Maze Runner: The Scorch Trials

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

Posted on by SceneBefore

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/

Advertisement

Maze Runner: The Death Cure (2018): The Continuation of Teen Angst, Starring Dylan O’Brien- PART 3, To Be Rebooted Once Hollywood Runs Out of Young Adult Dystopian Books To Base Movies On, Still Better Than Twilight

Posted on by SceneBefore

Before we begin my review for “Maze Runner: The Death Cure,” I wanted to give a shoutout to someone I know. This person I’m talking about just created an account here on WordPress. She’s a good companion of mine, who goes by the name of Millie. This companion just initiated an all new blog by the name of “Movie Reviews and More!”. The overall intention of “Movie Reviews and More” is to provide movie reviews, rumors related to the entertainment industry, and just talk about movies regardless of whether or not they’ve been released. Millie began her blogging journey days prior to the publication of this post you’re reading as of this moment. If you could do her a favor by checking out her blog and following her, that would be much appreciated. Now that we have that out of the way, let’s start my review!

MOVIE REVIEWS AND MORE!: https://moviereviewsandmore780585661.wordpress.com/

“Maze Runner: The Death Cure” is directed by Wes Ball, the director of the previous two “Maze Runner” movies, and stars Dylan O’Brien (American Assassin, Teen Wolf), Ki Hong Lee (The Nine Lives of Chloe King, Wish Upon), Kaya Scodelario (Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Men Tell No Tales, The Truth About Emanuel), Thomas Brodie-Sangster (Love Actually, Nanny McPhee), Dexter Darden (Geography Club, Joyful Noise), Giancarlo Esposito (Breaking Bad, Once Upon a Time), and Rosa Salazar (Insurgent, Parenthood). This film is being advertised as the final “Maze Runner” installment, and in this one, Thomas goes on a mission to find a cure for a disease that’s spreading all over civilization.

It hasn’t been until recently that I watched the prior two “Maze Runner” installments. After watching both from beginning to end, I have to say I enjoyed the first one, but the second one felt like Melatonin in the form of moving images, which is another way of saying the second movie made me almost fall asleep at times. Going into the third film, I didn’t have truly high expectations. The movie had a low score on Rotten Tomatoes, not to mention a January release date. Let’s face it. Movies+January=Begging for mercy. It’s simple math! It’s still January as I’m writing this and I’ll have you know that this is the first 2018 release I’m focusing on. There’s a saying known as “worst for first,” although I can tell you right now that’s not true because last year I saw “The Emoji Movie” and that was the twentieth movie I’ve seen released that year. Depending on what happens in 2018, I don’t think that’s going to be the case here either, because “Maze Runner: The Death Cure” surprised me in terms of its positivity. As I walked into the theater to watch this movie, not to mention, prior to even going there, I had one thought to myself. I thought, “Please be better than the second movie!” Not only did I get a film that’s better than the second movie, to me it has around the same praise I have for the first movie. If you read my review for the first movie, you’d already know that I’m not saying this movie’s perfect. We’ll get to that, but let’s go on by stating some positives.

This movie was directed by Wes Ball, and as mentioned, he directed both the first and second installments to this series. The fact that he’s come back to direct this third movie is just unbelievable, and I mean that in a good way. Although then again you have Michael Bay coming back to direct every single “Transformers” film and look how those have turned out. I say this is positively unbelievable because you have several films out now based on young adult adaptations. These young adult adaptations have come from books that have gotten multiple installments. The “Maze Runner” franchise is one example of that. Let’s compare this statistic with other similar films. As for “Twilight,” every single movie in the franchise has a different director making the picture. Well, that is if “Breaking Dawn” wasn’t split into two parts so in that case, the same guy directed both of those movies. “The Hunger Games” started off with direction from Gary Ross, and every film after that was directed by Francis Lawrence. “Divergent” was directed by Neil Burger, but that didn’t last because the next two films in the franchise were to be directed by Robert Schwentke. “Fifty Shades of Grey,” YES, THIS COUNTS, because it’s based on “Twilight” fanfiction, even though its target demographic is middle-aged women, was directed by Sam Taylor-Johnson. Then once that movie came out, it had two more scheduled to be released. “Fifty Shades Darker,” the sequel to “Fifty Shades of Grey,” was directed by James Foley, who also directed “Fifty Shades Freed,” which will, unfortunately, be out soon. It just goes to show that with these young adult adaptations and the sole young adult adaptation wannabe, nobody can commit to these movies. With the existence of “Maze Runner” and Wes Ball, we have an exception on our hands. Not only did he direct these movies just for the sake of having a job, he actually tried on all three. He failed on the second one despite looking nice at times, but he tried on all of them. Ball now has a trilogy to look back on as an accomplishment. As for this film, Ball once again delivers by executing solid performances out of the actors along with neat location choices. According to IMDb, the movie was done in South Africa, and it fit the post-apocalyptic vibe quite well. A lot of the cinematography done by Gyula Pados, who also did the cinematography for the previous “Maze Runner” installment, was very proper and it I could easily tell what was going on. So for overall direction, this movie’s solid.

Moving onto the actors, let’s talk about Dylan O’Brien. After seeing Dylan O’Brien in this movie and hearing a little more about him, I have massive respect for him. While all of the actors here commit to their roles, I have to say that O’Brien did an exceptional job committing to the one for which he was responsible. In 2016, it was reported that O’Brien was injured on set while filming “The Death Cure,” suspending production indefinitely. Turns out the injury came from a car making contact with him. Production resumed about a year after the injury happened. The fact is, they got it done. O’Brien survived, everyone’s fine, and the movie was made. Having said that, I want to write my own movies, I might even want to direct them, and I’ve had an idea for one for some time and I’ve often thought to myself for this one I’m thinking of in particular, Dylan O’Brien would be the lead role. Now that I’ve seen O’Brien and what he’s done as far as this movie goes, I want to work with him even more. O’Brien plays the character of Thomas once again, and he’s definitely got some charisma here, much like some other characters.

Another notably fine character is Newt, played by Thomas Brodie-Sangster. I thought Brodie-Sangster’s performance was solid and the way his character was written, along with Dylan O’Brien’s, brought out some great chemistry between the two. I’d probably have to watch the other two movies again, but I don’t think I felt as much of a connection to him as I did here. Maybe it’s because this is the last installment, maybe it’s because I watched this in a theater, not to mention an IMAX theater, I don’t know, but the point is, I like Newt here.

Another character worth talking about is Kaya Scodelario’s character of Teresa. In this movie, we first see her on the side of WCKD, which if can’t tell by what that acronym sounds like, is this franchise’s evil organization. I’m not gonna go into supreme detail about Teresa, but just about every single action from this character was something I was able to believe.

This movie, to me, was full of surprises, and I think I made that somewhat clear. Another surprise that caught my attention was that I actually cared about Rosa Salazar’s character of Brenda. She was introduced in “The Scorch Trials” as a character I didn’t really have much of a connection towards and since the movie itself was a near-snoozefest, that pretty much explains my thoughts towards her character. Brenda actually had a standout scene to me at one point during this movie. She’s driving a bus, and she has to escape, and the way she attempts to escape is pretty awesome. Actually, you know what, I take that back. It was aMAZEing.

As mentioned, this movie isn’t flawless, and as a movie reviewing moron, I gotta be fair here. Going into this film, I will have you know that I was actually at a restaurant beforehand having breakfast. My sister, who wasn’t going to see the movie, was receiving explanation from my father as to what the movie we were going to see was like. He described it as a combination of “The Hunger Games” and “Resident Evil,” at least that’s what my mind suggests. As for that second insertion, I’m not talking about the video games, he’s never played those. He’s talking about the movie adaptations. I haven’t seen one of those films, but I heard they’re abysmal, but having heard various things about them, I think I can make that connection now. The “Resident Evil” movies have a number of moments where you basically have to suspend your disbelief like crazy. This movie has that too, you just wonder how some of the stuff in this film actually happens. It’s not “Batman & Robin” bad, but it’s still a thing that occurs. One more issue I had was the first part of the film. I honestly thought it was a tad draggy but it quickly recovered as the movie went on.

If this movie, at least in my book, could trim up those issues, it might just be the best “Maze Runner” movie yet. Not only that, but it might make this the most solid based on dystopian young adult adaptation movie series I’ve seen to date. In my rankings, it’s tied with “Divergent,” but “The Maze Runner” is actually better because it could actually finish its own story. Based on what I’m saying about “The Scorch Trials,” that’s not really saying all that much. Others would disagree with me, and I’m not lying. Germain Lussier from io9 Reviews made an article titled “The Death Cure Doesn’t Give The Maze Runner the Ending It Deserves.” Not only that, but David Sims from The Atlantic calls this movie a “grim, half-hearted farewell.” I never read the “Maze Runner” books, so maybe my opinion is little different than others. Although Sims never says whether or not he’s read the books so that fact stands here. Nevertheless, maybe I’d like this movie a little less if I have actually read the books, but only time will tell. I might not ever read the books. This isn’t my first time saying this, but movies are more fun! By the way, sorry, books.

In the end, I was rather satisfied with “Maze Runner: The Death Cure.” Wes Ball once again proves to be an effective director who I personally think should get more work in the realm of action movies. Dylan O’Brien nails yet another performance as the lead character of Thomas. I thought a lot of the characters were great. The sound editing was a joy. The set pieces were amazing as well. Also, one of the best parts about all of this, we have a solid January movie! Whether or not this third installment is better than the second one requires no contest. As for being better than the first one, that’s a hard judgment to make, it could be slightly better, slightly worse, or equal. With that being said, I’m going to give “Maze Runner: The Death Cure” a 7/10. One last thing I’m wondering about this movie is this. Why do so many franchises like this have a fetish for needles? Just put this side by side with “The Hunger Games,” “The Giver,” and “Divergent” to see what I mean! Oh yeah, and even more hilarious, “The Hunger Games” has a character called Nessie Needle! Thanks for reading this review, be sure to check out my friend’s blog, and also be sure to check out my past “Maze Runner” reviews. I have reviews for “The Maze Runner” and “Maze Runner: The Scorch Trials,” so take a look at those if you’re interested. Also, as for upcoming content, I’m not sure what I’ll see next. Maybe “The Commuter” or “12 Strong” will be my next review. We’ll find out when time allows it. Stay tuned for more great content! I want to know, did you see “Maze Runner: The Death Cure?” What are your thoughts? What is your favorite “Maze Runner” installment in the movie trilogy? What is your favorite “Maze Runner” book? How would you rank either saga? Do you think either the books or movies are better? 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 Scorch Trials (2015): The Continuation of Teen Angst, Starring Dylan O’Brien- PART 2, To Be Concluded In Almost 2.5 Years. Also, This is WCKD Boring

Posted on by SceneBefore

Hey everyone, Jack Drees here! Last week I reviewed “The Maze Runner,” and I’m letting you know about this because one, it feels appropriate, and two, just about nobody saw it. Sure, people saw “The Maze Runner” as in they saw the movie, but nobody clicked on my review. I’ll have a link down below to my review for “The Maze Runner,” and if you’re lucky enough, you’ll be one of the first people to check it out! This week, I’m going to be following up on my “Maze Runner” review I did last week and I’ll be showing you all my thoughts on “Maze Runner: The Scorch Trials,” as suggested in the title of this post. A title so stupid that it’s nearly a copypaste of the title to my first “Maze Runner” review, but with more s*it sprinkled into it. Enough with that, let’s start the review!

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

mv5bmje3mdu2nzqyml5bml5banbnxkftztgwmzqxmdq3nte-_v1_sy1000_sx675_al_

“Maze Runner: The Scorch Trials” is directed by Wes Ball, who also directed the first “Maze Runner” installment, and stars Dylan O’Brien (The Internship, Teen Wolf), Kaya Scodelario (Now Is Good, The Truth About Emanuel), and Thomas Brodie-Sangster (Love, Actually, Phineas and Ferb) and is the sequel to “The Maze Runner,” which came out one year prior to this installment, and is based on a popular teen angst book by James Dashner. Now that the Gladers we know from the first movie are out of the maze, they have to deal with a new landscape, with new obstacles. And this landscape looks like it’s seen some s*it.

When it comes to the first “Maze Runner,” I really enjoyed the movie for what it was. It’s a lighthearted teen angst movie with a bunch of folks trapped in a maze, trying to get out. Several moments had me glued to the screen, and now that these people are out of the maze, the question is, what’s next? This movie goes into that. In honest truth, I can barely tell you what comes next, because this movie. Was. Boring as f*ck! The first “Maze Runner” was engaging and entertaining, and while the first forty minutes of this thing is quite the same way, although maybe not as much, it just didn’t work out in the end. I actually saw ads for this film in 2015, and I haven’t seen the first installment to this series yet, but I knew about it and everything. Compared to the first film, this looked uninspired, and looked like it was there to have something happen as filler before the last film. I’m not entirely against the young adult genre, there is some good stuff that has come out of it. Although this is one major example of the bad. While not as intolerable as “The Fifth Wave,” I certainly can’t say this had a likable feel to it.

Don’t get me wrong, the vibe that’s present for the movie kind of works. Most of it is in a desolate landscape and given the music, story, not to leave out the motivations and attitudes of the characters, I’d say everything was logical. Although as far as the movie’s progression goes, that’s where the weaknesses start to pour in. This movie honestly, as I watched it, felt like a cash-in. I don’t know how much planning went into this particular installment, nor do I know how much planning went into writing the book for it, but if the book was lazy, the laziness of this movie therefore wouldn’t be all that surprising. I mean, I know the sequel was planned because of the semi-cliffhanger ending the first film gave, but it doesn’t change how poor the execution here was.

The first forty minutes, as mentioned, were entertaining to me. In fact, you know how this movie is called “The Scorch Trials?” Basically the Scorch is what the desolate landscape is called. Everything that happens prior to getting towards the scorch scenes was the entertaining chunk of the movie. As I got to the Scorch portion of the film, I wanted to take out my phone and do something on there instead of watch the movie. I assure you whatever it was I did on my phone, was ten times as fun as the movie. You might as well say that as we got to the scorch scenes, my mind was instantly “scorched” by Dullivan, the god of boredom. Even one or two fast paced chase scenes couldn’t keep me intrigued. I tried my best not to fall asleep, and while I succeeded, I can’t say I feel like I benefited from this experience.

I was however engaged by the ending. While part of it was predictable, I was constantly thinking to myself, when was this s*it going to conclude? I wanted to do something that would have been worth my time. I won’t go into much detail, but it was a big turnaround for my interest towards the film. I got engaged for a moment, but it wasn’t enough for me to say this film is competent.

This film once again stars Dylan O’Brien, or for this movie to make sense, Dullen O’Brien. He’s not a bad actor and once again, I buy him as this teenager. He does a fine job playing Thomas and the transition from one movie to the next was very fluid. During the first forty minutes, I was able to root for this guy not to mention with those alongside him. Even though this movie is wicked boring. Whoops! Sorry, I meant, WCKD boring.

I can’t even talk about this movie anymore! I honestly want to have more to say, but in the long run, I have to stop here! I’ve been running this maze too long and it’s time to collapse in fetal position! If you think that I’m lazy for not going on, let me just remind you that this movie felt lazy so it all comes together! So yeah, this movie sucked, it was boring, and that’s pretty much the gist of it. Badabing badabang badaboom.

Guys, if you can’t tell by how much I wanted to get this review off my belt, I hated this movie. “Maze Runner: The Scorch Trials” is yet another flop in the young adult genre and I just hope that when it comes to “The Death Cure,” I don’t have a similar experience. When it comes to teen angst movies, this may not be the most horrible of every single one I watched, but it might be the most boring. I only described one character! You know why I did that? Because this movie f*cking sucks and I hate talking about it! Part of me doesn’t even want to rate it! But rules are rules, I gotta rate this bitch. I’m gonna give “Maze Runner: The Scorch Trials” a 3/10. Once again, if you watch this movie, chances are you won’t be totally bored through the whole thing, but there’s barely any good parts in it. I have never read the “Scorch Trials” book, but I imagine it’s better than this junk. Thanks for reading perhaps one of my most intentionally lazy reviews ever despite having a descriptive title. I barely survived the horrendous killer maze that was “Maze Runner: The Scorch Trials,” and in the end, that’s what really matters. This weekend, I hope to see “Maze Runner: The Death Cure” and I just hope for humanity that it’s better than this movie, or at the very least, just a good movie. Although this is a January film and if you know how movies are, January is a s*itshow. Stay tuned for that review and more great content! I want to know, did you see “Maze Runner: The Scorch Trials?” What did you think about it? Did you read the book? What did you think about that? How would you compare the two pieces of work alongside each other? Let me know in the comments! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

The Maze Runner (2014): The Continuation of Teen Angst, Starring Dylan O’Brien

Posted on by SceneBefore

Hey everyone, Jack Drees here! In 2014, one movie I kind of wanted to see was “The Maze Runner,” unfortunately, I never got around to watching it. Although a few months ago I was buying a number of Blu-rays at one of my personal favorite shops around the mall, AKA Newbury Comics, and I managed to come across “The Maze Runner” and “Maze Runner: The Scorch Trials. I still went on for months after buying them without watching either one of the films. That however, has changed. On January 26th, “Maze Runner: The Death Cure” will hit theaters. Appropriately, I felt I should review the first “Maze Runner” and the second “Maze Runner.” Since I’m a chronological type of person, we’re gonna kick this series off by talking about the first “Maze Runner.” Without further ado, let’s start the review.

mv5bmjuynta3mtaym15bml5banbnxkftztgwoteymtkymje-_v1_

“The Maze Runner” is directed by Wes Ball who has mainly done work in the film industry in the realms of art and visual effects. Aside from a few short films, this is pretty much the guy’s directorial debut. This movie stars Dylan O’Brien (Teen Wolf, The Internship), Kaya Scoldelario (Now Is Good, The Truth About Emanuel), and Will Poulter (We’re the Millers, Son of Rambow). “The Maze Runner” is about a youngish boy who is brought into this green, limited realm. He meets a group of men who tries to get him to adapt to the way things are. However, there is a way out (sort of). There is a maze separating this realm from the outside world. “Runners” are searching inside it every day, trying to find a way out. It’s at a point when this youngish boy learns about all of this, when he desires to join the runners.

This movie came out in 2014, it’s based on a book by James Dashner, and one thing I noticed about not only the 2010s decade, but perhaps slightly before this particular decade began, is how many popular young adult teen angst novels were being adapted into movies. Some examples include “Twilight,” “The Hunger Games,” “Harry Potter,” “Percy Jackson,” “The Chronicles of Narnia,” etc. I’ve seen a number of these, and no, “Twilight” wasn’t one of them. Thank goodness! While some of these young adult novels might fall under say the romance or fantasy genres, one concept that has applied a lot to recently popularized young adult books is the sci-fi dystopian element. This has been extremely evident with the worldwide phenomenon known as “The Hunger Games.”

I’ll be honest with you, I read the first “Hunger Games” book in the summer of 2012, and I don’t even recall making it a quarter of the way through the whole thing. I watched the movie, and while it wasn’t bad the first time watching it, the film got worse over more watches and the more I thought about it. The second film’s good, but I’ve yet to see “Mockingjay” parts 1 & 2, because as of now, I no desire to pay for two parts.

There’s a series that relates to this called “Divergent,” and I haven’t read the books for that. I enjoyed the first movie, I thought the second one was slightly better, but the third one sucked. As for the third movie, this is yet another case of splitting a book into two parts, and I’m wondering if that’s partially why the movie didn’t do well in terms of reactions and returns at the box office. Oh yeah, also don’t forget the rather dull story, annoying characters, and crappy CGI. One of the biggest problems I have with the movies however is that Tris keeps changing her hair. What’s up with that?!

People often consider “Divergent” a ripoff of “The Hunger Games,” but that’s simply not true. Both have corrupt governments and are futuristic, but just tinker around with them a little bit and you’ll see the differences underneath. “The Hunger Games” is an event that involves fighting to the death whereas “Divergent” is simply about a girl in a certain class that society doesn’t like. As for “The Maze Runner,” it’s got some similarities to both “The Hunger Games” and “Divergent.” However, as far as the book goes, “The Maze Runner” came out before “Divergent,” so you can technically say “Divergent” has similarities to “The Maze Runner” and “The Hunger Games.” All three books involve a post-apocalyptic world with a nasty regime, there’s a teen who has to fight against the overlords, and they’re all tested. The similarities are significant in all three films. However, I think out of “The Hunger Games,” “Divergent,” and “The Maze Runner,” I have to say I think “The Maze Runner” may be the best film of the three. This doesn’t say much about the book, but as a film, this one likely reigns supreme.

What I just said doesn’t mean “The Maze Runner” is a masterpiece, I just think it’s an enjoyable flick that could help you pass the time for a couple of hours. Since I have that out of the way, let’s get into some problems.

Pacing wise, this movie is mostly competent, you can follow everything quite well, and your eyes will be stuck to the screen for a long time.  However, as the movie gets towards the end, I have to say that there’s a point, specifically when a screen comes on and everybody’s listening, that the pacing just goes off for a second. I don’t know how others feel about that but that’s how I feel. I will say though, without spoiling much of anything, the movie has to do something in particular, and that thing in particular is what caused the drag for me.

One little nitpick, and I don’t know if this was an idea that the book’s author had, or if it was a director, or an editor, or who it could have possibly been that had this vision, but there are these enemies that you see in the film. They’re called Grievers. As enemies, they are serviceable and I don’t really have much that’s significantly wrong with them, but thinking about them, they almost look like ripoffs of the Xenomorphs from the “Alien” franchise. I’m surprised I’ve even said that because believe it or not I haven’t watched one “Alien” movie.

Dylan O’Brien plays the main character of Thomas throughout “The Maze Runner,” and I’d say that the character was well written, and I’d say having gone through the movie, O’Brien’s a nice pick to play the character. Granted, I can tell they probably cast Dylan O’Brien mainly because girls have a crush on him since he’s on “Teen Wolf” and if you know what the show is, you’d understand my point. To my happiness, the script focused less on his physique and more on his hope to become a runner and leave the maze. That remains true for every single one of the movies characters, which is just rather refreshing. Speaking of refreshing, there’s not much romance in this film. There is friendship, there is interaction, but there’s never any romance. And in a world where that is prominent in both the “Hunger Games” and “Divergent” franchises, that is awesome.

I really like the scene in the film where we first meet Thomas and he forgets his real name. The way he finds out is kind of hilarious. Basically, we meet him, it’s daytime, we are introduced to the Gladers, and soon, night arrives, we see a bunch of boys around a campfire. Thomas is in a fight, and as he is fighting, he’s getting his butt kicked, and all of a sudden, he remembers his name is Thomas, announces it in front of all the boys, and everyone is just exclaiming to the tenth degree. Pure hilarity.

As for another standout character, we have the big bad bully, Gally, played by Will Poulter. While Thomas is just trying to save everyone, Gally would occasionally interfere, saying that Thomas needs to be punished. I must say, this is good choice from a casting perspective, and I’m not saying this is a negative despite coming off as repetitive, he kind of looks like bullies we’ve seen in the past in terms of what’s happened in TV and movies. Just compare him with characters such as Biff from “Back to the Future” or Buzz from “Home Alone” and you’ll see what I’m talking about.

In the end, I’d say “The Maze Runner” is a really enjoyable film for what it is. It has some of the teen angst cliches, but at the same time, is a little more lighthearted in ways making it feel like you can have fun watching the movie. I have nothing against dark and gritty films, but in reality, that’s how a majority of teen angst films seem to come off. If you have never seen “The Maze Runner,” I do recommend it. I don’t know what to say about the book, or how much you’ll like the movie if you’ve read the book. I just know they’re not exactly the same. I’m going to give “The Maze Runner” a 7/10. Thanks for reading this review! I’m going to have my review up for the second part of the “Maze Runner” trilogy next Thursday, January 25th, which is also the night of the early screenings of the final installment, “Maze Runner: The Death Cure.” So stay tuned for my review of “Maze Runner: The Scorch Trials,” along with more exciting content coming your way. I want to know, did you watch “The Maze Runner?” What are your thoughts? Did you read the book? Which is better? The book or the movie? Let me know your thoughts down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

2017 Box Office: Little Room For Originality

Posted on by SceneBefore

mv5bote5njywntq3m15bml5banbnxkftztgwmzi1njy4mzi-_v1_sx1777_cr001777744_al_

Hey everyone, Jack Drees here! As it is the beginning of 2018, I feel it is appropriate to leave links to two posts down below for you to read in case you haven’t read them. My top 10 BEST movies of 2017, and my top 10 WORST movies of 2017. I’ve had fun making these lists, I’m sure you’ll have fun reading them, and I’m also interested in hearing what your best and worst films of the year are. So, read the posts, leave a like, comment, add Scene Before to your subscriptions through email or WordPress, and keep life going!

TOP 10 BEST MOVIES OF 2017: https://scenebefore.wordpress.com/2018/01/02/top-10-best-movies-of-2017-2/

TOP 10 WORST MOVIES OF 2017: https://scenebefore.wordpress.com/2018/01/02/top-10-worst-movies-of-2017/

Staying on topic, the end of the year and the start of a new one has a meaning when it comes to film. From one perspective it means January is here and a lot of crap is being put in theaters that people are gonna suffer through if all the award winning movies are high in ticket sales. Another perspective goes along the lines of what I just did with the posts above which I have links to, my top 10 best and worst movies of the year. Not only that, but we also have a bunch of award shows that are on the rise. January has the Golden Globes, the Screen Actors Guild Awards, the BAFTA awards, and the Critics’ Choice Awards. In February you got some stuff here and there, but when it comes to film, many people say the Academy Awards might be the only thing that matters (unless you’re that one guy who handed Warren Beatty the wrong card). When it comes to reflection, that’s not the limit to what’s been done this year so far. I’m pretty active on Twitter, and one account I occasionally surf is Collider. They posted a tweet which contained the five highest grossing films at the box office for 2017. This tweet had a link which lead to the highest grossing films of the year, looking over 2017’s box office winners and losers. Here’s the tweet:

This list reveals the top five for the specific category, and as I looked at the results, I’d say that it all makes a lick of sense. How do I feel about it? Honestly, not too good. Because a some time ago, I asked something about the future of movies, and so far nothing has been done about it. Although then again, it wasn’t that long ago that I asked. The question I asked was also the title of a post I did, the post is called “Where Are The Original Movies?” The answer, not here.

Of the top five films mentioned on this list, THREE are superhero films based on comic books, ONE is from a franchise that people recognize instantaneously once you put a picture of a lightsaber in front of them, and ONE is a live action remake that only adds a couple new things in of a Disney animation which is considered a classic by a lot of people. By the way, those aren’t the only two adaptations of the story! Oh yeah, did I mention FOUR of these have Disney at least partially associated with them? I will admit that I personally am at fault. I managed to see four of these films. These include “Star Wars: The Last Jedi,” “Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2,” “Spider-Man: Homecoming,” and “Wonder Woman.” I review movies, and it feels like a job where I don’t get paid because I don’t monetize my site at the moment, and I actually legit wanted to see all of these films.

Out of the four I saw, I only found one to be great, in fact it made my top five of the year, specifically “Wonder Woman.” I gave it a 10/10 in my review and while it’s not technically flawless, given the villain side of the story, I thought it was an amazing ride with Gal Gadot proving to the world that she is this kick-ass superhero. Plus I felt for the most part this seemed like it was not a studio-type film unlike 2016’s “Batman v. Superman,” it was more like one person (Patty Jenkins) unleashing their vision and sharing it with everyone.

When it comes to “Spider-Man: Homecoming,” it tried to be a different “Spider-Man” movie, but in the end, the execution could have been better. The script had Spidey cracking jokes all over the place. And I think that’s fine, this is Tom Holland playing him, and he played the character in “Captain America: Civil War,” another movie where Spidey cracks jokes. Not to mention, BRILLIANT jokes. Unfortunately, the brilliance wasn’t repeated in “Homecoming.” In my review, I gave it a 7/10, but right now it’s borderline 6-7/10. Speaking of failed attempts at humor, let’s talk about “Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2.”

When I saw the first trailer for “Guardians 2,” I was in instant hype mode. Granted, I don’t consider the first installment to be the best movie in the MCU, but I also think it is definitely one of the better ones. Not to mention, I consider it to be the most fun out of all the movies released in said cinematic universe. This second installment however wasn’t exactly terrible, but it should have been WAY better than it was. It shoves too much into one movie, kind of like “Age of Ultron,” and at the same time, it feels like it doesn’t feel it inserts too little. No pun intended, but BABY GROOT SUCKS! The humor seemed to land with just about the five-hundred other people watching the film alongside me, but I only laughed at various times. It just wasn’t that funny. The first one is lovable, quotable, and memorable. This one isn’t lovable, but you can say it’s quotable and memorable. I remember a turd joke. I remember a conversation about male genitalia. I will say that for the most part, “Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2” at least tried to be one thing. I can’t exactly say the same for the conundrum that is “Star Wars: The Last Jedi.”

I love “Star Wars.” There are so many days where I think about “Star Wars” and how much it has brought a tremendous influence on our culture. When it comes to “The Last Jedi,” it’s a very weird installment when it comes to the “Star Wars” saga, and I don’t mean that in a good way. I say that because you can look at a movie like “Colossal,” think of it as weird, and praise it for being weird. The way I’m using “weird” when it comes to this movie is not a good kind. I mean that as in, this movie is “not ‘Star Wars.'” I do appreciate it for not ripping off “The Empire Strikes Back,” but the way they’re taking a lot of the stuff shown in the movie made the whole experience more of a wreck the more I think about it. Also, I’m glad Porgs aren’t in the film for that long, but seriously, they can go to hell.

For the record, the results I talked about are domestic. These results make me wonder what the rest of the decade will look like for box office returns. In the 2010s decade, there have been a small number of original films making the top five for box office returns. These include “The Secret Life of Pets,” “Inside Out,” and “Frozen.” I will give credit to “Inside Out” because I do feel it deserved every penny it made. I watched that and it was extremely emotional. I did watch “The Secret Life of Pets” in the theater, and while it was a technically passable animation, it wasn’t exactly something I would ever want to watch again or show to a kid. I also watched a portion of “Frozen,” and it made me want to die. Beautiful animation, but what else does it have going for it?! The further we go in terms of cinematic history, the more I’ll probably miss 2009 because in that year, “Avatar” came out, and it shut the door on other movies at the box office. And while I do consider that movie to be overrated, and already somewhat dated, I do have to give credit because at the very least, it’s a property that nobody’s heard of.  People have picked up on how much it can be compared to movies like “Pocahontas,” but still. Although I wonder how many people confused it for “Avatar: The Last Airbender.” Sure, it’s from a well known director, but it’s still better than paying money to see “The Hunger Games.” Why did it make so much money? IT’S F*CKING POPULAR! But wait, there are other films on this list too. Just for the sake of letting out information, let’s add on the other top films at the 2017 box office. Just to tell you which ones are actually original ideas, I have those in bold.

6. IT
7. Thor: Ragnarok
8. Despicable Me 3
9. Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle
10. Justice League
11. Logan
12. The Fate of the Furious
13. Coco
14. Dunkirk
15. The LEGO Batman Movie
16. Get Out
17. The Boss Baby
18. Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Men Tell No Tales
19. Kong: Skull Island
20. Cars 3

As you can see, only TWO original films are in the top 20 for the 2017 box office numbers. Just a fun fact, I saw neither one of those, and I’m deeply disappointed in myself. I never got around to watching “Coco” because I don’t know anyone who would want to watch animations, but I heard so many great things about it. As for “Get Out,” I was in a similar situation, I don’t know many people who would want to watch a horror film. I almost picked it up on Blu-ray based on thoughts I had in the past, but I never got to it. Although for those who actually did manage to go see those films, I have tremendous respect for you. Admittedly, I saw five of these fifteen films from beginning to end. I saw another one, “Kong: Skull Island” for the first ten minutes, but my 4K Blu-ray player was having problems therefore not allowing me to watch the rest of the picture. Of the five I saw, I loved two of them. This seriously does beg a question I asked in the past. Why do people watch these movies?

If you want my theory, it’s because everyone is familiar with a particular property. This is why “Star Wars” has owned the box office for the past three years. Main saga installments such as “The Force Awakens” and “The Last Jedi” broke box office records because a large number of people wanted to see these films since it’s part of a well known franchise that a lot of people admire. They didn’t really know what the verdict was from critics who saw the film early, in fact many people, including myself, bought tickets as early as about two or so months prior to release. People went to see “Thor: Ragnarok” because it’s Marvel, the same can be said for “Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2.” Also, you can consider how both of those movies received positive ratings from critics. People saw “Logan” because the Wolverine’s in it. People saw “Justice League” because it’s DC, although in reality you can say that’s why some folks skipped this movie. You can also say because it has Batman, Wonder Woman, The Flash, Cyborg, Aquaman, those people. People saw “The Fate of the Furious” because it’s “Fast and Furious.” Not to mention, it’s not that complicated of a movie, it’s not one of those films where you have to sit down and think. You just eat popcorn and let time go by. People saw “The LEGO Batman Movie” because it’s animated so it’s good for the kids, it has Batman, and “The LEGO Movie” was not only popular, but well received. People saw “Cars 3” because it’s animated, it’s from Pixar, there are a couple of installments leading up to it, and there’s a good chance your kid dragged you to it. You see my point?

I also have to say that studios are partially responsible for this craze. When studios like Disney put out another “Star Wars” movie or another Marvel movie, do you think they’re doing it because they want to put out a quality movie that will be talked about generations to come? It’s possible, however it’s also possible that they’re thinking with their wallet, or in this case their Scrooge McDuck money vault. Yes, I’m still talking about “The Force Awakens” today, and I think it’s an amazing movie. One of my biggest problems with it is that they played it safe, but it’s a very minor issue. There’s a good chance I’ll probably still be talking about “The Last Jedi” too, but I might not be talking about it saying that it’s a great movie. The name “Star Wars” will put almost anyone in the theater. If “The Phantom Menace” didn’t prove that already, these past few years certainly have. Disney also released “Beauty and the Beast,” which I heard is visually dazzling, but ultimately just the same story as the animated version, just told in live action, with a couple songs added in, and changing someone’s traits to make them homosexual. I’m not saying live action remakes from Disney are terrible, after all I really enjoyed “The Jungle Book.” I will blurt that I actually might not have the right to say what I’m saying because I didn’t see any version of “Beauty and the Beast.” This is the problem. Hollywood is just redoing old ideas and passing them off as new. It works for “Super Mario Bros,” not for Disney movies.

As for 2018, originality isn’t looking too great for Disney either. Let’s see what movies they have lined up:

  • A Wrinkle in Time (based on a book by Madeleine L’Engle)
  • Solo: A Star Wars Story (Star Wars)
  • Avengers: Infinity War (Marvel)
  • Black Panther (Marvel)
  • Ant-Man and the Wasp (Marvel)
  • Incredibles 2 (Pixar sequel)
  • The Nutcracker and the Four Realms (Based on a story and ballet)
  • Ralph Breaks the Internet: Wreck-It Ralph 2 (Disney animation sequel)
  • Mary Poppins Returns (Title pretty much says it all)

It’s not just Disney to blame here. Let’s talk about some other unoriginal films coming out in 2018!

  • Deadpool 2
  • X-Men: Dark Phoenix
  • Ready Player One
  • Pacific Rim: Uprising
  • Rampage
  • Tomb Raider
  • Fifty Shades Freed
  • Creed 2
  • Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse
  • Bumblebee: The Movie
  • Aquaman
  • Fantastic Beasts and the Crimes of Grindenwald
  • Venom
  • Slender Man
  • The New Mutants
  • Sicario 2: Soldado
  • Johnny English 3
  • Goosebumps: Horror Land
  • The Grinch
  • Super Troopers 2
  • Scarface
  • The Equalizer 2
  • Barbie
  • Mission: Impossible 6
  • Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom
  • Maze Runner: The Death Cure
  • Insidious: The Last Key
  • Animal Crackers
  • Ocean’s 8
  • The Purge: The Island
  • Hotel Transylvania 3: Summer Vacation
  • Teen Titans Go! to the Movies
  • Robin Hood
  • The Predator
  • God’s Not Dead: A Light in Darkness

You get the point by now…

I get that filmmaking is technically a business, and people use it to make money, but they have to realize what they’re doing to people who watch the films. They could walk in, walk out, and say that they had an experience. It could be good, it could be bad. The real question is: How many experiences like the ones I just described will have a good chunk of people who felt like they experienced something new? Granted, storytelling has been around for a long time. The oldest written story passed down to us, The “Epic of Gilgamesh,” was introduced to the world around 2100 BC. We’ve been telling stories for as long as time can stand. It’s quite possible that original stories are going the way of the woolly mammoth. In fact a lot of original stuff we’re actually getting now borrows elements from other pieces of work. At this point, I don’t really care if we get a new franchise or a new movie from something we haven’t technically watched in the past, but I want to see more of that and less sequels each and every day. I may be a picky eater, I always have been since I was a kid, but my tastes in film go like this: As long as the film’s good in any way possible, it’s cool. Do I like unoriginal work? Yes, as long as it’s good. I’m not saying every original film is good either. Heck, 2017 gave a ton of original crap! Films like “Gifted,” “Downsizing,” and “The Space Between Us.”

I’m also not saying every unoriginal film did well at the box office in 2017. Films like “Blade Runner 2049,” “xXx: Return of Xander Cage,” “Ghost in the Shell,” “Underworld: Blood Wars,” “Resident Evil: The Final Chapter,” “A Bad Moms Christmas,” “The Mummy,” and “The LEGO Ninjago Movie” didn’t appear to be as successful as other films during the year. By the way, for those of you who skipped out on “Blade Runner 2049,” you missed a work of art.

What I want studios and filmmakers to learn is this: It’s OK to take risks, it’s OK to be different, that’s what storytelling is about. Showing a unique vision to the world, not grabbing everyone’s wallet and swallowing it because of something they already know getting a new installment. How do you think Quentin Tarantino is popular today? How do you think he got popular in the first place? Is he doing the same thing as everyone else? Is he recycling old ideas? Sure, he definitely has influence from others, but his ideas are usually original so people usually view his movies as refreshing. Christopher Nolan has borrowed ideas from others, including his own brother, but at least he has done some stuff of his own like “Inception.” Not to mention, he stays away from traditional Hollywood conventions, even in unoriginal content like “The Dark Knight.” Another director I have my eyes on now is Nacho Vigolando. He wrote and directed “Colossal,” one of my top films of 2017.

The concept of “Colossal” itself, takes a number of elements from other movies, but in end, it’s truly its own thing. A girl named Gloria (Anne Hathaway) is kicked out of her apartment by her boyfriend who goes by the name Tim (Dan Stevens). Gloria moves back to her hometown where she reunites with a childhood friend, Oscar (Jason Sudeikis). As the movie progresses, we are shown that a monster recently attacked Seoul, South Korea. The thing that everyone has yet to realize, Gloria is responsible for the monstrous actions. You can do so many things with this, and what they did with it was just imaginative. It tries to be a lot of things at once, and believe it or not, it actually works! Films like this are something that I could imagine inspiring a generation of filmmakers. The problem is that it’s not all that popular, it’s an independent film, and was never really marketed all that well. In fact, I never really anticipated “Colossal” to be the absolute masterpiece that it is. People never really talked about it much before or even during the release. The same can’t really be said for a chunk of unoriginal content.

One of the movies I’m really looking forward to in 2018 is “Incredibles 2.” Not much has been shown for it yet, but regardless, I want to see it. Why? Because the original film is my favorite animation ever made! This just really makes me wonder, how rare is it for someone to actually go on for a long time, hyping for something totally original? Hype is something that people usually have for unoriginal content for no other reason other than because what they’re hyping for IS that unoriginal content. I’ve hyped for original content, but the more I look around, that’s not the case with everyone else. Look at all the hype “Avengers: Infinity War” is getting right now! This based on comic book story has been built up for quite some time through the release of a ton of films, and now that it’s almost here, there’s an enormous craze regarding it.

I’m not saying all unoriginal ideas are bad, I think I’ve made that clear already. In fact, I want to say one of them could be a future masterpiece. This year I was one of those people who actually got off their ass, went to the theater, and saw “Blade Runner 2049.” Just about everyone who saw the film would agree with me when I say it’s good. I’d bet not everyone would say they enjoyed it as much as I did. There will inevitably be those people who were bored out of their minds due to the movie’s slow pace, but in the end, this movie is just a testament to cinema. From a technical perspective, I was blown away. Roger Deakins’s cinematography was some of the best I’ve seen all year. The visual effects were eye candy that you’d want in your mouth instantly. Watching every single frame pass by was like looking at neon Heaven. Story-wise, I was also impressed, especially for a sequel like this. It develops all of its characters perfectly, continues in a future that probably will not happen entirely, but based on the world of “Blade Runner,” it does seem like something that would make sense from a certain angle. I’ll remind you that the original film came out in 1982 and took place in 2019, this sequel released thirty five years after, 2017, and took place in 2049. Sadly, not many people saw this when you compare the results this movie got against others. Although you might as well consider that not many people left their houses to go and see the first “Blade Runner” either. One of the biggest things I appreciated out of this sequel is how it didn’t set the stage for endless sequels or a cinematic universe. It felt like a movie, not a neverending TV series.

As interesting as cinematic universes are, they are becoming more and more common and the concept is just becoming rather boring. I will say, I have an idea for a cinematic universe, I think it could work, but as far as standalone franchises, I’m only incorporating two of them. It’s simple and effective. Standalone sequels have a beginning, middle, and end. They can give a sense of satisfaction. I’m not saying cinematic universe movies don’t have a beginning, middle, and end, but meshed in there is setup. Sometimes it works, sometimes it just comes off like a kid trying to get attention. Despite how much “Avengers: Infinity War” may sound like a finale for the MCU, trust me when I say it’s not. For one thing, there’s going to be a fourth “Avengers” film the following year, and Marvel still has more plans for films afterwards. They have another “Spider-Man” movie and another “Guardians of the Galaxy” movie! According to James Gunn, writer and director of the first two “Guardians of the Galaxy” films, not to mention the possible writer and director of the upcoming third installment, he says that “Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3” will expand the cosmic universe. Honestly, I don’t know how to feel. At least “Two and a Half Men” had a conclusion! It took about twelve or so years to get to it, but it happened! Although you know what could happen once this cinematic universe ends? One word. Reboot. And you know what? It’ll probably make some f*cking money!

You know what else could be true? I don’t know, we’re probably just reaching the bottom of the barrel and running out of ideas. Although I can’t say that’s true because I have an idea for an original film. I won’t say what it is, but if any major Hollywood studio wants in on it, I’d be happy to send it to them. I don’t have the script finished yet, but I can definitely work on it if you want to see this idea realized in the future.

I’m not against unoriginal content, but from my personal viewpoint on society, these results make it seem like that’s all anyone watches now. Is it a popular thing? Someone watched it. Is it based on something that happened before? Someone watched it. I just want to see a future where at least some original content gets to shine as much as unoriginal content. Well, as long as said original content is good. I want to say to both studios and audiences, take some steps off the beaten path. I did that when I saw “Colossal,” I was originally planning to see “Kong: Skull Island,” but “Colossal” was the movie I ultimately had time for, and it was f*cking worth the ride.

Thanks for reading this post! As far as upcoming reviews go, I do plan on seeing this film called “The Commuter,” there’s a chance you may have heard of it on TV. It stars Liam Neeson as a person on a train who’s caught in a criminal conspiracy. The director who’s doing this film directed “The Shallows,” which was pretty great, but it’s January, so anything could happen.

Also I want to inform you that pretty soon I’ll be starting a new mini-series of reviews, specifically for the “Maze Runner” movies. I’m gonna watch “The Maze Runner” and “Maze Runner: The Scorch Trails,” and I’ll review the first film one week, and follow up with a review for the second film the week afterwards. This is all being done in preparation for “Maze Runner: The Death Cure,” which comes out January 26th. Stay tuned for those reviews and more great content! I want to know, which movies did you see in 2017? Did you see any that made the top results at the box office? Do you think we need more original content? Would you watch more original content? Leave your comments below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!