Kathryn Newton

Abigail (2024): Another Epic Win for the Directing Team Behind Ready or Not

Posted on by Jack Drees

“Abigail” is directed by Matt Bettinelli-Olpin and Tyler Gillet, the same directing team behind the last two “Scream” films and “Ready or Not.” The film stars Melissa Barrera (Scream, Vida), Dan Stevens (Night at the Museum: Secret of the Tomb, Godzilla x Kong: The New Empire), Kathryn Newton (Blockers, Lisa Frankenstein), Will Catlett (Love Is, Black Lightning), Kevin Durand (The Strain, Dark Angel), Angus Cloud (Euphoria, Your Lucky Day), Alisha Weir (Matilda the Musical, Fia’s Fairies), and Giancarlo Esposito (Maze Runner: The Scorch Trials, Breaking Bad). This film is mostly set in a house where a group of criminals who kidnapped the ballerina daughter of a powerful underworld figure come to the realization that there is more to this girl than meets the eye.

Before we begin this review, I want to remind everyone that if I had to name a favorite horror movie of the past five years, chances are my answer would be “Ready or Not,” helmed by this film’s directing duo, Matt Bettinelli-Olpin and Tyler Gillet. What made the film work for me is that in addition to all of the blood, gore, and occasional violence, there was a sense of unease in every scene. And part of it is because of how the script tends to handle Samara Weaving’s character, Grace. Because her situation makes her the outlier amongst a sea of rich, snobby monsters. Specifically, the one where she must win a game of hide and seek to avoid getting killed by recently mentioned rich, snobby monsters.

This time around, Bettinelli-Olpin and Gillet are helming a story that comes off as an antithesis of sorts to the “Ready or Not” structure. But it does not mean there are not similarities between the two titles. For one thing, both movies slap. Truthfully, “Abigail” might end up being one of my favorite movies this year. I can say this is some of the most fun I have had at the movies in months. If you are looking for something that will make you laugh, grab your attention, and question everything that is going on, “Abigail” might be a great watch for you.

What makes “Abigail” different from “Ready or Not?” For one thing, whereas “Ready or Not” is a tale of one against many, “Abigail” is a tale of many against one. Also, in “Abigail,” we tend to know more about our protagonists’ history of rebelling and breaking the law. “Ready or Not’s” Grace, as far as the movie can suggest, does not really have much of a criminal history. It is never highlighted, therefore I would have to assume if she did have one, it is not that heavy or important. In other words, Grace seems like a good egg. Much of the movie dives into these characters’ backstories and I would have to say the way they go about it had me engaged. Sometimes, the movie lingers too long on the backstories, in fact, it almost lingers long enough that at times, it had me wondering when exactly the movie is going to get into gear, but it does not change my overall attachment to the characters themselves.

By the way, the cast for this film is quite good. The film is marvelously led by Melissa Barrera, who kills it as the character of Joey. Alongside her, you of course have Kathryn Newton, who is becoming a bit of scream queen now with this movie on her resume in addition to “Lisa Frankenstein” and “Freaky,” both of which I enjoyed. There’s Giancarlo Esposito, who I’ve particularly enjoyed in “The Mandalorian.” I am glad to see him here. This movie is also likely going to introduce a fresh young talent to the world, Alisha Weir.

While she does not have a ton of credits just yet, I have a strong feeling that her performance in “Abigail” as the title character is going to change that. Weir plays a centuries old vampire who takes the form of a 12 year old girl. Oh, and she’s also a ballerina, because why not?… I love this movie. This role gives Weir plenty to bring to the table in terms of her delivery and her physicality. There is always this sense of unpredictability when watching this character. You just never know what she is going to say, what she is going to do, who exactly she is going to kill. Abigail is a beautifully unhinged mastermind of a 12 year old girl. While M3gan is probably going to end up being the more popular “dancing horror villain” by the end of this decade, I think I have a greater fondness for the Abigail character for how much the movie successfully handles its cute but not cuddly approach with her.

Of course, this movie is bloody and gory to the tenth degree. That should not come as much of a surprise. But even with that in mind, part of me could not believe just how much blood and gore this movie delivered at times. But again, I should have seen this coming from the team who did “Ready or Not.” A movie featuring some of the bloodiest explosions of all time. The movie just gets more beautifully disgusting as it goes, then when it hits the climax, oh boy, is it glorious! And much like this duo’s 2019 masterpiece, this film successfully blends horror and comedy to a perfect degree. This movie is scary. Not quite as scary as “Ready or Not,” I would say the terror itself is a bit on the lighter side in certain moments. But the movie is also very clever on the jokes. There are times where I found myself laughing hard. You could almost put this horror movie in a camp category. But the reality is that as I watched this film, every moment felt like it belonged in a story of its kind. There are campy, abnormal moments. But even those felt like moments that I could buy into. This movie made me convinced that in its world, a ballerina vampire like Abigail could exist. The movie clearly plays her up, gives her some over the top lines and exchanges with her fellow castmates, but for some reason, all of it clicks.

If you saw the trailer for “Abigail” and thought that maybe they should have saved the big hook regarding the title character for the movie itself, I kind of get where you are coming from, but as far as I am concerned, that is sort of what sold me from the start. As far as WHAT THEY DO with that hook, I can tell you it makes the movie worth your time and money. I had a great time with this movie, and if you like blood and gore, I am certain you will too.

In the end, “Abigail” is a ton of fun. It kind of takes me back to 2022, because in that year, I just so happened to stumble upon one great horror film after another. From “The Black Phone” to “Smile” to “Pearl.” “Abigail” is on that level for me. After seeing two bloody fantastic original horror titles from Bettinelli-Olpin and Gillet, it only makes more excited for what other tricks they have up their sleeve. Between a newlywed playing hide and seek against her in-laws who are part of a so-called gaming dominion and now a bunch of criminals trying to keep a ballerina vampire at bay, these two are onto something with taking crazy concepts and unleashing their best possible outcome. After seeing “Ready or Not” and now “Abigail,” maybe I will go back and give their “Scream” movies a shot. Who knows? I am going to give “Abigail” an 8/10.

“Abigail” is now playing in theaters and is available to rent or buy on VOD.

Thanks for reading this review! My next review is going to be for “Civil War,” which so far, is one of the year’s most talked about films. Why not have one more voice in the conversation? Also, stay tuned for my reviews for “Boy Kills World,” “Challengers,” “The Fall Guy,” “Tarot,” and “IF.” If you want to see these reviews and more from Scene Before, follow the blog either with an email or WordPress account! Also, check out the official Facebook page! I want to know, did you see “Abigail?” What did you think about it? Or, did you see “Ready or Not?” If not, what are you doing with your life? Let me know your thoughts on the movie if you have seen it down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

Lisa Frankenstein (2024): Kathryn Newton Shines in a Forgettable John Hughes-Esque Coming of Age Story with an Edge

Posted on by Jack Drees

“Lisa Frankenstein” is directed by Zelda Williams and this is her feature-length debut. The film stars Kathryn Newton (Ant-Man and the Wasp: Quantumania, Blockers), Cole Sprouse (Five Feet Apart, Riverdale), Liza Soberano (Trese, Make It with You), Henry Eikenberry (Euphoria, The Crowded Room), Joe Chrest (Stranger Things, 21 Jump Street), and Carla Gugino (Night at the Museum, Spy Kids). This film is a coming of age story showing the love connection between a young girl and a corpse who returns from the dead.

When it comes to the February 2024 cinematic lineup, “Lisa Frankenstein” is one of those films that had my attention from the moment I heard about it. While it did not look like the next big thing, the marketing showcased plenty to savor. For starters, the idea is kind of clever. I like the concept on the surface. The vibe the film seems to be going for definitely screamed kooky, but with a pinch of romance. This film was set to release the week before Valentine’s day making it an appropriate watch for such a time.

You also have a writer like Diablo Cody behind the scenes, who has not only written films I have enjoyed in the past like “Tully” and “Juno,” but she also has horror experience with “Jennifer’s Body.” I have only seen a bit of the film, but I didn’t dislike what I saw. I think it would be unfair of me to give a score on “Jennifer’s Body” without having seen the whole thing. That said, I recognize it is not Shakespeare.

This film is also the directorial debut of Zelda Williams, a name that I knew for years thanks to the Internet. But for those who do not know who Zelda Williams is, she is Robin Williams’s daughter. Yes, that one. I am not always the biggest supporter of nepotism, and I say that knowing that the film industry is sometimes notorious for it. But I was curious to see if Williams had a knack for this kind of work. While doing research for this review, I found out Williams has a history of making music videos, so she is not new to this industry. And having seen “Lisa Frankenstein,” that makes complete sense. Everything in this film is nicely framed and looks like something from another world. The lighting throughout the film comes in quite a variety. It’s also easy on the eyes. The color grading has this weird pixelated-like gloss to it that I found rather appealing. When it comes to this film’s aesthetic, it is a job well done. At times it felt intimate. At others it felt roomy. At others it feels downright fantastical. I am not sure if this is a proper tech demo movie for say a big screen TV, but maybe it will be serviceable for a 32 inch model.

Unfortunately though, the movie is almost all looks, with little personality. The script has a couple decent lines, but the vibe delivered between said lines feels inconsistent. I understand that this is a movie that blends the reality of the 1980s with the fantasy of a man coming back to life. But it is not enough to make a decent package. If anything, this film feels more like a mish mash than a proper horror comedy at times. It doesn’t really know what it wants to be. Now I say that knowing that we have gotten a decent number of movies over the years that combine genres. “Everything Everywhere All at Once” is a proper example. But I also recognize that I would probably not have this complaint if there were anything that would make those genre increments stand out. Sure, this movie has a bit of a throwback feel to 1980s John Hughes coming of age movies like “Weird Science” or “Pretty in Pink,” but it is not as good as those. If I watch “Lisa Frankenstein” again, there is less of a chance that I would finish the film and say “That was fun, another round,” compared to me going “You know what’s a good watch right now? A John Hughes movie.”

Kathryn Newton does an excellent job playing a somewhat twisted, but also kind of innocent lead role. There are a lot of layers to unpack with this character as the movie goes along and while I am not sure what roles Newton will take following this picture, this film goes to showcase her range. She can be dark, she can be down to earth, she can be otherworldly. She can do it all. Going back to the film’s aesthetic, Newton’s hair and makeup are on point. I have no idea if “Lisa Frankenstein” is even going to be considered for any makeup awards during next year’s awards season, it is still too early to tell, but I would say in regards to 2024 cinema, “Lisa Frankenstein” is this year’s first notable contender in that category.

The rest of the cast all do a decent job with their roles. Cole Sprouse proves silence is golden with his portrayal of The Creature. Liza Soberano gives a fine showcase of her talent as Taffy. But aside from Newton’s layered protagonist, I think the character that stood out to me the most in the movie is Carla Gugino as Lisa’s stepmother, Janet.

For some young people, it is hard enough to adapt to a new parent or guardian. “Lisa Frankenstein” presents a reality for our protagonist that makes it come off as near impossible for her to adapt to her stepmother. The movie presents a rivalry between these two that is probably more riveting than it needs to be. And a lot of it is in the performances between these two. Of course, the shenanigans our protagonist gets into plays a significant role as well, but nevertheless.

Once again, this film is directed by Zelda Williams, and despite my negative comments for this film, I am not going to tell her to give up on filmmaking. I think she does a fine job with this movie in terms of bringing various sets and talent to life. Some frames from this picture still linger in my mind because of how stylish they come off. But when it comes to characterization and writing, that is where the movie needs work. It has a great concept but it just doesn’t stick the landing. But I also cannot entirely blame her, because she did not write the film. That job belongs to Diablo Cody, who I like as a writer, but this is not her best work.

In the end, “Lisa Frankenstein” has good intentions, but comes off with lackluster execution. Despite some inklings of quality, I will not deny that this movie could have been better. As a horror movie, it is not that eerie or terrifying. As a comedy, it does not have many laughs. When you take these ideas together, the movie kind of falters in both genres. There are good things about it, yes, but those good things do not justify a rewatch. Those good things barely stand out. That is if they do at all. Kathryn Newton’s great. Sure. Carlo Gugino is terrific. Sure. The design across the board almost couldn’t be better. Double sure. But I also think that if you are at the movies right now, there are better options for your choosing. “Lisa Frankenstein” is not offensively bad. But it could be better. How better? Well, judging by my score I think “Lisa Frankenstein” could be better than a 5/10.

“Lisa Frankenstein” is now playing in theaters and is available to rent or buy on VOD.

Thanks for reading this review! My next review is going to be a fun one. It is for the most anticipated film in the history of the world, “Madame Web!” Boy oh boy! I am sure everyone is expecting Scene Before’s first EVER 11/10 score on this one… We shall see. Speaking of film reviews, pretty soon I will be dropping my thoughts on “Drive-Away Dolls,” “Bob Marley: One Love,” and “Dune Part Two.” Stay tuned! If you want to see these reviews and more from Scene Before, follow the blog either with an email or WordPress account! Also, check out the official Facebook page! I want to know, did you see “Lisa Frankenstein?” What did you think about it? Or, what is your favorite Diablo Cody script? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

Ant-Man and the Wasp: Quantumania (2023): Huge in Scope, Tiny in Believability, But Serviceable in Enjoyment

Posted on by Jack Drees

“Ant-Man and the Wasp: Quantumania” is directed by Peyton Reed, who also directed the prior two “Ant-Man” films. This film stars Paul Rudd (Dinner for Schmucks, Ghostbusters: Afterlife), Evangeline Lilly (The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug, Lost), Jonathan Majors (Lovecraft Country, Devotion), Kathryn Newton (Blockers, Freaky), Bill Murray (Caddyshack, Groundhog Day), Michelle Pfeiffer (Hairspray, Batman Returns), and Michael Douglas (Fatal Attraction, Wall Street). This is the third installment to the “Ant-Man” franchise, in addition to being the 31st film in the Marvel Cinematic Universe. In this latest adventure, Scott, Hope, Cassie, Hank, and Janet are taken into the Quantum Realm via a signal device. When they find themselves in this larger than life environment, they must familiarize themselves with its surroundings and survive. One such obstacle is Kang the Conqueror (Majors), who claims he can allow Scott to make up for lost time with his daughter.

“Ant-Man” is not my favorite franchise within the MCU, although I have always found it to be one that has been continuously distinct. For one thing, these films have always come out a couple months after “Avengers” titles. Specifically “Age of Ultron” and “Infinity War.” I have a feeling these films were placed around these release schedules on purpose. Not just for how it fits in the main story, but because of the vibe these movies try to shoot for. In these stories, Ant-Man is not only small in size, but so are the stakes. It is not say there are not any stakes at all, but compared to “Avengers” titles, where practically the whole world is in peril, the main objective is to save a neighborhood, save a community. After “Avengers: Infinity War,” it felt nice to have a more happy go lucky adventure with these characters in “Ant-Man and the Wasp.” I cannot say the movie was great, but there were glimmers of joy to be had. Overall, these movies are not packed with as much doom and gloom as other adventures the MCU has to offer. This time around, it is a little different.

This film, in addition to starting phase 5 and setting the stage what is to come, prominently features Kang the Conqueror, played by Jonathan Majors. This is not Majors’ first outing in the MCU, as he played the “He Who Remains” variant of this character in the Disney+ series “Loki.” Majors did not have a ton to do in the series, as he was only around for the season finale, but he had a particular, non-glorious purpose in the series as he does in this movie. While I cannot say He Who Remains was the major highlight for me in “Loki,” one compliment I can give to Jonathan Majors in “Ant-Man in the Wasp: Quantumania” is that he steals every scene he is in. There was a lot of hype going in regarding his character and I can confirm it is real. Is it the best MCU villain since Thanos? That depends. I will be real with you, the franchise has actually had some decent villains since his appearance, and I may be cheating a bit since it is a progression of a character that was done in another fashion, but I believe “Spider-Man: No Way Home’s” take on Green Goblin was incredible. Possibly the best use of the character on screen. I would say for me, Kang comes close to that level.

Speaking of the film’s stars, let’s talk about Paul Rudd. Paul Rudd has always maintained a certain down to earth feel within his Scott Lang character with each appearance despite going around in tights. I have always liked that. This time around, while still emitting a similar vibe to his previous appearances, Lang starts off this film a bit differently than before. For one thing, the character has evolved with each go, becoming more and more well known. He is a hero, an Avenger, an icon on the streets. In fact, he starts the movie by promoting his new book, “Look Out for the Little Guy.” I like this concept. I think if there is one thing recent Marvel movies have been doing on a consistent basis that fits into the timeline, it is referencing the progression of the universal canon and its characters. It makes sense that Scott Lang, who has probably burnt himself out a little from being a hero, would resort to writing a book about himself and selling it to an audience. It would make for a page turning story and a chance to continue his fame. If there is one thing that is noticeable about the Scott Lang character, and the movie in general, is that it feels like a tale of two stories, or vibes. One vibe is the consistent “so small it feels big” nature of the previous two installments. The other is this “Avengers-level” feel that kicks in somewhere around the Quantum Realm. There is a point in this movie, and Scott Lang as a character is evident of this, where the lighthearted nature I was previously used to seeing kind of takes a backseat. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn’t.

This time around, there is a new performer in the shoes of Cassie Lang, specifically Kathryn Newton. This makes sense. In the MCU timeline, there was a time jump for five years, therefore it makes it a tad harder to believe that Abby Ryder Fortson, who played Cassie in the prior “Ant-Man” installments, is the age this movie suggests she is. I was excited to hear Kathryn Newton, an actress who I adored since “Blockers,” would be playing Cassie this time around. She does a fine job here. She is not the standout of the movie, but I thought she brought her own sense of joy to this role even though this is a more mature version of this character. I adored Fortson’s performance as Cassie in the previous works because she matched the happy go lucky nature of the film. Newton, while definitely another animal, maintains some of those consistencies. This is not the first time a teen Cassie has been in the MCU, Emma Fuhrmann made an appearance as the character in “Avengers: Endgame.” But I nevertheless think Newton did a swell job with this film in particular.

My biggest problem with “Ant-Man and the Wasp” has been a consistent problem in the MCU lately. The effects. Now let me be fair, there are various aspects of the Quantum Realm, which is pretty much all CGI, that look breathtaking There are a lot of visuals in this film that pop. If anything, I would put “Ant-Man and the Wasp” in the same boat as “Thor: Love and Thunder,” which has plenty of visuals to enjoy, but there are also some noticeable duds. Despite what I said about the Quantum Realm looking nice, there are also particular shots where I thought I was looking at a green screen or a StageCraft setup. Despite how I did not end up loving “Avatar: The Way of Water,” my problems with the film never concerned its looks. What made that film so awe-inspiring is how real everything looked despite being almost entirely done through computers, motion capture, or digital effects. Even though I disagree with Martin Scorcese’s opinion that Marvel movies are nothing more than theme parks, I will say that “Ant-Man and the Wasp: Quantumania” is almost one of the more theme park-esque adventures in the MCU because it is mostly about spectacle, but it almost utilizes its gimmick too much to the point where nothing feels authentic.

In reality, as immersed as I felt at times into the whole Quantum Realm universe, which was definitely aided by the IMAX experience, the problem with the Quantum Realm that it occasionally felt like a universe that was created for a screen and not one that felt like I could go into it. The best comparison I could use in this case would be to say that the Quantum Realm universe is similar to the environment explored in “Strange World.” It tries to be bonkers, but it gets caught up in its bonkers nature that nothing feels real. “Everything Everywhere All at Once,” despite being an indescribably weird movie that travels to many different universes, feels more real than “Quantumania” and “Strange World.”

Speaking of things that do not feel real, I want to talk about M.O.D.O.K.. Not for long though because there were certain things about the character I did not know going into this film. One thing I will say about M.O.D.O.K. is the same thing I will say about the CGI. At times it works, at other times, it is taken to such an extreme that it felt out of place. There is a certain reveal in this movie that kind of makes sense, but it also spawned a problem that constantly came up. The character’s design. There is a certain “design” if you will, to this character that is so off-putting that it makes Power Rangers costumes look more realistic. I will not say more. This is all I have to give on the character. It adds to the plate of this film’s occasionally lackluster visual outlook.

But at the same time, this is honestly disappointing to say because the MCU, which has continued to set a competitive bar for its visuals year after year despite having multiple movies come out, is starting to worsen its craft. Part of it is because this universe is focusing way more on quantity than it used to. With so many shows on Disney+ in addition to the movies coming out months apart, the MCU is starting to feel like school instead of a fun franchise. The movies are part of the core classroom curriculum, the television shows are homework, and the shorter form specials like “The Guardians of the Galaxy: Holiday Special” are extra credit. But when it was just a bunch of movies, it felt simple and easy to understand. Now having watched “Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness” for instance, one of the questions I have had before, during, and after watching said movie regards how many people needed to watch “WandaVision” to fully appreciate or understand everything that was going on. As much as I enjoyed certain shows like “WandaVision” and “Ms. Marvel,” if there were a way to get back to a time where the Marvel Cinematic Universe were only CINEMA specific, I would like to find out about it. The quality has suffered while the quantity has grown. If I had to give one solid mark to phase 4, it is that while no movie is perfect, I liked all of them. I am just waiting for the day when I can love each movie I see, or not quickly forget about one as much. I loved “Spider-Man: No Way Home,” I loved “Shang-Chi.” But I would rather forget about a vast majority of the MCU shows. “Ant-Man and the Wasp: Quantumania” is a sign that the MCU still has its wheels on the wagon, but if they continue to pump out as much content as they are making right now, they might need to realign those wheels a bit.

In fact, one of my bigger problems with this film and how it connects to the whole “see this to understand that” thing is one of the post-credits scenes. Which by the way, if you are planning to stay after the movie, there are two. For the record, the post-credit scenes are not awful. In fact, I liked both of them. But the second movie harkens back to my worry with the MCU feeling like school. Because one of the scenes were specific to an upcoming television program. My apprehension, which could go away, I reserve the right to change my mind, is that this teased television event might not be understood as well unless you saw “Ant-Man and the Wasp: Quantumania.” I am not saying this has happened with every recent Marvel project, and I am not saying it will. That said, this movie reinstates my fear that it will.

“Ant-Man and the Wasp: Quantumania” seems to bridge the gap between where the previous saga, the Infinity Saga, culminates, and sets a stage as to where the Multiverse Saga could be going. This does not start the new saga. We are just starting phase 5 and the Multiverse Saga already kicked off in phase 4. Although one of the most poignant notions about “Avengers: Endgame” is the realization of how much people have missed for five years. When Thanos snapped in “Avengers: Infinity War,” he basically initiated a five-year, luck-based, societal imprisonment. Meanwhile, Lang spent a ton of that time stuck in the Quantum Realm. But the film manages to bridge a gap between lost time and the breaking of the multiverse. It is essentially saying we are moving on from one thing to the next. Unfortunately, it also means that a seemingly investing idea about recovering lost time occasionally takes a back seat in the film for more bonkers, seemingly brooding CGI mayhem. I could tell Peyton Reed was intentionally making a film that separates itself from its two predecessors. I am not saying “Ant-Man” is not allowed to be serious. But I am saying that “Ant-Man” works better when it is lighthearted, but still action-packed.

In the end, “Ant-Man and the Wasp: Quantumania” ranks down the middle for me in terms of the “Ant-Man” trilogy. While this is not as good as the first movie, there are more redeeming elements for me in this third movie than the second. It honestly may come down to pure personal tastes. At its core, this is a film that is full of inconsistencies. In one moment, the story is lighthearted. In another, it is dark. In one moment, the effects are stunning. In another, they are crap. In one moment, there is tons of comedy. In another, the humor takes a backseat. The film is not abysmal, but to call it a masterpiece would be generous. If anything, “Ant-Man and the Wasp: Quantumania” reminds me of “Thor: Love and Thunder.” Both films are wildly inconsistent, despite there being a series of moments that land on their feet with ease. In fact, another way both films are similar is their score, because I am going to give “Ant-Man and the Wasp: Quantumania” a 6/10.

I was going to give “Ant-Man and the Wasp: Quantumania” a 7/10 because I had a great time with it in the theater, but the more I thought about it. A lot of my negatives, in addition to the inconsistencies, stood out, and that muddied the waters a bit. It also seems to work more as setup for what is to come as opposed to a self-contained story. This is not to say the story is uninteresting, but its promises seem to stand out more than what is happening right now. Not a bad movie, but not a great movie either. Nevertheless, it might be a good time at the theater, so I would still, by a slight edge, recommend it.

“Ant-Man and the Wasp: Quantumania” is now playing in theaters everywhere. Tickets are available now.

Thanks for reading this review! If you enjoyed this review, why not check out some of my other ones? I have reviewed a ton of superhero fare over the past year including “Black Panther: Wakanda Forever,” “Black Adam,” “DC League of Super-Pets,” and “Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness.” Check those reviews out at your convenience!

Also, be sure to stay tuned for March 5th, because I will be dropping the 5th Annual Jack Awards! This is the latest edition of my painstakingly prepared film awards show, hopefully to brilliant execution. In addition, there will be video content which will also be posted on my YouTube channel. If you would like to vote for Best Picture for this year’s show, you can do that by clicking the link right here! It will take you to a Google form where you can choose one of the ten movies I previously nominated. May the Best Picture win. To check out the official nominations, click here! 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 “Ant-Man and the Wasp: Quantumania?” What did you think about it? Or, which “Ant-Man” movie is your favorite? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

Freaky (2020): A Big Slash of Freaky Fun

Posted on by Jack Drees

“Freaky” is directed by Christopher Landon (Happy Death Day, Paranormal Activity: The Marked Ones) and stars Kathryn Newton (Blockers, Supernatural), Vince Vaughn (Wedding Crashers, The Internship), Katie Finneran (Night of the Living Dead, The Michael J. Fox Show), Celeste O’Conner (Selah and the Spades, Irreplaceable You), Misha Osherovich (The Goldfinch, NOS4A2), and Alan Ruck (Speed, Ferris Bueller’s Day Off). This film is a slasher comedy spin on “Freaky Friday,” the 1972 book written by Mary Rodgers, which was adapted into two movies from Disney. This time around, a high schooler named Millie lives her life as an outcast, and as the trailer claims, if this were a horror movie, she would be one of the first to die. Appropriately, she gets killed by the Blissfield Butcher, a known serial killer. Instead of dying, she ends up in the killer’s body, and they must switch back in 24 hours otherwise their switch will become permeant.

When it comes to “Freaky Friday,” the source material which this movie takes much inspiration from, that is a concept that you can utilize to enormous success. I’ve read the book, I’ve seen the original Disney film (which sucked), and I can only say that body switching provides endless possibilities. So when I saw the trailer for “Freaky” and found out that a killer and its victim switch bodies, needless to say I was in. Plus, I love the two leads and to see them together is a match made in Heaven.

This movie is a mix of “Freaky Friday,” “Friday the 13th,” and “Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle,” specifically if it really emphasized the presence of Jack Black’s character, and it handles all those elements smoothly. The first five minutes of the film are pure horror clichés done well. It’s basically teens making poor decisions, kind of like in that GEICO commercial they now play every Halloween.

“If you’re in a horror movie, you make poor decisions. It’s what you do.”

“Freaky” is a slasher comedy, and I think overall that the movie does a spectacular job at not trying too hard to be one thing. It takes two genres, blends them together, and each element of the recipe matches up to deliver something excellent. And part of this is because I recognize that this is sort of goofy, while still being presentable enough for a theatrical environment. The film comes from Blumhouse, a studio known for making small budget horror movies, and the budget for “Freaky” is around $5 million. Now, if you went on a game show, that’s a good payday. Although when it comes to making movies in Hollywood, that’s basically chump change. This movie, for a $5 million feature, does not look half bad. In fact, I think much of the beauty is owed to director Christopher Landon, cinematographer Laurie Rose, and even editor Ben Baudhuin. There are several shots that line up incredibly well with what comes after it based on what exactly is featured in them. I can only imagine the storyboards for this movie! Everything feels intricate and planned out! Aside from “Tenet,” I don’t think I have seen better editing in a movie this year.

I said before that this movie is partially reminiscent of “Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle.” While it is nowhere near as expensive or bloated with visuals, it nevertheless feels that way. And if you ask me, I think “Freaky” is better than “Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle” and a much more timeless story. It is hard to tell whether “Freaky” will actually stand the test of time, but I do see it becoming a cult classic over the years. This is especially supported by how 2020 is basically a wasteland for entertainment. Yes, we’re watching a lot of TV, but that’s because it’s where we aim our eyes most of the time nowadays! Movies are practically nonexistent! There is a solid chance that movie watchers could find this on cable or Netflix or something and it becomes a Halloween mainstay. “Freaky,” if you ask me, has that potential.

If you ask me, the best part of this movie is Vince Vaughn, not as his character, the Blissfield Butcher, but as Kathryn Newton’s character, Millie, after they switch bodies. Seeing the character’s self-revelation is wildly entertaining. There’s this minor segment of the film where we see Millie groovin’ in a beaver outfit because she’s dressed up as the school mascot. But then we see after the major incident of the film, in order to show that Vince Vaughn is Kathryn Newton’s character, he’s just busting a move like a moron. The icing on the cake to that is showing off whatever this movie’s version of a secret handshake is. Similar to that, when we see Vince Vaughn’s personality move to Kathryn Newton’s body, her reaction, while I would have done it a little differently if I were writing the screenplay, was entertaining to watch. And it also addresses something all guys, and yes, ALL GUYS, YOU KNOW THIS IS TRUE, would do if they were in a girl’s body. One of the first things we see teenage girl Vince Vaughn doing is playing with her boobs. Wait, her boobs? His boobs? What’s the proper identity here? At the same time, we see Kathryn Newton’s character in Vince Vaughn’s body, who claims that urinating while standing ain’t bad.

Although one of my favorite scenes in this movie in terms of comedy is one moment in a discount store where we see Vince Vaughn talking to a key character we see through various portions of the film, I won’t dive too much further into it, but it goes to show that not only that “Freaky” has the scares, but tons of comedy chops. There are moments where I cringed, and I mean that in a good way. This movie, at certain points, is like experiencing life as Marty McFly in 1955 and finding out your mother wants to f*ck you. If you ask me, “Freaky” is no “Back to the Future,” but like “Back to the Future,” there are some truly hypnotizing character moments that rattled my brain like I switched on a vibrate function for it.

By the end of this movie, I just walked out having a good time. The young teens are genuinely funny. Kathryn Newton is killer, literally. Vince Vaughn continues to be legendary. And if there is one thing that I will remember this movie for the most, aside from how it executes its slick concept, it’s the chemistry between each character. I will also not lie when I say that it was sort of satisfying to see Kathryn Newton go from the school outcast to the sadistic “murder Barbie,” as Josh (Misha Osherovich) puts it. Newton is cute, but I can assure you she is not cuddly. Speaking of Josh… WOW. I want to see more from this guy.

I’ve already seen a few projects with Kathryn Newton, so I will not say this about her. Although if I wanted to point out anyone who has a bright future ahead as an actor, that designation would belong to Misha Osherovich. “Freaky” is admittedly the first full-length project I’ve seen him in, and I would certainly not mind seeing more of him. Part of my praise for him may have to do with the writing, as he does have some of my favorite lines in the movie, but I would love to see him as the star of a film one day maybe as someone really nerdy. He has that pitch to him that can align with that demographic. I think Osherovich can play such a character type very well. I would love to see more from this guy, no matter what it is. I think he has chops that we have yet to see. I want more!

In the end, “Freaky” is freakin’ fun. If you are looking for a stellar night out at the movies, this will serve you well. I will admit that horror is one of my weaker genres, therefore I barely dedicate any time to such movies. This was a fun horror flick that was hilarious yet scary. It’s part “Friday the 13th,” part “Jumanji,” part “Freaky Friday,” and all thumbs up! I came to this movie as I enjoy watching Kathryn Newton, but I stayed for Vince Vaughn. Both actors are incredible in this movie and make it worth the price of admission. I’m going to give “Freaky” a 7/10.

By the way, for those of you who remember earlier this year, Universal made a deal with AMC that would allow them to avoid utilizing the 90 day theatrical window. In other words, despite how “Freaky” is playing in theaters, it will not be long before it can be viewed at home. “Freaky” will be available on VOD to watch wherever you want on Tuesday, December 1st! If your local theaters are still closed, if you are not comfortable going to the theater, or if you are just not a fan of the movies, “Freaky” will arrive at home early as part of an observance towards the unusual 17 day theatrical window. I will say, for me, “Freaky” was a hell of a time at the movies, but I will leave the preferred experience up to the individual.

Thanks for reading this review! I don’t have any plans to go to the theater this weekend, although on Tuesday I will be watching Amazon’s new movie “Sound of Metal.” The film is set to hit theaters a few days later, specifically Friday, and will hit Prime Video two weeks after its theatrical debut. I will have my review up as soon as possible. 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, did you see “Freaky?” What did you think about it? Or, did you watch either of the “Freaky Friday” movies? Did you ever read the book? Tell me your thoughts! Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

Pokémon Detective Pikachu (2019): Pokémon GO To the Movies

Posted on by Jack Drees

mv5bndu4mzc3nze5nv5bml5banbnxkftztgwmze1nzi1nzm40._v1_sy1000_cr006741000_al_

“Pokémon Detective Pikachu” is directed by Rob Letterman (Monsters vs. Aliens, Shark Tale) and stars Ryan Reynolds (The Hitman’s Bodyguard, Deadpool), Justice Smith (Paper Towns, Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom), Kathryn Newton (Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri, Blockers), Suki Waterhouse (Assassination Nation, The Bad Batch), Omar Chaparro (How to Be a Latin Lover, Show Dogs), Chris Geere (You’re the Worst, Modern Family), Ken Watanabe (Inception, The Last Samurai), and Bill Nighy (Norm of the North, The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel). This film is based on the video game of the same name and is about a guy who teams up with a Pikachu to solve a mystery involving said guy’s father.

For those of you who don’t know, I really do like video games. In fact, when it comes to video games, if I were to make movies of my own, I’d base them on various video games. Granted, there is a part of me that thinks this vision would ultimately backfire because let’s face it. Video game movies suck. They just do. Even if they prove to be faithful to the source material like in “Warcraft,” it might not be something a person like me would want to watch on a Friday night. In fact, my least favorite movie of all time is based on a video game, specifically “Super Mario Bros..” Naturally, I went into this movie hoping for something. Not necessarily for the best movie ever. In fact, for many movies, those expectations are hard to live up to. I was just hoping that we would see an above average video game movie. Granted, last year’s “Tomb Raider” was rather solid in some places, but the video game movie industry/genre had some ways to go before its first kick-ass project. Granted, I have yet to see various highlights in the industry such as “Mortal Kombat,” “Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time,” and “Silent Hill.” Much like the type of movie itself, I guess I have some ways to go. But I can confirm that after seeing “Pokémon Detective Pikachu,” it was… alright. The genre didn’t really… level up… if you know what I mean.

I have been exposed to various opinions and reviews prior to going to this movie. And a lot of what is being said about this movie, I can agree with. This is a good movie for “Pokémon fans.” It goes into strategies that players may come across in their mind as they play the games, there are references that I imagine will fly over some non-gamers’ heads, but it is not to the point of utter cringe, and all of the CGI Pokémon look very appealing. They have a slightly unrealistic look to them, but that actually works for a movie like this. It’s fantasy-like, they’re not supposed to look like they’re a creature out of a live-action Disney film containing bunches of animals. They’re freaking Pokémon. The games don’t try to present them as realistic, and I thought the style that I have seen in the games made a good transition to their style on film. Although at the same time, this comes from a guy who usually doesn’t play “Pokémon” titles. I never owned a single game in the franchise, and while I did download “Pokémon GO” on my phone when it first came out, I didn’t even use it. I eventually deleted the app and it let it rest for all of eternity. But through various means such as the Internet and friends, I have been exposed to gameplay of various titles.

I have played all of the “Super Smash Bros.” games though! So there is that! *Mumbling* By the way, if you guys have yet to buy a Nintendo Switch, just buy it for “Super Smash Bros.: Ultimate” because it is a freaking masterpiece of a game that I will recommend to everyone and I think you will become a better person in life just for picking up your controller and going to town on it. Cancel all your Friday night plans and drop hundreds of dollars at GameStop just to prepare for a masterpiece of a lifetime. Just do it.

Anyway, back to the review. Let’s talk about this movie’s story. It’s weird. I can buy a city where mankind and Pokémon are equals. I can buy all of the insane creatures this film contains. I can buy a lot of this film’s absurdity. You know what I can also buy? The fact that I didn’t really care about too many characters! When it comes to the Pokémon, they’re fine. I liked pretty much all of them. Ryan Reynolds as Pikachu was a delight. Although at the same time, Reynolds becomes problematic, which is sort of a collision with a perk. As many moviegoers know, Ryan Reynolds is Deadpool. But when I see him as Pikachu, I’m almost comparing the character in my head as a more kid friendly version of Deadpool. Granted, there’s not as much meta humor that Reynolds has to deliver in terms of dialogue, but there’s still plenty of one-liners and funny lines that he manages to utter.

As for the main human in the movie, Tim Goodman, he is kind of stale. A lot of storytelling involving his character happens in the first few minutes of the film, including the mystery of his father, and I ended up not really caring for him. It’s sort of like where I was watching the “Transformers” films where I don’t entirely care about Marky Mark and (insert bangable chick’s name here) and I am mainly watching for the action and everything about the Transformers. I’ll slightly defend Sam Witwicky, partially out of probable bias through nostalgic roots, but still. The movie is called “Transformers,” much like this movie we are talking about has “Pokémon” and yet they kind of make it mainly about the human characters. Granted, I think this movie does a much better job at making it more about Pokémon at various points compared some of Michael Bay’s “Transformers” installments, but this is still an issue that is worth bringing up.

And much like “Transformers,” there is of course… a girl. Granted, they don’t sexualize her, which for a movie like this, wouldn’t have worked in the first place. It’s a movie with a family demographic partially in mind, the target audiences of “Pokémon Detective Pikachu” are not going to their local AMC to watch a porn shoot. That girl by the way is Lucy Stevens played by Kathryn Newton, who I think is a good actress. And she plays her role well in this film. I can’t see anyone else playing her. Too bad the human characters in general just don’t have the same charm as some of the Pokémon. I’m not saying I hated her character, but I had almost no reason to care about her. Although during the climax, I had a reason, but I won’t go into it.

Also, before we get into the “super effective” verdict, I would like to just point out something. Without spoiling the ending, there’s a part of it that kind of took me out of the movie. Remember how I talked about how much I can buy in this film? This ending’s too expensive for me to buy! Granted, the last scene of the film is pretty cool, because it features a particular actor (whose name I won’t reveal), but again, I would prefer savoring the flavor as opposed to spilling milk all over the floor.

In the end, while visually appealing to the point that I can call this movie “Blade Runner” meets “Pokémon,” it fails to impress on all necessary levels. There are various jokes and scenes that fell flat. I started forgetting about some elements of the movie about 24 hours after I saw it. And while this is definitely a serviceable movie for fans that I imagine even non-fans can enjoy, it did not have the oomph factor for me. For me, this is almost a good background noise movie in case there’s nothing else on TV and I am, say, writing a movie review like a moron who has nothing better to do all day. It’s kind of like “The Amazing Spider-Man.” It has great writing that fans and non-fans can latch onto, but it’s missing something. There are many positive factors behind “Pokémon Detective Pikachu,” but it does not change the fact that I would probably be fine if I had to go the rest of my life without needing to watch it again. I’m going to give “Pokémon Detective Pikachu” a 5/10.

Thanks for reading this review! This weekend is the release of “John Wick Chapter 3 – Parabellum,” one of my most highly anticipated movies of the year. I have not gone to any advance screenings of the film, I tried getting into one, but it was full once I checked. And as for my chances of seeing the film on opening weekend? Forget about it. My dad, who probably REALLY wants to see the movie, is busy this weekend. I considered going opening Thursday, but that is the night of the series finale for “The Big Bang Theory,” so I already have plans. Plus, I am going away to Rhode Island for a night on Sunday, and while there are movie theaters in my area, I doubt that will be part of my getaway activities. So the earliest I will see the movie might be Tuesday or Wednesday. As long as I can get together with my father, I can make it happen. But don’t worry, that review is coming. Be sure to follow Scene Before either with an email or WordPress account so you can stay tuned for more great content! I want to know, did you see “Pokémon Detective Pikachu?” What did you think about it? Or, what is your favorite Pokémon? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

Blockers (2018): When Parents Don’t Want Their Kids Gettin’ Cocky

Posted on by Jack Drees

Alright fellow moron followers, it’s that time! We’re gonna talk about sex! And to do that, we’re not just gonna go over my thoughts for the movie “Blockers,” we’re gonna be doing a usual promo. Sex may be fun, hot, and climactic. You know, unless you’re Genevieve and Paul. If you’re Genevieve and Paul, sex is not all fun and games! It’s work! Hard work! No! They’re not f*cking porn stars! They’re in a YouTube series where they’re trying to conceive! Watch them… in “What the IVF?!”

“What the IVF?” is an all new series on YouTube that goes over one couple’s long journey to conception. Watch Genevieve and Paul as they deal with various struggles and small victories! As time passes, they realize, them becoming parents will only become a reality if they push themselves to the limit instead of just having sex and having a natural procreation method. Not to mention, getting injected with tons of needles. You can find the latest videos from Genevieve and Paul on the “WTIVF?” YouTube channel. Also be sure to hit the notification bell and subscribe for all new content! Their latest entry to the series involves a fertility appointment, and things just don’t go according to plan. If YouTube doesn’t satisfy you, check out all the other “WTIVF?” social media profiles and the series’s own website. All links are down below, tell em Jack Drees sent ya, and now let’s continue getting sexy!

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/

mv5bmje0odiznjkzml5bml5banbnxkftztgwodq3mzu4ndm-_v1_sy1000_sx632_al_

“Blockers,” or C*ckblockers, as the promotional material implies, is directed by Kay Cannon and stars John Cena (Trainwreck, The Wall), Leslie Mann (Knocked Up, This Is 40), and Ike Barinholtz (Suicide Squad, Neighbors) as three parents who get together who try to stop their daughters from losing their virginities on prom night. Basically if you watch the movie, take the concept for “American Pie,” add in some elements of modern-day s*it in there, change the gender of the teens in a pact to get laid, and make the parents bigger parts of the story, and you get “Blockers.”

This movie is the directorial debut of Kay Cannon, who is mainly known as a writer and producer when it comes to her work in Hollywood. Cannon has written all three “Pitch Perfect” films, and produced the two sequels. I only saw the first one, I thought it was one of the worst comedies I’ve ever seen, even though a number of people seem to like it, but it certainly kept me from seeing the next two movies. Cannon also wrote several episodes of “New Girl,” which honestly, I need to still watch! They have reruns now, so I have a good opportunity on my hands. As I went into “Blockers,” I didn’t expect much, and my low expectations had partially to do with Kay Cannon, who I imagine, is a rather nice woman, but as far as I’m concerned, I didn’t like her s*itty movie from about six years ago. But hey, if were sitting in a chair in a coffee shop, having a coffee with her, I wouldn’t feel like I was tied to that chair. How someone is as a writer and someone is as a person are two completely different ideas! And luckily, in terms of how this movie was not only from the perspective of director Kay Cannon, but also the perspective of writers Brian and Jim Kehoe, it was so much better than it deserved to be! Seriously, from some of the advertising, I was somewhat convinced that this movie would be mediocre at best, but I walked out thinking to myself that I watched a movie where “American Pie” and “Revenge of the Nerds” had a lovechild! Is this movie a masterpiece? Heck no! But not only did I have a fun time, part of me feels that this movie goes over some very important themes. But before we get into why I’m craving this movie like ice cream, let’s dive into negatives.

First off, this movie has a ton of points where I nitpicked the hell out of it. I won’t go into extreme detail because it seems rather spoilery, but he biggest standout to me is when Ike Barinholtz’s character said he’s never watched anyone have sex before. My first thought after hearing that line was, “You’re a grown man who has impregnated someone, and raised a kid.” There’s not one point in your life where you rented something from the adult video store? I don’t know, That’s how he comes off to me. The more I thought about it, maybe he was just referring to in-person sex, but it doesn’t change how that original thought popped into my mind. Another thing I sort of didn’t like, is one joke that kind of makes fun of “Fast & Furious” and Vin Diesel. While it was somewhat executed well, audiences have seen a joke similar joke to that almost three years ago now in “Vacation.” Granted, that movie from what I heard was trash, but having promotional material, I imagine some people might watch this movie, witness this joke play out, and view it as perhaps less funny than if it was had “Vacation” never happened. I remember witnessing other various nitpicks, but I’ll be real with you, I can’t exactly recall them off the top of my head. It just goes to show how many positives there are in this movie compared to negatives.

Let’s talk about the three parents in this movie. You have the recently mentioned Ike Barinholtz who plays Hunter, whose daughter goes by the name of Sam, played by Gideon Adlon (The Real O’Neals, Z Nation). Hunter used to be married, but after reveals of him cheating on his wife, divorce happened. Barinholtz did a great job playing a very hyperactive, overenthusiastic, and somewhat aware dad. And by somewhat aware, I mean in terms of how teens communicate. This is something that the movie dives deep into. When the other two parents were trying to decipher whatever it was the teens were trying to say based on what was being typed out and shown on an accidentally left open laptop, Hunter was basically helping the two parents out with knowledge. To add some hilarity to the mix, Hunter treated the text reading like a puzzle, and some lines given in context to that were nothing short of lovable. I was totally able to buy him as a single parent and his connection with his daughter, especially towards the end of the film, was believable and charming.

Speaking of divorced parents, you’ve also got Leslie Mann’s character of Lisa. She is portrayed as this somewhat kick-ass, caring, and memory-sharing mother. She gave birth to a daughter named Julie played by Kathryn Newton (Paranormal Activity, Lady Bird), and their chemistry was totally believable. Mann’s character definitely delivers a fine performance of a parent who is somewhat concerned about the future of her child, and when it comes to overall concern, Lisa shines more than any other character.

Now we have an interesting character, and when I say that, I mean in terms of who plays him, not so much of how he’s laid out in terms of overall characterization. We’re about to talk about a little someone in this movie.

AND HIS NAME IS JOHN CENA!

How is John Cena in this movie? I’ll be completely honest with you, I don’t know. I couldn’t see him. He wasn’t anywhere in sight.

OK, I saw him.

John Cena plays the character of Mitchell, and he’s basically this overprotective father. His daughter goes by the name of Kayla, who in the movie is played by Geraldine Viswanathan. Out of each chemistry between each main parent to their daughter, this one was believable as well, but if I had to choose the one that is the least believable, I’d pick this one for now. Here’s why. I’ve done some research regarding this movie. John Cena is white, and he was born in West Newbury, Massachusetts. You’ve got Mitchell’s wife, Marcie, played by Sarayu Blue. She was born in Madison, Wisconsin, and she kind of looks like her family has an Indian origin. As for their daughter, the girl who plays her is from Australia. She might look like a mixed race child, but something feels off. Again, I’ll mention, most of my problems in this movie are nitpicks. John Cena though gives a great interpretation of a father and in some ways, reminds me of my own father a little bit.

Moving away from mature people, let’s move onto the movie’s three main teenagers. As you can see in the image above, they’re standing along with three guys, all of which you can probably guess are their prom dates. The three girls, Kayla, Julie, and Sam, have great chemistry and I buy them as best friends and dates to their boys. I’ll also have you keep in mind that part of that great chemistry may have resulted from the very thing that happened at the beginning of the movie. The film starts off with a montage in 2005, when the girls meet in kindergarten, otherwise known one of those times when you realize your life is about to go through a downward spiral of crap. The montage itself was sweet, effective, and illustrates the point that these girls are best friends maybe without having to make you question it. Their setup to actually plan on simultaneously declare their quest for virginity loss, might be a tad bit rushed, but you could also make the argument that they’re teenagers and teenagers often rush into things and I can totally get that. Maybe, and I’m not being sexist here, I would have believed this if the girls were actually boys. Because in real life, people usually think of boys talking more about sex and losing their virginity than girls do. In fact, this movie an interesting topic that I often think about in relation to that, which we’ll get to in a bit. But in all seriousness, girls, after seeing this movie, I want to know, would you say that from experience or personal thought that girls talk about sex and stuff like that as much as guys? Maybe in a positive light? I seriously want to know because this movie is honestly just making me think and I kind of want some experience or two cents from someone who would apply in the realm I’m referring to.

By the way, the girls’ dates were all pretty cool to watch here, but my favorite teenage boy in the movie has to be Kayla’s date, Connor. He’s played by Miles Robbins (The X-Files, Mozart in the Jungle) who not only does a great job with the character, but I also have to give kudos to the writers. The movie sets up Connor as someone who Kayla likes, but not as someone Kayla’s father likes. Granted, in some ways, it almost makes her father look like a dick, but it didn’t really take too much away from the movie. Listen to me, imagine if I were taking some girl to prom, I pop into her house, and the girl’s father looks at me and I have the hairstyle Connor has, there’s gonna be some s*it going down soon. I don’t think there’s anything wrong with it, but I’m not Kayla’s father.

Now let’s dive into this movie a little bit deeper and talk about how it tackles some issues regarding teens, parents, those kinds of people. You have many movies out there that might as well be quests to losing one’s virginity. Movies like “Porky’s,” “American Pie,” and f*ck, I’ll say it, “The 40-Year-Old Virgin.” Out of these movies, I’ve only seen “Porky’s” and “American Pie.” From what I’ve seen, I wouldn’t say they’re terrific. “Porky’s” almost seems like a good background movie in some cases, and “American Pie” was enjoyable, but I didn’t really connect to any specific character. Maybe it takes a couple watches, but I will admit, I didn’t enjoy that movie as much as I thought I would. Also, when it comes to these “virginity loss quest” movies, they’re usually from a male perspective. I will bring up that “Blockers” has all male writers, but the director for this movie was a female. To me, this brought an interesting balance in terms of what both genders thought of teenagers and sex.

When it comes to the parents, they’re obviously worried. John Cena comes off as very overprotective, not just because her daughter’s virginity is going to be taken, but perhaps even because it’s going to be taken by a guy whose hair probably doesn’t even belong in this world. Hey! I never said that! I’m not John Cena! Connor seems like a nice guy who knows that he wants his first time to be special, but hey, parents will be parents.

Leslie Mann is going through a bunch of worries when it comes to her daughter. She’s going to college soon and the mother is concerned of losing the kid she raised forever and ever. She wants her daughter to go to a local college and stay near her mother, but this girl wants to go to UCLA, and that’s just an upset to her. Oh yeah, and her daughter’s on a virginity loss quest, don’t forget about that! By the way, her daughter is technically the one to jumpstart this whole quest!

Ike Barinholtz, as mentioned, doesn’t even live with his daughter. Like Leslie Mann’s character, he’s divorced, but he lives alone without a child. And when it comes to his daughter, not only is he concerned about her being in this sex pact. He’s worried about her sexuality. Sam, the daughter of Ike Barinholtz, is gay. She’s going out with a boy. We actually see her worried about this and have a desire towards a certain girl later, but Ike’s character doesn’t have that knowledge.

This movie as a whole dives really deep into a ton of the main characters and unleashes little figments of their personality. It’s a sex comedy that doesn’t feel like a comedy where sex is bound to happen and it’s really all you think about. It’s almost more like “Revenge of the Nerds” in some ways because that’s a sex comedy, but it also dives deep into the characters and their own little individualistic traits to get you to care about them. There’s not many people who feel like they are just written on a page or cookie-cutter. This feels like a vision. Sure, it has that typical studio comedy feel, and it is complete with tons of Apple product placement, but the characters in this movie all have a chance to shine.

I will also admit, I was watching this film alongside my mother, and I was wondering how awkward it would be for the two of us. For one thing, I was not expecting much out of this movie, but also another thing is that I’m eighteen years old. I gotta say this movie came out at what might be a proper time for me. Relying on numbers from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the average age for one to lose their virginity according to them is 17.1 (both males and females). Sex is something my mother and I don’t talk about, and why would we talk about it? What… benefit… is there to life… of having a sex-related conversation between a parent and a child? It’s gonna do nothing except make one of us want to exit the room! My mother actually reads this blog, and I’m trying to get inside her mind. What if there’s one day she finds out about me having sex? Sure, maybe when I’m an adult maybe that’s natural. OK, well, I’m technically an adult at this point, but certain members of society would probably still refer to me as a child or teenager. I’m willing to bet a number of adults know that teens, especially ones in my gender, think about sex all the time, but they always see us doing it as dangerous or horrifying. As a teen, I get why, but I feel like that no matter what gender the characters are, whether it’s the kids I’m talking about or the parents, this movie does a fantastic job of not only highlighting the thoughts of the young and the old when it comes to teen sex, but it also seems to add a nice touch by not choosing a side in this debate and calling one right or wrong. This feels like a film, not propaganda. I don’t know if it will open much discussion between kids/teens and parents about sexual activity, but maybe it will develop some along those lines with maybe close friends.

In the end, I honestly couldn’t have gotten more of a surprise from “Blockers” than I already have. “Blockers” feels like one of those movies that we as a society didn’t really deserve, but someone was nice enough to let us have it. I’d love to thank Kay Cannon for directing the hell out of this, and I’m sorry that I called your other movie a piece of crap. I’m gonna give “Blockers” a 7/10. Thanks for reading this review! Next week I have a week off from school, giving me more opportunities to go to the theater and see something. Maybe I’ll go see “Rampage,” “Pacific Rim: Uprising,” “A Quiet Place,” “Isle of Dogs,” we’ll have to find out! Also, be sure to stay tuned for my review for “Mission: Impossible II” which will be up by the end of the month! Stay tuned for more great content! I want to know, what did you think of “Blockers” if you saw it? Or, what is your favorite sex comedy? Me personally, I gotta go with “Risky Business.” It feels natural, the characters are great, and the music is awesome! Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!