Joseph Kosinski

F1: The Movie (2025): Joseph Kosinski Puts Viewers in the Driver’s Seat for One of the Year’s Most Immersive Blockbusters

Posted on by Jack Drees

“F1: The Movie” is directed by Joseph Kosinski (Top Gun: Maverick, Tron: Legacy) and stars Brad Pitt (Ad Astra, Babylon), Damson Idris (Outside the Wire, Snowfall), Kerry Condon (The Banshees of Inisherin, Better Call Saul), Javier Bardem (Being the Ricardos, Dune), and Tobias Menzies (Game of Thrones, Outlander). This film centers around racer Sonny Hayes, who returns to the track following a long absence to boost his former teammate’s underdog team, all while mentoring a younger driver.

Director Joseph Kosinski has a knack for turning films into experiences. Back in 2010, he directed “Tron: Legacy,” which is one of the prettiest looking neon-infused fever dreams in cinematic history. But like lots of other people, the first film of his that comes to mind when you say his name, perhaps somewhat due to recency bias, is “Top Gun: Maverick.”

I had a blast watching “Top Gun: Maverick.” Is it a perfect movie? No. In fact there are some genuine screenplay problems that have been on my mind ever since I first saw it. That said, when I saw Kosinski’s name attached to “F1: The Movie,” it made perfect sense. If Kosinski can deliver to audiences the same kind of thrilling, high-octane, exhilarating experience that he did with “Top Gun: Maverick,” then I would be quite happy.

I am proud to report that Kosinski’s jump from planes to automobiles is just as exciting, and frankly, has a better story. Though that last part is not saying much. More on that later.

This film is an experience. My pupils dilated beyond their sockets watching this movie in IMAX. Part of this is thanks to the brilliant execution delivered in each shot from cinematographer Claudio Miranda, who previously worked with director Kosinski on “Top Gun: Maverick.” For a great chunk of the film I felt like I was inside the car driving it myself. There are several clever camera angles that gives the viewer the illusion they are moving with the car, whether it is on the side, on top, or while looking at the windshield. Some of these techniques are familiar. But there are select moments where the movie offers a first-person perspective that had me imagining that I was literally the car itself. There is a moment towards the film’s conclusion that is so riveting, so heart-pumping, and so freaking cool to look at that I could not help but glue my eyes to the screen. And it is even better in IMAX because the movie was shot with the company’s digital cameras, which expanded the aspect ratio for the entire film on their screens.

Keep in mind, it is the 1.90:1 aspect ratio, not 1.43:1. In Layman’s terms, it will not cover the whole screen at taller IMAX locations.

Once I saw Hans Zimmer’s name on the opening credits, I knew we were in for something special with the score. And something special we got. Some of the movie’s tunes genuinely got me excited. There is a moment that reminded me of another one of Hans Zimmer’s efforts, particularly “Interstellar,” mainly because the music appeared to be going at 60 beats per minute during one of the races. It seemed to be aiming for that “ticking clock” effect that was present for much of “Interstellar’s” runtime. The percussion in this film’s score is some of the best I have heard since Ludwig Gorranson’s score for “Tenet.”

The soundtrack in this film is not bad either. The film has a fairly rock-heavy soundtrack. There is not a bad track on the lineup. Perhaps the most well-known song on the list is Queen’s ‘We Will Rock You.” There is a pretty good use of it early on in the movie.

The best way I can sum up  “F1: The Movie” is that on the surface, it is the quintessential “dad flick.” It is very much a movie that you can imagine being made for the “dad” crowd. It has fast cars, good looking men and women on screen, it has a good amount of rock music, and it is about someone who is trying to prove himself despite his older age.

I sincerely feel bad for anyone whose first experience of “F1: The Movie” is going to be through Apple TV+. After seeing this film, “Mission: Impossible – The Final Reckoning” has got some competition for the greatest technical achievement of the year. This movie cost anywhere between $200-300 million to make, and I honestly can see all the money on the screen. Yes, the film has a well known star in Brad Pitt. But my jaw was on the floor with this film’s look. The colors. The audio. The camera angles. Everything in this film feels dialed up to an 11.

“F1: The Movie” is quite the ride. So, how is the script? It is not bad. As far as Joseph Kosinski’s library goes, this is a step up from “Top Gun: Maverick” in some ways. Perhaps the biggest improvement is that it never mysteriously refers to the antagonist as “the enemy.” What enemy? Who exactly? Who even cares?

The movie can most certainly be enjoyed by F1 fans, but it is definitely written with general audiences in mind. There are broadcaster bites throughout the film, highlighting every little nook and cranny throughout the race. As someone who has never sat down and seen an F1 race on television, I think this is an okay technique to use. The announcer lines are well done and there are quite a few that sound like they would come from a genuine sports telecast, and they also did a good job at introducing me to the rules of F1 that I probably would not have known right off the bat.

The one big negative, to a certain degree anyway, is that the movie is full of clichés. A lot of parts of the script feel been there done that. Though as I have addressed time and time again, clichés are fine as long as they are done well. And they are done well here. In fact, this movie feels like a genuine cousin to “Top Gun: Maverick” not only in terms of its experience, but structure as well. The film involves a race car driver who is trying to prove himself despite being past his prime, and much of the film sees him teaming up with a younger individual who shares his profession and ambitions. The two are off and on with each other, but ultimately have to work together no matter the obstacle.

If anything, “F1: The Movie” reminded me of Pixar’s “Cars,” and not just because both involve racing. But I happened to watch “Cars” a week before catching “F1: The Movie” in theaters and many of the story beats and character traits presented throughout the film felt interchangeable. “F1: The Movie” is kind of like the original “Cars” if someone gave it a bit of a “Freaky Friday” treatment. In this case, the filmmakers took Doc Hudson and made him the main character and turned Lightning McQueen into the supporting character. Additionally, they gave the Doc Hudson wannabe a little bit of Lightning McQueen’s entitlement.

So, maybe the story is generic, but it does not change the fact that I had fun watching it play out. Sometimes a simple story is effective as long as all the elements that make it up are done right. You have an arrogant but likable main character. You have an ambitious supporting character. All the other characters serve the story perfectly. On top of that, you have one of the most cinematic experiences of the year. What’s not to like about that?

In the end, “F1: The Movie” is an exciting race to the finish. You do not have to be an F1 fan to enjoy this film. It is simply an engaging two and a half hours of cinema that gets into gear and never runs out of gas. The script does not reinvent the wheel, but if you like watching wheels turn really fast, it will leave you beyond satisfied. I left this film thinking that this was likely going to have a strong presence in regards to the technical awards at this year’s Oscars ceremony. If “F1: The Movie” is playing in a theater near you, please check it out. You will have a ball. Do not wait for streaming. I imagine some of you are probably looking for an excuse to use your Apple TV+ subscription, but I guarantee the film will not look or feel as epic as it would on the big screen. I am going to give “F1: The Movie” a 7/10.

“F1: The Movie” is now playing in theaters. Tickets are available now.

Thanks for reading this review! My next review is going to be for another highly anticipated summer blockbuster, “Superman.” At one point, this was my most anticipated film of the year. Admittedly, with more marketing coming out and other films making their presence known, some of the anticipation has dwindled a bit. That does not mean I was not excited, but I was interested enough to see if this film could truly be something special. I will share more of my thoughts during my upcoming review. Also coming soon, look forward to my thoughts on “Guns Up,” “The Fantastic Four: First Steps,” “The Bad Guys 2,” and “Smurfs.” 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 “F1: The Movie?” What did you think about it? Or, do you ever watch actual F1 sporting events? What’s that like? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

Top Gun: Maverick (2022): Tom Cruise Pilots His Way Through a High Flying Sequel

Posted on by Jack Drees

“Top Gun: Maverick” is directed by Joseph Kosinski (Oblivion, Tron: Legacy) and stars Tom Cruise (Mission: Impossible, Risky Business), Jennifer Connelly (A Beautiful Mind, Hulk), Miles Teller (Whiplash, Fantastic Four), Jon Hamm (Keeping Up with the Joneses, Baby Driver), Glen Powell (Scream Queens, Hidden Figures), Lewis Pullman (The Strangers: Prey at Night, Bad Times at the El Royale), Ed Harris (Dumb and Dumber, Apollo 13), and Val Kilmer (Batman Forever, Kiss Kiss Bang Bang). This film is a sequel over three and a half decades in the making, and follows Pete Mitchell once again as he finds himself in a situation where he teaches younger fighter pilots at Top Gun, including the son of someone he previously flew alongside, making matters personal.

“Top Gun” is a weird movie. I imagine that some people consider it to either be their favorite Tom Cruise movie or maybe even their favorite movie in general. To me, it’s neither. It’s a solid film, but in terms of Cruise’s filmography, it ranks down the middle for me. For all I know, part of why people like it so much could be for nostalgic reasons. I did not grow up in the 1980s, and if you want me to be real, looking back at “Top Gun,” despite the film’s evident advancements in capturing cinematic dogfighting, it feels like a product of its time. It has some cheesy dialogue here and there, the songs feel very much out of the 1980s time period, and the stakes for me did not feel as high as other movies. Then again, it is hard to have stakes when you have fighter pilots that are not actually going up against other fighter pilots, for the most part. But I will also give “Top Gun” credit because for a film where there is almost no threat to begin with, the film still has plenty of intrigue and gives us enough reasons to care for the characters, and not just because they are spiking volleyballs without shirts on.

The best thing about this sequel is that it successfully builds off of a key point of the original. Despite what I said about the stakes being low, there is a moment in the original movie where the main character of Pete Mitchell has to face an event with potentially dire consequences. Thankfully for him, the consequences are not as bad as they could have been. That is, until the events of “Top Gun: Maverick,” where they come back to haunt him, in addition to haunting one of his students.

I am glad that this movie has as good of a story as it does, because without those things, the movie would still be watchable for what it is, but I am satisfied to say that “Top Gun: Maverick” is not a movie that mainly relies on big, loud spectacle, and instead, blends such a thing perfectly into the material written for its respective pages.

On that note, however, my biggest positive for “Top Gun: Maverick” is the spectacle. Through my six years on Scene Before, I have always forwarded a singular thought. Movies are ALWAYS better in the theater. Even a movie as terrible as 2019’s “Cats” is better in a theater because of the weird spectacle. That said, if there is any movie that I recommend you go see in a theater right now, I not only recommend “Top Gun: Maverick,” but this movie commands your attention and it is one you need to see on the biggest screen you can. I had the privilege of going to see “Top Gun: Maverick” at a true IMAX cinema ten minutes from where I live. It was their first weekend open since the beginning of the pandemic, and walking out of the theater, I could barely even move because of how boisterous this movie was. And this movie was not boisterous because it looked like yet another cranked out Hollywood production with tons of digitzed effects, but because a lot of it was actually done for real.

Many of the film’s actors ended up using and flying real planes throughout the film. In an age where more and more movies are relying on green screen, or more recently, StageCraft, it is thrilling to see a film that pushes the boundaries of human limitations while also putting a pinch of reality in our fantasies. Tom Cruise, unsurprisingly, pilots a plane in this film. There are restrictions to his piloting, but knowing and seeing that only enhances the final product. I have had conversations with people where they said Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson is perhaps the manliest person alive. Sure, he’s got the LOOKS of a man with his big strong arms and attractive bald head. But let me know when he pilots a real military jet for audiences around the world to witness, as they bite their nails thinking, “this is the part where he crashes, isn’t it?”. No, seriously. I have watched a lot of movies. Between the previous “Mission: Impossible” and this movie, Tom Cruise is on a trend where he continues to captivate me harder into a scene than most actors, including ones that are perhaps more likely to be nominated for Oscars. And it is not because of how he goes through a scene delivering his dialogue, managing his physicality, and keeping his fellow actors in check. It is because of how much of a daredevil he has become over the years. Even in movies that were not well received like “The Mummy,” you could still look at Tom Cruise’s stuntwork and recognize the effort put into it. I am not saying “Top Gun: Maverick” is my favorite movie of the year. But it is a contender for the movie I will thinking about this year the most in terms of how it has projected me into an environment where I may has well been so close to falling to my death. For that reason alone, you should see “Top Gun: Maverick” on the biggest screen you can find.

However, “Top Gun: Maverick” also faces a problem depending on how you look at things. The movie, even though I believe modern audiences will enjoy it, gets too caught up in the good old days. The opening scene, while an amazing welcoming back to the “Top Gun” universe, only works because of how much it rips off the original movie. The midpoint of the film features an incredible scene between two characters. I will not say much more, but let’s just say that I, an aspiring writer, could not have written a better, more engaging scene between these two characters. You will know it when you see it.

However, there is another moment where everyone starts singing a particular song that did not feel authentic. It felt like nostalgia bait for the sake of nostalgia bait. There are movies that tend to rely on fan service and nostalgia that do such things well. I think “Star Wars: The Force Awakens” did it well when that movie came out. “Top Gun: Maverick” on the other hand, was a little on the nose and it did not land as well as it could have. Some might enjoy it, some might not. Although I thought it was great to hear “Danger Zone” once again. But that also goes to show how one can be emotionally attached to something and therefore perceive something as good. I liked the original “Top Gun,” but I never thought it was my favorite movie. The original “Star Wars” trilogy was something I watched incessantly as a kid, enjoyed immensely, and therefore it is part of why I felt a spark of joy when certain things happened in “The Force Awakens.”

That’s a minor nitpick, but I want to point out a couple things in regard to this film’s depth. First off, I think at times, the relationship between the characters of Pete Mitchell and Penny Benjamin (Jennifer Connelly) felt a tad forced at times. They had chemistry, but it was overall very off and on. I personally think Cruise had better chemistry with Kelly McGillis’s character of Charlie back in the 1986 predecessor. In my review for the original “Top Gun,” I said that I learned of Kelly McGillis and Tom Cruise, the actors, not getting along on set. Having searched more information on that as of recently, I would not know if that is actually true because the only source I have telling me that as of recently is the “Top Gun” IMDb page, which may not be the most reliable place to base one’s information. I will note that McGillis spoke out regarding this love interest shift not long ago, saying she is happy for Jennifer Connelly, so I am glad to see there are no hard feelings.

Speaking of depth, let’s talk about the enemy of “Top Gun: Maverick.” There are multiple references to “the enemy” in “Top Gun: Maverick.” We do not know who they are. Apparently this is also the case in the original movie where the Top Gun pilots have to go into actual combat against another force. In today’s age, I kind of get why they never specifically identify an “enemy” in “Top Gun: Maverick.” The film business is about money, and if Paramount makes a “Top Gun” movie where they identify Germany as the enemy, then chances are they are never going to release the film in Germany as it would tick some people off. If the movie identifies Japan as the enemy, then they can kiss a Japanese release goodbye as some viewers would probably dislike seeing their country as the antagonist. Maybe this is to suggest that the pilots could go up against multiple enemies at the same time, but nevertheless. At a certain point of the movie, there is one specific enemy force that comes into play, but again, we do not know who they are. This movie is fiction, it is not based on actual war. It is not like we are watching “Dunkirk” or “The Patriot” where the sides are specific of an actual time and place, even if they involve fictional characters to further the story along. That said, even though I prefer the story of “Top Gun: Maverick” to the original, it is not free from nitpicks. Even so, you should see this movie. I give it a thumbs up, and I think it is a film that almost anyone can have a good time watching.

In the end, “Top Gun: Maverick” is a blockbuster you should see this summer on the biggest screen possible. I do recommend watching the original first as it does help you appreciate the story of this sequel more, there are many ways to watch “Top Gun” from home, but I do not recommend skipping out on “Top Gun: Maverick” during its theatrical run. Do not wait for Paramount+, do not wait for VOD, do not wait for the Blu-ray. If you are going to watch this movie, find the biggest screen with the loudest sound you can. Buy some popcorn, grab a soda, have a good time. Take your friends, take your family, this is certainly a crowd-pleasing movie that delivers the thrills. As of writing this review, I have tickets to go see this movie a second time with someone close to me. I am going to give “Top Gun: Maverick,” despite my nitpicks, a really high 7/10.

“Top Gun: Maverick” is now playing in theaters everywhere, including large formats like IMAX and Dolby. Tickets are available now!

Thanks for reading this review! If you enjoyed this review for “Top Gun: Maverick” and want to see more of my thoughts on the franchise, check out my review that I did in 2020 for the original “Top Gun” as part of my special Tom Cruise Month! Fun fact, I did this special partially because “Top Gun: Maverick” was not able to come out in 2020! Also coming up on Scene Before, I have two reviews on deck. Pretty soon you will see my thoughts on the new Netflix film “Hustle,” starring Adam Sandler as a basketball scout. My next review after that will be for one my most anticipated movies of the year, “Everything Everywhere All at Once.” I waited forever to see this film, I finally got to watch it with my dad last night, and I promise you I have plenty to say about it. 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 “Top Gun: Maverick?” What did you think about it? Or, which is the better movie? “Top Gun” or “Top Gun: Maverick?” Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

Oblivion (2013): Non-Cyberpunk 2077

Posted on by Jack Drees

TOM CRUISE MONTH POSTER

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

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

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

*LIGHTNING CRACK*

TOM CRUISE MONTH

mv5bmtqwmdy0mta4mf5bml5banbnxkftztcwnzi3mdgxoq4040._v1_sy1000_cr006311000_al_

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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