

Unfortunately, when it comes to “Aquaman and the Lost Kingdom,” I feel like a hypocrite judging it. Because when I first watched “Aquaman,” I praised it for being like a live action cartoon. It is sometimes out there and nonsensical, but it is done in such a way that works. You cannot go wrong with a movie where an octopus plays the drums. But when I think of the ways that “Aquaman and the Lost Kingdom” disappointed me, one of the first that comes to mind is that it is overly cartoony. And maybe, if I sit down and think about it, I might not be disappointed with the fact that the movie is overly cartoony and more disappointed by how it specifically handles said cartooniness. Because to some degree, “Aquaman and the Lost Kingdom” feels like more of the same, but with less of an oomph than before. There was a certain novelty factor to that original film despite coming out at a time where comic book movies dominated the market. The film was the definition of crazy, stupid fun. Now it is just crazy and stupid.

Jason Momoa is a likable actor. I enjoyed him as “Aquaman” in his previous portrayals in “Justice League” and this film’s predecessor. I like this universe’s take on “Aquaman” because he always felt like the cool superhero you wanted to hang out with. But when I watch this movie, he feels lame in comparison. And I do not think Momoa himself is lame. If anything, he is doing the best he can with the material given to him. Most of the time, that is. There are some scenes where he and others are kind of stiff in front of the camera. But for the scenes where Momoa stands out in a more positive way, his character is nevertheless comparatively boring when looking back at his portrayal in the original film. Does his development from one film to the next make sense? Sure. But the execution of the material following said development was tiresome. Arthur Curry is a dad now and quite a bit of the material involving that made for some lower points of the film. There is a portion of the plot involving that idea that brought some intrigue, but it was not enough to make the movie good.

Also, Momoa spends a good portion of the movie alongside Patrick Wilson. I could not have been more turned off by their chemistry. I could tell the movie was trying to go for a Thor and Loki-esque brotherly dynamic between these two, but it felt more like it was trying too hard to copy what Marvel does well to the point where it feels like exactly that. An inferior copy. Their relatonship is forced, and never once was I onboard with it.

Black Manta is the antagonist of this movie. And say what you want about Dar-Benn, the antagonist of “The Marvels,” coming off as forgettable. If I were being frank, she was not the best antagonist I have ever seen, but I liked her in the context of the film. It has been awhile since I have seen the first “Aquaman” so it would be hard for me to compare how Black Manta stands from one movie to the next. But I can say as far as this sequel is considered, Black Manta is the most one-dimensional antagonist I have seen all year. There is nothing interesting about him. The limits to his character are him getting possessed and unleashing his revenge boner for the entire movie, and the way he does it is unreal. I did not know whether to cringe, laugh, or cry. Maybe I could have done all three if I really wanted to.

Let’s talk about Amber Heard… Here we go. Now, I want to go easy on the people making this movie because I do feel bad to a certain degree. For those who don’t know, this movie ended up shooting between June 2021 and January 2022. This was all before the drama of the infamous Depp v. Heard trial. We did know some things leading up to it, but the defamation trial happened between April to June 2022. If I were in a position of power, I would have kept Amber Heard out of the movie as much as I could. Maybe write her out entirely. But that is easy for me to say when I am not dealing with millions upon millions of dollars. Speaking of which, this movie almost does not even need Amber Heard’s Mera to further the story. Yes, she is a mom now. But there is not really a ton explored there. We learn more about Arthur as a dad. We see him bonding with his dad and how he handles being a dad himself. Every scene featuring Mera could honestly be deleted with no harm done the final product. And Heard honestly sounds like she does not even want to be on screen. Her performance feels paper thin, although to be fair that precisely matches the ridiculous amount of incompetence the whole movie has.

The entire script comes off like it was written by a seven year old boy playing with his action figures and maybe borrowed a couple others that his dad was trying to keep in the box just because he was running out of ideas. Except in this case, that seven year old child is somehow obsessed with politics and meetings. This movie reeks of vibes that I must imagine most viewers must have gotten upon their initial watch of some of the “Star Wars” prequels. The dialogue is as sleep-inducing as melatonin, and as horribly delivered as a pie from Pizza Hut.

And as far as the action goes, it does not save the movie. Sure, maybe one or two moments look cool, but they don’t feel cool. It is the very definition of style over substance. Except in this case, even the style is not that great. The visual style of this movie pales in comparison to its predecessor. It has been years since I have watched the first “Aquaman,” but I remember being entranced by Atlantis and how fantastical everything looked. The movie has an intense color palette, but in such a way where the colors feel incredibly artificial. I took a television production class in high school and at the time, 4K was still growing. My teacher noted in that class that if something we shoot looks bad, then we should forget about 4K. Because it would look four times as awful. There are some scenes in this movie that look okay, but a number of them strike me as overly fake. I collect 4K Blu-rays. If I were to buy this movie on 4K Blu-ray, which judging by everything I am saying so far, I clearly have no plans to, I would be almost terrified to look at it sometimes.

The first “Aquaman” cost $160 million to make. This second film cost $205 million. I am astounded to say I think the first film looks ten times better than this one. Yes, some of the special effects are great. Yes, there is a comic book-esque look to the film in certain frames. Yes, the color grading works at times. Not all the time, but at times. Although even with these compliments, the movie is bombarded with so many drawbacks that it is almost difficult to acknowledge the positives even when they may deserve to be highlighted.

This movie has a couple instances of brief, almost blink you’ll miss it slo-mo. I know movies like “The Matrix Reloaded” and “The Legend of Hercules” may be notorious for their overuse of slow motion, but “Aquaman and the Lost Kingdom” may nevertheless have the single worst use of slow motion I have ever seen. At least those movies, despite how bad or unneeded the slow motion may be in them, feel like they are put there because someone committed to having them there. The slow motion sequences in “Aquaman and the Lost Kingdom” are so cheesy, so forced, so abrupt, and so unnecessary. They took a movie that was already bad and just made it slightly worse. Just like that. It is almost like I was in an editing class at a college or film school or something where someone was given a project and didn’t care about the quality other than filling the basic checkmarks. The professor is just gonna look at it and go, “Oh, slo mo! They get a point!” Not here.

Prior to seeing “Aquaman and the Lost Kingdom,” my least favorite movie in the DCEU was “Wonder Woman 1984.” The dip in quality from “Aquaman” to “Aquaman and the Lost Kingdom” is not quite as drastic as the dip from “Wonder Woman” to “Wonder Woman 1984,” but the dip feels pretty familiar. But when it comes to these sequels, looking back at “Wonder Woman 1984,” I found it to be flawed, but it still had a genuine spark to it that felt as if Patty Jenkins was putting her heart and soul into it. I do not fully doubt that James Wan tried his best with “Aquaman and the Lost Kingdom,” but as I watched the movie, I could not help but imagine what was going on in Wan’s head as this was being made. This comes off less as a passion project and more as an obligation. Every choice in “Wonder Woman 1984” feels like something Patty Jenkins intended from the getgo. Almost every other scene in “Aquaman and the Lost Kingdom” feels haphazardly slapped together and spruced up with duct tape just to keep everything from falling apart. Oh my gosh, even the score in “Wonder Woman 1984” was memorable. Sure, there are good themes in “Aquaman and the Lost Kingdom,” but come on. It’s a second class citizen compared to “Wonder Woman 1984.” To put a long story short, given everything I mentioned so far, “Aquaman and the Lost Kingdom” has officially dethroned “Wonder Woman 1984” as my least favorite movie in the DCEU. There was a point in this movie, in the first act by the way, that I desperately wanted to fall asleep. That is probably the most glowing compliment I can give this movie, because on the bright side, I at least know if I am tired and need something to put me right out, “Aquaman and the Lost Kingdom” makes for a dynamite option.

In the end, “Aquaman and the Lost Kingdom” closes out the DCEU not with a bang, but a whimper. In my mind, I really want to call “Aquaman and the Lost Kingdom” the most watered down movie of 2023, but that would be too easy. I could say the movie was so bad I wanted to drown. But that’s also too easy. Instead, I am going to say this. “Aquaman and the Lost Kingdom” has the incompetence of “Batman & Robin” and the mundaneness of 2015’s “Fantastic 4.” It is so poorly made that I imagine if Martin Scorsese saw it with his own two eyes, he would set fire to every theme park on the planet. It is so boring that I would rather watch paint dry while tied to a chair in a windowless room. It is so mind-numbing that I would rather be stuck in an elevator with no phone, no working alarm, no lights on, and no sanity left to keep myself from screaming at the ceiling! “Aquaman and the Lost Kingdom” is what happens when you take the DNA of a bad “Pirates of the Caribbean” movie, infuse it with the DNA of a bad “Indiana Jones” movie, and blend them together with a snoozefest of an underwater fantasy adventure created by a mastermind of idiocy. This is a cannibalization of cinema in every capacity. This. Movie. Blows.

Jason Momoa’s likability and charm cannot save this movie. He was somehow more interesting this year as a “Fast and Furious” villain and I have no idea how we have come to this reality. I know playing the bad guy is fun and all, but do you guys remember my thoughts on that movie? It is just about as bad as this!

“Aquaman and the Lost Kingdom” is one of the worst movies of the year. It is not worth your time. It is not worth your money. It is not worth your IQ points. It really hurts to know that the absolute highlight of the film for me is the mid-credits scene. It is not only the best part of the movie, it might also be the funniest. Speaking of which, “Aquaman and the Lost Kingdom” is a complete joke and I am going to give it a 2/10.

“Aquaman and the Lost Kingdom” is now playing theaters everywhere, unfortunately. Tickets are available now, not that I recommend you buy them.

Thanks for reading this review! My next review is going to be for “Poor Things,” the brand new film from Yorgos Lanthimos. I just had a chance to see it this Friday and I will have it up very soon. Also coming soon, I will be sharing my best and worst movies of 2023! 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 “Aquaman and the Lost Kingdom?” What did you think about it? Or, now that the universe has come to an end, what are your best and worst movies from the DCEU? For my favorite, I would have to say it is “The Suicide Squad,” and judging by this review, you could probably guess what my least favorite happens to be. But let me know your picks down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

Fast X (2023): Xtremely Atrocious

Posted on June 1, 2023 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!

Slumberland (2022): Willy Wonka Meets Inception In This Fun But Disposable Family Adventure

Posted on November 19, 2022 by Jack Drees

“Slumberland” is directed by Francis Lawrence (The Hunger Games: Catching Fire, Red Sparrow) and stars Jason Momoa (Aquaman, Dune), Marlow Barkley (Spirited, Single Parents), Chris O’Dowd (Big Mouth, Bridesmaids), Kyle Chandler (Game Night, Godzilla: King of the Monsters), and Weruche Opia (Sliced, I May Destroy You) in a film where a young girl finds herself in the fantastical, larger than life dreamscape of Slumberland, where everyone’s dreams and nightmares are literally brought to life. With the help of Flip, a dazzlingly dressed outlaw, she attempts to navigate through a world beyond one’s wildest dreams with the hope to reunite with her recently deceased father.

This is one of the latest movies to come from the popular streaming service Netflix. Right now, the film is currently playing in California and I had the privilege of getting to see a screening of the film at a local theater for free. Despite the film mostly being targeted for streaming exclusivity, the budget is comparable to many theatrical features. “Slumberland” was made for $150 million. This is less than the studio’s recent feature, “The Gray Man,” which cost $200 million. Despite a scene stealing performance from Chris Evans, “The Gray Man” had a script that did not do it any favors. For the record, “Dune,” which Jason Momoa is also in, cost $165 million to make.

Unfortunately, this begs a question. Why does this film look occasionally off-putting? I know that one defense that could be made is that since the film is a streaming-centric release, it is inevitably not going to look as polished as a film that primarily releases in theaters. But as I was watching this movie, some of the green screen looked rather unfinished. Certain areas of the dreamscape feel dazzingly fantastical, but there are also moments that lacked verisimilitude even for something imaginary. It is as if this movie were helmed by Robert Zemeckis, he had limited tools, but still managed to create something with his trademarks. There is a segment in the movie with a ton of vending machines that is perhaps manufactured simply to advertise Twinkies, it kind of turned me off. Not only because it is forced product placement, but because of how artificial it looked. I know this is a movie about dreams, but I can tell you that in my dreams, even if what I am imagining has sparks of fantasy, the backdrop often delivers a hint of realism. It still feels lifelike when I am in it. Then again, what do I know? I am not in other people’s dreams. What can I say? Maybe Francis Lawrence dreams differently than me. Maybe he dreams about people taking 15 minutes to save 15 percent or more on their car insurance.

“Slumberland” is based on the comic strip series “Little Nemo in Slumberland.” Except in this case, the title is changed to match the dream fantasyland, and the main character is a girl. I am not familiar with the comic series, therefore I will not be comparing two and two together. That said, I do like the idea this movie is going for. When I saw the trailer for “Slumberland,” I thought, “Oh, so it is ‘Inception,’ but for kids.” It kind of is that, but there is a little more to it. I am not saying “Slumberland” is as complex or thought-provoking as “Inception” but much like “Inception,” I was intrigued by how “Slumberland” managed to imagine what happens when we dream. One of the things I remember most from “Inception” is when Cobb shows Ariadne the inner workings of dreams and reminds her to never imagine things exactly as they are in real life and instead imagine new places. It reminded me of dreams I remember from my childhood where I visualized going through a local mall. Much of the structure was the same except for the floor tiles, the elevators, and there was a weird-looking McDonald’s nearby. Similar to that, “Slumberland” plays around with dreams that are quite literally what they are. Imaginative. There is an entertaining sequence in the middle of the movie where we see a young woman dreaming she is dancing around all these people with leaves around them. I would never expect that to happen in real life, but when it comes to wild, crazy dreams, this checks some boxes.

I keep going on about the aesthetic of the film, which is sometimes a hit, sometimes a miss. But what about the story? Is that any good? Again, I like the concept. While it does blend some familiar hero’s journey elements, it does manage to at the very least, emit a vibe that could technically qualify as entertainment. Despite my gripes with the design of the movie, it is fun. I think if you have children, this might be an okay watch with them. There are other family friendly stories that came out this year I would flock to first. For example, “Lightyear,” which if we are doing Christopher Nolan comparisons, where in this case “Slumberland” is “Inception” for younger audiences, then “Lightyear” is “Interstellar” for younger audiences.

The highlight in “Slumberland” is the chemistry between the two stars. While this is not my favorite movie or performance from Jason Momoa, I must admit he looks like he a had a ton of fun on set and this gave him a chance to let loose. While “Aquaman” is a film that could easily be described as crazy stupid fun, his character never goes too off the rails. Here, Momoa is occasionally a lovable goofball to the point where I am surprised Dave Bautista or John Cena did not end up taking this role. Meanwhile Marlow Barkley shines as Nemo. She is charismatic, dynamic, and every scene between her and Momoa, and even Chris O’Dowd, had my attention partially because of how she played off of Francis Lawrence’s direction.

“Slumberland” is like a Roald Dahl story, or more specifically, a 99 cent Roald Dahl story. Momoa plays a Willy Wonka-esque character, both in terms of appearance and emotional delivery. Seeing how Nemo found herself in Slumberland and the journey she took throughout the world reminded me of “The BFG,” because you have this young girl discovering this strange place and her new best friend appears just as otherworldly but there is more than meets the eye. Unfortunately, unlike “The BFG” and some of Dahl’s other work, I do not know if “Slumberland” will be worthy enough to have staying power in children’s imaginations. This might be a movie that will remain relevant on Netflix for a short time. Although much like the many dreams we have during sleeps of our own, “Slumberland” will assumingly be forgotten as children and families move onto the next thing. Whether that next thing is “Black Panther: Wakanda Forever,” “Strange World,” “Avatar: The Way of Water,” or their holiday movie traditions this year. Maybe this will be the year the kids finally get to watch “Die Hard.”

In the end, “Slumberland” is not offensive, but not a masterpiece either. But if you want me to be real, despite its flaws, I had some fun. There are a lot of cool concepts in the movie, but with slight flimsiness in terms of execution. If I had to compare to this film to any other I saw this year, it reminded of Apple TV+’s recent animation “Luck,” which also follows a girl traveling through an unfamiliar world alongside someone she does not know. When it comes to these kinds of films, “Slumberland” is the better iteration of the two, but it is not saying much. Although when it comes to fantasylands, I would much rather immerse myself in the universe of “Slumberland” as opposed to the universe of “Luck.” The manufacturing of dreams is more palatable than the manufacturing of luck. The actors are serviceable in the movie, with Momoa being the standout. There are some occasionally neat sequences, but given that this movie is made for streaming, there are also sequences that highlight its lessened polish. Would I recommend the movie? Barely. I think if you go in with the right mindset, you could have some fun. This movie is not playing in many theaters, but if I were paying above matinee price to watch the movie, it would not be worth it. At the discount price, it might make for an okay experience with some popcorn by your side. I am going to give “Slumberland” a 6/10.

“Slumberland” is now playing in one theater in California, but if you are not in California or would prefer another option, the film is available on Netflix for all subscribers.

Thanks for reading this review! My next review is going to be for another brand new movie, “The Menu!” I got the chance to watch “The Menu” at a press event the other day, and I cannot stop thinking about it. I will reveal my thoughts on the film in the next couple days. 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 “Slumberland? What did you think about it? Or, tell me about the craziest dream you remember having. Leave your comments down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

Dune (2021): Denis Villeneuve Brings on the Dandy Sandy in This Epic, Beautifully Boisterous Adaptation

Posted on November 14, 2021 by Jack Drees

“Dune” is directed by Denis Villeneuve (Blade Runner 2049, Arrival) and stars Timothee Chalamet (Interstellar, Call Me by Your Name), Rebecca Ferguson (Reminiscence, Mission: Impossible – Fallout), Oscar Isaac (Star Wars: The Force Awakens, Ex Machina), Zendaya (Spider-Man: Homecoming, Space Jam: A New Legacy), Josh Brolin (The Goonies, Avengers: Infinity War), Stellan Skarsgård (Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man’s Chest, Thor), Dave Bautista (Guardians of the Galaxy, My Spy), Stephen McKinley Henderson (Lady Bird, Devs), Chang Chen (Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon, The Assassin), Sharon Duncan-Brewster (FIFA 17, Doctor Who), Charlotte Rampling (Stardust Memories, Dexter), Jason Momoa (Aquaman, Game of Thrones), and Javier Bardem (Vicky Cristina Barcelona, Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Men Tell No Tales). This film is an adaptation of the Frank Herbert novel and follows Paul Atreides, a young boy born into a royal, planet-ruling family. Paul is destined to one day take on the role of Kwistaz Haderach, much to the dismay of some, considering how his mother was instructed to bear a daughter. When House Atreides arrives on Arrakis, a sandy planet with worms that pop up out of the ground like geysers, it is up to them and Paul to protect the planet and its valuable resource, spice.

Where do I even start with “Dune?” Unlike “Blade Runner,” when it comes to Denis Villeneuve’s work, I was much less familiar with “Dune’s” source material, especially when compared to Villeneuve himself, because the more I heard about this movie, the more I recognized Herbert’s love for the source material. When I first heard Denis Villeneuve was working on this project, and I think cinematographer Roger Deakins was rumored to be involved as well, I was obviously excited because Villeneuve is one of the best directors working in Hollywood today. I’ve only seen a couple of his films, but I’ve always been curious to go back to “Sicario” and “Enemy” because of how much I have adored his recent work. Both “Arrival” and “Blade Runner 2049” made it to my Top Movies of the 2010s countdown event as the #10 and #2 spots respectively. I love both films to the moon and beyond, and I cannot tell you how many times I popped in the 4K Blu-ray for “Blade Runner 2049” since I bought it. I have not even read the novel or its follow-ups, and even with that, “Dune” was easily my most anticipated film of 2021. It may have even been my most anticipated for 2020, but COVID-19 ended up killing the hopes of it coming out that year.

Just for the record, I have not seen any of the previous on-screen adaptations of “Dune.” I’ve read a number of pages of “Dune” during a car ride, but I never picked it back up. It’s not that I did not like the book, I just didn’t have time for it. But regardless of what I have not seen, the trailers for this film encapsulated a supposed epic vibe that Villeneuve and crew may have been shooting for. Big scale, massive locations, and we even got a bit of taste of Hans Zimmer’s score long before the film officially released, and when I heard it, it made me more excited for the film because it sounds like what would happen if a madman trapped an orchestra in a chamber and wouldn’t release them until they were dead tired. From the little that I heard, it sounded majestic as hell.

Now that “Dune” is done, what did I think?

In a number of ways, “Dune” met my expectations, but it is not the best movie of the year. I can think of a few movies I liked more. BUT, if you want a great time at the movies that can make you put your thinking cap on, “Dune” may be for you. “Dune” reminded me of a number of films, one of the first being “Blade Runner 2049,” mainly because both have some distinctions that Denis Villeneuve can call his own. Plus, I knew a tad about “Dune” going into it, and one of the things I knew is that it was pretty dense, so it was no surprise to me that the film itself would turn out to be a bit of a slow burn. Slow does not mean bad in this case. You can make a film slow as long as it seems that the pace fits for the subject matter or the film itself. Same goes with quick pace. You can have explosions and bangs and crazy lasers flying in your face every other second as long as the script and direction makes those things add up. This is not to say there are no explosions in “Dune.” There are, just watch the trailers. But don’t go in expecting every other scene to be like a dogfight in “Star Wars.” But on that note, this film also feels rather “Star Wars”-esque. Granted, the book came out before “Star Wars” hit theaters, but my point is, both stories have similar vibes and themes. Both involve young boys who associate with desert planets and must strive to become men greater than themselves. Both in a way have to follow the hero’s journey, a typical story structure that is often followed or slightly altered depending on the story at hand. I will not give any details as to what ways “Dune” follows or does not follow that structure, but the point stands.

I want to talk about some of the characters in this film, and believe me when I say that this film is not short on bringing together a great cast. Between Timothee Chalamet, who I loved since “Interstellar,” to Zendaya who is practically starting to appear in everything now, to Oscar Isaac who has been great in Alex Garland’s work along with the “Star Wars” franchise, even though he was the one who had to say “Somehow Palpatine returned.” The film is not short on A-listers and stars. Overall, the chemistry and acting between everyone was top notch.

Timothee Chalamet appears as if he is going to be the next Oscar great. Maybe not this year, he is still quite young. But throughout his lifetime, I think he’ll be the male equivalent to Meryl Streep. I think one day, we’ll see an Academy Awards ceremony with an opening monologue from whoever is currently hosting a hit talk show on ABC and one of the jokes will poke fun at Chalamet for stealing all the Oscars from all the up and coming talent. I almost think there is no one better to play Paul Atreides because Chalamet not only looks young, but he has this bridge between him that I can sense that he is young enough to be a kid, but mature enough to be liked by the parents of whomever he’s dating. Chalamet has range, and it is shown in this film through his expressiveness and occasional stoic nature. That’s not implying that Paul Atreides, the character himself, is up for question on what kind of character he actually is, but it sort of shows that the character knows how to put himself in a variety of situations, even though he is still learning how to be an adult.

Along with Chalamet for much of the journey is Rebecca Ferguson as Lady Jessica. I will admit, after watching the movie, someone brought up a creepy but true fact. Take this as you will. One of my favorite elements of the movie is the chemistry between Timothee Chalamet and Rebecca Ferguson. Naturally, it feels the way a mother and son should be. The mother wants what’s best for her kid, and the kid does his best to impress the mother even though he may occasionally lash out or disagree with her. Chemistry-wise, I would love to see more of these two actors together. The thing however, in real life, Chalamet is 25 years old. Rebecca Ferguson is 38 years old. That’s a difference of 13 years! So either teenage reproduction is much more welcomed, accepted, and/or encouraged in the future, or these actors have such great range that age is meaningless, therefore making both individuals more convincing performers. For the sake of sanity and the fact that child labor laws exist, I would much prefer to go with the latter. If anything, I think Rebecca Ferguson may give a better performance than Timothee Chalamet, because there are several scenes and lines of dialogue that I could feel her pain, reflecting a natural instinct that most, if not all mothers, would have.

The main antagonistic side of the film would be the Harkonnens, who ravage the planet of Arrakis for Spice. It is up to our heroes to defend the planet and its precious resource. So in a way, this movie is literally the War on Drugs. This side allows for some more great performances to shine through, including one from Dave Bautista as Beast Rabban Harkonnen. I want to highlight him in this review because I think that a performance like this allows him to sharpen his skills as an actor. I like Dave Bautista as a personality, but I think even he knows that his acting skills are limited. Unlike his role as Drax the Destroyer, where he would either scream, laugh in someone’s face, or give a brooding quote every once in a while, his role in “Dune” is more menacing and takes the brooding nature of his Drax character and intensifies it a bit. I like Drax the Destroyer, but if you watch him in “Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2” the way he’s both written and performed feel slightly one-dimensional, but Bautista did an okay job with the character nevertheless. I think if you put Bautista in front of the right director like James Gunn, again, I like Drax. Or in this case Denis Villeneuve, his talents could be unleashed. I hope that these two continue to collaborate in the future.

As menacing as Bautista may be, he’s got nothing on Baron Harkonnen himself, played by Stellan Skarsgård. HOLY CRAP. Now that’s casting. I also have to give props to the makeup department, because of the work they did on the Harkonnens, making them all look pasty white. As for Stellan Skarsgård, this is no offence to him, because in real life, he may be a nice guy, I would not want to shake Baron Harkonnen’s hand. He looks like what would happen if Wilford Brimley ate a ton of ice cream and endlessly made fun of the children of generations below his, and maybe once in a while, enjoyed those kids’ heads with his ice cream. The dude flat out looks creepy by sci-fi standards. You want my money Warner Bros.? You own both these characters to a degree so make this happen! Get Bill and Stellan Skarsgård together, have them portray their characters of Pennywise and Baron Harkonnen respectively, just have them go around scaring children and other crap like that. I’d watch that.

One character that must also be acknowledged is Duncan Idaho. Aside from the fact that the name is freaking lit, Jason Momoa is perfectly cast as this character, because similar to how he made Aquaman a superhero I would want to have a drink with, Momoa shines because of his enthusiastic, almost reckless nature in this film. He’s in a somewhat serious, deep, intense sci-fi picture that the rest of these characters happen to be in, and he’s the only performer who happens to be taking things not so seriously. His character just screams ridiculous fun at times. He’s expressive, he’s witty, he’s charismatic, and much like Aquaman, I would go to a bar with Idaho if I had the chance.

For those of you who were looking forward to seeing Zendaya in the film for whatever reason, I would not prepare for disappointment, but I would also not prepare for excitement at this point, because her character is written in such a way that she has such a minimal impact and appearance throughout the film. If anything, we’ll probably get more of her in part two. I do think her character was well cast, I just hope the next movie gives us a clear answer as to whether Zendaya was truly a good choice for the role of Chani. But from what I’ve seen so far, she seems promising.

I really want to talk about the ending of this film, without spoilers of course. But most stories you read or watch have a proper ending where something dramatic happens, matters are resolved, maybe there’s a happily ever after, then we cut to “the end,” maybe black or white, or just straight to the credits. “Dune” does not have that kind of ending. I will not say where it ends, but it ends in a particularly interesting place. Let’s just say the ending is not the same as the first book… If you want to put it that way. The film ends on at a place where we see our characters in a particular situation only to have the screen cut to black. I have seen the film twice, and both times, I did not mind the ending. Mainly because I have enjoyed what I have seen so far, and the movie set itself up in a way to make me want more. I left thinking, what’s next? When are we getting the next movie? I want it now! Some would claim that in a way, this story is unfinished. I disagree. While the film is structured in a such a way that could garner such a thought when the ending comes up, I disagree because from start to finish, this movie is about the journey, struggle, and change of Paul Atreides as a character. We see him start at one point. We know his ambition, his flaws, and what others think of him. By the end of the film, he is different from how he is when it starts. I won’t give much detail, but if you pay close attention to the movie, you’ll notice. One journey is over, and another one begins. It is a… Strange ending. But it is also one that happens to be effective. I do not blame the movie for ending where it did.

With that being said, “Dune: Part Two” cannot come fast enough. When it arrives, I will buy my tickets in a heartbeat.

I thought to myself upon leaving the theater that while “Dune” was not my favorite film of this year, there is a lot that will it do to aspire future filmmakers and storytellers. I have a feeling that this “Dune” movie is going to have a similar impact on part of the current generation that “Star Wars” and “Lord of the Rings” did on their generations. If anything, even though there were some imperfections when it comes “Dune,” I think it has a shot at being the next “Lord of the Rings.” Between the modern visuals, the epic scope, the dense storytelling with enormous potential, this is absolute franchise material. In fact, as of writing this, not only is “Dune: Part Two” greenlit, but there’s also going to be a TV show set in the “Dune” universe coming to HBO Max at some point. This could be big.

BEVERLY HILLS, CA – JANUARY 16: Composer Hans Zimmer arrives at the 68th Annual Golden Globe Awards held at The Beverly Hilton hotel on January 16, 2011 in Beverly Hills, California. (Photo by Jason Merritt/Getty Images)

As for Hans Zimmer’s score, OH MY GOD. If you go see this in theaters, and I highly recommend you do so, prepare to have the room shake like a fish out of water. It is some of his best work to date and I would put it up there with, interestingly enough, another score he did for a Denis Villeneuve film, “Blade Runner 2049,” which he did with Benjamin Wallfisch.

In the end, “Dune,” or “Dune: Part One,” depending on your preference, is a great adaptation of the iconic sci-fi novel. It’s dense and occasionally hard to get through if you are in a certain mindset, but this film successfully created an epic atmosphere and introduced a whole new world of lore and possibilities. Well, kinda. This is another retelling of a classic story. Denis Villeneuve is up there with some of my favorite directors and this movie ended in such a way where I enjoyed the journey so far, but I also left with curiosity as to where they’d take the story. As of now, “Dune: Part Two” is my most anticipated film of 2023. The film can occasionally feel dense and strenuous. The ending, even though it did fulfill the arch of Paul Atreides, comes at a satisfying point, but also feels particularly emptier compared to other portions of the film. So for what I said, I massively enjoyed “Dune,” and I have a feeling that it could be something that will increase in enjoyment through repeat viewings. I’m going to give “Dune” an 8/10.

“Dune” is now playing in theaters everywhere and is streaming for a limited time on the ad-free tier of HBO Max.

Thanks for reading this review! If you are worried that I am going to be short on upcoming content. Trust me, I’m not. I want you all to know that I have reviews coming for “The French Dispatch,” “Last Night in Soho,” “Eternals,” and “Ron’s Gone Wrong.” There’s plenty of content to come but so little time! If you want to read this and more on Scene Before, follow the blog either with an email or WordPress account! Also, check out the official Facebook page! I want to know, did you see “Dune?” What did you think about it? Or, did you ever read any of the “Dune” books? Which is your favorite? And did you see any of the other “Dune” adaptations? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

Aquaman (2018): A Big Splash of Fun

Posted on December 31, 2018 by Jack Drees

MV5BOTk5ODg0OTU5M15BMl5BanBnXkFtZTgwMDQ3MDY3NjM@._V1_SY1000_CR006741000_AL_

“Aquaman” is directed by James Wan (The Conjuring, Furious 7) and stars Jason Momoa (Game of Thrones, Conan the Barbarian), Amber Heard (The Danish Girl, 3 Days To Kill), Willem Dafoe (Spider-Man, xXx: State of the Union), Patrick Wilson (Fargo, Insidious), Dolph Lundgren (Rocky IV, Masters of the Universe), Yahya Abdul-Mateen II (The Get Down, The Greatest Showman), and Nicole Kidman (Boy Erased, Big Little Lies). This film is based on the Detective Comics property that is probably mocked more than any other. Fittingly, this movie is most likely to be seen by people who are mocked more than any other. The plot to “Aquaman” is that Arthur Curry is the heir to the throne in his underwater kingdom, Atlantis. He also must unleash his inner hero and defend the world.

The world as we know it seems to have a very complicated relationship with the Detective Comics Extended Universe, and this includes myself. I have seen all the movies in its franchise thus far. I really enjoyed “Man of Steel.” “Batman v. Superman” is not as good as I would have hoped, but it’s still watchable. “Suicide Squad” is just plain awful, even though I enjoyed it the first time around. “Wonder Woman” was spectacular, and at one point, was probably my favorite movie of 2017. “Justice League” was pretty good, in fact, I honestly think I enjoyed it more than a lot of other people did. However, there is no denying that the turnout of the movie, almost felt like a movie that went through development hell. There were some clashing tones, lackluster effects at times, and Steppenwolf was kind of a one-dimensional villain. Then again, it’s hard to blame everybody because the technical director, Zack Snyder, needed Joss Whedon to fill his shoes for post-production because he lost his daughter to suicide, but nevertheless. I personally thought while DC was not as big or as close to quality as the Marvel Cinematic Universe, they were heading in the right direction. This direction personally tends to continue with “Aquaman” because it’s just a damn good time at the movies.

Comic book movies are perhaps the biggest trend in film right now, and I don’t know when it is going to stop, or even IF it is ever going to stop. If somebody were to ask me, what the definition of “comic book movie” would be, I’d just point them straight to “Aquaman.” Now I mean that in the most generous of ways, because the reality is that I tend to be a complete nerd who enjoys comic book movies. But when I think of comic books, superheroes, and stuff like that. I tend to think of big spectacles, compelling characters who have interesting backstories, epic fights, and stories that don’t necessarily need to be completely catered to logic. This is THAT movie. Without getting into heavy spoilers, let me just tell you about some of the weird s*it that goes down in “Aquaman.”

An Octopus plays the drums!
Laser sharks!
Underwater gladiator fights!
Occasional cartoony music!
Jumping off an aircraft and landing into a desert with no pain whatsoever!
Getting inside a giant fish who apparently doesn’t eat everything in its mouth!
Witty banter!
A shark nearly breaks the glass in an aquarium!
And of course, a man can talk to fish.

This is not just a movie, it’s a Saturday morning cartoon in all of its glory. And in all honesty, it’s actually better than “Thor: Ragnarok,” which I’ve heard from some people is like a Saturday morning cartoon, but in my eyes, that’s not what it should have been. I would have much preferred seeing a darker version of the story, one where there is despair! But no, you gotta get kids in the theater! La-de-frikin-dah! But the thing about “Thor: Ragnarok” is while it is a superhero movie and might as well be something that kids can enjoy, it seemed much lighter compared to the previous two “Thor” movies. It feels like a change of pace that I wasn’t able to grasp onto. “Aquaman” has yet to have his own standalone film, so therefore, I didn’t really know what to expect. A lot of information prior to the to release of “Aquaman” can be interpreted in one’s own imagination. What really matters is how people like me react to the execution. And I thought the execution was pretty swell if you ask me.

Visually speaking, this is one of the best movies of the year. Someone really must have had fun with the concept art for this film, because this film feels like what happens when you create Dungeons & Dragons underwater. I wanted to know more about the lore and mythology behind Atlantis. I mean, it really doesn’t surprise me that this movie looks good. After all, I have the fighting game “Injustice: Gods Among Us” and Atlantis happens to be my favorite stage in the entire game.

Let’s talk about Arthur Curry, AKA “Aquaman.” He’s played by Jason Momoa who we’ve seen in “Justice League” as the title character but now we get a much more personal look. One thing I will say about many superheroes is that they seem to highly associate with one certain word. With “Spider-Man,” he seems to clearly define an outsider, a nerd. With “Thor,” he seems to define a powerful god. With “Aquaman,” he may be that “chosen one” cliche per se, but he also seems to come off as a regular, everyday guy. There’s a scene with him at the bar where I got this vibe that he is that character on a sitcom that a main character would want to have a beer with. Also, out of all the superheroes that I’ve seen on screen, “Aquaman” by far, possibly might be the most masculine out of all of them. He’s ripped, he’s ready to have a good time, and that haircut, while it makes this dude look like a lady, it certainly just screams “MAN!”

Also, Mera? Yeah. She’s cool. I’d just say she’s hot and leave the description at that, but that’s not the point. I will say that prior to seeing “Aquaman” I went out and bought Mera’s Funko Pop before even going out to see the film. Not only did it look cool, but based on how awesome Mera is in this movie, the Pop was well worth the money. When I saw the “Ghostbusters” remake back in 2016, I imagined personally how much better the movie would be had it included half a team with girls and half a team with boys, to show gender equality, not to mention men and women working together for the better of society. This dynamic duo does not disappoint! Mera doesn’t feel like a sidekick and instead feels like Aquaman’s equal. They go together like bread and butter!

Also, one common complaint that many comic book movies seem to be getting nowadays is the inclusion of lackluster villains. Out of the DCEU films, I gotta say that one of the villains of “Aquaman” is the best one in the DCEU thus far. Specifically, Aquaman’s brother, King Orm. And to add to all of this Saturday morning cartoon glory, in my eyes, this guy really does resemble the word dick if you ask me. He reminds me of Legolas’s father from “The Hobbit.” Also, one thing that we’ve seen in a couple of recent comic book films like “Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2” and “Spider-Man: Homecoming” is that the main villain has some previous relation to the main character, “Aquaman” manages to continue that trend, while not necessarily improving upon it, but not destroying it either.

I really want to talk about the action in this film. One thing I’m noticing a lot nowadays is that in certain action flicks like “Kingsman: The Secret Service,” “Atomic Blonde,” and “The Hitman’s Bodyguard,” there is a really long one-take sequence where the camera does not cut away from whatever is going on in terms of action. While this movie doesn’t have THAT, there is one notable longer than usual take action scene in the beginning of the film that completely set the tone for what’s to come. Now keep in mind, this movie was directed by James Wan, who also directed “Furious 7.” That is not my favorite “Fast & Furious” film, but in terms of action and stunts, it’s probably the best. Based on his stellar action choreography and directing in that movie, it provides an excellent transition from there to here. Going back to Saturday morning cartooniness, a lot of the fighting is not just stylistically pleasing, but it’s big and loud, it kind of sent chills down my spine at this point. And, to compare this movie to “Black Panther,” Aquaman has to duel against his brother in a gladiator style ring, all of it is epic, brings things that I usually don’t see in movies. The most notable difference is that a lot of the fighting is done underwater. Granted, it’s not like the filmmakers went into the water and created a gigantic world by hand. In fact, if they actually did that, this movie actually would have probably been worse because it wouldn’t look as fantastical as it does now. Granted, there are times where I do draw a line on a movie looking fantastical, but this to me is a believable fantastical vision.

When I got home from this movie, I was able to say that this movie in no way breaks new ground. Granted, some of the action is stellar, but I felt like I’ve seen a portion of it before. However, the movies I was able to compare this to were actually likable choices. One of the easiest picks was “Black Panther.” You have this guy who is heir to the throne, who is eventually challenged by somebody for that position. The way they get to determine whether someone is worthy is through a duel. And honestly, the way they do the duel in this movie is honestly better than “Black Panther.” It feels more like an event, whereas the duel in “Black Panther” just like a couple of friends watching you play Classic mode on “Super Smash Brothers.” It was more like an underwater version of the Planet Hulk scene in “Thor: Ragnarok.” Coincidentally, this movie reminded me of “Thor,” because you have this one slightly out of place being trying to be a better version of himself. Not to mention, like in “Thor,” Aquaman is destined to rise to the throne. I also said this film kind of reminded me of a “Lord of the Rings” movie. While this is nowhere near as compelling as say “Return of the King,” it had elements of “Lord of the Rings” intact. There is a scene where our main characters have to trek through a piece of land for some time. At times the movie feels like a road trip, one moment you’re in the Sahara, the other you’re in Italy. La-de-la-de-da. Not to mention, there are some big, massive fights in the film with tons of special effects. This is where you also get to see the laser sharks in action at times. The other film this reminds me of is “Fast & Furious,” which to me is no surprise because of the director once being attached to direct “Furious 7.” It’s big, loud, absurd, and overall just balls to the wall.

Going back to the action, I gotta point one thing about it. As I said before, the action in this movie is f*cking amazing. This is one simple comparison I have to make because I’m a complete and total nerd, and nerds have opinions. When it comes to Marvel, they know how to create a story, they know how to write something, maybe not always something compelling, but something that is structured properly and is not in danger of breaking apart. When it comes to DC, one thing I’ve noticed in all of their movies is that the action is always worth the price of admission. Granted, Marvel tends to have good action, but it doesn’t hold a candle to DC. It’s always fast paced, rumbly tumbly, and it feels like something that would be in a nerd’s fantasy world. I would like to thank “Aquaman” for keeping DC’s action-based identity alive.

In the end, “Aquaman” is not the best superhero movie of the year. In fact, it came out a week after “Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse,” so it already has a tough competitor. What it really is though is the definition of what a superhero movie should be. Fun, big, and a fine form of escapism. This is certainly a crowd-pleasing movie, and honestly, I enjoyed it more than “Black Panther.” I know some people will want to kill me for saying that, but I’m just telling the honest truth. Jason Momoa’s great as Aquaman, Amber Heard is equally as wonderful as Mera. The two have great on-screen chemistry together, and I loved every minute of the movie. I’m gonna give “Aquaman” a 7/10. Before I go any further, I gotta point out something about this movie that sets it apart from a film like “Justice League.” One thing I noticed about this film is the runtime, and it is two hours and twenty-three minutes. While some people might consider that a bit long for their liking, I honestly don’t mind it, and in some ways, it’s better than “Justice League.” When it comes to “Justice League,” it comes in nearly a couple of hours even. That is a movie with more heroes and a lower runtime. It really just feels more like a corporate cash-in effort than anything else. Granted, somewhere around the two hour mark is your typical superhero movie, but some could argue that “Justice League” deserved to be more than two hours in order to make a better product. “Aquaman,” which comes in nearly two and a half hours, feels more like it is part of a vision as opposed to a corporate product. And for that, I have nothing but respect for the studio and the filmmakers. Granted there is an argument to be made that “Batman v. Superman” is too short at a two and a half hour long runtime, but I imagine there are some people arguing it is also too long. This world is divided! Also, to enhance your experience as much as possible, go see this in a theater, on the biggest screen possible, with the highest sound quality possible. Go to RPX or IMAX, you won’t be disappointed, and stay for the mid-credits scene! Thanks for reading this review! Pretty soon I’ll have a couple of reviews up for “The Mule” and “Instant Family,” as far as I know, those will be my last reviews before I put up my countdowns of my top 10 BEST and WORST movies of the year. Stay tuned for all of that, and if you like content like this, be sure to follow Scene Before either with an email or WordPress account so you can stay tuned for more great content! I want to know, did you see “Aquaman?” What did you think about it? Or, what is your favorite superhero movie of 2018? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

What the Heck is Up With Justice League (2017)? PART 2

Posted on March 24, 2018 by Jack Drees

mv5bywvhzjzkytitogiwys00nmrklwjlyjctmwm0zjfmmdu4zjezxkeyxkfqcgdeqxvymtmxodk2otu-_v1_sy1000_sx675_al_

Hey everyone, Jack Drees here! Last November, I asked a question to the world. What the heck is up with “Justice League?” I made a post with that title where I talk about various incidents that have been going on involving the crew of the then upcoming “Justice League” movie. To view this post, click the link below!

WHAT THE HECK IS UP WITH JUSTICE LEAGUE (2017)?: https://scenebefore.wordpress.com/2017/11/09/what-the-heck-is-up-with-justice-league-2017/

Although before we go any further with our current post I just want to get something out. Why are you here today on the Internet? I figured it was because you wanted to waste some time and avoid cleaning your room. Come on now! Your mother’s about to walk in and she’s gonna freak out! Well, allow me to once again introduce, Genevieve and Paul. Check out some earlier posts for less recent introductions. They are on the Internet for multiple reasons, but one of them is to tell the story leading up to their conception. The explanation of the conception journey is gone over in a little thing I like to call “What The IVF?.”

“WTIVF?” is a new series on YouTube where Genevieve and Paul go through the struggle of having a kid. The struggle being, well, making a kid. Each episode features a new adventure between the two where they encounter unfortunate realities in sex, testing, math, examinations, costs, and needle injections that end up hurting harder than a simple step on a LEGO brick! The video you see up above is the third episode in the series. The past two have been sexy, but now things are getting awkward! Paul is on a mission for science, but he has no idea what he’s in for! If you enjoy this video, be sure to like it, share it, subscribe to the “WTIVF?” channel, hit the notification bell, leave a comment, all that jazz! I’ll post links down below to their social media profiles including their YouTube, so check em out and tell them that Jack Drees 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/

Judging by the title of this post, you might be thinking, “What crazy hijinks is being cooked up this time?” Well, I can tell you. This post may be asking what the heck is up with “Justice League,” but it is also going to be asking what the heck is up with the Detective Comics Extended Universe? As you may know, “Justice League” is the fifth movie in the DCEU. It takes all your favorite DC superheroes and places em all together in one movie. Together, they join forces and try to take down the evil Steppenwolf. I reviewed “Justice League” almost a week after it came out and if some of you read it, some of you may call that the real part 2 to this series, but that’s not the main focus of the post. My very own thoughts were more important. Whatever the heck is going on does get a load of attention, but my main intention was to review the movie. Here however, we need to about the utter s*it that’s being happening lately.

As mentioned in my review, “Justice League” made a combined domestic and international total of $278.8 million on its opening weekend. While that is certainly a lot of money for a film in general, it’s kind of underwhelming if your film is called “Justice League.” This whole topic gets crazier when you realize that “Thor: Ragnarok,” which was out two weeks prior to “Justice League,” made so much more on its opening weekend worldwide (approx. $427 million). “Thor: Ragnarok” is an action-comedy that has less superheroes and less money put into it. Having seen both movies, I will even say that PERSONALLY, “Justice League” is the better movie. And I might be a bit generous when I say that because I now own the 4K and I rewatched it. Some of the effects look like they were from a college student’s film. I had believe it or not, a better time watching “Justice League” than I did watching “Thor: Ragnarok,” but it doesn’t mean I can’t point out its flaws.

I will also have you know that I paid more money to see “Justice League” in the theater than I did when I went to see “Thor: Ragnarok,” and I brought more people with me to see it. I went with a companion to see “Thor: Ragnarok” on opening weekend, and they ended up going another time in the future with their family. I didn’t, but adding that in, I guess some logical sense can be made behind “Thor: Ragnarok’s” overall total. Not to mention, they didn’t go see “Justice League.” Although I will say that I went with one more person to see “Justice League” than I did for “Thor: Ragnarok” and to my knowledge, neither of them have seen “Thor: Ragnarok.”

With that being said, that basically covers the extremely early events of “Justice League” and “Thor: Ragnarok,” and now, both theatrical runs have lead up to this point. I now have a 4K Ultra HD Best Buy exclusive steelbook for “Justice League” and I don’t have one copy of “Thor: Ragnarok.” One week after the “Justice League” movie came out on 4K and other home video formats such as Blu-ray and DVD, I found out some news that Marvel may be popping drinks over, and news that’s leaving DC rolling their eyes. “Thor: Ragnarok” made a total of $853,968,214 right now. “Justice League” just finished its theatrical run, and its total came out to $657,924,295. Keep in mind, that recently mentioned number, is objectively, a lot of money. Although judging the two movies and what they contain, the idea of a “Justice League” movie making as much as money as it did against a punier movie such as “Thor: Ragnarok” is what’s called a surprise and a f*cking half!

My personal opinion on both films aside, “Justice League,” according to many people, was not as good as it could, would, and should have been. When you take the movie and put it in that sort of viewpoint, it can be said that “Justice League’s” total against “Thor: Ragnarok” is valid, but part of me wonders what this means overall for the DCEU. Let’s take a look at the worldwide totals for every movie, including “Justice League,” released in the DCEU thus far.

MAN OF STEEL: $668,045,518
BATMAN V. SUPERMAN: DAWN OF JUSTICE: $873,634,919
SUICIDE SQUAD: $746,846,894
WONDER WOMAN: $821,847,012
JUSTICE LEAGUE: $657,924,295

This does beg a question, where does the DCEU go from here?

The DCEU is obviously going to have to make some choices from here on out. After all, with all the popularity Marvel is getting at this point, it’s getting harder and harder each and every day to compete with them.

One thing I’ve heard as a suggestion is the possibility to reboot. I do think this is a good idea, but also a bad one. Let’s start with the positives.

If you reboot, you have an opportunity to reorganize and readjust your vision to only make POSITIVE products. Let’s face it, there are numerous souls who weren’t satisfied with various DC films. The lack of satisfaction towards those films could have lead to the downfall of “Justice League.” Also, I usually try to promote movies and support them for being different, but one thing that’s an odd choice for DC, is that barely any of the heroes who happen to be in the Justice League thus far, had their own movie released prior to “Justice League.” Superman had one, Batman had one, Wonder Woman also had one, but not The Flash, Aquaman, or Cyborg. Sure, you can also make the point that not every Marvel superhero in the Marvel Cinematic Universe had their own film released before “The Avengers.” Although judging by the time, did you really think putting out a Hawkeye film before “The Avengers” would have gotten everyone flocking to the theater? Everyone would probably go see it now, including me even though I think Hawkeye’s as useless as a rock paper scissors match to determine what time it is. I will say however in DC’s defense when it comes to making money, forming the Justice League and actually putting out that movie prior to releasing standalone films might be an interesting strategy to get people who liked seeing certain heroes in “Justice League” in their own films. That way, instead of going to see “Justice League” only once after maybe ignoring some prior installments, they have some awareness of a character existing in the universe and their existence intrigues them enough to go see their standalone film. Maybe, just maybe, to fully determine the idea of this reboot thingy, we should wait and see what “Aquaman” makes at the box office. Besides, it’s not like Marvel didn’t do something like this before. They briefly introduced Black Panther and Spider-Man in “Captain America: Civil War” and the two went onto getting successful standalone movies down the road. Plus, another thing that keeps coming to my attention is that DC is constantly announcing project after project, but these projects never seem to go anywhere. Marvel seems to maintain a steady pace and seems to focus on the present. They sprinkle in some ideas about what can be done in the future, but they don’t seem to have the clutter that DC has. This is the great thing about Marvel president Kevin Feige. The DCEU always seems to be scrambling and doesn’t really know where to go next, but Marvel always has a path. Now let’s talk about something I usually consider a positive, but point out its flaws.

My usual philosophy when it comes to movie-making is that someone’s vision should be fulfilled, and when it comes to that, I’m mainly talking about the vision of the director. When it comes to Marvel, you can see that the directors of those films unleash what they view as figments of their own imagination, and they ultimately have a vision of where their movie should start and where their movie should finish. But the thing about the Marvel Cinematic Universe is that the visions of the director, doesn’t play as big of a part in the series as much as producer Kevin Feige’s. If you look at all the Marvel movies, they all don’t feel like they’re in their own little area. While they technically are, they all have a tone, story, and feel that reminds you they’re in the Marvel Cinematic Universe. DC’s movies, when it comes to directing, come off as a bunch of people who try to make their own food, they bring it to a big banquet and see who takes it or considers it the best food of all. If you compare the styles of Zack Snyder and Patty Jenkins, you might notice that their movies are written a bit differently, tonally speaking they’re not exactly similar, and they seem like a movie only they or a few other people would make for themselves. I’m not against them having their own thing for now, but if this universe gets to a point where a major storyline plays in future films, it’s gonna have to get more collaborative.

Now let’s talk about one big con when it comes to rebooting. Who are gonna play the roles of the heroes? Well, if they’re gonna do an all new universe with the same exact heroes that have been introduced thus far, I do think they should recast Christian Bale as Batman, but separate it from the “Dark Knight” trilogy universe. Although since that’s probably unlikely to happen, I’ll be a bit more realistic.

BATMAN: Jake Gyllenhaal (Nightcrawler, Stronger)
SUPERMAN: Wes Bentley (Interstellar, The Hunger Games)
WONDER WOMAN: Deepika Padukone (xXx: Return of Xander Cage, Chennai Express)
THE FLASH: Timothée Chalamet (Interstellar, Call Me by Your Name)
AQUAMAN: Whatever bloody person has long blonde hair or can put on a blonde wig, this one’s really freakin’ hard. Or if someone can find Patrick Swayze’s ghost that would work too.
CYBORG: Dexter Darden (The Maze Runner, Joyful Noise)

While you can reboot, recast, and therefore start something new and fresh, it’s going to affect the current universe’s positives. Not only do we have a surprisingly great Batman (Ben Affleck), one that’s actually beloved by moviegoers and comic book fans, but we also have a fantastic Wonder Woman. Some people may beg to differ, but I personally thought Gal Gadot as Wonder Woman is what made “Batman v. Superman: Dawn of Justice” worth watching. Not Batman, not Superman, but once I walked out of the theater, I thought Wonder Woman was the s*it. And no, not because she was sexy. Although that’s bonus points. To prove to you how much I truly loved Wonder Woman in that movie, I went to Rhode Island Comic Con in 2016 and she was there. I stood in a line for five hours JUST to meet her and get an autograph. It was a fast paced line, but I did get to talk to her. She was pregnant at the time so I took a moment to congratulate her, and she thanked me. Not only did I love Wonder Woman as a character in this universe, but people, mainly girls, were hyping up the standalone “Wonder Woman” film like crazy. I was too, many people were skeptical of how it would turn out, but I knew this was going to be something special just based on how the character was portrayed in “Batman v. Superman.” And judging by many people’s opinions, it was. I might even think that the standalone “Wonder Woman” film, might even be better to me on a personal level than a gigantic number of the MCU films. If you reboot, you’ll lose a short-lived legacy of Gal Gadot inspiring girls all over and if the Wonder Woman who replaces Gadot doesn’t live up to her, some folks are going to be disappointed. It’s not to say that rebooting can’t work. Batman’s been rebooted multiple times and people had not much of a problem behind it for the most part and Spider-Man’s recently been rebooted for the MCU and people seem to like that. Although if this reboots, it needs to follow a collaborative path or something. Don’t copy Marvel beat for beat, otherwise you’re just an imitator. Develop your own path, and have people follow it. Hire qualified directors and writers, perhaps ones with lots of experience, and despite having a path to follow, allow directors and writers to add their own flare to the table. Have a collaborative effort while still promoting imagination.

I honestly don’t want the DCEU to end and reboot. But based on all the announcements that’s been going on lately and the total confusion-fest that some call news, it looks like it’s either heading that way, there’s gonna be another DC movie universe going on at the same time, or something else that I don’t even know at this point due to an increasing headache I’m getting from looking at all of this! At this point! I should change the name of this post to “WHAT THE FLYING F*CK IS UP WITH JUSTICE LEAGUE (2017)?!” When it comes to news, this is the Trump administration of movie news. A lot comes out and it’s sometimes just bonkers. I’m a DCEU defender, I know it’s not been great thus far, but I do see potential if the right people are hired to do each job, a more collaborative effort is put into each product, and while I don’t want each movie to be the same, I want the movies to feel like they know they’re in the proper series. I don’t want a reboot, some others seem to feel the opposite way of me, but this is where I stand. Although before we put this post to rest, I’ll say something that can get some people talking. “Black Panther” has been out for weeks now, but I’ll say, the movie’s been out for a month, and it already passed above the $1 billion mark. Its current worldwide total is at $1,211,644,236. Years ago, if some Gandalf-like wizard came out of a portal and told you that “Black Panther” will be out for a matter of days, and it will make more money than a very recent “Justice League” movie, you’d laugh your ass off. Am I right?!

So I want to know, why do you think “Justice League” made as much money as it did? What do you think the future for the DCEU will be? There are future movies coming out such as “Aquaman,” “Shazam,” “Flashpoint,” and “Wonder Woman 2.” The fate of these films may be uncertain and the fate of the DCEU may depend on the reception and box office returns of these installments, so let’s hope the results are positive! Thanks for reading this post! Pretty soon I’ll have my review of “Tomb Raider” starring Alicia Vikander. I went to see the movie hours ago, and I have quite a bit of things to say about it. Also, I can assure that by the end of the month I will have my review up for “Mission: Impossible” starring Tom Cruise to kick off my “Mission: Impossible” review series. Stay tuned for more great content! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

Justice League (2017): What Does This Mean for the DCEU? (PLUS TALK ABOUT THE MOVIE’S BOX OFFICE RETURN)

Posted on November 23, 2017 by Jack Drees

Before we get into my review for “Justice League,” let me remind you that the buildup for this movie has been objectively crazy. Regardless of whether you’re a fan of DC, you’re anti-DC, you’re a fan of Marvel, or you just aren’t into movies based on comic books, you might as well agree with me on how bonkers this movie’s buildup truly is. I cover all of that including the director change, the sexually suggestive events, the date of the review embargo lift, all in another post I’ve done titled “What the Heck is Up with Justice League (2017)?” If you want to check that out, click the link down below and that’ll take you to that post and you can discover the complete insanity of “Justice League’s” buildup.

WHAT THE HECK IS UP WITH JUSTICE LEAGUE (2017)?: https://scenebefore.wordpress.com/2017/11/09/what-the-heck-is-up-with-justice-league-2017/

mv5bmji2nji2mdq0nv5bml5banbnxkftztgwmtc1mjawmji-_v1_sy1000_cr006741000_al_

“Justice League” is directed Zack Snyder (300, Watchman) and stars Ben Affleck (The Town, Argo), Gal Gadot (Fast Five, Criminal), Jason Momoa (Game of Thrones, Conan the Barbarian), Ezra Miller (Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them, The Perks of Being a Wallflower), and Ray Fisher as the members of the league established in the title. Batman and Wonder Woman try to unite a bunch of beings with superpowers in order to defeat the evil Steppenwolf.

*MAJOR BOX OFFICE RANT AHEAD, IF UNINTERESTED, GO TO NEXT PARAGRAPH*

Before we actually go any further, part of me is glad that I’m not seeing this film on opening weekend. This is because I can now make a portion of this post dedicated to how nobody went to see this on opening weekend. If I were to see this on opening weekend, I would have. However it didn’t fit into the schedule of those who I was going to see this with. I will say this, if you have read the post I recently mentioned, you may recall I said essentially Marvel does better at the box office compared to DC, and to show that, I went through the results of 2016 comparing DC’s “Batman v. Superman: Dawn of Justice” with Marvel’s “Captain America: Civil War.” To be fair, those movies had somewhat similar concepts, although “Batman v. Superman” is something that comic book junkies have been waiting to see on the big screen for years. Not to mention, “Batman v. Superman” released first. The thing I said must have brought more people into the theater has to have been the difference in tone and the reviews regarding the movie. Just look at Rotten Tomatoes! The box office results for both movies ended up being pretty high. I wouldn’t say they’re close, but it doesn’t mean they’re not high. Although I will say “Batman v. Superman” failed to make over $1 billion overall unlike “Captain America: Civil War.” Now fast forward to November 2017. This month, two big superhero movies come out. “Thor: Ragnarok” is scheduled to come out November 3rd, two weeks prior to “Justice League,” which comes out November 17th. So “Thor: Ragnarok” releases, and as expected, it won the box office on its opening weekend. The total “Thor: Ragnarok” earned on said weekend is around $427 million. In just a week, the movie has flown past $500 million. This is over $50 million greater than the combined total the original “Thor” made DURING ITS ENTIRE RUN! Also, just recently, specifically November 19th, reports came in that “Thor: Ragnarok” has now reached $739.2 million at the box office! This report suggests that “Thor: Ragnarok” has also made more money than “Thor: The Dark World” in just a couple of weeks! Also a little thing to keep in mind, the budget for “Thor: Ragnarok” was estimated to be $180 million. Suggesting that “Thor: Ragnarok” made its budget back on opening weekend. As for “Justice League,” that movie had an estimated budget of $300 million. Unfortunately, they couldn’t make it back. Some of you might be thinking, did they at least make as much as “Thor: Ragnarok?” Hate to point this out to you, but if you’ve been reading this whole paragraph, that’s a stupid question, because I said “I can now make a portion of this post dedicated to how nobody went to see this on opening weekend,” so if that doesn’t give you any hints I don’t know what will. Overall, the box office total is considerably high, but comparing it to a film like “The Avengers” would be like comparing the heights of the Statue of Liberty and the Empire State Building. Both are high when you look at them, but compared to the Statue of Liberty, the Empire State is a whole new level of high. The specific worldwide total for “The Avengers” turned out to be $392.5 million dollars on the first weekend whereas this year’s “Justice League” came out to $278.8 million. “The Avengers,” a movie whose budget is estimated to have been $220 million, made its budget back on its opening weekend. Yes, that’s a shorter total, but I’m leaving that in. Interestingly, “Justice League” happened to make more overseas than “The Avengers” ($185.5 million vs. $185.1 million). Going off of “The Avengers,” just think about this. A technical action-comedy starring Chris Hemsworth as a short haired Thor, made more on opening weekend than “Justice League,” which has Batman, Wonder Woman, Cyborg, Aquaman, and The Flash. Strange, isn’t it? When it comes to international openings, this takes the #20 spot for the top openings in that category and when it comes to the worldwide rankings, this happens to be in the top 25 worldwide openings of all time. In reality, $278.8 million is a lot of money for a movie to make over a single weekend, although with a movie like this, it’s a tad odd that it wouldn’t end up making more.

Can somebody drop a coconut on my head? I think I’m going f*cking insane!

So, where was I? Oh yeah right, I have a whole review to do! This just goes to show you the absolute s*itshow this movie is regardless of my personal thoughts. Going into this film, I had similar feelings as I did with “Thor: Ragnarok.” Although with this particular movie there happened to be some differences. Like “Thor: Ragnarok,” “Justice League” had me going in with mixed thoughts. I honestly thought the trailers for this movie were better, although the TV spot marketing, at least from my memory, was barely noticeable. Visually, I thought this movie was somewhat superior, even though “Thor: Ragnarok” happened to be vivider. Based on this year’s movies released thus far from both DC and Marvel, you might as well say DC is kicking Marvel in the ass. “Wonder Woman” is currently at a spot somewhere as one of my top movies of the year. The other movies released in the MCU thus far, “Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2” and “Spider-Man: Homecoming,” underwhelmed me. OK, maybe “Spider-Man: Homecoming” didn’t underwhelm, after seeing the trailers, especially the one that revealed way too much about the movie, the hype I had for the movie was not as high as I hoped it would be. Nevertheless, that movie could have been better. Although despite “Wonder Woman” being one of my favorite DC films ever made, the reception for that movie regarding the DCEU, or the Detective Comics Extended Universe, is pretty much a fluke. “Man of Steel,” while not liked by everyone, did get a number of positive reviews from critics and audiences. “Batman v. Superman: Dawn of Justice,” in terms of reception, was one of the most controversial movies of 2016. In fact, “Suicide Squad,” also released in 2016, happened to be met with the same results. I had at least one thing that I enjoyed about every DCEU movie thus far. As of now I think “Suicide Squad” sucks, but at least some of the action was cool, the visuals were stunning, and the casting for Harley Quinn (Margot Robbie) was stellar!

Screenshot (219)

Now we’re here, “Justice League” is out. While it currently has better results, at least according to Rotten Tomatoes, than “Batman v. Superman: Dawn of Justice” and “Suicide Squad,” it’s not getting exactly what one would call positive reception. The big question is, does “Justice League” qualify as a film or not? I’d say it does. It’s got problems, but I’d say there’s still hope for the DCEU. It’s by no means as good as “Wonder Woman,” but I’d say it’s worth your money.

As mentioned, this movie has problems. So let’s begin our Negative Nancy segment of the post. This movie is an hour and fifty-nine minutes long. In all honesty, it could have been longer. I do believe this movie is going to get an extended cut for the home video release so my issue may be resolved there depending on what happens. The main reason why I wanted this to be longer is for characterization purposes. Let’s look at Cyborg in this movie.

Cyborg is played by Ray Fisher, who I imagine is a lovely guy. After all, while I never technically met him and shook his hand, I saw him at Comic Con as I was waiting in line for the person next to him. By the way, I’m referring to Gal Gadot, who’s also in this movie, and I’ll get to her later. While I did get some of his backstory, and I also happened to be introduced to a parent of his, I don’t really feel like I got to know Cyborg in full detail. If the movie was a bit longer much like some of the other installments in the DCEU then maybe we would have gotten a closer look at Cyborg. Also, this does bring one question to my mind. How long was this intended to be?

This film was directed by Zack Snyder, a man who had prior experience when it comes to films based on comic books or graphic novels. These films include “300,” “Watchman,” along with two movies in this film’s universe, “Man of Steel” and “Batman v. Superman: Dawn of Justice.” However, he didn’t have complete control. For the record, that was his decision. An unexpected tragedy hit the Snyder family earlier this year when Zack’s daughter, Autumn, committed suicide. This caused Joss Whedon to take over.

Joss Whedon was added on in order to finish the movie and shoot some extra scenes. The movie also went through reshoots, which isn’t new for this universe considering “Suicide Squad” also went through reshoots which happened to be met with mixed opinions. Joss Whedon, much like Snyder, isn’t a stranger to comic book films. Whedon directed both “Avengers” 1 & 2 so as far as concept goes, this is almost like a trip down memory lane. I like Joss Whedon, but he almost might be a problem here. When it comes to directing, it might involve one person with a certain vision for their movie. It almost felt like Joss Whedon came in with a different vision and it kind of affected this particular movie. Part of that vision, from what I can tell, possibly came from a musical perspective. Snyder initially hired Junkie XL to do the movie’s music, but it turns out that he was eventually fired and replaced by Danny Elfman. After hearing Elfman’s score in this film, I wasn’t exactly impressed. Not only is it somewhat ordinary, but even borrowing themes from other superhero films with characters didn’t work out. I liked what he did with Wonder Woman’s theme, but that’s about it. This is rather unfortunate because I love Danny Elfman. Admittedly, I don’t think he’s the right guy for this project. Junkie XL was probably the better choice. I even saw a video on YouTube that showed Junkie XL’s real theme for this film, which was scrapped due to Elfman replacing him. After hearing that, I knew for sure Junkie XL was right for this. It’s not surprising Danny Elfman did the music if you think about it, because he worked with Joss Whedon in the past on “Avengers: Age of Ultron.” I didn’t even like the score for that film, maybe superhero crossover films aren’t for him. He did well on standalone superhero films though such as the “Spider-Man” trilogy, so if he were doing superhero films, that’s what he should be hired for. Who knows? It might not even be Whedon’s fault, because this movie, from a perspective regarding itself from a point of view that I imagine must be Zack Snyder’s, could have affected it as well.

I’ve seen news and trailers regarding this movie leading up to it. At times I heard this movie was going to have more humor than say, “Batman v. Superman.” Tell me guys, doesn’t that sound like Marvel to you? Maybe Zack Snyder thought if the movie was more like a Marvel movie, and by that I mean generally more comedic and happy go lucky, he’d receive more positive criticism. Granted, the movie was funny, and there were moments where the comedy happened to work. Although in general, let’s just say this. If a movie sets up a tone, it’s best that they stick with it. This movie starts out rather dark, in fact part of it has to do with the death of a major character in the DCEU. There’s still comedy throughout and it works. Some of the comedy, maybe not as much because I’ve seen it in the trailer, but overall it works. Then we progress throughout the movie, while some of the original vibe is still there, it’s starting to diminish. The movie’s getting tads lighter as we go. This may be due to the writing, the reshoots, anything. In fact, it could be Joss Whedon’s fault after all! He was credited for his work on the screenplay. Also when it comes to the screenplay, Whedon technically had possibly more credit than Snyder because while Snyder had a focus on the movie’s story, Whedon was given credit on the screenplay itself.

Some people might not notice this, but Whedon also likely decided on changing the climax of the movie. The idea is pretty much the same, there are scenes from multiple trailers (both before and after Snyder’s departure) that made it into the final cut, but you might notice the sky is red. I mentioned this in my “What the Heck is Up with Justice League (2017)” post comparing this result with one of the earlier trailers where we see identical moments with a dark blue sky. I thought the blue sky worked, the red was a little too much. I will give some credit because the sky wasn’t, say, pink, but I thought the dark blue was more fitting for the movie overall.

As far as the action goes in this movie, I’d say for the most part, it’s awesome. Zack Snyder has proven that he can direct great action scenes in previous movies and he just shows he’s not messing around in this one. There was one scene that for the most part, was great, but there was a time where I almost couldn’t tell what was happening. Just for the record, it wasn’t as bad as “Transformers 5.”

Another complaint I’ll give here is that Steppenwolf wasn’t exactly the strongest villain I’ve ever seen. Comic book movies in general, mainly the ones that have come out this decade, lack memorable villains. There are exceptions like “Captain America: The Winter Soldier” and “Spider-Man: Homecoming” but for the most part, they don’t exactly resemble greatness when it comes to antagonists. Steppenwolf was a serviceable villain with a somewhat clear motivation, however at the same time, he was rather cliche.

Now that that’s over, let’s move onto some positives. The cinematography in this movie is very solid for a comic book film. There are a number of scenes where it’s rather conventional, but at times, the camera is moving like crazy which goes along perfectly with the fast paced action. If you ask me, the DCEU’s best cinematography however comes from “Man of Steel.” Although that’s kind of a compliment since both movies were directed by Zack Snyder. At the same time however you can say I’m kind of insulting the cinematographer because the director of photography for “Justice League” and “Man of Steel” are two different people.

I also appreciated the film’s CGI. Did it go overboard? At times, but that’s not a first for comic book movies. Overall, you can say the effects were massive, somewhat colorful, and somewhat breathtaking. Seeing Aquaman stop water from reaching a further distance was spectacular to watch. Also, you might not know, but Cyborg’s costume is CGI, and I got to say it worked.

Speaking of things that are done digitally, Henry Cavill appeared in this movie. I won’t go into further detail about what he did, but he’s there. During the movie’s production, he had a mustache. Why was this? He was simultaneously working on “Mission: Impossible 6” where his role required him to have said mustache. Under regulation, Cavill couldn’t shave it off, so it was removed digitally. While you don’t really see much of it, it’s still visible. I don’t know how much of the movie-going population would catch something like this, but it caught my eye nevertheless.

Sticking with the topic of heroes and the actors who portray them, let’s talk about some in depth, except for Cyborg since we already went over him. Starting off with Batman, played by Ben Affleck, he’s basically one of the two people organizing the Justice League. Before “Batman v. Superman” I was somewhat skeptical about him as Batman but now that I’ve seen him multiple times as the Caped Crusader, I have to say he does a fine job portraying the character. As Bruce Wayne, Affleck seems to stay according to plan and as Batman he appears to remain deep voiced and alert.

The other person organizing the league is Wonder Woman, played by Gal Gadot. There is LITERALLY no other person that should be playing this role but Gal! I may be biased because I love Gal Gadot, I view her as my celebrity crush, I met her at Comic Con, but seriously! Just watch Gal Gadot in this movie and you’ll come to realize, she has this system down. Her battle cries are probably some of the best I’ve heard in a movie! The accent, which by the way, is actually the real way Gal talks, works for the character! Seeing her in action is such a treat! The list of positivity is extreme! Her character, once again, SHINES in this movie. I was able to buy into both Wonder Woman and Diana Prince. When a movie makes you do that, you know you have a great character. On a sidenote, there’s a point in the movie where Bruce and Diana are having a conversation and when “Steve Trevor” comes up, I was wowed. I can’t exactly recall the quote where Trevor’s name is mentioned, but it was a highlight in the movie’s screenplay for me.

This movie also has Barry Allen, AKA The Flash, played by Ezra Miller. Out of all the characters in the movie, this one was pretty much the comic relief. Sure, there’s funny lines given by multiple characters in the film, but if there was one person that stole scenes from a humor perspective, it had to have been The Flash. I didn’t really laugh as much as other people, but I did end up laughing. His character was hyperactive, excited, and rather fleshed out. I can also give kudos to Ezra Miller for giving a good performance.

The last hero I’ll bring up is Arthur Curry/Aquaman, played by Jason Momoa. If you have read the comic books and watched this movie, you may notice some differences when it comes to Aquaman here. His backstory is similar overall, but in terms of character traits, he’s not completely identical. One difference you may notice is the hair. When you compare the hairstyle to the comics, it’s similar to certain installments, signifying that the hair in the comics isn’t always the same. Although one thing you might notice here is that the hair isn’t blonde, it’s more on the darker side of the color spectrum. Overall, I bought into Aquaman, I enjoyed seeing him in Atlantis, and personality-wise, he’s kind of like a rockstar. That’s what I get from the way he talks. On a little sidenote, I made a post months back saying that footage was leaked for the upcoming “Aquaman” movie. Turns out that’s actually in this movie. If you want to read that, link’s down below.

https://scenebefore.wordpress.com/2017/03/03/leaked-aquaman-footage-revealed-on-zack-snyders-twitter/

Speaking of characters in this movie, Commissioner Gordon also makes an appearance here. This is Gordon’s first appearance in the DCEU and the reason why I’m excited he’s here is not because I have a passion for the character but I have more of a passion towards the actor who plays him. That actor by the way is JK Simmons (Whiplash, Juno). When it comes to JK Simmons, if you put a picture down on a table with his face on it and do the same with other actors, there’s a good chance that I’m gonna tell you “Screw the others, this guy’s the man!” I say this because JK Simmons is probably my favorite actor when it comes to ability. There are actors who I personally idolize more, such as Curtis Armstrong, but JK Simmons usually never fails to impress me, and that continues in this movie. Granted it’s not his best performance, but it’s also not his worst. He convinces me as Commissioner Gordon and I hope to see more of him if this movie’s universe continues. One interesting fact you may or may not know, JK Simmons is also J Jonah Jameson in Sam Raimi’s “Spider-Man” trilogy. So basically he went from doing movies under one comic book company onto another. Whether you prefer Marvel or DC, let’s just agree that JK Simmons rules!

Here’s a question you might be asking. Is this movie good enough for the DCEU to continue? Personally when it comes to watchability, yes. However, the critics seemed to give this mixed reviews, it did make tons of money despite how it could have made more, and I have a feeling that moviegoers will either compare it to Marvel saying it’s not as good or too much like Marvel. Do I think it’s like Marvel? In ways, but DC has seemed to develop it’s own characteristics that Marvel doesn’t traditionally use that makes it stand on its own. “Batman v. Superman: Dawn of Justice,” another movie in the DCEU, was dark as hell. It could have worked if more character development came into play. If these movies find their own path in terms of vibe, whether it be light or dark, personally I prefer dark, depending on the movie, and they focus more on characterization, then this universe would be less flawed. My other suggestion is that they try to just release one cut in theaters and go with it. I don’t care if it’s long as long as it’s effective. The original cut for “Batman v. Superman” was 2 hours and 31 minutes and that didn’t work out. This is why audiences loved “Wonder Woman” when they saw it. It functioned as a story and it managed to work out as far as the runtime goes (2 hours 21 mins). If a movie doesn’t rush and makes sure it can tell its story in full detail, chances are it will be better. Also, it seems suspicious that they would make the runtime 1 hour and 59 minutes. It almost seems as if the movie happened to be longer, the studio would be worried about making less money. I don’t know, but I think it’s a good assumption. Although it’s not as suspicious as when a movie gets split into two parts (The Hunger Games, The Twilight Saga). But seriously, quality matters, not quantity.

In the end, I’d say “Justice League,” while not perfect, is an enjoyable ride and is certainly better than some of the other comic book films we’ve gotten this year. In fact, I’ll even go as far as to say, I’d rather watch this than “Thor: Ragnarok.” Am I a DC fanboy? Not really, I’m just a guy who likes good movies, and I had more fun watching this than I did watching “Thor: Ragnarok.” Is this movie as good as “Wonder Woman?” No, but I’d definitely say it’s worth watching if you’re into DC, you like action, and if you can get by the tones that clash throughout the film. I’m gonna give “Justice League” a 7/10. After watching a bunch of movies in both the Detective Comics Extended Universe and the Marvel Cinematic Universe, I’ve got to say that the Detective Comics Extended Universe is this year’s clear winner. While Marvel’s films had some neat effects, cool moments, and likable villains, they all tried to be funny, but ended up falling flat for me. The DCEU balanced heroism, action, and humor. “Wonder Woman” is one of the best directed superhero films I ever watched, “Justice League,” despite its imperfections, is a joyride. So I can’t wait to see what next year brings for both cinematic universes and find out which one comes out on top. Now I know I’ve been talking for awhile and believe it or not, I’m unfinished. Because I need to talk about Stardust!

Stardust is an app you can use to talk about movies and TV. I recently used this to talk about “Justice League” along with my quick thoughts on it and I recommend you do so as well. Although if you don’t want to talk about “Justice League,” you can choose from thousands of movies and TV shows to give your two cents towards. You talk about how much you like them, how much you hate them, you don’t even have to see them! Stardust also allows you to follow people and see what their latest reactions are. If you want to follow me, my handle is JackDrees. It’s kind of like Snapchat minus the risque elements of the app that Tinder is also known for. If you want to download Stardust go right ahead, I recommend doing so that way you can start sharing your thoughts on movies and TV shows.

Thanks for reading this extended review, I also hope you enjoyed the little piece I did on the movie’s box office return, I tried to put a good amount of effort into that. Part of me feels slightly crazier than I once was for doing it, but I also had some fun writing all of this s*it down. I’m going to see “Wonder” on Black Friday. I’ve heard great things about this movie so far, I loved Jacob Tremblay in “Room,” so I’m really looking forward to this. Stay tuned for my review for that, along with more reviews! I need to know, what is the best superhero movie you’ve seen this year? I can’t say I’ve seen “Logan” so I gotta go with “Wonder Woman.” Also what is the worst superhero movie you’ve seen this year? My pick would be “Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2,” but each person will have their own opinion. Comment below, I’d love to hear your responses! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

What the Heck is Up with Justice League (2017)?

Posted on November 9, 2017 by Jack Drees

Hey everyone, Jack Drees here! Last weekend we got a new movie from Marvel Studios, specifically “Thor: Ragnarok,” and while many people, including myself, say that Marvel has proven to create excellent films, there are also many that say DC, isn’t like Marvel. Now, I will say this, I saw “Wonder Woman” in the theater this year, and as of now, I actually think I like that movie better than any of the movies released thus far in the MCU. Based on Marvel’s past records and reception, it’s guaranteed that “Thor: Ragnarok” will be a box office success and a likable movie according to many viewers. Now the real question I have is, can DC deliver on the same thing?

As much audiences and critics loved “Wonder Woman,” not everyone thought movies like “Man of Steel,” “Batman v. Superman: Dawn of Justice,” and “Suicide Squad” were worth watching. Also, this upcoming “Justice League” movie is being directed by Zack Snyder, who I haven’t seen GREAT films from yet, but many people like him for his work on “Watchman” and “300.” I haven’t seen “Watchman,” but I have seen “300.” If you ask me, I enjoyed “300,” I thought it was a visually stunning movie with a very fitting vibe, some great music, but it ultimately rounded out to a 7/10 experience for me. I’ve also seen “Sucker Punch,” which like “300” is visually appealing, although not as good. However there’s one action sequence in that movie that was f*cking amazing! Zack Snyder’s films, from memory, don’t usually have much substance, but a good amount of style interjected into them. That style has worked for our eyes even in the DCEU (Detective Comics Extended Universe), the way the action is shot in “Man of Steel” is extremely exhilarating to the point that even Doug Walker, AKA Channel Awesome’s Nostalgia Critic, someone who in a video said “‘MAN OF STEEL’ SUCKS!”, said that the action in the movie was super awesome and felt like “Dragonball.” In “Batman v. Superman: Dawn of Justice,” part of the movie was shot in the IMAX format, which looked great when presented on IMAX screens. Interestingly, when the movie came out on home video, the aspect ratio changes which were shown in IMAX theaters, weren’t shown on the home video version. The movie is also full of eye candy visuals all over the place. Not to mention, Wikipedia suggests “Batman v. Superman” is the 7th most expensive movie ever made, which is tied with “Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince,” “The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies,” “Captain America: Civil War,” and “The Fate of the Furious.” Zack Snyder isn’t the only one who has a major say in the production of “Justice League” however…

If you have seen or heard “The Avengers” and “Avengers: Age of Ultron,” you may know those movies were directed by Joss Whedon, who is also known for creating the TV shows “Buffy the Vampire Slayer” and “Firefly,” both of which have received followings from nerds over the years. Whedon is also involved with “Justice League’s” post-production and that’s because Zack Snyder’s daughter died after committing suicide. This happened March 20th, 2017, and this lead to Snyder initially hiring Whedon to take over. Speaking of replacements, when it came to the movie’s score, Junkie XL (Mad Max: Fury Road, Deadpool), who also did part of the score with Hans Zimmer for “Batman v. Superman,” was originally hired to do “Justice League’s” score, however Joss Whedon hired Danny Elfman to take his place. This does make a lick of sense if you think about it, because Elfman has worked with Whedon in the past during “Avengers: Age of Ultron.” If you ask me, that score wasn’t very good. Nothing stood out about it except for the end of the movie when the theme you hear from the first “Avengers” film pops up, which wasn’t even an original piece from Elfman, that was done by Alan Silvestri, who also did another score I admire, specifically “Night at the Museum.” Now, I like Danny Elfman. The man’s done some of my favorite scores (Spider-Man trilogy, Oz the Great and Powerful), but given the vibe we’ve seen from this universe thus far, and having heard Elfman’s past scores, I seriously wonder how the music would go with the movie in terms of meshing together properly. Although this might be good for “Batman” fans, because reports have come up lately that his theme for Batman will be in the upcoming “Justice League” movie. You know, the one audiences first heard back in 1989. Also, this might be interesting for “Superman” fans as well because another report came out suggesting that his score will feature a dark twist on the iconic “Superman” theme, originally done by John Williams. As interesting as that is, the future, as far as this movie goes, seems shaky. But on a positive note, specifically for myself, the music we’ve gotten in the Detective Comics Extended Universe thus far is miles better than most of the music in the Marvel Cinematic Universe.

It’s hard to know what to expect from this film, considering you have multiple minds taking control of it. You have Zack Snyder’s and you have Joss Whedon’s, whose mind came into play during post-production. In fact, I’ve seen a change in terms of the vision when it comes to the film’s look as a whole. I went to YouTube and took screenshots of a similar part of both the trailer released in March and the most recently released trailer. In the trailer released in March, the sky looks dark and blue, whereas in the latest trailer it looks fiery and red. Just compare the scene where Aquaman is car surfing and see what I mean. Two different visions might ruin the movie and affect it significantly. Not to mention, it just begs a ton of questions. These include “How much has changed?” “Why was there change?” “How will the changes affect the final product?” If you ask me, Joss Whedon can direct better stories than Zack Snyder whereas Zack Snyder is better with style. This movie has reportedly gotten reshoots since Whedon took over, so maybe the original product had not much story and it’s possible that Whedon could be changing that. Although there was another movie that has gotten reshoots in the DCEU that while it ended up pleasing certain people, it couldn’t make everyone happy, specifically “Suicide Squad.” There’s a good chance that the reshoots might not end up paying off and leaving certain people rather unsatisfied with the results. Also, what if these reshoots are making this movie a simple carbon copy of “The Avengers?” I ask that because Whedon directed that movie and if you think about it, in fact if you know the material you don’t even have to think about it, they’re very similar in terms of concept.

Speaking of shooting troubles, let’s talk about Henry Cavill. It was reported that he would be in the movie, but at the same time, it was also reported that he was shooting for “Mission: Impossible 6” which is set to come out in 2018. In fact when he was shooting “Mission: Impossible 6,” his role required him to have a beard. He had to go back and forth between productions, which by the way, different studios are behind the two films. Paramount is behind “Mission: Impossible” and Warner Bros. is behind Justice League. Cavill couldn’t shave his beard during his time working on “Justice League” so essentially it was removed digitally during post production. That’s pretty much all I’ll say about him because if I go on with certain thoughts related to Cavill, it would spoil “Batman v. Superman.”

Speaking of actors in this movie, let’s talk about Ben Affleck. A lot of people like Ben Affleck, both as an actor and a director. Here he’s acting as Batman, which going into “Batman v. Superman,” some people were worried about, but as audiences walked out, they actually didn’t mind his interpretation. Although some might wonder what the future is going to be for this man. You may be aware of the whole Harvey Weinstein fiasco going on at the moment. You know, the sexual harassment scandal. Turns out that Affleck is chums with Weinstein and he made a tweet containing the image below:

Fun fact about this tweet, someone noticed it, that someone being Rose McGowan, she called Affleck a liar, because he knew about Harvey Weinstein’s actions. She later tweeted “Ben Affleck fuck off.” I will say though, there is a time that she took this kind of case too far, when it came to another person who tweeted about this, Ryan Gosling. He tweeted saying he felt bad about everything that’s going on, and she quote tweeted Ryan’s tweet saying this: “you could at least do us the courtesy saying our names.” My response, just be thankful. Ryan Gosling is trying to remind people this is a serious issue and this is his way of doing it. It’s like saying every single birthday card must have a gift certificate inside it, otherwise it’s not a birthday card. Although in all seriousness, this is literally where we are at! A cinematic universe’s biggest star caught in a scandal that’s larger than the Mall of America! It doesn’t even end there, in the wake of this, several people have called out on Affleck for sexually harassing them. For example, in 2003, he groped Hilarie Burton’s breasts on MTV’s “TRL.” Another example is during a Golden Globes party in 2014 with Annamarie Tendler. On October 11 of this year, she made the following tweets:

He walked by me, cupped my butt and pressed his finger into my crack.

— Annamarie Tendler (@amtendler) October 11, 2017

Like most women in these situations I didn't say anything but I have thought a lot about what I'd say if I ever saw him again.

— Annamarie Tendler (@amtendler) October 11, 2017

As far as other cast members go, they’re not exactly involved in any of this Harvey Weinstein business, but this is a serious matter. Ben Affleck has such a major role in the DCEU, so he’ll either be kept around, which I think might result in slight controversy at the very least, or he’ll be fired, needing to find a new actor to play Batman. After all, this universe’s Batman is getting a standalone film directed by Matt Reeves, director of “Cloverfield” and this year’s “War for the Planet of the Apes.” Not to mention, Jason Momoa, the fellow playing Aquaman, was recently under a similar situation. You may or may not know he happened to be Khal Drogo on “Game of Thrones,” otherwise known as the one reason many people either subscribe to HBO, or the one reason some people pirate it. Jason Momoa attended a San Diego Comic-Con panel in 2011, which was for “Game of Thrones.” He said at one point that he loved the show because he got to “rape beautiful women.” Based on what I’ve read, this is a much smaller case than Harvey Weinstein’s super-sized scandal, but it is something that many would consider a distasteful comment. Although to be fair, he did apologize for it.

Next up, you have the release date. This film is being released on November 17, 2017, which is two weeks after “Thor: Ragnarok.” That movie owned the box office on its opening weekend. It soared past the first “Thor” at an 84% increase, and also flew by “Thor: The Dark World” at a 41% increase. As far as the US goes, this is the fourth largest opening of the year. There’s a chance that while this movie is out, people might still be thinking about “Thor: Ragnarok.” Plus, people in general have gone to see Marvel movies and liked Marvel movies as opposed to DC movies. This takes us into an interesting battle: “Batman v. Superman: Dawn of Justice” vs. “Captain America: Civil War.” Both movies had heroes fighting against each other and despite the fact that two of DC’s most popular heroes were duking it out in a fight that many fans have waited to see for years in a live action movie, “Captain America: Civil War” ended up making more money. According to Box Office Mojo, “Captain America: Civil War” is in the top 3 films, in terms of gross, released in 2016, with a total of $408,084,349 domestically and $1,153,304,495 worldwide. “Batman v. Superman” earned a spot as the highest grossing film released by Warner Bros. in 2016, and it made it to the #7 spot in terms of all films for the particular year. That film’s total gross came out to $330,360,194 domestically and $873,260,194 worldwide. Now there are multiple factors that could have contributed. People seemed to give more positive reception towards “Civil War,” which in my opinion it deserves. Although I will say the audience score for “Batman v. Superman” on Rotten Tomatoes is at 63%, which is a positive score. However the critic score is much lower at a total of 27%. Compared to “Captain America: Civil War,” both scores are lower. The audience score and critic score are nearly identical for “Civil War” with the audience one being 89% and the critic score being 90%. By the way, Rotten Tomatoes in general should be taken into consideration since it is a source that a good number of moviegoers seem to rely on before they decide whether or not a movie is worth their time and money. There’s a possible chance that more families went to see “Civil War” as well, which I wouldn’t be too surprised by considering Marvel has shown to advertise themselves as slightly more family friendly than some DC films. Also keep in mind there are more heroes in “Civil War.” While “Batman v. Superman” has two heroes in a fight, a mega-throwdown is a crucial part to “Captain America: Civil War.” “Batman v. Superman” has Batman, Superman, and Wonder Woman interjected in there. “Captain America: Civil War” has Captain America, Iron Man, Ant-Man, Black Widow, Hawkeye, Falcon, Vision, Rhodes, Bucky (yes, he counts here), Scarlet Witch, plus the introductions of this universe’s interpretations of Black Panther and Spider-Man. The biggest thing that triggered people like me to go to this movie aside from being in the MCU is that Spider-Man was in the movie! Also, he was being played by a teenager! Plus, you gotta consider, Marvel’s owned by Disney, the creator of Scrooge McDuck, and as of now, a literal Scrooge McDuck. Maybe the world is used to Marvel movies, know they’re good according to personal opinions, and have less to say about DC. Also, there’s a possibility that certain individuals ended up seeing the movie more than once during its theatrical run. I will admit, I was one of those people. I went on opening night and I went again during its third weekend. I didn’t see “Batman v. Superman” twice in the theater, I did however watch it more times overall compared to “Captain America: Civil War” when I bought the Blu-ray. Speaking of weekends, “Batman v. Superman” also suffered a significant box office drop from its first to second weekend. The total drop happened to be 69.1% (not counting Thursday previews), compared to 1997’s “Batman & Robin,” which dropped 63.3% from the first to second weekend. I’ll remind you, “Batman & Robin” is a movie considered by an enormous number of people to be the worst “Batman” film ever made, and quite possibly the worst, if not one of the worst comic book films ever made. You never know what could happen. Maybe people will see it. Maybe people will like it. Although there is a good chance that if this movie fails to impress people, it could drop dramatically, in a result that’s possibly worse than “Batman v. Superman,” because if the world has taught us anything about movies and opening weekends, comic book movies are the bomb. Not to mention more money is given towards it if more than one hero is part of the story, unless we’re talking about a movie I’ll mention in just a moment. Also less people will go see it the more negativity they hear about it. In 2015, “Fantastic Four” was widely disliked and that also suffered a tremendous drop from the first to second weekend. To be specific, it turned out to be 68.2%. Also, I won’t go into much detail about this because it’s kind of in assumption territory, but I wonder how many people are avoiding this because they think we don’t need “another Marvel deal.”

Another thing that has some people worried, including myself, is that as of now, no reviews of this film have been put out yet, and there’s a reason for that. The review embargo doesn’t lift until the day before the movie comes out, specifically November 16th. Let’s compare this to other movies based on comic books. The “Logan” review embargo was lifted on February 15th, 2017, which was multiple weeks before the movie released and that movie is considered by many to be one of this year’s best films. “Thor: Ragnarok’s” release date was placed two weeks prior to the one for “Justice League,” specifically November 3, 2017. The embargo for that movie was lifted on October 19th, two weeks prior to opening night. Many people praised that film and commercials even stated by MCU standards, it’s the best reviewed movie yet. 2015’s “Fantastic Four” had its review embargo lifted August 6th, which was the day before the film came out. So “Justice League” ultimately has something in common with a film that was considered terrible by comic book fans, terrible by average moviegoers, and may as well have just been for Fox to just keep the rights to the franchise so it doesn’t go to Marvel Studios. There was a point this year where I thought based on my personal tastes, “Thor: Ragnarok” was going to be slaughtered by “Justice League,” but now I’m increasingly thinking the opposite. The production for this film is so clunky that it makes the production for “Suicide Squad” look like a walk in the park! The trailers have evidence of used footage which has been changed from one trailer to the other! And in the end it almost feels like some of this is just being rushed!

I can describe my current excitement for “Justice League” in the same way I did at a point for “Thor: Ragnarok.” I’m excited, but also worried. Part of me really wants to enjoy this movie because it’s “Justice League.” You’ve got all the DC heroes coming together, the effects look good, the casting choices are stellar! However the behind the scenes stuff and the review embargo news makes me apprehensive. I also wonder what certain theaters are going to do now that Ben Affleck is constantly being called out for his actions related to sexual abuse, not to mention I wonder how audiences will react to this movie now that this is going on. If this movie fails, the DCEU might die hard and that would personally be disappointing news because I wanted to see what Warner Brothers would do with a cinematic universe related to DC Comics. Also, I want to see more work from Gal Gadot. Although if I could make a suggestion, if Affleck is fired, I’d like Warner to ask Christian Bale if he would like to return as the caped crusader. On a lighter note, let’s talk about a convention.

This weekend, specifically November 10-12, I will be in Providence, RI for this year’s Rhode Island Comic Con! I will be going all three days, Friday through Sunday. This will be taking place at the Rhode Island Convention Center, the Dunkin Donuts Center, and a hint of the Omni Providence hotel. I’ll be walking around the convention, making purchases, attending panels, all that jazz. I’ll even make a post documenting my time at the convention for you all to read if you’re interested in checking that out. This convention is dedicated to comic books, movies, and TV. You’ll be seeing a good number of artists there, not to mention vendors, but you’ll also run into a ton of celebrities. Some of the headliners include William Shatner, Elijah Wood, Michael Colter, Mark Ruffalo, Ian McDiarmid, Jerome Flynn, Dave Bautista, and Norman Reedus. There will also be some music related guests including Gene Simmons and Al Yankovic. What I’m personally most excited for is the “Revenge of the Nerds” reunion, where several cast members from “Revenge of the Nerds” will be coming to the con, signing autographs, doing photo ops, and will be talking at a panel together. This is gonna be sick! If you want to find me at Rhode Island Comic Con, you do need a ticket to get in, they are still on sale by the way, and chances are you might see me in blue sunglasses. This is my third year in a row going to this event, it’s a lot of fun, I highly recommend it, and I hope to see you there!

Thanks for reading this post, hope to see you at the convention this weekend if you can make it and if you can’t make it, that’s fine. Also, if you are part of a convention or convention organization and want me to review a con related to it, either comment or email me! I do have a contact page so don’t be shy. Stay tuned for more reviews and posts! Also, how do you feel about this buildup to “Justice League?” Worried? Calm? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

	No Other Choice (202… on Shelby Oaks (2024): Chris Stuc…
	Bugonia (2025): Bu-G… on Killers of the Flower Moon (20…
	Bugonia (2025): Bu-G… on One Battle After Another (2025…
	Bugonia (2025): Bu-G… on Kinds of Kindness (2024): Kind…
	Bugonia (2025): Bu-G… on Poor Things (2023): Emma Stone…