Jurassic World: Dominion (2022): What in the Jurassic World Did I Just Watch?

“Jurassic World: Dominion” is directed by Colin Trevorrow, who also directed the 2015 “Jurassic World” film, which I thought was slightly flawed despite its neat visuals, booming score, and somewhat clever concept. This film stars Chris Pratt (The LEGO Movie, Guardians of the Galaxy), Bryce Dallas Howard (Spider-Man 3, The Help), Laura Dern (Star Wars: The Last Jedi, Marriage Story), Jeff Goldblum (Thor: Ragnarok, The World According to Jeff Goldblum), Sam Neill (Peaky Blinders, Crusoe), DeWanda Wise (She’s Gotta Have It, Fatherhood), Mamoudou Athie (The Circle, The Front Runner), BD Wong (Kingdom Hearts II, Mr. Robot), Omar Sy (Transformers: The Last Knight, The Intouchables), and Campbell Scott (The Amazing Spider-Man, House of Cards). This film is set in a time where dinosaurs are roaming the earth, they’re unleashed, there is no stopping them.

Actually, no… That was the promise that was given in that one short film that was shown in IMAX and eventually put online… But no! We have to settle for a comparatively boring story where the same dull human characters we have seen waltz through two movies, fight against a genetics research giant whose main goal is to conduct research on dinosaurs.

You hear that? That stomping on the ground? That is not a dinosaur. That is me, walking out of the theater in ire.

If you want a hint on what I thought of “Jurassic World: Dominion,” here it goes… “Jurassic World: Dominion” can be summed up in one word. And if I were writing this review for an outlet like The New York Times or The Boston Globe, I would probably be fired. Want another hint? It is literally a word in the title. It is not “ur,” and it is definitely not “sic.” Why would it be?

It is in between those two words, even if they do not spell exactly what I am trying to say.

Summer blockbuster season is in full swing! This means I will be talking about films including “Lightyear,” which will be my next review, “Thor: Love and Thunder,” which comes out in July, and “Bullet Train,” due in August for instance. But before we get to those films, we have to talk about “Jurassic World: Dominion,” exhibit A for what is wrong with Hollywood. I know this sounds like an exaggeration, but it is kind of true. “Jurassic World: Dominion” is continuing the trend where we see elder actors return to play their roles another time, giving either prominent screentime, fan service, or possibly both.

Sony, who to be clear, is not in any way responsible for the “Jurassic Park” franchise and its distribution, is no stranger to this given the recent release of “Ghostbusters: Afterlife” where we see the original cast, minus Harold Ramis (RIP) return to bust ghosts. “Spider-Man: No Way Home,” the biggest movie of the past year, saw a ton of older characters return with their respective actors portraying them one more time. But I actually liked those films. “Ghostbusters: Afterlife” was as charming as it was nostalgic. It was kind of like “The Force Awakens” but more intimate. “Spider-Man: No Way Home” is a concept that could have made for a fun YouTube video, but they some how managed to turn into a wildly entertaining two and a half hour movie that honestly felt shorter than it really was at times. It was perfectly paced, relatable, and surprisingly dramatic. Although I do have mixed thoughts on the ending.

Whereas “Spider-Man: No Way Home” could have been taken as a concept that presents itself as a boardroom idea from out of touch executives, Kevin Feige, Amy Pascal, and director Jon Watts managed to make a movie that I will watch again and again for years. “Jurassic World: Dominion” on the other hand deserves to be struck by an asteroid. This is the worst “Jurassic” movie yet. “Dominion” is worse than “Jurassic Park III,” which despite its awfulness, can almost be perceived as something watchable under the influence of alcohol. And at least it is the shortest film in the franchise.

“Jurassic World: Dominion” is the opposite. In addition to being the longest film in its series, it tries to pack in so many ideas, some of which could be cool, but does not understand what to do with them. When I went to see “F9: The Fast Saga,” another Universal tentpole that made me want to gouge my eyes out, I was treated to an exclusive short film set in the world of the “Jurassic” franchise where we see dinosaurs roaming the planet, invading life as we know it. There is a fun scene at a drive-in that is also featured in the marketing of this movie, including a Progressive Insurance ad. NOTHING in this movie was as entertaining or watchable as that short. In fact, the whole unleashing of the dinosaurs plotline takes a backseat during the film because the kiddies do not want to see dinosaurs eating people! No. No. No. They want to see what Tim Cook would do if he had dinosaurs in his sights. That is what the kids like!

If you are new to Scene Before, hi, my name is Jack, and I like “Star Wars!” Time for yet another of one of my “Star Wars” comparisons! If anything, “Jurassic World: Dominion” is “Jurassic Park’s” answer to “The Rise of Skywalker,” one of the most poorly received “Star Wars” films of all time. Both films attempt to bring back older characters, conclude several movies that came before it, and I would like to add another rung to this ladder. If anything, “Jurassic World: Dominion” also feels like “The Last Jedi” because in “Jurassic” speak, “Fallen Kingdom” ends a certain way, only to have its follow-up barely do anything noteworthy with that film’s ending. The first act of “Dominion” feels like a giant “no” to particular elements to the film that came before it. That “no” supposedly came from Colin Trevorrow, who, get this, was once attached to direct what would become “The Rise of Skywalker.” At least “The Rise of Skywalker” was fun despite its flaws. At least “The Last Jedi” came off as a bold attempt to do something fresh in a historic franchise. Sure, this movie introduces an Apple-esque, genetics-based company, which we have not seen in other installments, but “The Last Jedi” actually got genuine reactions out of me, whether it meant laughing or cringing. “The Last Jedi” was a movie that swung for the fences in such a dramatic fashion only to fail. You can say “Jurassic World: Dominion” did that with its stacked cast, including franchise veterans Sam Neill, Laura Dern, and Jeff Goldblum. But that is all shrouded within a film that feels like it was crafted in a single corporate meeting.

I caught up on all of the “Jurassic Park” movies prior to seeing “Jurassic World: Dominion.” If you ever read my review for Marvel’s “Black Panther,” I claimed that the film has the most forced kiss in cinematic history. Given the film’s not so perfect chemistry between Chris Pratt and Bryce Dallas Howard, 2015’s “Jurassic World” is an arguable competitor for such a throne. I have no idea how these two are still together. Their lines do not feel genuine, the only reason why they feel like they belong together is because the script has lines that indicate such a thing. Well that, and they are raising a child together at this point. Their relationship never feels earned, and I am not exactly fond of either of them. Sure, Chris Pratt has some occasional fun bits training and taming dinosaurs, and Bryce Dallas Howard has developed… Decency, I guess, since her 2015 debut. Compared to the 2015 “Jurassic World,” these two sequels have admittedly gone downhill in terms of story and character development in the same way that they have gone downhill with epic dinosaur action. While I was never a fan of Bryce Dallas Howard in the original “Jurassic World,” I at least thought her two nephews were well written for who they were. I barely remember anyone specific in this latest installment. Yes, I know of the characters in this movie, but I could barely tell you about any of their quirks or anything remotely positive about them. With each installment in the “Jurassic” saga, less and less soul is there. I am not as wowed or engaged as I once was with the ideas this franchise is known for.

That is not to say there is no tension or stakes in “Jurassic World” whatsoever. Speaking of Bryce Dallas Howard, there is one scene in the film that is exclusively between her and a dinosaur. It is one of the quietest moments of the entire picture. It goes on for a minute or two, but I thought it was easily the most engaging segment of the two and a half hours we got. In a film whose dinosaur action is comparatively lesser than its counterparts, this was a welcome highlight.

The original “Jurassic Park,” much like its sequels, was synonymous with epic dinosaur action, but it successfully interweaved a human story with excellence. The cast played their characters to the best of their abilities and the script did them favors. I often think of the 1993 film as a visual achievement before anything else, showcasing effects that continue to hold up to this day, but it does not mean the story is an afterthought. The idea is simple. People create dinosaurs, dinosaurs eat people, and the main characters try to survive to the very end. There is more to it, but the movie gives you enough reasons within a couple hours to make you invested in the story and characters. It makes you root for the characters running away from the dinosaurs. The characters in “Jurassic World: Dominion” lacked such charisma, and therefore, the movie suffers as a result.

Even when the film has an okay idea on how to give a proper motivation for its characters, such as Maisie Lockwood who spends the movie, wanting more, simply put, it does not result in a satisfying progression. Maisie’s respective performer, Isabella Sermon, does a fine job with the material given to her, but her lines and motivation seem surface level and do not add to the film’s entertainment value. That is if there even is any to begin with. This film had a couple okay concepts in addition to Maisie’s desires. There was a dinosaur black market. There was a chase scene between Chris Pratt and a dinosaur that had Tom Cruise “Mission: Impossible” vibes. Even bringing back the original cast could have worked! Although the script failed to bring these characters into a classy, compelling story. But you also have these comparatively boring concepts like a Tim Cook wannabe doing research on dinosaurs, not to mention locusts of all things antagonizing everyone it can find. Because when I think big, loud dinosaur movies… I think locusts… Come on.

“Jurassic Park” is one of the best major motion pictures of its time. What Steven Spielberg and crew were able to do with the aesthetical nature and effects in “Jurassic Park” influenced a multitude of content that came after. Sadly, the sequels, for the most part, fail to recapture the magic of the original, with “Dominion” being the latest example. If you want my two cents, if it is a Friday, you have nothing to do, “Jurassic Park” is a great option for your movie night. I also recommend “The Lost World” to a degree, and “Jurassic World,” despite its lackluster characterization, is pretty and thrilling enough to get you through two hours. It is not exactly insulting, but it is somewhat dumbed down compared to the 1993 original. “Jurassic World: Dominion” makes the original “Jurassic World” look like “The Shawshank Redemption” in comparison. Do not watch this movie, do not support this movie. If you want to watch a more entertaining summer popcorn movie, give your money to “Top Gun: Maverick.” As a legacy sequel, “Maverick” honors its original counterpart, while also effectively progressing the life of a core character that was introduced many years ago. “Jurassic World: Dominion” fails with its new characters, it fails with its old characters, and most of all, it fails with me, the one who paid $16, not including an online fee and a 3D surcharge, to see this unforgivable abomination.

In the end, “Jurassic World: Dominion” managed to do the impossible. It managed to make a feature-length, big budget story heavily revolving around dinosaurs, and have it come off as the most tiring concept ever realized. Even after watching “Fallen Kingdom” I did not feel as tired. Maybe it is because this is the sixth movie, but “Jurassic Park” does not feel special anymore. Its novelty has worn off. Sure, this is a huge moneymaker for Universal, and I would not be surprised if we saw more content with the “Jurassic” label attached in the coming years despite this movie being marketed as “the conclusion of the Jurassic era,” but my hope is that something is done to heavily revitalize this iconic brand. “Jurassic Park” is a literal innovation to cinema. Ever since, we have gotten uninteresting characters, cookie cutter dialogue, and despite some okay concepts, the execution ends up being a far cry from what such concepts can promise. I am going to give “Jurassic World: Dominion” a generous 3/10.

And I have a feeling that could change to a 2 at any point in time…

“Jurassic World: Dominion” is now playing in theatres everywhere. Tickets are available now.

Thanks for reading this review! My next review is going to be for the brand new Pixar film, “Lightyear.” I went to go see this film twice, which should be a hint as to what I thought about it. Stay tuned for more thoughts as they come along! 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 “Jurassic World: Dominion?” What did you think about it? Or, what is a franchise you think has overstayed its welcome? I apologize to Universal, but unless “Fast X” delivers something fresh, “Fast & Furious” might be my answer… Either way, let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

Movie Theaters, Stop Overplaying Movie Trailers… Sincerely, A Lover of Movie Theatres and Trailers

Hey everyone, Jack Drees here! Compared to say 2017, when I did not have as much access to a cinema in my freetime, I am not doing as many of these “non-review” posts nowadays. Sure, I’ve done stuff like the 4th Annual Jackoff Awards, but Scene Before has primarily been review-centric as of late. Ladies and gentlemen, it is time for a nearly impromptu piece based on my recent experience at the movies. I just saw “Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness,” and I have done so in a cinema I should probably refer to as “the multiplex of madness.”

I love the movies. The cinema experience made me want to make movies of my own one day, and I am taking whatever steps I can to achieve that dream. In fact, one thing I often look forward to when I am at the movies is when I sit down, I’m on time. Maybe I finish up watching some of the advertising from a source like Front & Center or Noovie or something. After all the ads, we start the preshow, and we see some trailers. In fact, in today’s Internet culture where everything is at your fingertips, we live in a time where sometimes I watch a trailer online, and get excited to potentially see it on the big screen.

My cinema of choice is AMC Theatres, which I went to last Thursday, specifically their Assembly Row 12 location in Somerville, Massachusetts, to go see “Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness.” I shelled out some extra money for the IMAX 3D experience. Not for me, my ticket was free (Thanks, A-List!), but my dad’s ended up costing $21.69. This is a premium experience that offers the biggest screen in the venue, arguably the loudest sound in the venue, and of course, 3D, which is not as much of a craze as it was a few years ago.

So, the trailers start… We get a ton of titles. These are not in any specific order by the way, “Nope,” “The Bob’s Burgers Movie,” “Lightyear,” “Bullet Train,” “Jurassic World: Dominion,” “Thor: Love and Thunder,” an extended look at “Top Gun: Maverick,” and the teaser for “Avatar: The Way of Water.” That’s right! THE “AVATAR” SEQUELS DO EXIST! That’s eight movies. And I’ll remind you… Not all of them are going to be in IMAX. “Bob’s Burgers” has no evident deal with the IMAX brand at this point to release the film in said format.

It takes a lot for me to lose my patience. Part of me snapped once I realized how long I’ve sitting in my seat just watching ADVERTISEMENTS, not even including all the Noovie stuff! I didn’t snap, because I was frankly excited to finally get to the film. Plus, the last trailer was for “Avatar: The Way of Water,” which I was happy to see. “Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness” is two hours and six minutes long. The preshow, which included the trailers, the AMC advertising, the IMAX countdown, was probably around half an hour. I’d say so because when I checked my phone at the end of the movie (including credits), whose preshow started at 9:30, it was 12:07, so those ads must have run for around half an hour.

I will also add this… Something happened that night that I have never witnessed before. The trailer for “Bullet Train…” PLAYED TWICE IN THE SAME REEL. It’s a great trailer, but what happened?

This is getting ridiculous. We’re here to watch THE MOVIE.

I mentioned that AMC Theatres is my movie theater of choice, but that’s mainly because it is the biggest bang for my buck. Why? Because I have A-List, which allows me to see three free movies a week in any format. I have gone to experiences where they played six, seven, and eight trailers, and not once have they been as long or tedious as what I just went through.

Sometimes having a lot of trailers is not the worst thing in the world. It gives more time for you to show up to your movie if you are late, if you want to go out and quickly grab food, go to the bathroom, and come back, you can do that and not miss much depending on where and when you see the movie. But when I’m paying a premium price, probably the most I have paid for an individual movie ticket in my life, I am not paying for the trailers! In fact, you could make an argument that for the price I paid, I should be paying for NO TRAILERS! Have you seen streaming models lately? Look at Hulu! You can pay $5.99 per month and get ads, or you can pay $11.99 per month and get no ads. It’s a premium price for a premium experience. I am paying monthly for YouTube Premium right now so I am not getting ads on the site! I never thought I’d say this! And even if it were not a premium price like $21, 9 trailers, including an extended preview and one that plays a second time, is obscene, especially when you consider how much of your time that it takes up. In fact, I would argue that there are theatres that try to take advantage of fewer trailers, but justify the price for it.

Some of you may remember the ArcLight chain, which primarily had cinemas around southern California. They opened a theater in Boston shortly before all their locations closed. A standard 2D show at the ArcLight in Boston right near the TD Garden was $15. Not the lowest price, but when you consider what you are getting, including a maximum of three trailers, a selling point of the ArcLight, it makes the price reasonable.

I get it. Movie trailers are supposed to sell movies. In addition to popcorn, movie theatres are in the business of selling movies, so I get why trailers exist. They are a decent business model for the venue and the studio. I am not saying that movie theatres need to get rid of trailers, but they need to make me feel like I paid to watch a MOVIE, not a barrage of marketing.

If anything, I think six trailers or more is where you start to push things, because trailers are often 2 to 3 minutes each unless it is a teaser. This gives an approximate 10 to 20 minute preshow, and that may or may not include whatever else the theatre tries to sell you. I am not telling theatres to get rid of their ads that partner with Coca-Cola, because if they did, I think that would lessen the chance of Coca-Cola being sold at that theater in the future. But if they made the trailers a reasonable length that did not make me feel like I watched a quarter of the film already, then I would feel like my purchase was justified. We live in a culture where we could look up any trailer we want on YouTube. I do not need AMC reciprocating my search history.

And you know what? It looks like studios are starting to catch on, at least to an extent. Because last week, CinemaCon was held in Las Vegas. During the Paramount presentation where they showed the entirety of “Top Gun: Maverick” to the audience, the domestic distribution chief, Chris Aronson got onstage and suggested that movie theaters should play fewer trailers before the film starts, as stated in this article from Box Office Pro.

“We’re not completely back yet and now is not the time for complacency, It’s not the time for ‘If we just have movies, everything is going to be okay,’ exhibition has to ensure that every facet of the guest experience is the absolute best that it can be. And [studios] have to ensure that we’re delivering content that moviegoers want to see in your theaters. We must work together in every way possible, the way partnerships are supposed to work—sharing data, not selling it—to help us market our movies to your patrons. Playing the right number of trailers and not numbing the audience to the point that the recall rate drops to nil. Ensuring that the price-value ratio is fair and proper. We need to look at our business from different perspectives and experiment in finding ways to increase attendance and revenue.” -Chris Aronson

When a higher-up from a major studio is chiming in on an issue like this suggesting that LESS marketing, potentially from their own movies, needs to be played, that is a sign that the cinemas need to fix this.

But at the same time, Paramount is also the studio behind “Top Gun: Maverick,” and they literally played a 5 or so minute preview of the film on top of all the other trailers I witnessed that same night!

I was talking to someone recently as part of a school project and they said during an interview that one thing they miss because of the pandemic is the movies. Should they ever go back, I can only imagine how’d they react to sit through as many trailers as I did. Not missing it so much now, right?

I’m writing this post as an American, likely for an American audience. Here’s an analogy my American friends can understand. Movie preshows are like baseball games. You can watch a number of innings, experience a thrilling game, perhaps feel satisfied in the end. Trailers, like baseball, can be fun. But if trailers go on for too long, they become the most insufferable, brain-melting, tiring thing on the face of the planet!

So AMC, Regal, Cinemark, Showcase, all the other venues that are probably playing trailer upon trailer right now, please take into consideration that the audience wants to watch the movie they paid to see. And if you are concerned that they are not going to know about “The Bob’s Burgers Movie” of all things, then that’s why standees and posters exist to be displayed around the theater! I should not be watching eight or nine trailers when you need extra time to play the IMAX countdown and a pointless, counterproductive ad where Nicole Kidman reminds everyone that heartbreak feels good in AMC Theatres. No, seriously. That ad makes no sense. Why is an ad reminding you to go to AMC Theatres attached to the end of the preshow when I already entered the theatre?

As they say in the song “Take Me Out to the Ballgame,” “if they don’t win, it’s a shame.” Nobody wins with eight or nine trailers. They’re cluttered, long, and for all I know, the audience probably won’t remember all of them. I remember every one I saw because I was angered by all this in the end, but all it did is lessen my chances of returning to AMC. They’re lucky I am not cancelling my A-List because I go to watch and review movies. But if I were not doing Scene Before, I would probably cancel my A-List, maybe choose another theater to commit to. Movie theatres, this is simply put, a shame. Therefore I beg, stop self-indulging, stop overselling, and start playing what I came to see!

I want to ask everyone a couple questions. First off, do you like movie trailers? Second, do you think the movies are playing enough trailers? Too little? If you had to put a number on it, how many trailers would you PREFER to see before a movie? Do you even watch trailers at the theater? Also, how long would you say is the longest preshow you witnessed before going to see a movie? Let me know down below!

Thanks for reading this post! If you are new around here, feel free to check out some of my reviews for movies like “Sonic the Hedgehog 2,” “CODA,” and “Morbius.” I have more reviews coming soon. And speaking of Nicole Kidman, I will be reviewing “The Northman” this week! Be sure to check that out when it drops! Evidently, given all that I have talked about, expect a review of “Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness” sometime in the near future. If you want to see more from Scene Before, follow the blog either with an email or WordPress account! Also, check out the official Facebook page! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

Top Movies of the 2010s (THE DISAPPOINTING 25)

Top Movies of the 2010s OFFICIAL POSTER

*WARNING: This post is over 11,000 words long*

Hey everyone, Jack Drees here! Never thought you’d see this again, did you? Well, I originally marketed the Top Movies of the 2010s countdowns as an event, so you know what? If I really want to give this the event treatment it deserves, let’s keep it going! This time, we are going to be focusing on the twenty-five films that I watched either with full attention, anticipation, or curiosity, and was flat-out let down in some way. It’s time for the disappointing 25! Before we go any further, this countdown is subjective. All these entries are based on my own experiences and opinions, and are therefore no way supposed to represent the thoughts and opinions of other individuals. Keep in mind, just because I think a certain movie is disappointing, doesn’t mean you have to agree. This world would be boring if that were the case. Although… I’ll take less fighting in the comment sections any day. Also, even though I have had lots of time during this period of isolation to go back and watch more films, I have not seen every single film that has come out during the 2010s. It’s too big of a task to handle. So movies that I’ve heard from others that were disappointing like “Battle Los Angeles,” “Terminator: Dark Fate,” and “Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom” do not qualify to be on the list. I will also add, if a movie is to be included on here, I must have watched it from beginning to end. So, as much as I could count a movie like “Frozen,” that’s not happening.

Also, keep in mind this is a list of the most DISAPPOINTING movies and it is not to be confused with the WORST movies. The worst movies are just movies that I flat out don’t like. Disappointing movies on the other hand are the movies that I have expectations for in some way and end up being let down. In fact, some of these entries are movies that I like. They just have qualities attached that make them underwhelming, or in some cases, just a plain bad movie. So with that being said, if you had high expectations for this countdown, prepare to hopefully not be let down! These are my top 25 DISAPPOINTING movies of the 2010s!

#25: The Aeronauts (2019)

Starting off this list is “The Aeronauts,” otherwise known as what was supposed to be Amazon’s first attempt at an IMAX run. Unfortunately, that never happened, and it makes the movie slightly more unwatchable the more I think about it. This is a movie that I would probably watch again, but there are scenes in it that are slower than others. There’s the main plot of the movie that involves two people on a hot air balloon, and there’s a sideplot on land. And when the movie takes place on land, it’s almost worth tuning out. Did I mention this movie is based on true events and yet the main characters are fundamentally changed? I like what this movie did with the aspect ratio, because whenever this movie took place up in the air, the picture stretches to fit a traditional TV screen, whereas when the movie is anywhere else, it’s in a scope aspect ratio. It reminds me of the vibe the movie is going for whenever it wants to be adventurous or just drop back to reality. The cinematography is not bad either. A lot of the framing is lovely to look at. Another reason why this is not higher on the list is because this is one of the few movies that I’ve seen that I can consider the end credits to be the best part. Why is that? Because while the credits don’t really have any special background compared to… say… what a lot of animated films have presented over the past number of years, they have what could be one of the best original songs I have EVER heard in a movie, titled “Home to You” by Sigrid. Not only does it completely fit the vibe of “The Aeronauts,” it’s just a good song. Honestly, once this world goes back to normal, and I don’t mean the new normal, I mean normal period, it might be the first song I play as a sigh of relief. Because I know it’s easy to stay home, but after all I’ve done all this time, the song would be a great reminder of the journey I have been through and whatever positivity could lie ahead. I don’t like a lot of modern music, so it REALLY says something that I am giving a thumbs up for a song like this. But if you do want to watch the movie, it’s free on Prime Video, see what you think.

#24: Coco (2017)

For the record, I like this film, but the reason why I am putting it on the list is probably because of the expectations I’ve had for it. Ladies and gentlemen, I give you “Coco.” Even though I constantly make fun of Disney for their greed and desire to dominate the world, Pixar is probably one of the best studios working today, because they always manage to put out quality content that not only makes money, but is fantastically made. “Coco” is yet another example of why Pixar might have the best looking modern animations. It is also another effective story in the Pixar collection of films, even if it does remind me of a better of a better film, specifically “Kubo and the Two Strings.” But the reason why this film is on the list to begin with is a similar reason why I found “Manchester by the Sea” to admittedly be somewhat disappointing. By the way, that movie is not on the list. I’d probably put it as an honorable mention though. One of the core elements of “Coco” that I’ve heard from viewers prior to seeing it is that it is emotionally charged. I expected something maybe towards the end that could get me to almost shed a tear. I did not really get any of that from my experience. I will also say that maybe I am not part of the target audience that would usually feel that. In fact, many of the people I know who happen to be related or close to me are still alive. My core grandparents on both sides have not passed away, and I feel lucky to have them in my life. If somebody I know, whether it be a friend or family member passes away, maybe this movie will hit me more the second time I watch it. And no, none of this disappointment has to do with the extended “Frozen” short film they presented in theaters prior to “Coco” as I only watched this movie at home on a 4K disc.

#23: Seventh Son (2014)

Out of all the movies on this list, “Seventh Son” is one of the few that I’ve had little attachment to before seeing it. I was into the marketing, and the fact that it had gotten an IMAX run also pleased me. Little did I know how short of a run it would have in theaters. In fact, I was pretty lucky that I got to see it at all, because I found a screening of it when I was in Florida, and that’s how I managed to check out this flick. Unlike the other two movies that I mentioned previously, “Seventh Son” made it onto my worst 25 list for this series, meaning that it is not just disappointing, it’s beyond terrible! In fact, I’ll mention something I uttered in the worst list, I went to see this movie with somebody else, and while the screen did have my attention the whole time, the same cannot be said for my partner, who at this point, I might as well apologize for taking to the movie because they fell asleep! “Seventh Son?” More like “Seventh Snore!” “Seventh Son” is honestly one of the worst fantasy movies I have seen in my life, but part of me wonders if part of it has more to do with my experience of watching the movie because I will admit that the sound in my theater could have been better. Maybe if the theater provided a more quality experience, I could have at least felt like I was watching something worthwhile. Does this invalidate the #23 spot on the list? Frankly, no. Because the movie from what I recall felt generic. And speaking of recalling things, recalling everything about this movie is harder than Minesweeper! Remember that game?

#22: Jupiter Ascending (2015)

Fun fact about this next movie, in regards to release dates in the United States, this next film came out the same weekend as the one I just talked about. What is this next film? “Jupiter Ascending!” That’s what it is! “Jupiter Ascending” is quite honestly a film that I was desperately looking forward to. I was very disappointed that it was delayed from its original July 2014 release date into February 2015. The trailers looked great, the effects were eye candy, and it looked like it would make for a fun theatrical experience. It had good actors attached like Mila Kunis (Family Guy, Ted) along with the directors behind “The Matrix,” AKA the Wachowskis, but this film becomes more disposable the more I think about it. While it was, admittedly, an AMAZING theater experience, watching it on a standard TV does not really provide the same effect. Because while the film has an awesome musical score and great visuals, the story and dialogue are not the finest at times. I would definitely watch this film again for the action scenes, but definitely not for any of the writing. Channing Tatum didn’t even promote this movie when it was coming out. It’s that bad! As for Jupiter Jones, she does not really do much to resemble a proper protagonist other than simply be the center of the film just… because. For someone who is such a core character in the film, it feels weird that she is in distress as much as she is. Again, the visuals are breathtaking, and I would watch this movie as part of a tech demo, but I’d rather watch the “Matrix” sequels again than whatever this is.

“I love dogs, I’ve always loved dogs.” -Jupiter Jones

Shut up, Meg.

#21: Suicide Squad (2016)

Much like “Jupiter Ascending,” “Suicide Squad” was a fun time at the movies, but a lackluster experience watching it at home. I will say though, having already watched this film at home, the only time I watched it at home was at the beginning of 2017 and I popped in the extended cut of the film. I didn’t really feel much of a difference in terms of content, but in regards to the main movie, I became angrier than I thought I would about it. While Viola Davis is a solid actress, her character, specifically Amanda Waller, is one that I did not really enjoy watching. I didn’t really approve of all her actions in the film and she just left a bad taste in my mouth. Harley Quinn steals the show due to Margot Robbie’s performance, making her a solid character. But unfortunately, when it comes to the main heroes, Quinn is almost the only one who happens to shine. Deadshot’s okay, Katana’s alright, Killer Croc… looks pretty cool. But if I were to tell you who my favorite character in “Suicide Squad” happened to be, I’d go straight to Harley Quinn because she was pretty much the only one who had any charisma. I will say, when it comes to The Joker, he was not that bad. Of the Jokers I’ve seen on screen, he’s definitely inferior to others, but he’s also not a travesty by any means. Jared Leto played the part well and when it comes to this universe, I’d say his portrayal worked fine. Although I do think the movie maybe could have been better if they’ve utilized him more. This is also one of those movies, again like “Jupiter Ascending,” that had fantastic marketing leading up to it. The early trailer for “Suicide Squad” with Bohemian Rhapsody playing in the background was worthy of two thumbs up and raised the bar of excitement for me. “Suicide Squad” to me is the worst of the Detective Comics Extended Universe films. At least it’s uphill from there with films like “Wonder Woman” and “Shazam!.”

#20: Grown Ups (2010)

I don’t have a magical crystal ball, so I cannot go back in time and see exactly how many people were looking forward to “Grown Ups” when it was coming out. While I did not go see this movie in the theater, it was one I was curious about. But as I watched it, it didn’t stick with me. Now, from what I’ve heard, when it comes to Adam Sandler movies, “Grown Ups” is not as bad as “Jack and Jill,” which I have not seen. But this is one of those movies that the more I think about it, isn’t really as funny as I would want it to be. When you have renowned comedians like Adam Sandler and Kevin James in the mix, I probably would want a little more. And this comes from someone who likes Sandler’s earlier movies like “Happy Gilmore” and “Big Daddy.” This also comes from someone who really enjoys “King of Queens,” the nine-season sitcom starring Kevin James. RIP Jerry Stiller. Arthur Spooner for life. These two comedians have provided some thumbs up-worthy content for me over the years, and it’s disappointing to see these two, along with other cast members such as Salma Hayek, in something like this. I will also point out, even though the sequel is probably not remembered as the greatest of all time, I honestly think I enjoyed “Grown Ups 2” more than the original. Feels weird to say that, but it’s true. I did catch the movie on TV a few times and it did catch my attention, but it’s not one I’ll always remember for its quality. At this point, I only remember one or two scenes being remotely comical and well executed, and it was fun to see Cape Cod on screen. I say that mainly because I was at the waterpark where they shot part of the movie almost around the same time when filming took place.

#19: Under the Skin (2013)

Kind of like “Coco,” I do have some respect for this movie. It has a likable lead actress, some of the music suits it very well, and the vibe is seemingly perfect. So when it comes to “Under the Skin,” I have to ask… What exactly went wrong? That is a tough question to answer. Because for one thing, there are positive aspects about this movie. It just however wasn’t enough to keep me entertained. It is a seductive, hypnotizing film, and it honestly goes on to reveal the proper acting chops of Scarlett Johansson. Although the more I reflect on the film, the less I remember. I remember scenes in the car, I remember all the trippy s*it, but can I describe it all in detail? Absolutely not. This is probably one of those films that I probably need to watch again to fully appreciate, but with so many other movies out there, I am going to have to debate on whether or not such a notion is a proper idea. And if you think I am one of those people who cannot watch a film that is “too slow,” ask me what I think about “2001: A Space Odyssey” and I’ll tell you that it is arguably in my top 5 sci-fi films of all time. At times I was bored during “Under the Skin,” there just wasn’t enough for me. And that’s really disappointing. The film has an 85% on Rotten Tomatoes. It was nominated for a BAFTA! It was made by A24! It has the associations of what could mark the label of a solid movie. But it just wasn’t for me. But… Scarlett Johansson is dreamy, I’ll say that.

#18: New Year’s Eve (2011)

Before I saw this movie, I heard from others about how bad it was, but I went in with curiosity. I have not seen all of Garry Marshall’s holiday-themed movies, but they are not good, man. And “New Year’s Eve” is just a prime example of that! This movie takes a bunch of prominent actors who have perfected their craft and wastes all of them! Halle Berry is in this movie? You might as well be watching “Catwoman” at this point! Sofia Vergara showed up here? Just because she’s in an award-winning sitcom, doesn’t mean that will automatically make this movie good! Robert De Niro’s here?! Oh, the horror! There’s almost no redeemable, likable, or watchable scenes in this mess. Out of all the big holidays, New Year’s Eve is one of the few that I bend over for more than others. And honestly, this year, it’s gonna be pretty f*cking rad if you ask me, because I have never wanted to say goodbye to a year more. I’m just hoping we find a cure to COVID-19 by December, otherwise the ball drop would be just as boring as me dropping a ball from my hand to my bedroom floor. The problem with this movie is that there is no real center of the story to attach to. Yes, it’s called New Year’s Eve, and that’s what the movie is about, but it just doesn’t have one specific character that I can attach myself to more than any other. It’s kind of like “Dunkirk,” except that “Dunkirk” is a freaking awesome movie! “New Year’s Eve” is just a waste of time. And this comes from somebody who was really curious about this movie just from the title alone. I will also add, the scene where the ball actually drops is not even that great. Your movie is called New Year’s Eve, centers around the ball drop in Times Square, and you manage to f*ck that up out of everything! Unbelievable!

#17: Allegiant (2016)

If you ask me, I was never a huge fanatic when it comes to the young adult genre. If I had to pick what movies within the genre would have to be the best in regards to this previous decade, it would probably have to be “The Maze Runner,” although it doesn’t say much. One of the franchises that I thought had a lot of potential is “Divergent.” I went to see the first movie in the theater, enjoyed it. Saw the second one, liked that one even more. Then the dreaded third one, otherwise known as “Allegiant,” happened. Out of the three movies in this franchise, this one is easily the most forgettable. It had the worst box office total out of these movies, and it was also one that I will admit, was not the best in terms of marketing. When I saw marketing for the first movie in the franchise, “Divergent,” it felt badass, it felt raw in some ways. This however, just focused too much on the lovey dovey s*it. I didn’t really care about any of the characters, even though most of the actors give halfway serviceable performances. It’s not Oscar-worthy or anything, it just works. As for the visual effects, they feel like visual effects from 2007 that’s trying to gloss itself up for 2016 standards. It felt like everything was out of an overpolished Nintendo game! Even the people behind this movie must understand what exactly they’ve put out, because this movie we know today as “Allegiant” was once going to follow the footsteps of “Harry Potter” and “The Hunger Games” and get f*cking greddy by splitting the last film into two parts. For those of you who have read the “Divergent” books, which I have not done by the way if this adds anything to the table, “Allegiant” is the third and final installment to the franchise. Or, at least the original trilogy, because there is additional material afterwards. If you are wondering where that second part to “Allegiant” is, forget about it. It was supposed to go straight to TV, but it never got made! So this franchise remains unfinished! And don’t even get me started on how much they surprisingly succeeded on making Miles Teller the most annoying piece of s*it of all time. His character… Is something else. He’s honestly headache inducing, which is really sad as this movie truly does waste this actor who based on his performance in movies like “Whiplash,” has terrific chops. I may have alleged myself to the “Divergent” franchise at the beginning, but in the end, it crashed and burned. What else can I say?

#16: Sully (2016)

For the record, this is another movie that I honestly enjoyed. It is a film that I bought on Blu-ray and continue to own to this day, I just felt underwhelmed by it when I watched it. I’m talking about “Sully,” directed by Clint Eastwood, who honestly has not done his finest work in recent years, and this is just one example. There are essentials to a good flick here. Tom Hanks gives a solid performance, which should not be surprising at this point. Everything involving the plane crash had my attention. In fact, given how that is a major selling point of the movie, I applaud the crew for sticking the landing on that. No pun intended. Everything else in the movie is technically entertaining, but it doesn’t mean I was not almost bored with what was on screen. I think one of the main problems with this movie is that it starts with something that honestly feels kind of climactic, and as it goes, nothing really matches that or has that tremendous of an effect. A plane crash feels like something that would happen to symbolize an end of a movie rather than the beginning. But because everything else feels like it has the vibe of buildup when it is really what is supposed to come later, it just feels unfulfilling. I understood what was happening and the movie itself was competent, but it just did not give me an impact that felt happened to be gripping or enormous. The movie doesn’t crash land into disaster territory, it’s just not maybe as satisfying as I would have hoped.

#15: Flight (2012)

Speaking of movies with plane crashes that start out with perhaps the most climactic part of the movie, the next entry to the list is “Flight” starring Denzel Washington and directed by Robert Zemeckis. Honestly, even though I will forever credit Robert Zemeckis for directing the entire “Back to the Future” trilogy, I will also call him out because “Flight” might be his worst movie. And kind of like “Under the Skin,” this is a notion that I am disappointed to say, because this did get some awards buzz. And to be fair, the production value and acting is not that bad in this movie. I can see why Denzel Washington got an Oscar nomination. But this movie honestly bored me. I will admit, it has been years since I watched it. But all I remember is the plane crash and anything that happens after it is on a downward spiral in terms of pacing and enjoyability. I will say, I bought this movie on Blu-ray, and having paid $3.99 for it, I could have ended up with worse. At the same time, I expect more out of movie like this. Even though it did get a nomination for Best Original Screenplay at the Academy Awards, it did not have my attention. Although it has been years since I popped it in my player and last watched it. Maybe it’s better the second time, but I don’t know for sure.

#14: The Revenant (2015)

Leonardo DiCaprio won his first Oscar for this movie… Which, yeah, he was great, even though I really wanted Matt Damon to win for “The Martian.” Just being honest. With that said, “The Revenant” is not as great as some make it out to be. Yes, it won Best Picture-Drama at the Golden Globes. It was nominated for get this, TWELVE Academy Awards! It had a pretty good trailer leading up to it. I really did have interest in this movie to get me to go see it in the theater. In fact, when I saw it in the theater, it was worth the price of admission because of how well presented it was. The cinematography is outstanding, which should not be surprising as it is directed and shot by the same duo who worked on “Birdman” together. “The Revenant” has some of best individual frames of the decade. The bear attack in this film was… alright, I guess. It was probably not as hyped up as I have heard from other people. At a runtime of two hours and thirty-six minutes, I kind of wish much of that runtime gave me something a little more epic. This movie is surprisingly slow at times. At times it works, but some of the time it doesn’t. I will admit, the effort put into the movie through performances by Leonardo DiCaprio and Tom Hardy plus the directing from Alejandro G. Iñárritu makes up for its faults. However, when it comes to movies nominated for Best Picture at the 88th Academy Awards, I’d rather go back and watch “The Martian,” I’d rather go back and watch “Room!” Those movies are killer, by the way!

#13: The Hunger Games (2012)

I was 12 years old and in middle school when this movie came out, and everyone in my classes DID. NOT. STOP. TALKING. ABOUT THIS FRANCHISE. I read the first book for the franchise and put it down, and while I enjoyed this movie the first time, it just got worse the more I thought about it. I’m talking about “The Hunger Games.” Now, was I looking forward to watching the movie based on “The Hunger Games” when it was coming out? Most likely. Because it was the big phenomenon of 2012. Thankfully, my cousin gave me the book to read. I didn’t even make it halfway. That should have been a sign of what was to come during the movie, which I nevertheless looked forward to. I was a little nervous going into the movie the first time I watched it because I didn’t finish the book (this was a couple months after I started reading it) and I probably had some sort of unfulfilled commitment. While I did enjoy the movie the first time I saw it, I watched it a couple more times and it really does not hold up. The dramatic portions of the film don’t feel as high as I’d want them to be, I don’t like the color grading at times, and some of the cinematography is not that great. Jennifer Lawrence is a likable actress. In fact, she’s in this movie with Stanley Tucci and Elizabeth Banks, who are also respectable names in the industry, but this film is dramatically overhyped. There was even a point where I wrote an entry specifically for my 25 worst films of the decade, but I did not use it mainly because I feel that this film is more overhyped than it is incompetent. In fact, I’ve used part of what I’ve written for that entry at the beginning of this specific entry. Want to know what I ended with? Well, here ya go!

I own the movie on Blu-ray, but perhaps the only reason why I still own it to this day is because a lot of my friends who have connected with me throughout my life know what “The Hunger Games” is, and if the opportunity strikes to just sit down and watch a movie, chances are they might choose that. Although I am not completely sure because knowing our disposable society, “The Hunger Games” was likely just a fad for the time being. I am honestly not even a fan of the franchise, I do like the second film, but I still have yet to see the third and fourth, and the reason is because I refuse to pay for two parts. Thanks a lot, Lionsgate!

#12: Ant-Man and the Wasp (2018)

“Ant-Man” is currently in my top 5 MCU films. When they announced a sequel to “Ant-Man,” I was pretty excited because the first one was a total surprise. I didn’t really expect much from it, I thought it had one good trailer, but I was not sure if that was going to translate to a great movie. However, it was brilliantly written, nicely weaved in one specific outside Marvel character, and Paul Rudd plays a really good “Ant-Man.” Now let’s jump to 2018. The first trailer for “Ant-Man and the Wasp” drops… Ehhhh… Then “Avengers: Infinity War” comes out, it’s my favorite Marvel Cinematic Universe movie yet, and then all of sudden, I’m excited for “Ant-Man and the Wasp” again. Then I saw the movie… The movie is not bad by any means, in fact, when it comes to 2018’s comic book movies, I’d rather watch this again than “Venom.” But “Ant-Man and the Wasp” is a massive step down from not just the recently mentioned “Avengers: Infinity War,” but also, and perhaps more importantly, the first “Ant-Man” film. The first “Ant-Man” was an exciting heist adventure with compelling characters and Paul Rudd at the center of it all. Here, Evangeline Lilly, who I happen to like as an actress, becomes more of a prominent character as she becomes The Wasp. Their chemistry is fine, but while the film is trying its hardest to be lighthearted fun, the stakes almost don’t even feel like they are there. And while this could be somewhat intentional due to “Avengers: Infinity War” probably being the biggest film Marvel has done in terms of stakes up to this point, it feels like a sacrifice as the film is fun, but nearly uneventful. Oddly enough, this film has what could be the most useless end credits scene in the history of the MCU, where a human-sized ant is playing the drums because… Paul Rudd did it in the movie, so it needs payoff for some reason. However, I will admit, this movie also has what could arguably be the best end credit scene in the MCU, where it basically teases where the movie’s characters are going to be and what they’ll be doing in “Avengers: Endgame.” In fact, I put up a tweet regarding the end credit scene shortly after going to see “Ant-Man and the Wasp” in the theater.

I love how the MCU is such a unique movie property trying to tie in so many characters and stories in at once, but when the main story is not as good as what comes after it, it’s kind of a weakness.

#11: Moonlight (2016)

Coming in at #11 is a movie that is probably going to piss a lot of people off, partially because it was not only nominated for Best Picture at the Academy Awards, but it actually won it. Ladies and gentlemen, I give you “Moonlight.” The Best Picture? Of the Academy Awards? Are we sure it’s not “La La Land?” Now, I saw the movie after it won Best Picture, because it was still playing in theaters and I thought I’d give it a shot. While I did think the coming of age story was definitely watchable, I did not feel compelled the entire time. There’s one specific scene that I feel goes on for way too long, the movie starts out pretty solid, and while it continues to be pretty good, it’s on a downward slope in terms of quality. And I will admit, the movie is well made. The cinematography is beautiful. The color grading fits the tone quite well. The acting is top notch. Mahershala Ali earned his Oscar win for Best Supporting Actor. Also, it felt natural seeing Chiron’s character age, it did not feel like watching three different characters. Maybe I’m not in the right audience for this movie. I’m a straight white male. This movie deals with sexuality and identity, which are issues that I don’t struggle with. While can say I connected somewhat emotionally to the protagonist of the film, I cannot say I specifically embody the same traits as him. If you ask me, if the real Best Picture of 2016 was “La La Land” and that was not a mistake, I would approve, because I’d rather watch that movie again.

#10: Logan Lucky (2017)

Coming in at #10 is a film with a terrific cast, an acclaimed director, and a somewhat intriguing concept behind it. So, what went wrong? I don’t know! Nevertheless, “Logan Lucky” is probably one of the biggest drags of a film I have seen in recent memory. And it’s really sad to say that because this film has so many big names attached who are respectable in the industry, just from the cast alone! Channing Tatum! Adam Driver! Daniel Craig! Sebastian Stan! Seth MacFarlane for crying out loud! All these people are talented, but unfortunately, I could barely keep myself awake for whatever fresh hell this was. The funny thing about this movie, looking into the future, is that it is directed by Steven Soderbergh, who is known for films like “Ocean’s Eleven.” But what’s funny about that notion is that months later Soderbergh would come out with another movie by the name of “Unsane,” which by the way is free on Prime Video. Unlike “Logan Lucky,” which was beautifully photographed through a Red Epic Dragon camera, “Unsane” was shot primarily using an iPhone 7 Plus! Just goes to show that looks are not everything and without a good story, your movie is probably not going to be all that watchable. It was hard for me to connect with anybody, and it’s just as dull as watching paint dry. That’s even with the utterly wacky Daniel Craig performance somewhere in the mix! Kind of crazy if you ask me!

#9: Night at the Museum: Secret of the Tomb (2014)

One of my most nostalgic films is 2006’s “Night at the Museum,” it was one of the first films I have seen in the theater, and to this day, it is one of the more experiential films I have seen. As a comedy, it’s fun for all ages. It’s sequel, “Battle of the Smithsonian,” could arguably be better than the original due to Hank Azaria’s performance as Kahmunrah, and a good of number of the gags. I don’t know how many people would agree with me, but that’s just how I feel. “Night at the Museum: Secret of the Tomb” however is a film that quite honestly did not hit me the way I wanted it to. While I will say that the trailer for the film is not the finest in the world, I was still stoked because I love the property. Ben Stiller as Larry Daley is one of the better roles I’ve seen him in. The plot of “Secret of the Tomb” talks a good game, because it does that traditional sequel thing where you supposedly have to go bigger than the previous films. The first film took place entirely in New York. The second one expanded to Washington DC. As for this one, it’s out of the United States. Bigger doesn’t always mean better. And yes, much like the other two “Night at the Museum” films, this one has comedy that lands. There’s a great bit where the character Lancelot comes across a play of “Camelot” featuring Hugh Jackman and Alice Eve. Jedediah and Octavius spend some time on mini Pompeii before the volcano explodes. The movie does have some creative elements intact and some enjoyable aspects tied into it. But I’d rather go back and watch the first and second movies again. Oh, and Rebel Wilson is in this film too… Why is she here? Who invited her to this sham of a party?

#8: Transcendence (2014)

There are particular facts that you have to carry with you all your life. The only things that are certain happen to be death and taxes. In the event of a tornado, driving into a tornado is not the smartest idea to keep yourself safe. Also, “Transcendence” is f*cking boring! Johnny Depp is an enigma of an actor, because over the years, despite being credited with some solid performances, he’s had a good amount of bad days at the office. Maybe because he got too attached to Tim Burton for all I know. Out of all the bad days at the office, this is probably the one where the TPS reports make you want to break your computer. “Transcendence” is one of those movies that has a cool concept, but is executed in such a poor manner. The trailers leading up to “Transcendence” were attention-grabbing and seemed to promise something worth watching. While I did miss “Transcendence” in the theater, I bought the DVD and it’s safe to say that it is one of the least worthwhile purchases I’ve made in my life. I’ve popped the movie in once or twice and fell asleep. The time I did watch the film and I actually managed to make it through the whole thing, sleeping probably felt like the best option as this movie was a complete borefest and a trainwreck. I could barely tell you anything that happens in this movie past the second half. All I remember is that it takes place in a desert, things go crazy, and no semblance of quality exists. Plus, this movie is directed by Wally Pfister, the cinematographer of “The Dark Knight.” While this is his directorial debut, it is very disappointing to know that even after doing a few movies alongside Christopher Nolan, he cannot whip up a quality product himself. Nobody could save this movie! Not Johnny Depp! Not Rebecca Hall! Not Paul Bettany! Not Cillian Murphy! As for the screenplay written by Jack Paigen, it’s got the pacing of a turtle! Believe it or not, this is his first screenplay he’s officially credited for, so maybe I’m being a little harsh, but it’s not always the best indicator of fine art when you have this $100 million movie and both the screenwriter and director have never been credited for anything in this spectrum of their craft! GAH! …At least Pfister will forever have my respect for being the first cinematographer to shoot a major Hollywood movie with an IMAX camera, so there’s that.

#7: Pacific Rim: Uprising (2018)

“Pacific Rim” is a fun movie. It has the concept of “Power Rangers” and blends it excellently with the vibe of “Transformers.” I saw the film in IMAX, enjoyed it, and eventually got the 4K Blu-ray for Christmas, so I have fond memories of this film. Oh, wait did I say “Pacific Rim?” I’m sorry! That’s the good one! “Pacific Rim: Uprising” on the other hand is a total bitch of a movie! This is yet another movie that I was looking forward to simply from the concept, but what really got me onboard was the first trailer for it. Just like the first movie, it looked like it was trying to pack in as much fun as possible. And with a mega-star like John Boyega at the forefront, it must have been a recipe for excellence! Fun fact… This movie takes place ten years after the point where the original leaves off. Here’s another fun fact, it nearly feels as if it takes about ten years to get through this stinkin’ mess! Unlike the first “Pacific Rim” directed by Academy Award winner Guillermo del Toro, which had tons of soul put into it, this film was directed by Steven S. DeKnight, who has never directed a film prior to “Pacific Rim: Uprising.” He’s done TV shows like “Daredevil” and “Smallville,” but when it comes to films, this is his debut. “Pacific Rim: Uprising” honestly feels more like a movie that was a studio plot to start a franchise than anything else. Aside from that, Charlie Day’s character may be more annoying than Flo from Progressive trying to change every conversation at a party to be about insurance! “Pacific Rim: Uprising” reminds me a lot of “Independence Day: Resurgence,” which was a sequel that was perhaps more long-awaited, although maybe less wanted at the same time, but both movies make massive time jumps, yet cannot help but force reflections that tie into their original counterparts. Where did all my IQ points go? Guess a Kaiju destroyed all of them! That’s the only solution I can come up with at this point!

#6: Shrek Forever After (2010)

Coming in at #6, is the worst animated movie on this list, “Shrek Forever After!” Now “Shrek Forever After” is marketed as the fourth and final chapter in the “Shrek” franchise, that is unless you count the 2011 spinoff “Puss in Boots,” which is a pretty good movie. As for this one, it’s kind of like that TV show that your friend tells you to watch. It’s that show where your friend warns you, “The first couple seasons are good, but don’t watch the final one!” Although, “Shrek the Third” was not that well received either technically speaking, but I find that movie to be more watchable than this. It has been years since I watched “Shrek Forever After,” but I still remember being let down. When you market your movie as the final chapter, there has to be something that puts a bow on the franchise that makes the finale grand. This, honestly just didn’t work. And the ending, if you ask me, is rushed and barely even counts as climactic. The first couple of “Shrek” films had better endings than this travesty! Especially “Shrek 2,” which may have put have put out a cover song of Bonnie Tyler’s “Holding Out For A Hero” that might be twice as good as the original! The concept is interesting, seeing Shrek wanting to return to his roots at times was quite entertaining. But in a franchise full of happily ever afters, this movie is the one that brought me at the closest point to becoming an ogre than any other.

#5: The Favourite (2018)

Between massive awards potential, a stunning cast, and an acclaimed filmmaker, “The Favourite” may have had a formula for success. Guess what? It succeeded! …At failing to impress me. Given how this film was getting tons of awards buzz, I figured I’d give it a shot at the cinema. However, this movie tied me to a horse and dragged me across grass for a couple hours! It’s boring, it’s nearly feels pretentious, it’s horribly paced, and I couldn’t stop wondering when it would actually end. If you ask me, the performances are fine. Olivia Colman is alright, I wouldn’t say she was my pick to win an Oscar, in fact of the nominees listed for that specific ceremony, I probably would have picked Lady Gaga for “A Star is Born,” but that’s just me. Emma Stone and Rachel Weisz are also competent as their own characters. Technically speaking, “The Favourite” is a solid movie with detailed set design, gorgeous framing, well put-together costumes, and a somewhat neat score. Story-wise however, while I was compelled at times, it did not do much to leave me satisfied. As the movie went on, I began to tune out, just being honest. For a movie called “The Favourite,” it’s really ironic how this turned out to be one of my least favorite films of 2018. It nearly made it into my honorable mentions on my worst list for that year! This is also yet another example kind of like “Jupiter Ascending,” of how a movie can look visually appealing, but fail to deliver on the story. This movie nearly touches the two hour mark, but if you ask me, I think based on my experience, it felt like three hours! It’s a drag!

#4: Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2 (2017)

Coming in at #4 is “Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2!” The original “Guardians of the Galaxy” is a FUN movie. It has comedy! It has a killer soundtrack! It has a likable group of characters from Starlord to Gamora to Rocket! When it comes to 2014, it might as well have been the movie of the summer, as it became the year’s highest grossing superhero film, not to mention the year’s third highest grossing film period. Since this was a big box office hit, a sequel was perhaps inevitable. And when the first main trailer came out, I was hyped, because much like the first film, the comedy stood out. There was one joke that was shown at the end that introduces Mantis that made me switch between the mood of simply checking the movie out “because, why not,” to “absolutely needing to see it now.” Aside from “Wonder Woman,” “Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2” was my most anticipated film of 2017. But when I saw it with 500 other people, I wondered if I was on drugs, or if everyone else was on drugs. I say so because the audience I was with pretty much laughed at every joke that came up, but I on the other hand remained silent for perhaps most of the film. And honestly, Baby Groot sucks. Even though inserting Baby Groot is technically appropriate for picking up where the Guardians left off, it almost feels something as simple as a ploy to get people to buy more toys. Now I understand that Marvel movies are expensive, it costs a lot to make them, but still! I didn’t find him cute, I didn’t find him that charming, maybe I’m just a horrible person! It feels like there are too many scenes in the film where the characters are doing something and Groot just is shoved in there because… Baby Groot’s gotta Baby Groot! I will admit, when I first saw this movie, it was at a sold out IMAX and I was in the front row, so I was not in the best mood. But if you must know, I did see it again on a separate occasion. I laughed more, but I also remembered how much I didn’t like Baby Groot, and how much of a step down this was compared to its original counterpart. Even though there is an argument to make that the original “Guardians of the Galaxy” is slightly overrated, it lives up to the hype. It’s hilarious, fun, and visually stunning. Sure, some of the fun is there in “Vol. 2,” but the comedy feels absent! The effects and shots in “Vol. 2” however are some of the finest I’ve witnessed in the MCU, so I’ll give credit where it’s due. I have respect for James Gunn, because he’s kind of a wacky director, and this does feel like a personal movie from his end, but in some ways, the movie failed to hit me. Sure, it had a great villain, which at some points, is rather odd to say in regards to the MCU, but it’s true! Still, if it were a Friday night and I had some friends around, I’d probably pop in the first film as opposed to its sequel.

#3: Avengers: Age of Ultron (2015)

Speaking of the Marvel Cinematic Universe, one of the most anticipated films of 2015 for me was “Avengers: Age of Ultron.” Now… Is it fun? Yes. Is it action-packed? Absolutely. …But it’s “The Avengers,” man! The freaking “Avengers” of all the heroes! Why is it that apparently “Guardians of the Galaxy” and “Captain America: The Winter Soldier” are some of the most solid films in phase 2 of the MCU and “Age of Ultron” is nearly the worst? Heck, even “Ant-Man,” which was the much smaller (in a literal sense) MCU installment to come out in 2015, is twice as good! I will say that this film is better than “Thor: The Dark World,” but when it comes to the MCU, that film is not hard to beat. This was a film that I felt an enormous need to see opening weekend. Every trailer captivated me and made me want to go see it. Joss Whedon, who did a solid job with the first “Avengers” film in 2012, is back in the chair again. The movie almost looked like it could be pretty dark as Robert Downey Jr.’s character of Tony Stark seemed to be going on a bit of a downward spiral from what I have seen in marketing. The trailers always caught my attention and promised something absolutely special. But instead, I got mediocrity shoved right in my face. Ultron is a slightly charismatic villain, but again, in Marvel’s first couple of phases, the villains did not always stand out. Also, you know how a lot of blockbusters are often defined as explosive popcorn movies? “Avengers: Age of Ultron” not only fits that bracket quite well, but to my surprise, it focuses way too much on being stylistic than effectively dramatic. It almost feels like Zack Snyder or Michael Bay could have directed this film at times. There are positives to it. It’s got funny at moments here and there. Some of the hero characters stand out, which they should. There’s a great gag involving mjolnir, AKA Thor’s hammer, and this also features one of the better Stan Lee cameos. Surprisingly, if you ask me what my thoughts are on the moments between Hulk and Black Widow, those did not annoy me as much as other people. In fact, “Age of Ultron” did little to annoy me, but I figured in a sequel as big and as highly anticipated as this, it could have lived up to a higher standard. I say this specifically not just regarding “Avengers,” but perhaps all Marvel movies, “Age of Ultron” has one of the weaker climaxes. While it is fun to look at, it doesn’t feel like there’s more to it than eye candy. This movie just feels like an excuse for Disney/Marvel to throw $365 million out the window. Which, in the end, probably wasn’t the worst idea as this movie joined the billion dollar club. Although I will admit, even though I think Joss Whedon, alongside everyone else involved, did a better job with the original “Avengers” movie, I do feel bad for some of the harsh feedback he got, because it’s a major factor that got the famous director to quit Twitter. Nevertheless, “Age of Ultron” is not only the worst “Avengers” movie, it is almost the worst movie of the MCU’s phase 2.

#2: Midsommar (2019)

These last two movies on the list are from 2019, which makes me even more satisfied that the year ended with a ton of solid movies from “Parasite” to “Ford v Ferrari” to “Knives Out” to “Uncut Gems.” In the middle of the year, specifically, July, my most anticipated film of the summer came out. While I did wait a month to see it and happened to be rather giddy when I finally got my chance, it was not even close to worthwhile! Ladies and gentlemen, I give you the runner-up of the disappointing list, “Midsommar!” This is a disappointment if there ever was one. “Hereditary” is probably one of the best directorial debuts in recent memory. Ari Aster made me believe that he had a very bright future ahead… Then we got “Midsommar.” Leading up to this film, “Midsommar” was described by Ari Aster himself to be “a ‘Wizard of Oz’ for perverts.” Having seen the film, it’s not that! “The Wizard of Oz” is a story that takes place in a magical and mystical land! It’s all happy and colorful! Here, it tries to be colorful, it tries to be quirky, but it is perhaps almost the most annoying movie I have ever seen. While the cinematography is beautiful and the directing job from Aster is worthy of a thumbs up, the movie itself pisses me off to no end. Even though Florence Pugh is a likable actress, I cannot say that her character is as likable or charming as her. She honestly probably gives what could be the weirdest and one of the most unreal cries I have heard in a movie. If anybody has seen the first few minutes of “Midsommar” and remembers the cry that Florence Pugh gives, do you cry like that? Do you know anyone who cries like that? I don’t, personally. It’s a thing that I’ve noticed from Ari Aster, because I remember there was a scene from “Midsommar” where I noticed some weird crying as well. If anybody really does cry like this, I want to know because I may be keeping my head in somebody’s ass here, but… I just don’t have much experience hearing cries like the ones from Ari Aster’s films. As if Florence Pugh didn’t play a fine character, the supporting characters are also nearly unwatchable. Most specifically, Florence Pugh’s so-called friends. There was almost nobody I really rooted for in the film. And while this film tries to be pretty scary, it fails. Again, it’s more annoying than anything else! Even the delightfully strange moments don’t make up for its faults! Maybe if I had less anticipation for this film, it would either not make the list or be somewhere on it that’s lower. But again, this was one of my most anticipated films in regards to the summer of 2019. What was the most anticipated? Not sure. Could have been this, maybe “Ready or Not.” Because that had a kick-ass trailer! To add more disappointment, this opened around the same time as “Spider-Man: Far from Home,” which even though Spidey is my favorite superhero, the trailers for “Far from Home” were pretty terrible. Between an underwhelming first trailer, and unexpectedly dropping massive spoilers for “Avengers: Endgame” in a later trailer, it left a bad taste in my mouth. “Midsommar” was a film that felt like a pretty unique experience. Plus, it’s from A24, which is a studio I often respect. They helped put out some of my favorite movies from the past decade including “Room,” “The Disaster Artist,” and “Eighth Grade.” “Midsommar” is in competition with “The Witch” to perhaps be my least favorite A24 film. It’s kind of sad if you ask me. Again, this film is not scary. And I know some people have probably pointed out how “gross” it is. I never really found it to be disgusting or gross. I just found it to be an annoyance.

But you know what the sad part is? It’s not the most disappointing film of the decade! Not even the most disappointing of 2019 as a matter of fact! This past year came so close to being a lackluster year for film.

#1: ???

Alright, we’ve made it! #1! What could it be? Well, here’s some things I’ll say! This movie, as mentioned, came out in 2019. It’s a movie that has been featured on Top 10 WORST Movies of 2019, and in regards to this series, I put it in THE WORST 25 countdown. What is it exactly? Well, it’s not “The Aeronauts.” That did not make it on my top 10 worst, and it’s already #25 here. It’s not “Midsommar,” I just talked about that. It’s not “IT: Chapter Two,” it’s not “Serenity,” it’s not “Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker,” it’s not “Dora and the Lost City of Gold,” and it’s DEFINITELY not “Cats” as I had no expectations going into it. My #1 most disappointing film of the 2010s is… FEATURED IN THE CLIP BELOW!

Oh my God. Zilla. I’ve said that before, but that saying has never made more sense than it does right now. Because my #1 most disappointing film of the 2010s is “Godzilla: King of the Monsters.” I am not the biggest “Godzilla” fanatic, but even I was uber-excited for this movie. At 2018’s San Diego Comic-Con, they dropped the first trailer for this film and it pumped me up like a balloon! Aside from having stunning visuals and some cool monster action, it had a BEAUTIFUL redo of “Clair de Lune” playing in the background. But little did I know at the time, that distracted me from the reality that this movie was visually beautiful, but as a story, it is a complete wreck! Nearly none of the original human characters make a return. Instead, we get new characters played by some well-known actors including Vera Farmiga, Kyle Chandler, Thomas Middleditch, and Charles Dance. All of these actors have experience and are culturally respected. Just because this movie has big names, does not mean it’ll be a big success. In fact, it’s a monster-sized failure! Even though it made about double it’s budget, it’s still a disappointment after raking in $386 million worldwide. The movie made less money than its predecessor from 2014, simply titled “Godzilla,” which took in $529 million worldwide against a slightly smaller budget than this dreaded sequel. Why did this movie fail? It’s hard to come up with one simple answer. It’s one of those movies, probably like “Batman v. Superman: Dawn of Justice” that did not sit well with critics, but for casual moviegoers and people who are simply fans of “Godzilla,” it was worth watching. After all, the audience score for “King of the Monsters” is 83%, nearly double of the critic score, which sits at 42%. Maybe the low critic score influenced the audience’s thinking patterns. But then again, “Aladdin” came out the week before, so maybe people were still into that.

When I come across a good number of positive thoughts for “Godzilla: King of the Monsters,” they sometimes have one thing in common. People sometimes point out that in terms of characters, this movie is lackluster, and despite that, they still give it a positive score. Some would say that monsters fighting each other is entertaining enough. With that being said, I will admit one of the slight positives of “Godzilla: King of the Monsters” is that the monster fighting is expanded in this movie, but it’s also a negative because even though it was minimal in 2014’s “Godzilla,” it nevertheless felt special. In “King of the Monsters,” some of the camerawork during the fights is nothing to write home about, although some scenes are better than others. As for characterization, this is just like the “Transformers” movies where even though there are alternate subjects in the title, the movie chooses to focus primarily on disposable and one-dimensional human characters. They’re poorly written, they’re poorly realized, even though the actors do what they can with them. Even though an actress like Millie Bobby Brown was somewhat wasted in this film, she gave it her all, which is probably a sign that she is going to have a bright future that involves a lot more than “Godzilla” and “Stranger Things.” I have come to a point in my movie watching journey where I require more than flat characters and all pretty visuals. This is “Jupiter Ascending” all over again!

Speaking of these pretty visuals, even getting to say that they are pretty in the first place is kind of sad. Because there is a sign that people put some effort into this movie. In fact, I imagine everyone across the board did all they can to make the finest movie possible, but for some reason, when it was trying to stick the landing, it plummeted as hard as s*it! This is one of the few movies that from a visual and audio perspective, made me nearly leave the theater with a headache. I like obnoxious films that are incredibly immersive, but there was so much going on at once! It felt like I was at a concert where three bands where competing to see which one can get the crowd roaring the loudest! This movie honestly feels like that “Family Guy” cutaway where The Emperor from “Star Wars” is speaking through the formula for great dialogue in the franchise. Specifically, he says “Something something something dark side. Something something something complete.” While “Godzilla” is not “Star Wars,” replace “dark side” with “monsters,” and “complete” with “fight in Boston,” you have “Godzilla: King of the Monsters.” Yes, it does have a standout story involving a major motivation from Vera Farmiga’s character, but again, all these characters feel incredibly disposable. I mean no harm, and people are allowed to like what they like, I don’t know how all the viewers who like “Godzilla: King of the Monsters” can get past the underwhelming characters who are played by big name actors, but have to deal with a s*itty ass script! It’s cheesy, boring, and forgettable! I can have fun with a big budget blockbuster, just not this one!

To add to the disappointment, this movie could have some unfortunate ramifications going forward. After all, “Godzilla: King of the Monsters” is the third installment to the current Warner Bros. Monsterverse, which currently features prime titans Godzilla and King Kong. In fact, both titans are supposed to duke it out against each other in a future film that is supposedly coming out this year. The more I hear about that film, or more specifically, what little I even hear about that film, the less I manage to look forward to it. But when it comes to what could happen to it regarding “Godzilla: King of the Monsters,” the poor box office total of that film could be a bad sign of what’s to come. Plus, it’s been a few years since people have seen “Kong: Skull Island,” which to be fair, was a success. “Godzilla vs. Kong” could although continue a trend of box office disappointment as it is part of a universe that might as well be shrinking in terms of relevance. One of the reasons why the Marvel Cinematic Universe is still working today is because they’re constantly cranking out films. It took a couple years between one “Iron Man” or “Avengers” film to get to the next one. Plus, in between those sorts of properties, we get other characters getting movies including Thor and Captain America. “Godzilla” took its time, and maybe was on less people’s minds. Plus, given the quality of “Godzilla: King of the Monsters,” it sort of hit me in a way that made me less excited for what’s to come. Going back to Marvel, “Avengers: Infinity War” made me excited for future movies including “Ant-Man and the Wasp” and the then untitled “Avengers: Endgame.” A bad movie can do more than just leave a bad taste in the mouth. It can leave an aftertaste that might stick for years. This aftertaste makes me look into the future and ultimately feel a tad pessimistic.

As for what that future looks like specifically, it looks like everyone might not be learning from their mistakes. After all, Eiza Gonzalez, who is set to star alongside Millie Bobby Brown as a couple human characters in “Godzilla vs. Kong,” was intereviewed in March while promoting the all-new Vin Diesel film, “Bloodshot.” She said the following during an interview for The Hollywood Reporter

“Yeah, everything’s been done. These movies take a long time because there’s a lot of CGI in them. But, yeah, we’ve done everything, and they’re just going through and creating these incredible characters. I’m just really excited to see it because it’s these two worlds colliding. The fan base for “Godzilla vs. Kong” is incredible. When I say I’m in the movie, people are like, “Oh my God.” Seeing that fanaticism and seeing how excited they are to see this movie makes me really excited; I think they’re going to be really happy. [Director] Adam Wingard is so talented. Both stories are going parallel, as you’ll see, without giving anything away. It’s a large cast as well, and it was really fun to be part of it. There’s so much going on, but the heart of it is two young girls as well, which is such a positive message for society nowadays. It’s just incredible.” -Eiza Gonzalez

So unless these two young girls are Godzilla vs. Kong bitchin’ it out against each other, I would imagine it involves Millie Bobby Brown and perhaps a character played by Gonzalez herself. Since this movie chooses to focus on humans again, I really hope there is a sense of strong effort put into the script. Because the last one made me want to go out and topple some skyscrapers!

Also, as someone who lives near Boston, this movie is an insult.

Thanks for reading this countdown! Kind of like the previous lists I’ve done in the Top Movies of the 2010s series, this could easily change as it does span an entire decade as opposed to an entire year. In fact, now that I’m in isolation, I have all the time in the world to watch more movies from the 2010s, so who knows? All these picks may be outdated in a month or two. However, if you are interested in seeing more of Top Movies of the 2010s, feel free to check out my other lists titled THE BEST 25 and THE WORST 25. Now that content becoming harder to make in these times, I am thinking of doing more of these. Maybe I’ll also do more than top 25s. Maybe I’ll go short and do top 11s or top 15s, or if I really want to cover such a massive topic, I’ll go for top 50 or top 100. I’ll have to think of a topic that can truly fit a hundred films if that’s the case, but it’s still a thought that I have. If you want to see more great content from Scene Before, follow this blog via an email or WordPress account! Also, be sure to check out my Facebook page if you are interested, I post content updates, random thoughts, and if you don’t want to follow the actual Scene Before blog, I also automatically post new content from Scene Before onto the page if you would like to check it out. But it’s your world and I just live in it! I want to know, what are your most disappointing movies of the 2010s? Is there a title I missed? Or, what other countdowns would you like to see come to life in the Top Movies of the 2010s series? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

Movies and COVID-19: Behind the Scenes – Part 4

Hey everyone, Jack Drees here! It is now time for part 4 of the all new Scene Before series “Movies and COVID-19: Behind the Scenes.” This series describes the recent happenings, or in some cases, a lack of happenings, in the film industry as the world deals with the COVID-19 outbreak.

As usual, we deal with real world matters first. Since Easter was this past weekend, gatherings at churches and homes within one’s collective connections of a family that was commonplace in years past managed to take a backseat this year.

California has recently extended its stay at home order from April 19th to May 15th. Speaking of California, the state recently joined forces with other nearby states including Oregon and Washington in what they call the Western States Pact. The three announced a plan to put health first and deliver a more scientific-based focus compared to a political focus to stopping the coronavirus. The states are still building specific plans for their area, but they are nevertheless working together to stop the spread.

Speaking of which, the northeast portion of the United States is engaging in something similar. Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Delaware, and Pennsylvania are joining forces in their own coalition. So, remember all those requests for Andrew Cuomo to run for President of the United States? That won’t be happening anytime soon, but when it comes to coronavirus matters, he is currently dealing with more than just New York. Speaking of Presidents of the United States…

President Donald J. Trump stated this Monday that he is the one that should have control on opening the country back up. He suggests, “When somebody is president of the United States, the authority is total.” Trump also stated he wants to open the United States back up by May 1st, which close medical expert Anthony Fauci declares is “a bit overly optimistic.”

Just today, Andrew Cuomo referred to Trump this morning on NBC’s “Today,” suggesting “We do not have a king, we have a president.” Cuomo is doing what he can to make sure that the state of New York opens back up at what he considers to be the right time for everyone’s health. While Trump is suggesting May 1st, Cuomo fears that this all-powerful decision made by Trump will lead to “a constitutional crisis like you haven’t seen in decades,” as he stated in MSNBC’s “Morning Joe.” Speaking of Andrew Cuomo, and somewhat transitioning to movie news a bit early here, he suggested the possibility of making drive-in theaters an exception to non-essential businesses that remain closed. Keep in mind, drive-ins have still been in operation during the ongoing crisis, but it does not mean that there are some that are not in operation, plus there are others that are just closed because it’s not the proper season for a drive-in to be open. Cuomo suggested, “Where is the public safety issue? It’s a drive-in theater. You’re in the car with the same people.” He is not wrong. Drive-ins make for a fun night out while also promoting social distancing. I would not mind drive-ins opening up, but the problem is… What movies are they going to play? Are just going to play “Trolls: World Tour” over and over? Maybe they’ll bring back some classics since there’s nothing else to do.

Going outside the United States, specifically in Wuhan, China, where early cases of the virus originated, the city opened back up after a lively lightshow and countdown declaring the disappearance of COVID-19. Despite the reopening, restrictions still appear to be in place including the closure of schools, shops, and sadly, cinemas. But one thing that has opened is the region’s wet markets. Outsiders are suggesting immediate closure of said wet markets as it serves live animals, including bats, which sources suggest is the reason why COVID-19 spread in the first place.

But of course, we have some movie news to talk about like usual. More delays, more new releases on DVD, Blu-ray, and digital, and some big news involving acclaimed filmmaker Bong Joon Ho (don’t worry, that part is all good news). Also, there’s a big movie that tried something new this weekend, going straight to digital while also having a theatrical release. Before we dive into that, I do want to point out that despite there being a major pandemic, some movie theaters are still open. Keep in mind, many of these theaters are drive-ins. This is now old news, but according to Deadline, 14 movie theaters remained open on the first weekend of April. I also want to point out another article I saw from The Wrap, which suggests that “Trolls: World Tour” played in 21 drive-in theaters this weekend. Even in desperate times, theaters are still active. Speaking of optimistic news, here’s more!

JAMES GUNN SAYS GUARDIANS 3 AND THE SUICIDE SQUAD WON’T BE DELAYED

Usually when I dive into these main topics during the series, I have often emphasized the bad news at hand. A common example is when a major film gets delayed such as “F9,” “Ghostbusters: Afterlife,” or “Top Gun: Maverick.” However, it’s about time we get some good news in here and talk about a couple of films that are not being affected by the outbreak, both of which are being directed by James Gunn. To specify, “Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3,” which is a big movie, especially since it’s the third consecutive entry to the franchise being helmed by Gunn himself, but also “The Suicide Squad,” which has finished filming in February and is set to release August 6th, 2021. Gunn spent time on Twitter recently taking questions from fans and he had some notable things to say regarding these two films.

Alright, this resembles some decent progress on the film, and it shows that even in a time like this, people like Gunn in the entertainment industry are still working. But let’s see the next tweet.

Keep in mind, “The Suicide Squad” is not set to come out for a bit under a year and half, so there is plenty of time to edit the film, develop a marketing campaign, and lay out all the elements needed for the film’s post-production process. So the film is coming, and should this pandemic fizzle, there is a solid chance that “The Suicide Squad” will be in theaters during 2021. Now what about that other big comic book James Gunn has up his sleeve?

“Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3” is not currently listed in the Marvel Cinematic Universe’s fourth phase, but there have been previously established plans to make the film. Unfortunately, the film was supposed to come out this year, but due to James Gunn’s controversial tweets leaking, his business relationship with Disney was no more and he was no longer attached to direct the third installment to the franchise. Judging by this tweet right here, Gunn still seems to be working on the film, but an official release date seems rather uncertain at this point. IMDb lists it to come out in 2021, but given how Marvel has many other projects going on, “Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3” might have to wait. But “Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3” is nevertheless a film that I will see should I get the chance to witness it come out, so this information pleases me to say the least. I was not the biggest fan of “Vol. 2,” but I am curious to see what Gunn could deliver to this third installment.

MORE MOVIES GET DELAYED

But of course, with good news, comes bad news. In this case, the bad news is that yet another delay is happening. As if Pixar didn’t suffer enough already by having to put “Onward” on digital early, they just pushed back “Soul” to November. Nobody behind Pixar seems to be popping bottles at this point. “Soul” was originally supposed to come out June 19th, but now has been pushed back to November 20th. By the way, this is releasing the same day as “Godzilla vs. Kong.” I honestly have no idea how well that movie is going to do box-office wise, but given Pixar’s name recognition and since there already has been some anticipation towards this film, there could be a chance that “Soul” is the box office champ of the two when it comes to seeing how they play out on opening weekend. The film is directed by Pete Docter, who also directed 2015’s “Inside Out,” which this film honestly reminds me of. Kemp Powers will co-direct by the way. While conceptually different, “Soul” seems to present the vibe of “Inside Out,” not to mention a somewhat similar concept. The film follows a musician (Jamie Foxx) who loses his passion for music. After being transported out of his body, he interacts with an infant soul while trying to return to said body. The film definitely sounds like it could be emotional, which would not be much of a shocker for a film by Pixar. But now here’s a problem for not just this film, but a bunch of others coming out this year. I don’t know if it is just me, but it now feels like November is CRAMMED with popular titles. From “Soul” to “No Time to Die” to “Black Widow.” While I could look at this as a benefit because it likely means this November will be a pop culture haven, it’s also a negative because I imagine some films that could potentially be big will underperform because they are in such a congested schedule. Or to make matters more interesting, November is also a big month for award season, and now there is probably a bigger focus on pop culture titles that might not be awarded much of anything as opposed to what could be nominated for the Academy’s Best Picture in a couple months.

Also, remember how “The SpongeBob Movie: Sponge on the Run” got delayed to late July? Paramount’s “Infinite,” an upcoming sci-fi flick starring Mark Wahlberg (Transformers: Age of Extinction, Ted), which was originally come out July 31st, has officially been pushed back to Memorial Day weekend in 2021. The film follows a man whose hallucinations are visions of his past lives. I would like to go into some of my past lives at this point just to get away from whatever the hell is going on right now. Think I was done talking about “SpongeBob?” Well I’m not! I say so because the film has been delayed again, but this time only by a week. As of now, “The SpongeBob Movie: Sponge on the Run” is coming out August 7th.

TROLLS: WORLD TOUR DEBUTS DIGITALLY

mv5bytk5ztflntgtnmfims00mte1lwjmmwety2izymu5odllzmm3xkeyxkfqcgdeqxvynzewodixnze40._v1_

I’ve talked about this news already, but given how this does document a rare incident, I might as well talk about it. Certain movies like “The Irishman” have a limited run in theaters before being put on Netflix, but for “Trolls: World Tour,” the sequel to DreamWorks’ successful 2016 flick, that’s a different story. You won’t be able to find it on Netflix, but you will be able to find it through services including Prime Video, FandangoNOW, and Vudu. The reason, Universal wanted to put “Trolls: World Tour” out on digital the same day they put it out in theaters. This is kind of an unprecedented situation as movies typically start in theaters and there is a waiting period until the movie comes out on digital and DVD. But nope, Universal thought it would be better to just digitally release the film. I have not seen the film, in fact, I have no plans on seeing the film given how I have not watched the original, but others did manage to show up for this new installment. The movie managed to make more through its digital run than “Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom” did when it debuted digitally. “Trolls: World Tour” managed to make around $30 million according to reports. This is compared to “Fallen Kingdom,” which managed to rack up $2-3 million. Keep in mind, these reports are exclusive to the United States. Also, another thing to keep in mind, that even though many of the purchases were through digital platforms, theaters were open during the initial days of “Trolls: World Tour,” many of which are drive-ins, so it is not like everybody had to be stuck in their house to watch it. Also, while $30 million may be considered successful in this circumstance, the movie cost $90 million to make, so there could be a chance that Universal will lose money over this. Even though a $19.99 rental for 48 hours can cost more than a single movie ticket, the target demographic for “Trolls: World Tour” is families, especially kids. You can take a family of four to the theater and pay double that price to see the movie, maybe even more. It’s also short of what the first movie raked in on its opening weekend back in 2016, which was over $46 million. If this sequel was in theaters, it probably could have surpassed that due to factors such as name recognition. My biggest wonder for “Trolls: World Tour” is how well it will do over these next few days, not to mention next weekend. I say that because, sure, the movie can have excellent debut to rave about. But if we are treating this as the closest thing to a theatrical release we can get, we have to consider how much of a drop it could make this following weekend. Will it make $15 million? $12 million? $10 million? Could it possibly make more this weekend than it did last weekend? Only time will tell. This straight to digital rollout is an experiment if there ever was one, and its chances towards success have recently shown that maybe theaters COULD have been much better for “Trolls: World Tour,” but this is a new way of doing things, and if we are still in this crisis, things could change.

MY SPY GOES STRAIGHT TO PRIME VIDEO

For those of you who don’t know, “My Spy,” the film where Dave Bautista goes undercover and makes a connection with a nine-year old girl, is a movie that has been promoted from time to time by STX here in the states has already released theatrically in select regions including Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Hong Kong, and the United Kingdom. But for the United States, it’s a different story. The film has already had free screenings before it was supposed to come out, one of which I went to in January by the way. But the film has had a rough history when it comes to getting a proper release. “My Spy” was supposed to release on August 23rd, 2019. The film had a trailer put out a year ago, so the promotion and marketing process was getting into gear. However, it was pulled from STX’s release schedule in July. The next release date that was announced for the film was March 13th, 2020. And of course, to get the ball rolling on word of mouth and that sort of thing, free screenings started popping up and I got to attend one of them. But, just in the snap of a finger, the release date changed from March 13th to April 17th. I would imagine that the COVID-19 crisis could be a contributing factor, but I also wonder if STX thought if it would be a better time for the film to release in terms of financial gain compared to competition. Nevertheless, it was just announced on April 8th that the film is now going to be distributed by Amazon Studios and instead of going to theaters, it is going directly to Prime Video. So if you are a Prime member, you are likely going to be able to watch “My Spy” for free on the service.

CBS SCHEDULES SUNDAY MOVIE NIGHTS

CBS is a leading name for television. Their standard channels air daytime staples like “The Price Is Right” and “The Young and the Restless” along with notable shows at night such as “Young Sheldon,” “MacGyver,” and “Mom.” Meanwhile, they have been building a name for themselves through streaming by providing material such as a couple of “Star Trek” original shows and a spinoff of “The Good Wife” known as “The Good Fight” through CBS All Access. But if you get access to the main CBS channel, which I’m sure a lot of you do, one thing you might want to keep an eye on is their schedule for May. Every Sunday, CBS is going to air movies under the Paramount label. This will begin with a movie that is very likely to garner attention, “Raiders of the Lost Ark.” In addition to that “Indiana Jones” film, the network is also airing “The Last Crusade.” Oddly enough, they are skipping over “Temple of Doom.” Other movies to be aired by CBS will include “Titanic,” “Forrest Gump,” and “Mission: Impossible.” This run will last for five Sundays from May 3rd to May 31st. By the way, all the movies are scheduled to begin at 8PM, except for “Titanic,” which will start at 7PM. Earlier on in the series, I discussed that ESPN was going to air movies on Friday nights, said movies are all Disney-owned and focus on sports. One thing that I think would help CBS in a case like this compared to ESPN just a little bit is its accessibility. CBS is a slightly more recognizable channel and unlike ESPN, you can get it on an antenna.

HULU ACHIEVES BEST PICTURE WINNER PARASITE

One of my favorite films of the past year is the Bong Joon Ho-directed masterpiece, “Parasite.” Lucky for me, I own the Blu-ray, therefore I have the ability to watch the film as much as I please through a physical disc. But if you have Hulu, you can consider yourself lucky because “Parasite” is now available on the service. For the record, the film is not the first of its kind to be on Hulu. To be clear, the film was distributed in the States by Neon, which also helped distribute titles including “I, Tonya,” “The Beach Bum,” and “Honeyland.” Films like these have also made it to Hulu. So if you wanted to watch “Parasite” without paying much, just make sure you have a Hulu subscription and you’re good to go. And remember, it won the Academy’s vote for Best Picture, so every film aficionado will tell you that it is bloody important. If you are a little skeptical on watching “Parasite” because it is in Korean, let me just remind you of this quote given by director Bong Joon Ho himself.

“Once you overcome the one-inch-tall barrier of subtitles, you will be introduced to so many more amazing films.”

Speaking of Bong Joon Ho, his 2013 work “Snowpiercer,” which is being adapted into a series set to air on TNT, is coming out for the first time in the United Kingdom on DVD and Blu-ray. The film is set to release on May 25th. It’s one heck of a time to be Bong Joon Ho.

NEW HOME VIDEO RELEASES

Stuck at home? Jack’s here to help! This week for digital has got a few new movies coming your way. For starters, we have “Underwater,” one of the last films to display the 20th Century Fox label. For the record, Disney did complete their acquisition of Fox’s assets during March 2019, but for a little under a year, they kept putting out films like “Ford v Ferrari” that had the studio label that has achieved fame. Although, with the recent release of “The Call of the Wild,” they are now using 20th Century Studios instead. Sticking with “Underwater,” the film stars Kristen Stewart alongside a crew of researchers as their underwater facility is hit with an earthquake. The film is a box office bomb, making $37.2 million on a $50 million budget. It has a 47% critic rating on Rotten Tomatoes and a 60% audience rating, so it’s hard to know what exactly you’ll think of it upon first glance. The film is also now available on DVD and Blu-ray if you prefer the physical copy.

“Fantasy Island,” which is based on a TV show of the same name, is now available for digital purchase. If you want to wait for a rental option, that is coming May 12th, the same day the film comes out on DVD and Blu-ray. Keep in mind, the film has a 4.6 on IMDb, which might not be the best of signs.

Also coming out, “The Rhythm Section.” This action flick stars Blake Lively and Jude Law, and is about a woman whose family dies in a plane crash. This woman joins the world of espionage as she seeks vengeance. The film is not out on DVD and Blu-ray until April 28th, but it is available for digital purchase today.

Thanks for reading the fourth part of the ongoing series “Movies and COVID-19: Behind the Scenes!” Even in the apocalypse, there is one thing I can promise, and that my friends, is content. Maybe not the content that I want to make, but content nevertheless. Last week I said that I’d probably get shoved into an abyss by STX executives if I talk about “My Spy” at this point. So with that in mind, now that it is owned by Amazon and has no official release date, I will probably be shoved into an abyss by Amazon executives, or maybe even Jeff Bezos himself, if I talk about “My Spy” at this point. So what is happening with the movie is clear, but when I will review it, is unclear. Only time will tell. Be sure to follow Scene Before either with an email or WordPress account so you can stay tuned for more great content! Also, check out my Facebook page! I want to know, is there any big news I missed regarding COVID-19 and entertainment over the past week? Also, since it is appropriate, what are your thoughts on “Parasite?” Personally, I think it is one of the most twisted movies I have seen in recent memory and it is a blast from start to finish. Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

90th Academy Awards Recap

mv5bmgu2ngnlmtqtzta5yi00nju5ltlmzgmtmgnlngjkymu1ndc0xkeyxkfqcgdeqxvynti5njiymw-_v1_sy1000_sx675_al_

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Well said, Kumail!

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

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

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

Here are the results for Best Animated Short Film!

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

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

Kobe Bryant.

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

But he did.

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

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

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

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

“Coco” won. What a surprise.

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

Enough said. Moving on.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

They’re the same nominees.

Not only that…

THE SAME MOVIE TOOK BOTH AWARDS!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“And here are the all male nominees.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nice shot now isn’t it?

Take a gander at this beauty.

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

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

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

LOOK AT THIS SHOT!

LOOK AT THIS F*CKING SHOT!

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

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

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

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

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

…And it won.

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

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

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

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

The Secret To 3D Movies You May Have Never Known (Post-Conversion)

375px-Glasses_for_RealD_Cinema-fs_PNr°0272

Hey everyone, Jack Drees here! I have a serious question. Is 3D still relevant? Don’t get me wrong, at times it can add a bit to several movie experiences. I remember going to see all three “Hobbit” films in IMAX 3D, all of them were epic and thrilling. Although nowadays 3D has become at times this thing you have to accept when going to see a film at the theater.

3D in a way is like prescription pills. There are a number of cases where you never really asked to take them for your personal amusement, but since you want to get on with your life, you just move along. When I go to the movies, I don’t traditionally care what show I get, but if I were making every executive decision, I’d probably choose to see a film in 2D. If the movie’s in IMAX and 3D’s the only option, chances are I’d go for that. Although when it comes to 3D, it’s something I never wanted, but it has always been around. It was very popular at the at the end of the 2000s leading into 2010. That’s because James Cameron’s “Avatar” was released all over and praised for the theatrical experience when watched in 3D. However since then, audiences have been thinking to themselves that 3D movies are becoming more and more bland. While there are those people who think 3D is awesome and think it’s one of the greatest things in cinematic history, 3D has increasingly resembled a fad as opposed to a game-changer.

One question some of you may have until looking at this post is this: How does the 3D come to be? It varies from movie to movie, but in most circumstances nowadays it’s fake. How is this? Unlike a number of films shot on cameras and rigs meant for 3D, most movies are currently shot on 2D cameras. It doesn’t even matter if the movie’s shot on film or digital, it’s just shot in 2D. Nowadays it is very rare to find a film coming out which is shot in actual 3D. This current year is 2018, let’s take a look at the list of movies that have been revealed to have been shot in actual 3D.

  • Mission: Impossible: Fallout
  • 2.0

There you go! That’s the whole list! Note that there are no animated films since those are made on computers.  Now let’s take a look at the rest of the 3D films labeled to have 2018 releases. Note once again that there are no animated movies.

  • Maze Runner: The Death Cure
  • Black Panther
  • A Wrinkle in Time
  • Pacific Rim: Uprising
  • Tomb Raider
  • Ready Player One
  • Rampage
  • Avengers: Infinity War
  • Solo: A Star Wars Story
  • Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom
  • Ant-Man and the Wasp
  • Alita: Battle Angel
  • Alpha

There are more films coming out in 2018 to be released in 3D. However, I can’t confirm or deny whether they’re real or fake. These results just goes to show when you look at the movies playing and you notice that there’s something playing in 3D, chances are that movie isn’t actually 3D.

Post-converted 3D is something that’s not really talked about when it comes to older movies nowadays such as those that were in 3D during the fifties, but it got some severe attention in 2010. In 1981, a movie known as “Clash of the Titans” was released to the public. The movie provided a fun family adventure for an hour and fifty-eight minutes and received a number of positive verdicts. Since studios love remaking everything, it’s no surprise that “Clash of the Titans” was one of those movies that got the remake treatment. And according to many people, it’s a f*ck-up on S*itshow Valley. Release the Kraken? More like Release the Crapen! Aside from the eye-covering CGI, the one-dimensional characters, and how people see it in comparison to the original film and mythology, this film was despised by critics and audiences for its use of 3D. Perhaps even more hilarious is a marketing tagline used by this movie. The tagline being, “Titans Will Clash.” No. F*cking. S*it. It’s like if “The Emoji Movie” had a tagline that said “This movie will suck, and you’ll hate your life while watching it.” THANKS, CAPTAIN OBVIOUS!

As for the movie’s use of 3D, the film was originally shot on 2D film cameras, and the director of the film, Louis Leterrier, went to the studio early on asking about a 3D conversion. However, this process was new and expensive. When “Avatar” was released, Leterrier was pressured to do a 3D post-conversion. He gave into it after seeing what he thought was a rather convincing View-D conversion process. The man even stated that it was essential for audiences to view the movie in 3D as an enhancement as opposed to a gimmick regarding the overall experience. Let me just tell you right now, the audience didn’t view it as an enhancement, they didn’t even view it as a gimmick, they viewed it… as crap. Three years after the film’s release to the public, Leterrier came out and said this about the 3D:

“It was famously rushed and famously horrible. It was absolutely horrible, the 3D. Nothing was working, it was just a gimmick to steal money from the audience. I’m a good boy and I rolled with the punches and everything, but it’s not my movie.”

And this just goes to show that studios can sometimes get in the way of movies. This isn’t the first time this has happened. Just look at films such as “Spider-Man 3,” “Risky Business,” and “Blade Runner.” Studios might force directors to do something concerning their movie that they ultimately don’t want to do. In this case, the studio wanted a 3D conversion. Had the movie just been in 2D, everyone would have probably been a little more happy. They’d still get a bad movie, but they’d have one less terrible aspect related to it. In fact, part of me thinks that Warner Brothers would end up making just a tad more money. After all, so many people were complaining about the 3D, so some folks would avoid 3D showings like the plague.

This isn’t to say that all post-converted 3D sucks. Some of the most highly appreciated 3D experiences are post-converted. After all, it is the norm now, so there has to be a gem somewhere. I went to see “Jurassic World” and the 3D was probably one of the best parts of the IMAX experience I was given. It was dinosaur-sized fun! “Mad Max: Fury Road” was also an experience worth the extra number of bucks, seeing all of the practicality and CGI come together at times really made you feel like your face was on fire or cars were running you over. One of the best experiences of all, is “Gravity.” I saw “Gravity” the weekend it came out in IMAX 3D, and it was f*cking worth it. The movie itself doesn’t have much replay value, but between the sound editing, sound mixing, score, cinematography, CGI, everything came together, and there were certain scenes where I truly felt like I was in space. Even better, trying my absolute hardest to survive in space. Just goes to show, even fake stuff can be real!

If anything, the improvement of post-production 3D is most likely due to commitment, and advances in technology. When it comes to “Gravity,” CG Effects Supervisor Alexis Wajsbrot has this to say:

“It was rendered in stereo, then we post-converted the faces with a very accurate track. It was a very precise rendition. That’s why the stereo works so well because it was thought about a long time before the movie was made.”

As suggested, the way “Gravity” was rendered gave it a 3D effect. The rest was work. Stereoscopic 3D is a very useful process if you’re shooting in 2D instead of 3D, if you’re maybe trying to save some cash and back pain, or if you are just looking for a way to cash in on a film even though you’re doing it in an effective manner. It won’t be real 3D, but it may give your brain the thought that you’re actually looking at 3D. While I do prefer authenticity, technology and commitment can help in making a proper product.

…Although in reality I prefer seeing movies in 2D.

Thanks for reading this post! I actually believe it or not had trouble doing this post, because I was working on another post I thought of last week, it was stuck in my head like how much I love pizza, the brand of the TV in my room, and the fact that with TurboTax, at least your taxes are free. Seriously though, thanks for reading! Tomorrow a new trailer for “Solo: A Star Wars Story” is arriving and we also got some trailers coming out tonight during the Super Bowl, trailers like “Mission: Impossible: Fallout,” “Skyscraper,” and “Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom.” I might review one of those trailers, and as far as newer movies go, I can confirm that at some point soon I’m going to see “The 15:17 To Paris.” That movie’s coming out February 9th, so I’ll be seeing that not long from now. Also, if you want more exciting content to take a gander at, I’ll have links down below to my “Maze Runner” reviews. Please check those out, I enjoyed a couple of those movies, and I have my thoughts summed up, whether they are positive or negative. Stay tuned for more great content! In 2D. I want to know, what is the best experience you had watching a movie in 3D? Yes, I’ll even count IMAX documentaries or something along those lines. Doesn’t even matter if the 3D’s real or not. Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

“THE MAZE RUNNER” REVIEW: https://scenebefore.wordpress.com/2018/01/18/the-maze-runner-2014-the-continuation-of-teen-angst-starring-dylan-obrien/

“MAZE RUNNER: THE SCORCH TRIALS” REVIEW: https://scenebefore.wordpress.com/2018/01/25/maze-runner-the-scorch-trials-the-continuation-of-teen-angst-starring-dylan-obrien-part-2-to-be-concluded-in-almost-2-5-years-also-this-is-wckd-boring/

“MAZE RUNNER: THE DEATH CURE” REVIEW: https://scenebefore.wordpress.com/2018/01/28/maze-runner-the-death-cure-2018-the-continuation-of-teen-angst-starring-dylan-obrien-part-3-to-be-rebooted-once-hollywood-runs-out-of-young-adult-dystopian-books-to-base-movies-on-still-bett/