Miramax

Here (2024): The People Who Brought You Forrest Gump Reunite for a One of a Kind, Beautiful Mess

Posted on by Jack Drees

“Here” is directed by Robert Zemeckis (Back to the Future, Forrest Gump) and stars Tom Hanks (Toy Story, A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood), Robin Wright (Forrest Gump, The Princess Bride), Paul Bettany (WandaVision, A Knight’s Tale), and Kelly Reilly (Sherlock Holmes, Above Suspicion). This film chronicles various events over millions of years from the same location, capturing the moments and lives of those who live there.

First off, for those not aware or for those who happen to live outside the United States, this review is being posted just before Thanksgiving. Because you cannot have Thanksgiving… without “T Hanks.” In all seriousness though, Tom Hanks and Robert Zemeckis make for one of the most notable actor-director duos in Hollywood. The two have worked together to create films including “Cast Away,” “The Polar Express,” and in the past couple years, Disney+’s “Pinocchio.” Both people are reuniting for their latest collaboration, “Here.” Also appearing in the film, Robin Wright, therefore allowing for a “Forrest Gump” reunion. The fact that this film had talented, experienced people is only part of why I was looking forward to it. Having first seen the trailer to “Here” at my local multiplex a few months ago, I have been excited for it ever since. I was under the impression that this could end up being a unique film with a lot of potential.

From a camerawork and cinematography perspective, “Here” is by no means as immersively complex as “Birdman,” a movie that is set in multiple locations and uses blink you’ll miss it techniques to trick your mind into thinking it is done as one singular shot. But the selling point that kept me most interested in “Here” was getting to see the camera sit in a spot where it does not move. Having seen the film, I think the film gets creative with that concept, spanning different points in time. Everything from prehistory to the birth of the United States to modern times where we see the interior of a suburban house. The movie always maintains a quick pace from scene to scene, and even in moments that feel less relevant to the big picture, I was still hypnotized by everything that was going on.

That said, much like another Robert Zemeckis film featuring Tom Hanks, “The Polar Express,” this film could use some work when it comes to the characters. I have gone several holidays watching “The Polar Express” and even though the point a to b progression is clear for its protagonist, the Hero Boy, I cannot say I resonated with that film’s characters maybe to a degree I would have preferred. I always found the “experience” of watching “Polar Express” to be immersive, often inviting. But I wish I got to know the people in the film on a deeper level. Most of them are one-note or stereotypical. Similar to the ride to the North Pole in “The Polar Express,” I like the journey “Here” takes me on. This movie also has one notable improvement over “The Polar Express.” It does a better job fleshing out its main characters, a task that marvels me considering how many points in time and the list of people this film deals with. But even with that in mind, the characters themselves are still not the greatest when it comes to Zemeckis’s filmography. I am not going to remember anyone’s name from this film within the next couple months. If I watch this film a second time, which for the record, I would, I am probably going to be just as immersed as I was in the first. But whereas “The Polar Express” takes you on a fantastical voyage, “Here” is essentially like watching security camera footage but with twice the production value.

The one consistent story through a security camera is not always a person being captured, but rather the room or space someone just so happens to be in. Similarly, the story for “Here” is not consistent. It is bits and pieces. Perhaps it is an allegory on life itself. As we age, we remember certain times of our lives more than others, and maybe this movie is a reflection of our deepest memories. There are moments that speak to us, there are little things in the background, and even some times of our lives we would rather forget. It also shows how places can become a foundation of who we are. If you have a home for a long time, like the place or not, it becomes a part of you.

While I found the pace of the film to be a positive, I also found its fidgety structure to be a negative. The film is presented in a non-linear order, and in some ways, it works. Part of me wonders if Zemeckis wanted to do this film linearly at one point and was not loving it. I honestly do not know if the film would be any better had it been linear, in fact, one could argue it would be worse, I wonder if most audiences would like it. But still, the film is a bit clunky, though somewhat surprisingly, it also happens to be clear.

Once again, this is the latest project between Tom Hanks and Robert Zemeckis. But of course, another one of Zemeckis’s collaborators is here too, composer Alan Silvestri. Far and away, my favorite scores I have heard this year are definitely “Dune Part Two” and “IF.” And while Silvestri does not bring forth a score as memorable as those, he holds his own. Similar to “Inside Out 2,” this film opens with music that comes off as welcoming as can be. It is grand, it is prominent, it almost takes me into the screen. I could see myself listening to parts of the score in my free time.

For those who do not know their film history, “Forrest Gump” won Best Picture at the Academy Awards the year it came out. Having seen “Here,” it is hard to say that this film is going to be nominated for even one Oscar this year. Yes, Tom Hanks is given a lot to do. But I cannot name a moment of this film where he particularly stands out, and the same can be said for most of the ensemble. Though if I recall any actor in this film being a surprising standout, it would be Paul Bettany. “Here” is definitely not the worst film in Zemeckis’s library, but it is far from his best. It is no “Back to the Future,” though I will definitely remember this film more than “Allied” or that adaptation he did of Roald Dahl’s “The Witches” that ended up going to HBO Max. But I cannot lie, even though I would not say the film is perfect, it is a unique, fun, fascinating journey and I think it is remarkable how much material and substance some scenes are able to present about a specific time, specific people, and their lives with just so little material to work with.

In the end, “HERE” are my thoughts on the movie… I had a really good time with it! Is it messy? Sure, but much like the characters sometimes come to realize about the house we see for most of the film, it is sometimes a beautiful mess. I also dug the ending. The movie caps off on an emotional note. Kind of like Robert Zemeckis’s 2018 film “Welcome to Marwen,” I wonder if I am going to be alone when it comes to my positive opinion regarding this film. I loved “Welcome to Marwen” when I saw it. In fact, I loved it so much that I was shocked to find out how many other people did not like it. Having seen “Here” however, I can get why this movie would not work for certain people. At times it feels more like an experiment than a concrete story. But it does not mean the experiment is boring. I was invested from start to finish. I am going to give “Here” a 7/10.

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

Thanks for reading this review! If you want to see more reviews coming soon, stay tuned for my thoughts on “Gladiator II,” “Red One,” “A Real Pain,” “Y2K, “Juror #2,” and “Wicked.” 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 “Here?” What did you think about it? Or, what is your favorite collaboration between Tom Hanks and Robert Zemeckis? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

The Beekeeper (2024): Jason Statham Stings Some Baddies in This Entertaining Action Flick

Posted on by Jack Drees

“The Beekeeper” is directed by David Ayer (Suicide Squad, Fury) and stars Jason Statham (Fast X, The Meg), Emmy Raver-Lampman (Central Park, The Umbrella Academy), Josh Hutcherson (The Hunger Games, Five Nights at Freddie’s), Bobby Naderi (Black Summer, Bright), Minnie Driver (Good Will Hunting, Speechless), Phylicia Rashad (Creed, The Cosby Show), and Jeremy Irons (The Lion King, Batman v. Superman: Dawn of Justice). The film centers around a beekeeper and former operative who goes on a revenge quest after a woman falls for a phishing scam.

January and February are the two months where movies go to die. That is an objective fact. Do not get me wrong, there are some cases where you can release a movie in those months and have a hit. Look at movies like “Kung Fu Panda 3” or “Deadpool.” Both were well received and made a lot of money. When it comes to Jason Statham’s newest film, “The Beekeeper,” there is no way that I can see this film surpassing those at the box office. But much like those films, there is definitely a marketability behind this film that got me in the door. For one thing, it was not “Mean Girls,” which I do not plan on seeing. But in all seriousness, Jason Statham, kind of like Dwayne Johnson, has become one of Hollywood’s more likable action leads. Even if he does something that I would rather forget about like “Meg 2: The Trench,” I nevertheless like him. I just want to see him bust some heads.

Bust some heads? Should I say buzz? You know, buzz some heads?

…

Whatever, doesn’t matter.

Thankfully, we get plenty of head-busting in “The Beekeeper.”

This film is simple in its premise. It has some trademarks that action junkies may be used to seeing in other films, but that does not mean that this is a lackluster effort. If anything, it uses those trademarks decently. This film seems to follow a somewhat by the numbers revenge film formula, but the way it goes about it is entertaining. And a large part of that is because Jason Statham does a good job in the lead role.

Similarly, the same can be said for actors like Phylicia Rashad who plays the part of the victimized retired teacher, Eloise Park, with excellence. You also have Josh Hutcherson who arguably gives the best performance in the film as the antagonist, Derek Fanforth.

I have been used to seeing Hutcherson in certain roles over the years. In “The Polar Express” he voiced the Hero Boy. In the 2013 animated film “Epic,” he played a young Leafman named Nod. In “The Disaster Artist,” he plays Phillip, who ends up playing “Danny” in “The Room,” the film that movie is about. And of course he is well known for his time playing Peeta in “The Hunger Games.” In these roles, I often got a Mr. Nice Guy vibe from Hutcherson to some degree, even if his character had personal flaws. In this film, it is a much different role for Hutcherson, and I admire what they did with him. From the first scene, he is a moron with little to no remorse whatsoever. His character is almost what happens if you take someone with the looks and personality of John Mulaney but mixed it with that of a charismatic cult leader who has been involved in many a scandal.

Another notable positive that captivated me from scene one is the overall aesthetic of the film. The set design, such as that inside the UDG call center for example, is eye-popping. Everything leaps off the screen and it either makes me feel like I am either in the scene or I want to reach out and touch something in the scene. Everything is not only neatly patterned, but insanely colorful. The lighting in the film is quite nice. Technically speaking, I am not going to pretend this film is the next big thing. In fact, there are a few action films from the last ten years that I would point to that look a bit better and creatively more ambitious than this film makes itself out to be. That said, every trick this film goes for, it seems to nail. The camerawork is dazzling. The lighting is pristine. The editing is quickly paced and well spliced. Overall, I would give the film’s look a thumbs up.

Now there is clearly a lot that I enjoy about “The Beekeeper.” In fact, as far as January movies go, this is surprisingly good. That said, it is predictable and somewhat cliché. If you have seen certain action films in recent years, again, there are things that feel repetitive from those other movies. But that’s not the problem with “The Beekeeper” that seems to linger on my mind the most. That problem in particular is the ending. Now, I do not feel cheated. I am not going to say that this is the worst ending I have witnessed in the history of cinema. But in terms of recent film, I cannot think of one that is as abrupt and out of nowhere than what this film gives. It is not really that satisfying. Yes, the main issue of the film comes to a conclusion, but the film ever so quickly says goodbye to its audience. It does not give much time to breathe. It is kind of like “Transformers: Dark of the Moon” in a sense where the big climax hits its peak and just like that, the movie takes little time to wrap itself up. It feels spontaneous.

Going back to positives, “The Beekeeper” sort of reminds me of the original “John Wick” in a sense. Both films star charismatic men who kick tons of butt and take names, but the films offer similar vibes throughout their runtime. There is a dramatic flair, but with some occasional wit here and there. But the real reason why the two feel like a match made in Heaven is because they both have protagonists who you can watch and root for just for violently taking out tons of people left and right. I have lived entirely in an age of computers, I think phishers are the scum of the earth, and that is putting it nicely. As someone who briefly worked in tech at Staples and as someone who uses a computer every day, I love seeing a man go to town on people who think it is okay to take advantage of those who may not know as much about technology. Of course, the real me knows killing people is wrong. But I am watching this movie feeling as if many of the kills Jason Statham makes happen to be justified. Honestly, after watching the obnoxiously dreadful “Fast X” and the intolerably dull “Meg 2: The Trench,” it is great to see Jason Statham in something worth watching for the first time in awhile.

No, I did not watch “The Expendables 4” for those who ask. I am well aware of the negative reviews. That said, they did not steer me away from the movie. I did not watch the prior three.

In the end, “The Beekeeper” is not quite an A, but I am sure that a movie of this title would happily settle for a B. Jason Statham kills it in the lead role. The supporting cast, across the board, all do their best and deliver satisfying results to this thrilling ride. Does it have problems? Sure, it has a few. But as far as January movies go, this is a win. The film reminds me of other revenge flicks I liked in the past decade like “John Wick” and “Nobody.” It is hard to know if I will remember “The Beekeeper” to the same degree I to which remember those two films, but I had a good time with it nonetheless. I am going to give “The Beekeeper” a 7/10.

“The Beekeeper” is now playing in theaters everywhere. Tickets are available now!

Thanks for reading this review! My next review is going to be for “Driving Madeline.” I just had a chance to watch the movie over the weekend with a couple pals. I will share my thoughts soon. 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 “The Beekeeper?” What did you think about it? Or what is your favorite Jason Statham movie? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

The Holdovers (2023): A Hearty, Homey, Comforting Throwback to the 1970s

Posted on by Jack Drees

“The Holdovers” is directed by Alexander Payne (Sideways, The Descendants) and stars Paul Giamatti (Sideways, Billions), Da’Vine Joy Randolph (The Last O.G., High Fidelity), and Dominic Sessa in a film set in the 1970s where a cranky history teacher and a troubled student are forced to remain on a school campus together during the holidays.

I have been looking forward to “The Holdovers” for a very long time. Granted, I have some bias in this notion because I live not too far from where it was shot. In fact, one of the filming locations is about five minutes away from my house. More on that later. But of course, that sort of attachment should not be an indicator of whether the film is good or bad, but it is one of the reasons why I got in the door. But there are many other reasons why I got in the door as well. The film itself looked fairly wholesome and relatable. I have never attended a prep school, but I think many people regardless of where they have received education may have had a troubling connection with a teacher. And the same goes for teachers, I imagine just about every teacher had some trouble dealing with students for one reason or another, even if it is for a reason beyond their control. But even with the troubling dynamic, this just looked like a fascinating slice of life picture that would come out at a perfect time.

And that is exactly what it is.

I have said this phrase in the past, and I have heard other people say it too, but it needs to be said here. “The Holdovers” is the movie we need right now. I feel like ever since COVID-19 began I have always been finding myself in a need to go to a “happy place,” and I imagine a lot of other people reading this feel the same way. Ever since the virus began to spread, few movies have took me there like this one did. In fact, going back to the COVID-19 aspect, it sort of took me back to 2020 when the disease first got traction in the United States. This film coincidentally is set, mostly, in a singular location where our leads are basically in quarantine. Nobody’s sick, nobody’s spreading any infections, there’s not much on that front to worry about. But a good portion of the movie, specifically the first half, is set at this one prep school. When we get to the second half of the movie where our characters start venturing out, there is a feeling of joy and excitement in the air. It reminded me of when June 2020 rolled around and restaurants near me started opening up for outdoor dining. There was a sudden liberation in my veins when that opportunity arose.

But that does not mean the first half is uncomfortable. Although one of the lower points of the movie just so happens to be the relationships between the students. That said, it is not like the students have a ton of screen time. They ultimately serve their purpose. But when it comes to our three leads, we spend a ton of time with all them to the point where each one is adequately established. It also helps that I like all of them and when it comes to our core duo, specifically Paul Hunham and Angus Tully in a divided teacher/student relationship, their time dominating the screen makes for some incredible moments together. The movie brilliantly displays their strengths and weaknesses and uses them to make each one all the more likable. All the characters have phenomenal chemistry together, and I cannot imagine another soul in their shoes.

Sticking with the idea of isolation, this helped me appreciate the Angus Tully character. Because as someone who had to deal with the outside world closing off at the age of 20, I felt like any semblance of my life getting started was out of reach. As this movie progressed, I was watching this character deal with his personal issues and I could not help but feel bad for him partially because he was stuck somewhere he clearly did not want to be for an extended period of time. I understand that feeling because I lived through it. And much like me staying home in 2020, Tully stayed where he needed to stay for a reason, but I understood how agonizing it can get the longer you’re there.

I have not reviewed many Christmas or holiday movies on Scene Before, partially because I have not had much time to visit classics, and I feel like there is a shortage of them nowadays. Or at least a shortage of Christmas flicks that tend to stand out. Although I somehow managed to tackle a couple Christmas movies last year between “Violent Night” and “The Mean One.” “The Holdovers” is probably one of the best Christmas movies I have watched in the past number of years. And it is not exactly preachy to the point where everything is Christmas central. It is one those movies that takes place at Christmas but it can probably be an appropriate watch at any other point of the year. All due respect because the movie is entertaining, but I cannot remember the last time I wanted to watch “Elf” in the spring. It’s just not that kind of movie for me. “The Holdovers” is perfect for any time of year, and when it comes to 2023’s calendar, it is a standout of all the films I have seen this year.

One of the reasons why “The Holdovers” is as I describe in the title of this review, hearty and homey, is because of the progression we see with Paul Hunham. I am not going to spoil much for you, but the teacher does not emit the most pleasing vibe when it comes to dealing with his students. Part of that comes into play regarding the relationship between him and the main student in the film, Angus Tully. You have these two people who do not really see eye to eye on everything, but the more they are forced to deal with each other, the more they tend to find themselves having good times with each other. Both individuals, in their own ways, make the best of a bad situation. But they do so realizing maybe they could share a bond if they opened their eyes. Of course, when it comes to Hunham, it also helps that an actor with the caliber of Paul Giamatti just so happens to be portraying him, and it brings forth one of the best performances of the year. The character reminds me of, and I know this analogy may not be the most prominent because not a lot of people saw this movie, Alice from the 2020 movie “Summerland.” By the way, watch “Summerland.” It’s fantastic. But I use this as a comparison because both films have a main character who appears all tough and mean, but when she is placed together with someone younger with her for a period of time, we see more and more that she kind of has a heart.

The film does a great job at showcasing the flaws of these characters and having them come into play throughout the runtime. And when it comes to Hunham as a character, we see his flaws from the beginning, how they are adjusted to some degree, but his positives and negatives as an individual make him one of the most compelling characters of the year.

On a little sidenote, much like the George Clooney-directed “The Tender Bar,” which came out at the tail end of 2021, this film features my local candlepin bowling alley, Wakefield Bowladrome in a couple minutes of screentime. And unlike “The Tender Bar,” which is set in New York, it actually makes sense that it is in here because the film is set in Massachusetts, where candlepin bowling just so happens to exist. I think what they’ve done with the place is rather impressive and adds to the throwback feel of the movie itself. Though if I have one nitpick, there are occasional moments where I hear pins falling down, but the sound effects match the sound the pins would make in tenpin. But of course, this is why I put the “moron” in Movie Reviewing Moron.

In the end, “The Holdovers” is an utter delight of a film. Its main trio make the story worthwhile. The film is a sensational throwback to the 1970s that is as charming as it is inviting. The film is rated R, so I would not recommend watching it with younger viewers, but if you are with loved ones this holiday season, this could be a good watch. The characters are spectacular. The locations are beautiful. The set design is very well done. And I think Paul Giamatti could be in the running for an Oscar nomination. Also, one more thing, there is a particular scene in the film that includes “The Newlywed Game” where I was in a trance until the moment it was over. I have not watched that show a ton, but I have often watched clips of it on YouTube, and it is legendary. Bob Eubanks is a treasure. I am going to give “The Holdovers” an 8/10.

“The Holdovers” is now playing in theaters everywhere. It is also available to buy on VOD.

Thanks for reading this review! My next review is going to be for the brand new historical epic, “Napoleon.” Also coming soon, I will have my thoughts on “Godzilla Minus One,” “Ferrari,” “The Boy and the Heron,” and “Dream Scenario.” 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 “The Holdovers?” What did you think about it? Or, what is your favorite Christmas movie? Yes, “Die Hard” counts. Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

Halloween Ends (2022): Film Dies Tonight

Posted on by Jack Drees

“Halloween Ends” is directed by David Gordon Green. This film is the conclusion to his “Halloween” legacy sequel/reboot/whatever you want to call it series. And yeah. We know it’s not over. It ain’t over until there’s no more money to be made. This movie stars Jamie Lee Curtis (Everything Everywhere All at Once, Knives Out), Andi Matichak (Orange is the New Black, Blue Bloods), James Jude Courtney (Babylon 5, Buffy the Vampire Slayer), Will Patton (Falling Skies, Swamp Thing), Rohan Campbell (Mech-X4, The Hardy Boys), and Kyle Richards (Little House on the Prairie, ER). “Halloween Ends” is set between the years 2019 and 2022. Simply put, the town of Haddonfield, Illinois is still not over the last attacking spree from Michael Myers. Laurie Strode, who is now enjoying a somewhat normal life, is set to do whatever she can to kill Michael Myers once and for all. Oh, and there is a subplot about her daughter and a child-killing babysitter.

Trailers are perhaps my favorite form of marketing. They can easily make something more epic than it has to be in just a span of a couple of minutes. The trailers for “Halloween Ends” promise one thing in particular, the showdown between Laurie Strode and Michael Myers. The good news is, the promise is kept during the movie. But that is not the movie itself. One of my biggest critiques for trailers is that they often show the best parts of the movie or they flat out just spoil the entire movie from start to finish. I have seen both trailers for “Halloween Ends.” This is where I remain conflicted. They did a great job at not showing the entire movie, but they also show something that I never thought we’d see. In addition, the things that I imagine a majority of the people would come to the movie for, barely shows up in the movie at all.

Thus far, David Gordon Green’s “Halloween” trilogy has been all right. I liked the first movie he did, his follow-up, “Halloween Kills” had its moments of entertainment, but with this conclusion, it could not quite stick the landing.

Last year, when I reviewed “Halloween Kills,” my biggest problem with the movie was that Jamie Lee Curtis was barely in it. Also, for the moments where she happened to be present, there was little entertainment value through it all. It felt odd for a movie where she had top billing. In “Halloween Ends,” Curtis once again has top billing, and her presence in the movie is less of a problem. She is in the film for an adequate amount of time. Whenever she was on screen, she was charming to watch.

At the same time, one of the previous movie’s successes is its use of Michael Myers. I saw the movie in a crowded theater, and we all enjoyed the moments Myers happened to be on screen. It literally puts the “kills” in “Halloween Kills.” If you were to watch the movie to see Michael Myers do his thing, you came to the right place. Last time around Jamie Lee Curtis was barely in the movie, but for the case of “Halloween Ends,” Michael Myers ends up being shadowed amongst the cast. He barely does anything in the movie, and unfortunately, the little we get of Michael Myers did not make the price of admission feel like it was worth it. The final fight between Laurie Strode and Michael Myers is somewhat thrilling. But I do not know if it was worth an hour and a half of everything else the story provides. If anything, I do not see myself watching “Halloween Ends” again. Instead, what I see myself doing is if I need a fix, I am going to go on YouTube and search the end of the movie to just watch Laurie and Michael duke it out. The fight was fun, but it is surrounded by an average movie that does not feel like it belongs in the “Halloween” universe.

I like what the movie was going for. Some of the movie’s plot plays around with certain characters’ perceptions. I thought it was somewhat well utilized. Seeing Laurie have relations, of sorts, with someone who the world finds to be as crazy as her sounds great on paper. Although I cannot say the same for the execution. The story that built up to the Laurie vs. Michael finale that the trailers promise has glimmers of fun, but it also has cheesy dialogue and over the top moments that took away from some of the entertainment. I am not going into “Halloween Ends” expecting the next “Parasite,” but like every movie I go into, I am expecting something of quality. I want to watch something that feels like the crew is trying, and in this case I did not get that.

If anything, “Halloween Ends” reminds me of what people say about the Michael Bay “Transformers” movies. It is not about what’s in the title, because they spend all this time sneaking a forced human drama about characters that the audience has little reason to care about. To be fair, Laurie has established herself as a fixture in the franchise. Laurie’s granddaughter, Allyson, has her moments. Andi Matichak does her best with the material given to her.

The movie at the very least, looks and sounds competent on a $20 million budget. I had no problems with the way the movie was shot. The action sequences, for the most part, looked good. The score, which emits the classic “Halloween” tunes horror fans have come to know over the years, is booming. I watched this film in the theater, specifically in IMAX, and was worried that I was going to go deaf by the end. It might have been the loudest score I heard in a movie since Ludwig Goransson’s series of music from “Tenet.” Sadly though, despite being a horror movie, it is not that scary. Despite being a slasher film, the slasher elements did not add any highlights. Nothing stood out. Again, when Michael Myers is sidelined in a film franchise that made the character famous, that can be problematic. The movie has some occasional jumpscares, and they were not that terrifying. Honestly, if you are reading this and need a movie to watch this spooky season in the theater, just go watch “Smile.” Or, if you browsing around Peacock, where this movie debuted simultaneously, just turn on “The Black Phone!” If you are looking for scares, there are better options than “Halloween Ends.” This movie is a stab in the back if there ever was one.

In the end, “Halloween Ends” is the worst installment to David Gordon Green’s “Halloween” sequel trilogy. I have not seen too many of the “Halloween” movies. Other than David Gordon Green’s films, I have seen the original “Halloween” and “Halloween II.” I enjoyed both of those films for what they were. Of the “Halloween” films I have watched, this is my least favorite. The kills are not entertaining. Michael Myers is barely in the movie. As for the movie’s screenplay, it has an identity crisis. The marketing makes this look like a “Halloween” movie, but as for the product itself, it felt like a straight to Lifetime drama with better framing and more recognizable actors. I am going to give “Halloween Ends” a 4/10.

“Halloween Ends” is now playing in theaters everywhere and is also available to stream on Peacock.

Thanks for reading this review! Speaking of horror, I just saw “Barbarian” at the movies recently. Therefore, I will have a review for the flick coming soon. Also coming soon, I will be sharing my thoughts on “Ticket to Paradise,” the brand new comedy starring Julia Roberts and George Clooney. Following that, I will be unveiling my feelings about the latest entry to the DCEU, “Black Adam.” Is the hierarchy of power in the DC Universe really about to change? That question will be answered soon. If you want to see more of my reviews, check out my thoughts on “Medieval” and “See How They Run.” 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 “Barbarian?” What did you think about it? Or, what is your favorite installment in David Gordon Green’s “Halloween” trilogy? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

Halloween Kills (2021): A Halloween Sequel That Encourages You To Find Jamie Lee Curtis

Posted on by Jack Drees

“Halloween Kills” is directed by David Gordon Green, who also directed the previous “Halloween” installment, simply titled “Halloween,” the 2018 sequel that erased all the other “Halloween” sequels out of continuity. Serious question… They had no other title for that movie? Anyway, this film “stars” Jamie Lee Curtis, even though she barely does anything here. In addition to her, this movie also has a cast including Judy Greer (Ant-Man, 27 Dresses), Andi Matichak (Assimilate, Underground), Will Patton (Falling Skies, Remember the Titans), Thomas Mann (Project X, Kong: Skull Island), and Anthony Michael Hall (The Breakfast Club, Weird Science). This film is the sequel to 2018’s “Halloween,” taking place directly where that movie ends, and follows the Strode family as they continue to survive against the dreaded Michael Myers. This time around, the entire Haddonfield community joins together to defend themselves against the twisted serial killer.

I feel like I keep beating a dead horse when I say this. Horror movies as a genre is not my forte in the film realm. I like some horror, I enjoy it. But for years I avoided a ton of new titles because they often looked predictable from the marketing. Although I have an appreciation for the 1978 “Halloween.” I think it did a lot for slasher flicks and it remains one of the more popular horror titles out there today. Michael Myers has become synonymous with a still face that you do not want to find on the street, and I think the original film is worth a watch at least once before you die, or before someone comes at you with a knife and slices your throat. I cannot say much about the other “Halloween” films, because all I’ve seen aside from “Halloween Kills” is the original film, “Halloween II,” and “Halloween” 2018.

Going into “Halloween Kills,” I was not expecting too much. I had some fun with the 2018 “Halloween” reboot, but I would not say it is that great. There are parts of it that were slow, underwhelming, but I still had some fun with it. I ended up going to the press screening just hoping to have a good time. And I will say that “Halloween Kills,” despite its flaws, and there are a few, is reasonably enjoyable. If you want something fun to watch this weekend, I would recommend “Halloween Kills.”

The film comes with some things that you might expect. Classy kills, great music including the classic “Halloween” theme that has become well known to the fanbase, and Jamie Lee Curtis being badass. Those have become a few staples of the franchise. But I also like where this movie takes its story as far as the supporting cast goes. This film spends much of its time getting to know a large supporting cast who reside within Haddonfield. They all agree on one thing. Michael Myers is on their death list. The way that they handled this supporting cast in the movie sort of reminiscences the U.S. capital riot earlier this year. After all, you have a large group of people, including someone who organized an entire mob, they’re together for the same purpose, but instead of going after a ton of people at once, they’re after one guy. Granted, this movie was written and shot before that happened, but I like that aspect of the film. Trust me, if I found out Jack the Ripper were still alive and somehow in my area, I would be encouraged to join a mob and go after him. I’m a pacifist, I do not have any intentions to kill anyone, but even I might be propagandized enough to go after him.

This movie also has some really cool kills. The movie is available to stream on Peacock even though it is also in theaters, but if you want my recommendation, I’d say go see this movie with an audience because there are one or two kills where our theater gasped, oohed, I said “oh my god,” one time. It is worth seeing in a theatrical environment. My other recommendation is if you want to watch it on Peacock. Get some friends, order some food, make sure you have plenty of people in the same room. This film is fun to watch by yourself, but might be even better with others. Michael Myers has a way of bringing people together.

I said there are a few problems about this movie, and I am not afraid to talk about them. First off, as much as I like the screenplay when it comes to how it handles its large group of supporting characters, I think the movie does not bring much that’s new to the horror genre or “Halloween” franchise. Part of the screenplay is predictable, and I’ll probably forget about a lot of characters in this film by the end of the year. Speaking of characters, again, as much as I like the supporting cast and what they do, I think a lot of time was wasted away from Laurie Strode. Jamie Lee Curtis received top billing in the film, so I would have liked to have seen more from her character. I feel like she doesn’t do much. I know the way the last movie ended and this movie begins has her character the way she is for a reason, but I was somewhat underwhelmed by Curtis’s appearance. It’s like, “Look everybody, A NEW HALLOWEEN MOVIE! Starring Jamie Lee Curtis as that one lady who earns her paycheck!”

My other big complaint is one that to some people, probably should not come as much of a surprise. I felt like the first half of the movie tried its best to set the tone for what’s ahead, but while it did that, it made much of that first half an extravaganza of jumpscares. There were just too many scares just done to keep people on their toes and they had little to no real purpose of being in the film. They’re just… There. I do recommend “Halloween Kills,” but it’s gonna be hard to call it a movie for the ages. It’s definitely fun to watch at least once and see how it is.

In the end, “Halloween Kills” is a good time and I do think it is best watched with a group of people, as long as you’re not out to kill anyone. This film comes with the basics of a “Halloween” film mixed in with an angry mob of people who gather together to get rid of the one thing that pisses them off, a man in a $2 William Shatner mask. No, seriously. Some people suggest that the mask for the original Michael Myers is based on a guy who just went up into space in a penis rocket! There is not a ton of substance in this film, but it definitely delivers style. I approve of the film despite its flaws. I’m going to give “Halloween Kills” a 6/10.

“Halloween Kills” is now playing in theaters everywhere. The film is also available to stream on Peacock Premium free of any additional charge.

Thanks for reading this review! Now if you thought “Halloween Kills was scary, just wait and see what I’ll be reviewing next. This weekend I went to see “The Last Duel,” one of my most anticipated movies of the season, and without giving much away, “The Last Duel” makes “Halloween Kills” look like a family film. I cannot wait to talk about the movie, I have a lot to say. Also be on the lookout for my reviews of “No Time to Die” and “Dune,” both of which will be coming soon. Be sure to follow Scene Before either with an email or WordPress account and also be sure to check out the official Facebook page to stay tuned for more great content! I want to know, did you see “Halloween Kills?” What did you think about it? Or, what is a movie where you think one of the main characters should have gotten more screen time? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

Wrath of Man (2021): Jason Statham Protects Money and His Life from Getting Snatched

Posted on by Jack Drees

“Wrath of Man” is directed by Guy Ritchie (Snatch, The Gentlemen) and stars Jason Statham (Furious 7, Safe), Holt McCallany (Alien 3, Mindhunter), Jeffrey Donovan (J. Edgar, LBJ), Josh Hartnett (Penny Dreadful, 40 Days and 40 Nights), Chris Reilly (The Last Post, Game of Thrones), Laz Alonso (Battle of the Year, The Boys), Raúl Castillo (Looking, We the Animals), DeObia Oparei (Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides, Dumbo), Eddie Marsan (V For Vendetta, Ray Donovan), and Scott Eastwood (Suicide Squad, Snowden) in a film about a man who recently joined a cash truck company and is responsible for moving lots of money around Los Angeles on a frequent basis. After an unexpected incident, H wants revenge over his son’s death.

“Wrath of Man” is a movie that I nearly slept on. But with advertising for it picking up in recent times, I decided to go see it Mother’s Day weekend as it was one of the bigger films out at the time. To be quite frank, I REALLY did not know what to expect. I thought this film would be okay, but I have recently been reflecting back to a time in recent memory when my dad and I went to see “Godzilla vs. Kong.” The trailer for “Wrath of Man” came up and he said that he would probably wait until this comes out on television to watch it. I somewhat agreed as it seemed like a somewhat standard action film starring Jason Statham, but at the same time, I feel like as one who has devoted himself to the industry, I had to see this for myself as it did have Guy Ritchie’s name on it. At the same time though, even though I have not seen every Guy Ritchie film, the ones that I have seen have not specifically impressed me. “Snatch” is wonderfully paced, but I honestly don’t even remember it. “King Arthur: Legend of the Sword” is nice to look at, but also forgettable. “The Gentlemen” was too fast and too boring. It’s amazing how many people complained about “Tenet” being the hardest 2020 movie to understand when everything is flying in your face and down your throat lickety split in “The Gentlemen.” God, that movie almost gives me a headache the more I think about it. But was “Wrath of Man” worth watching? Is it something that is worth waiting for?

Cinematically, it is marvelous. The cinematography is some of the best of the year so far, and the opening sequence of the film put me right in. But other than that, it is your basic action flick starring Jason Statham. I am not the biggest fan of Guy Ritchie films, but much like how I have noticed distinctive styles from directors like Quentin Tarantino, Zack Snyder, and Wes Anderson, I feel like one of the highlights of Guy Ritchie films like “Snatch,” specifically a flair that feels like something only Guy Ritchie could provide, is missing. This really just feels like a run of the mill action film that almost crosses the threshold for cable TV background noise.

In fact, just for context, it has been nearly a month since I went out to watch this film. I remember some of it, but the more I reflect on it, the more disposable it feels. I do like some things about “Wrath of Man.” The concept of the film, while definitely not the highlight, is intriguing. Because the main character works for a company that deals with carrying around significant amounts of money, and because money is something that we as human beings somehow equate to happiness, even though there are times where we shouldn’t, it packs a bit of stakes into the story from the getgo. The other thing I like in this film is the music, and I do not mean the score. I have nothing bad to say about it, but nothing really good either. It gets the job done. What I really like about the film is there is this one song that plays at a point, specifically Folsom Prison Blues by Johnny Cash, and ever since I heard it not only in the trailers for this film, but in the actual movie, I have the tune from it nearly ingrained in my mind. It’s almost like second nature to me at times. This sort of reminds me of another film, specifically “Thor: Ragnarok,” which despite how I think it is overrated, I will say one of the positives is that the film managed to successfully ingrain Led Zeppelin’s “Immigrant Song” into my head from one moment to another.

When I say that this is a basic action flick starring Jason Statham, I am not lying. There are elements that encapsulate that notion, but I am not saying it is a bad movie, and I think part of it is because of how Jason Statham handles his performance. Statham is, based on what I have seen from him, not exactly the most Shakespearean of actors working today, but he has this range that makes him one of the more attractive individuals for action movies. He his this gritty tone from him, one he has also shown in movies like those in the “Fast & Furious” franchise, that he also brings into “Wrath of Man.” Is he arguably playing himself? That is difficult to say, but I think for Statham, I think this comparison is kind of like Kevin Hart. I say so because I love Kevin Hart, even though he plays some incarnation of himself in almost every movie he is in. At the same time though, in the case of Hart, it is not a bad thing, because Hart has a great personality and he does his best to sell that with each go. So if Statham continues down this road where he keeps playing an incarnation of himself, I would be worried for his range, but if he keeps entertaining audiences, I will not be completely disappointed.

Without spoilers, the other main thing I really like from “Wrath of Man” is the ending. This film has a way of splitting different chapters or acts, and I think they did a really good job at setting the tone for the last chapter with the name. Now I had no idea what any of it would mean or what context the name would provide, but when I saw it play out on screen, it felt rather satisfying. I think it was a well written climax overall and I would say that Guy Ritchie did an excellent job at helming it. While it is not my favorite climax in film history, it is definitely one of the better ones I have seen in recent memory.

In the end, “Wrath of Man” is pretty entertaining, but it does come with some basics that make the story and walkthrough of the film feel somewhat familiar. In fact, parts of it kind of reminded me of the recent film titled “Honest Thief” starring Liam Neeson. Although, I will admit, the way Jason Statham carries the film makes it all worthwhile. It almost feels like there are select scenes written with him specifically in mind, which is a good thing if you ask me. Would I watch “Wrath of Man” again? Not instantaneously, but I would not shy away from it either. If I do not buy the Blu-ray, I would at least give it a quick glimpse if it shows up on a cable network. For all I know, it may be worth your time as well. I’m going to give “Wrath of Man” a respectable 7/10.

Thanks for reading this review! As you may have noticed, I have been outrageously busy creating a full week of “Star Wars” content through my 7 Days of Star Wars event. This has been a pleasure to work on, even though there may have been moments where I wanted to pull out my hair because of how painstaking it may have been to meet certain deadlines, but if you want to check out those reviews, the links are listed below. I hope you enjoy the reviews as much as I enjoyed creating them.

THE PHANTOM MENACE: https://flicknerd.com/2021/05/23/star-wars-episode-i-the-phantom-menace-1999-worst-for-chronologically-first/

ATTACK OF THE CLONES: https://flicknerd.com/2021/05/24/star-wars-episode-ii-attack-of-the-clones-2002-a-revisit-to-my-first-star-wars-movie/

REVENGE OF THE SITH: https://flicknerd.com/2021/05/25/star-wars-episode-iii-revenge-of-the-sith-2005-my-favorite-star-wars-prequel-ever/

STAR WARS/A NEW HOPE: https://flicknerd.com/2021/05/26/star-wars-1977-an-ageless-adventure/

THE EMPIRE STRIKES BACK: https://flicknerd.com/2021/05/27/the-empire-strikes-back-1980-i-love-you/

RETURN OF THE JEDI: https://flicknerd.com/2021/05/28/return-of-the-jedi-1983-i-see-the-good/

THE FORCE AWAKENS: https://flicknerd.com/2021/05/29/star-wars-the-force-awakens-2015-the-biggest-blast-in-the-galaxy/

ROGUE ONE: https://flicknerd.com/2016/12/16/rogue-one-a-star-wars-story-a-movie-built-on-hope/

THE LAST JEDI: https://flicknerd.com/2017/12/15/star-wars-episode-viii-the-last-jedi-2017-another-year-another-star-wars-movie/

SOLO: https://flicknerd.com/2018/05/25/solo-a-star-wars-story-2018-somehow-this-star-wars-movie-exists/

THE RISE OF SKYWALKER: https://flicknerd.com/2019/12/20/star-wars-the-rise-of-skywalker-2019-the-final-word-in-the-story/

But speaking of reviews, I have plenty of reviews for new movies coming soon including “Profile,” “Army of the Dead,” “A Quiet Place Part II,” and I will also be seeing “In the Heights” tomorrow so I will have my thoughts on that too. I do not have any set days, but my next review should be up by Saturday at the latest, so stay tuned. Be sure to follow Scene Before either with an email or WordPress account, and don’t forget to check out the Facebook page so you can stay tuned for more great content! I want to know, did you see “Wrath of Man?” What did you think about it? Or, of the four collaborations between Guy Ritchie and Jason Statham, which is your favorite? I’ve only seen this one and “Snatch,” so… I don’t know if I should participate. Either way, if you do want to participate, leave your thoughts in the comments section! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

The Gentlemen (2019): A Confused, Hungry Lion of a Ride

Posted on by Jack Drees

mv5bmtlkmmvmyjktytc2nc00zgzjlweyowutmjc2mdmwmjqwota5xkeyxkfqcgdeqxvynti4mze4mdu40._v1_sy1000_sx675_al_

“The Gentlemen” is directed by Guy Ritchie (Snatch, Aladdin) and stars Matthew McConaughey (Interstellar, Sing), Charlie Hunham (Nicholas Nickleby, Queer As Folk), Henry Golding (Last Christmas, Crazy Rich Asians), Michelle Dockery (Good Behavior, Downton Abbey), Jeremy Strong (The Big Short, Succession), Eddie Marsan (Ray Donovan, Jonathan Strange and Mr Norrell), Colin Farrell (S.W.A.T., The Lobster), and Hugh Grant (Four Weddings and a Funeral, A Very English Scandal). This film is about an American expat who is trying to make money through selling off his marijuana business in London. This leads to eventual chaos… And by chaos, I mean what my brain went through while watching this movie.

It’s been a week since I saw “The Gentlemen” just to get things up to speed. My noggin is still spiraling in all sorts of directions.

Honestly, I am sort of glad I have waited as long as I did to talk about this movie. I saw this on the Wednesday before it came out to a pretty active crowd, there were laughs and applause throughout, therefore this seemed like a fine experience. As for other reviewers, they seem to be digging this movie. I on the other hand cannot say I share the same opinion as everyone else. Let me just start with the positives, because believe it or not, this movie has some.

This film is finely directed and it feels as if Guy Ritchie is delivering his own style and implementing it into the final product. The characters feel like they could only come out of a movie of this kind, maybe a few others. The casting from Matthew McConaughey to Colin Farrell, to Michelle Dockery is all very well done. It also shows how brilliantly each character is performed based on each actor’s ability. In a way, it almost had a similar vibe to “Kingsman: The Secret Service,” while not exactly being the same film overall in terms of plot and style. And if you know me, you know I think “Kingsman: The Secret Service” is one of the better spy films of the past decade. Part of the movie revolves around two characters who are basically reading a movie script and analyzing what the movie calls a true story in an attempt to turn that into a feature film. One of the better parts of it is when they throw out archaic terms like 35mm, anamorphic widescreen, almost in that tone where someone thinks of what cinema is “supposed to be” like in the “good old days.”

A number of the action scenes are enjoyable. Again, going back to the characters, there is a scene, and if you watch the trailer, chances are you got a taste of it, where Matthew McConaughey almost looks like a madman as he has a gun in his hand. There are a couple other fun scenes too, don’t get me wrong.

Other than that, this movie has no real reason for me to go back and watch it again… Except for one thing, which I will get to later.

If you go back up the opening paragraph, chances are you noticed me trying to describe the movie and I ultimately present it as if some blanks need to be filled. I’ll be honest, that’s because pacing-wise, this movie is almost too fast. I said this film reminds me a tad of “Kingsman: The Secret Service.” One of the great things about that movie in my opinion is how it almost never stops, it kept me glued because of the bonkers action and ridiculousness of all to be seen. While that may have been a positive in “Kingsman,” such a notion honestly deters “The Gentlemen.” There could be an argument to make that this is one of those movies that could end up getting better through multiple watches, that way I can digest everything, but in order to do that, there has to be some sort of desire that a viewer like me must achieve to watch a movie again in the first place. After watching “The Gentlemen,” there are elements that I liked, but as a film, I have managed to find a lot of it forgettable and even though I am not great with names in real life, I walked out of this film wondering what everybody’s name was.

Just for the record, I have been previously been diagnosed with ADHD, or attention deficit hyperactive disorder, which is just a fancy way of saying that my mind likes to go in several places at once. This feels like a movie that maybe I would make if I were to shove in a bunch of ideas, locations, characters, but I just want them in there just for the sake of being there. In real life, my ADHD sort of represents a less than pleasant span of attention at times, and from one moment to the next, the movie just feels like it cannot stick to a proper idea for a suitable length of time. One moment it’s here, one moment it’s there, the next moment it feels like it is about to go everywhere! That’s the best way I can describe this disappointing mediocrity.

This film is directed by Guy Ritchie who also helmed “Snatch” in the past, which I have enjoyed due to its individualistic style and overall fast pace. I barely remember the film partially due to how I have only seen it once, but I remember enjoying it. But he also did “King Arthur: Legend of the Sword,” which was a waste of precious time. As a director, there is no doubting that Ritchie likes to do films kind of in his own way, sort of like Quentin Tarantino or Wes Anderson. I do respect the feeling of creative freedom that is represented from “The Gentlemen,” I just wish the movie was better as a result of said creative freedom. Too many movies seem to be tied down to a formula or locked into the requirements of a studio, “The Gentlemen” sort of reminds me of the kinds of movies I would prefer to see today. At the same time however, this movie almost feels like something Zack Snyder would direct. Now that is a bit of a stretch, but if you have seen films like “300” and “Sucker Punch,” which if I were to review right now, would receive positive grades, they feel like they ultimately do a better job at representing style over substance.

I also kind of see why a film like this sort of ended up in January, while I could probably market this film with ease and maybe represent it as summertime fun with all sorts of action, that’s not entirely what is shown in the final product. This is a film that I would imagine behind the scenes some were feeling would be not too difficult to describe, but not the easiest film to describe either. This makes it harder to form a concrete marketing campaign. January is usually seen as dumping ground for film, so it would not be surprising that the studio thought a film like “The Gentlemen” could end up in such a release month.

Also, over the past number of days, I’ve been starting to crush on Michelle Dockery because of this movie. Just saying. Not that it affects my score all that much.

In the end, “The Gentlemen” is a movie with a number of positives in it. The action is slick and fun, the writing style is something probably only Guy Ritchie himself would come up with, the casting is perfect! But this film needs to calm down. If anything, I should remind you all of another film that came out recently, “Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker.” I want to bring this up because one of the complaints I have heard about “The Rise of Skywalker” is that the movie feels like it is too quick. Having seen “The Rise of Skywalker” myself I have no idea what these people were thinking, I think the fast pace of the film made it fun, compared to its predecessor, “The Last Jedi.” But if you don’t like the bonkers pace of “The Rise of Skywalker,” try watching “The Gentlemen” and tell me you have a basic understanding of EVERYTHING that is going on. I don’t know, maybe I am getting ahead of myself. Going back to the one reason why I might watch this movie again, there is a good chance that I could watch “The Gentlemen” a second time and like it more because the film goes so fast, maybe I will catch something new. But having seen it once, I am going to have to continuously wonder if it warrants a second viewing. Until then, I have to be brutally honest, because I’m going to give “The Gentlemen” a 5/10.

Thanks for reading this review! This SUNDAY, FEBRUARY 2ND, that’s Super Bowl Sunday, is the beginning of the Super Bowl for movies, the Jackoff Awards! For the record, the actual ceremony will not be up until SUNDAY FEBRUARY 16TH, a little more than two weeks from now. I am not going to provide too many hints for the nominations, but for those of you who have witnessed last year’s events related to the ceremony, you’d probably be aware of how I handled Best Picture. This year, once again, once I announce the nominees for Best Picture, I am going to provide a poll of the ten movies and have you pick the one that YOU think should win. Why? Because I already chose mine earlier this month in my best movies of the year list! Now, it’s your turn! Be sure to look out for my upcoming nominations announcement this Sunday! If you want to see this post and more from Scene Before and Flicknerd.com, give the site a follow via an email or WordPress account. Speaking of following, give me a like on my Facebook page, located on the Zuckerberg Land itself! I want to know, did you see “The Gentlemen?” What did you think about it? Am I getting ahead of myself? Or, what is a movie that you think is too fast-paced? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

Pulp Fiction (1994): That Is a Tasty Movie

Posted on by Jack Drees

Hey everyone, Jack Drees here! In just a matter of weeks, Quentin Tarantino’s ninth film, “Once Upon a Time In Hollywood” is being released in theaters, with select engagements in 35mm. But before that comes out, I wanted to look back at three previous films this cinematic powerhouse has helmed over the years. And to kick this series off, we are going to tackle one of Tarantino’s most popular and highly revered titles, “Pulp Fiction.” This flick first released in the mid 1990s and is one of his earliest attempts at creating a film. Much like his previous efforts such as “My Best Friend’s Birthday” and “Reservoir Dogs,” Tarantino also had personal credits for “Pulp Fiction” as both a writer and an actor. Without further ado, let’s start the–

*GUNSHOT*

*in Samuel L. Jackson’s voice* Motherf*–

mv5bngnhmdizztutntblzi00mtrllwfjm2ityzvimje3yzi5mjljxkeyxkfqcgdeqxvynzkwmjq5nzm40._v1_sy1000_cr006861000_al_

“Pulp Fiction” is directed by Quentin Tarantino and stars John Travolta (Grease, Welcome Back, Kotter), Uma Thurman (Batman & Robin, Gattaca), Samuel L. Jackson (Jurassic Park, The Avengers), Harvey Keitel (Taxi Driver, Thelma & Louise), Tim Roth (The Hit, The Cook), Amanda Plummer (The Fisher King, Needful Things), Maria de Medeiros (Midsummer Madness, April Captains), Ving Rhames (Mission: Impossible, Bringing Out the Dead), Eric Stoltz (Mask, St. Elsewhere), Rosanna Arquette (Desperately Seeking Susan, Nowhere To Run), Christopher Walken (A View to a Kill, Batman Returns), and Bruce Willis (Moonlighting, Die Hard). This film is partially inspired by unused scenes from the 1993 flick “True Romance,” also written by Quentin Tarantino. Without going into much detail, because to be completely honest, it’s hard to talk about the plot to a certain extent without spoiling, the film involves a bunch of different people who all have one thing in common: Deadly situations at hand. You have a couple of hitmen played by Samuel L. Jackson and John Travolta, there’s a couple who wants to rob a restaurant, etc.

I went into “Pulp Fiction” with extreme expectations. After all, many would call this movie a masterpiece. Plus, prior to seeing the whole film on Blu-ray, my dad showed me clips on YouTube 5 years ago. From what I saw, I was rather impressed. In fact, as of publishing this review, this is the only Tarantino film I have watched from start to finish. I have seen part of one of the “Kill Bill” films when it was on Starz, but that’s not really saying much, isn’t it? I also saw the “Why do I have to be Mr. Pink?” clip from “Reservoir Dogs” five years ago.

And some may even argue that I saw a short film from Quentin Tarantino. I say so because “Family Guy” once did an episode presented in the style of three directors, with the first director being Tarantino. While he was never involved with the episode, the parody is there.

How was the film? Is it the masterpiece that just about every cinephile is making it out to be? Abso-f*ckinglutely. This is screenwriting at its finest! This is set design at its finest! This is actors’ chemistry at its finest!

In fact, I owe a serious apology to what I have said about John Travolta, because I think he has made some unwise choices throughout the century. “Gotti” was his most recent example. And while this was done last century, I now have an increased amount of respect that I can give to him as an actor. Also, Samuel L. Jackson has an incredible resume based on how much work he has been able to get over the years. Out of the millions of projects he has tackled in his career, this might as well be the one with his best performance yet. And part of that has to do with his traditional mannerisms where he yells and swears in a over the top fashion, but also due to what I’ll call “perfect dialogue.”

I cannot cite the screenplay of “Pulp Fiction” from start to finish, although based on how much I enjoyed this film, a mission like that would probably be on my bucket list. There are a lot of moments, either through spoken dialogue or visuals that feel like they would randomly play out in an everyday conversation, or at least I that’s the way I would desire these moments of dialogue to play out. Because there are no points in my life that I would discuss matters involving foot massages with others, but this movie makes me want to go to my local coffee shop or restaurant with someone I know just to talk about the most random topics. It doesn’t have to be foot massages. It could probably be about toenail clippings, maybe which brand of light bulb is the most reliable, which Target store is the best for shopping? There are a ton of moments where the movie is technically sticking to the main story, but it occasionally has diversions when it comes to spoken dialogue. And none of these diversions feel forced because each one is as entertaining as the next. Aside from the foot massage scene, we get a hypnotizing moment where one character wants to order a $5 milkshake, which plays out very well based on the chemistry between the two main characters in the scene, not to mention perhaps the sense of wanting to be a part of this world. Granted, that is a bit of an inaccurate statement, because I don’t want to get shot. I don’t want to get an overdose. I don’t want to be in much danger.

BUT LOOK AT THIS JAW-DROPPING SET!

Seriously, if Tarantino imagined this, he is automatically my favorite filmmaker of all time. This is a classy, American restaurant with a lively interior, but with some unique features, one of my favorites being the car table on the right! At the start of the scene, we see John Travolta and Uma Thurman sitting across from each other chatting and eating, and a part of me just felt immersed into this other-worldly atmosphere. It was almost like watching a “Star Wars” movie if it took place on Earth! It almost reminds me of this movie theater chain that’s primarily known in New Hampshire, I’ve gone several times, but I have not been in years. If you are in northern Massachusetts, or southern New Hampshire, or if you ever heard of Chunky’s, you’d know what I’m talking about. They have this concept that combines a movie theater with a restaurant, where you can sit in car chairs at long tables. I imagine this could exist in other parts of the world, but it is a concept that is close to home for me. They have some traditional American restaurant food like… burgers. OK… this movie made me hungry.

Between this Thurman/Travolta segment and the scene in the apartment from the start of the film, “Pulp Fiction” really makes me want to go out and grab a burger. Coincidentally, I live near Boston, which has a quick bite chain called “Tasty Burger,” whose name was partially inspired by Samuel L. Jackson’s tasting of the Big Kahuna burger from this movie.

“Mmm-mmmm. That is a tasty burger.” -Jules

Another highlight from Thurvolta, as I’ll call them in this review, is something I won’t dive too deep into, but there is a scene where Uma Thurman has an overdose. And let me just say, as those around her are trying to revive her, the execution of this process is nothing short of engaging and kinda brilliant. Again, I didn’t think this was going to happen based on the type of movie this is, I kinda felt like I was there. Luckily, I was not the one with the overdose, but a third party observer.

Last but not least, and WITHOUT SPOILERS of course, because this is one of those films you have to see before you die, let’s talk about the ending. Granted, over my years of experience of going to the cinema and watching films, I saw the direction this film was tending to go towards, but it does not mean that it is not awesome. It’s one of those endings that I feel like I will remember in my last moments. Between the atmosphere, the dialogue, and the mannerisms perhaps provided through Tarantino’s direction, it was like eating an entire birthday cake and realizing you lost a ton of weight the following morning. Again, there is not much I can say about it, because a lot of people who are young will probably read this, maybe they have yet to experience the film for one reason or another. This is a film that you have to watch before you die! TAKE MY WORD FOR IT!

In the end, what else can I say about “Pulp Fiction?” It’s creative, hypnotizing, and gritty to the freaking core. I have only seen one Tarantino film from start to finish, so I cannot really call him my favorite director. But depending on how I feel about the next two films I do in this series or “Once Upon a Time in Hollywood,” I would not be surprised if I ultimately rank the man in my top 5 directors, or screenwriters, of all time. The man isn’t too bad at acting either. I don’t know when I am going to watch “Pulp Fiction” again, but when I do, I am gonna be grinning like an idiot. Why? This thing is freaking phenomenal. Well done to everyone involved (maybe except Harvey Weinstein)! I’m going to give “Pulp Fiction” a 10/10!

Thanks for reading this review! For those who want to know, my next Tarantino review is going to be for the 2012 film “Django Unchained,” I will be posting my thoughts on that next Monday, July 15th, which will eventually be followed by one more Tarantino review on July 22nd, stay tuned for both of those. As for new releases, I am trying to go see “Spider-Man: Far From Home” as soon as possible, maybe I’ll go Tuesday, I dunno. But on Wednesday I will be going to see the movie “Stuber” as part of an advance screening. I was gonna go see this a couple weeks ago for a Regal Crown Club screening, but due to a mish-mash of reasons, I ended up bowing out. I am however going to do my best to make this one, because I am curious to see how this film turns out. Especially when you consider that this is one of the first Fox films released under their new Disney overlords. Be sure to stay tuned for that review, along with more great content! Also, be sure to follow Scene Before through WordPress or an email! Or, if you are on social media, check out my Facebook page! I want to know, did you see “Pulp Fiction?” What did you think about it? Or, what is your personal favorite Samuel L. Jackson performance? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks! Now if you’ll excuse me, I’m gonna go grab a burger.

Disney Buys a Portion of 21st Century Fox For $52.4 Billion: The Foxiest Place On Earth

Posted on by Jack Drees

 

the-simpsons

*TO VIEW MAIN TOPIC OF POST, ADVANCE TO SECOND PARAGRAPH, OTHERWISE ENJOY ME SULKING ABOUT THE DEATH OF NET NEUTRALITY*

Hey everyone, Jack Drees here! Before we begin discussing the main topic of this post, I want to start off by saying that if you have been following the news lately, you may be aware of the recent verdict made in order to repeal net neutrality in the US. If you ask me, I think it’s despicable, distasteful, vile, greedy, and f*cked up. This chaotic verdict could LITERALLY AFFECT THE INTERNET AS WE KNOW IT. How so? There’s a policy that was in place stating companies can deliver the Internet to you at the same speed regardless of what you do on it. Companies also can’t block, throttle, or make you pay extra tolls depending on the content you watch. Now that we’ve gotten to where we are, companies have the ability to make you pay to use websites you never had to pay to use before! Let me ask you this: Would you pay for YouTube? Would you pay for Twitter? Would you pay for Facebook? Would you pay for MySpace? OK, that’s a stupid question, nobody would use it for free so imagine people paying for it. To those of you reading this, the information I’m giving to you as we speak, based on what I’ve gathered, has the possibility of affecting me. Let’s say someone has Internet from Xfinity and the provider has a vendetta against WordPress, or maybe they don’t like a certain site created using WordPress. Xfinity can throttle the consumer’s speeds, make the consumer pay more just to read other people’s hard work that they MAY OR MAY NOT be getting paid for, or block the Internet consumer from viewing the material. Will my blog certainly be affected? Only time will tell, this was just recently passed on December 14th. Not to mention, based on the overwhelming opposition, I’m wondering if this repeal will even last. I just thought I’d bring this up, as your future of reading this blog could be affected by monstrous f*ckfaces. I MIGHT do a future post on this, but until the time comes, I don’t know what else to say except f*ck the FCC, f*ck Ajit Pai, and may everyone who thought this repeal was a good idea get shoved up Godzilla’s asshole. If you can’t tell by my words, THIS is how serious things could get in the future. We’ll just have to let time pass and let the future write itself.

Moving onto more important matters, we’re going to move onto an event that happened around the same time of the net neutrality repeal. Disney has been known for a lot of things. It made some popular movies, it formed a backbone for many people’s childhoods, and it is often associated with a strange mouse. Disney has been in the news a lot for making many acquisitions over recent years. In 2004, Disney bought The Muppets for $75 million. This does not include Sesame Street or Fraggle Rock. In 2006, Disney acquired Pixar, a company that had associations with Disney prior to the deal going through, but the association is much bigger now. In 2009, Disney gained the rights to Marvel Entertainment, thus allowing them to expand the Marvel Cinematic Universe and create one of the biggest superhero movies ever, “The Avengers.” In 2012, Disney bought Lucasfilm, which includes “Star Wars” and “Indiana Jones,” for $4.06 billion. This lead them to creating “A New Hope” special edition umpteen, “The Force Awakens,” a “Star Wars” prequel considered by many to actually be “not crap,” “Rogue One,” and a movie whose marketing comes off as commercial for guinea pigs with giant google eyes (Porgs), “The Last Jedi.” In 2014, Disney acquired Maker Studios for $500 million, which was a multi-channel network founded by multiple people, including some big names on YouTube such as Philip DeFranco, Lisa Donovan, and Kassem G. By the way, that company has now been absorbed into DDN, or the Disney Digital Network. Disney has often been recognized as a mass media empire, owning what many people love which they either had for a long time, or has just received from someone else. Disney is also filthy rich. A month ago, I thought to myself, “What the heck is up with ‘Justice League,'” AKA the new DC movie that just came out. So I did some thinking, and went on to do some research to further realize what the heck is up with “Justice League.” That then lead me to filling a post titled “What the Heck is Up with Justice League?,” where I explain in detail, what the heck is up with “Justice League.” In that post, I brought up Marvel, which lead me to bringing up Disney, which then lead me to saying this concerning Disney itself.

“…you gotta consider, Marvel’s owned by Disney, the creator of Scrooge McDuck, and as of now, a literal Scrooge McDuck.”

Knowing this information, some folks may not be surprised to hear another acquisition was recently made. Believe me when I say this one is enormous. As of December 14, 2017, Disney now owns key assets and businesses from 21st Century Fox after offering $52.4 billion. Just… Holy f*ck! For the record, this doesn’t include ALL of 21st Century Fox, because this deal won’t affect the Fox Broadcasting Company, Fox News, Fox Business Network, national operations of Fox Sports (FS1 and Big Ten for example, but doesn’t include regional sports networks), and the 20th Century Fox lot in Century City. But seriously, HOLY F*CK! Actually, you know what? In respect to Disney’s squeaky clean f*ckery, sorry, I mean mumbo jumbo, I’m gonna go ahead and ignore that and say HOLY F*CKING F*CK!

At this point, it is more obvious now more than ever that Disney might get to a point where it owns life. Not the board game, but it could own that too if it wanted to, but let’s say you wanted to have a baby, in order to actually impregnate someone, you’d have to take money out of your wallet to pay in order to gain permission to engage in an impregnation process. Accidental impregnation however might be excluded to this rule, but given how Disney doesn’t display sexual acts in a good chunk of their content, they probably wouldn’t be fond of your actions.

Disney’s acquisition over 21st Century Fox means a lot for the future of movies and television. This means Disney now owns tons of movies to add to their collection. These include:

  • Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope
  • X-Men
  • Fantastic Four
  • Deadpool
  • Kingsman
  • Kick-Ass (Although at this point it’s probably gonna be changed to “Kick-Butt”)
  • Alvin and the Chipmunks
  • Ice Age
  • Cast Away
  • Home Alone
  • Avatar
  • Night at the Museum
  • The Sandlot
  • The Martian
  • Alien
  • Independence Day
  • Predator
  • Rio
  • Edward Scissorhands

And guess what? That’s not even all it has! Disney now owns films that I never even thought of it owning. 21st Century Fox owns 20th Century Fox, which is responsible for distributing every film I’ve mentioned on this list. Heck! 20th Century Fox owns movies that might not even fit with Disney’s name. THE COMPANY OWNS “PORKY’S” FOR CRYING OUT LOUD! Oh yeah, and what’s that? You might as well now say “Revenge of the Nerds” is technically a Disney movie! How does that happen?!

Not only did Disney get a ton of movies, but now they have a lot of TV shows on their hands. These include:

  • The Simpsons
  • Family Guy
  • Bob’s Burgers
  • American Dad!
  • Modern Family
  • Family Feud
  • The Orville
  • This Is Us
  • The Last Man on Earth
  • Archer
  • American Horror Story
  • X-Files
  • Empire
  • New Girl
  • Homeland
  • The Mick
  • Ghosted
  • The Americans
  • Atlanta

Sticking with the topic of Fox television, I’ll let you know that “The Simpsons” actually predicted that Disney and Fox would end up making a deal like this. Just watch the episode of “The Simpsons” titled “When You Dish Upon a Star.”

You know powerful nukes are? Let’s say that a nuke launched at a certain point in time, and time is moving really fast. The nuke makes contact with the ground. A giant mushroom cloud forms. Who launched that nuke? Disney did. The nuke is coming at everyone like a giant wave. Whoever or whatever this wave touches, it buys, and owns. The wave has now touched Fox. This moment of contact is significant towards the future of film. Over the years, Disney acquired little things at a time. Marvel’s an exception to the rule, but in comparison to Marvel, this is vastly similar. This is a property that is producing content up the wazoo! At a time, they owned fragments of Marvel! “Fantastic Four,” “X-Men,” “Deadpool!” This… Is… Insane.

I will be a little fair here though, because if you have seen any of the “Fantastic Four” films, you’d probably end disliking at least one of them. Such films include the 1994 version that went straight to home video. The 2005 version that was released theatrically and might make some audiences rather watch the MCU’s “Captain America.” The 2007 version that has Stan Lee playing himself. Seriously, look that up. Or the 2015 version that was so bad that it leaves you to wonder if it would be any better had Stan Lee gotten a cameo.

As far as “X-Men” goes, audiences would usually consider those movies to be pretty good. Granted some installments are better than others. Just look at the difference in quality everyone sees between “X-Men Origins: Wolverine” and “X-Men: Days of Future Past!” There are currently 10 “X-Men” films, including “Deadpool” and the standalone Wolverine installments, and the franchise has more content coming soon. I just wonder in all seriousness, what will happen to the “X-Men” franchise now that Disney has it? Will it get rebooted? Will it get endless sequels? Will the X-Men join the MCU? Those questions however, don’t matter to me as much as the next topic I’m going to bring up. In recent years, mature comic book films have been hitting the big screen. These films have done well in terms of box office return and general reception. Two of the biggest ones we’ve gotten have an association with “X-Men.” In 2016, Fox released “Deadpool,” which became the biggest box office hit for an R rated film just below “Passion of the Christ.” The film was also appreciated for its raunchy, dark tone, shock value, meta humor, and the fact that Ryan Reynolds basically redeemed himself after his first attempt at playing the title character. The next movie I’ll mention is “Logan.” For those of you who haven’t seen “Logan,” I will have you know that I didn’t either, but there are a good number of people who did and consider it to probably be one of the greatest comic book movies EVER. This movie has a spot on the IMDb top 250. Critics and audiences praised it for its grittiness, the different feel this has compared to other comic book films, and the charges of emotion given throughout. I know a teacher in my school and he said he knew someone who considered “Logan” to be “a perfect movie.” This movie is Hugh Jackman’s final performance as the Wolverine, and people f*cking loved it. While we may still be getting “X-Men” movies, there’s a chance that we might not be getting ones like those I just mentioned.

When it comes to Disney films, what do you think of? Well, I think of a lot of things. I think of their classic 2D animations, their newer 3D animations, some movies based on theme park rides, a number of things, really. What I DON’T think of, is anything rated R. Disney seems to always come off as the “family company.” It always tends to be happy, magical, or has something for the kids. Oh yeah, and don’t forget, speaking of kids, IT HAS ALL YOUR KID’S TOYS! It often makes movies that will bring families to the theater. The company doesn’t seem to have a problem with PG-13 movies like those in the “Pirates of the Caribbean” franchise and “John Carter,” but anything above that is a no-no for them. Why is this? Part of me feels that Disney wants to be consistent and maintain this image they’ve built up over the years. There’s also part of me that feels Disney does this because they think this could get them more money. It’s true that the highest grossing film at the box office isn’t rated R. Not one film that’s rated R even made it into the top 10 range for all time worldwide box office records. I’ll just remind you though, when it comes to quality vs. money, it’s best that you choose quality. People go to see quality movies, not movies that you are trying to cash in on. This is why nobody went to see the fifth “Ice Age” movie! Although at the same time nobody saw the new “Blade Runner.” By the way, if you haven’t seen “Blade Runner 2049,” go watch it! It’s amazing! Fox’s new position under Disney can truly affect many films in franchises that were either created in the past and contains films that were rated R such as “Kingsman,” “Alien,” and “Die Hard.” I will say though, the fourth installment in the “Die Hard” franchise, “Live Free or Die Hard,” was PG-13 and got good reviews, but a number of people would probably stick to watching the original “Die Hard,” which was rated R. In fact, you know that joke debate on whether or not “Die Hard” is a Christmas movie? Part of me wonders if Disney will take out all the action and just make a Christmas movie with “Die Hard” characters. It’ll be called “Grandma Got Ran Over by a Reindeer and Died Hard.” Maybe it will even be a crossover between the “Die Hard” characters and Tim Allen’s character from “The Santa Clause.” One film series I’m truly worried about however, is “Deadpool.”

If you have ever read the “Deadpool” comics or even been exposed to anything related to “Deadpool,” there’s a good chance you may be aware of how mature it is. Here are some lines from the 2016 movie based on the source material.

EXAMPLE 1

DEADPOOL: Time to make the chimi-fuckin’-changas.

EXAMPLE 2

DEADPOOL: You’re probably thinking, “My boyfriend said this was a superhero movie but that guy in the suit just turned that other guy into a fucking kabab!” Well, I may be super, but I’m no hero. And yeah, technically, this is a murder. But some of the best love stories start with a murder. And that’s exactly what this is, a love story. And to tell it right… I gotta take you back to long before I squeezed this ass into red spandex.

EXAMPLE 3

WADE WILSON: Do you like what you see?

WEASEL: No. You look like an avocado had sex with an older, more disgusting avocado.

WADE WILSON: Yeah.

WEASEL: Not gently. Like it was hate-fucking. There was something wrong with the relationship and that was the only catharsis that they could find without violence.

WADE WILSON: And the only guy the who fix this fugly mug is the British shitstick who ran the mutant factory. And he’s gone. Poof!

WEASEL: Yeah, well you gotta do something to remedy this because as of now, you only have one course of action.

WADE WILSON: Damn straight. Find Francis.

WEASEL: Star in horror films.

WADE WILSON: What?

WEASEL: Star in your own horror films. Because you look like Freddy Krueger face-fucked a topographical map of Utah.

“Deadpool 2” is out this summer, and for what I can tell, that movie won’t have any changes after the Disney acquisition, but as for the series’s future, I’m not sure if it looks too great. No more shock value, no more bloody scenes, no more super funny moments of dialogue. Although on the bright side, Bob Iger might be reading the minds of the people and listening to them as he said “Deadpool” might still remain rated R. Another movie series this could possibly affect is “Kingsman.”

For those of you who don’t know what “Kingsman” is, it started out as a comic book created by Mark Millar, who also created other comic books like “Superior,” “Kick-Ass,” and “Wanted.” It now has a couple of movies which are based on the material, but contains many differences. Both of the movies were directed by Matthew Vaughn, who has actually said he’s considering making a third installment. The previous two “Kingsman” installments were rated R, and if you watch the films, the reasons behind their R ratings are crystal clear. For those of you who haven’t seen the first movie, “Kingsman: The Secret Service,” I’m going to post a YouTube video of the church shootout scene, which I consider to be one of the greatest action scenes in movie history. This is probably something Disney would NEVER do. Feel free to watch the video, let me know what you think, but if Disney were ever to do something like this, I’d probably have more respect for them as a company because for Disney, it would be a risk, but it could ultimately pay off. Also, in case you didn’t know already, this video may be disturbing to some people, so watch at your own risk.

It’s clips like this that made me enjoy “Kingsman: The Secret Service.” It’s an extended shot sequence of Colin Firth defending himself in a church that has gone mad. As if the cinematography and Lynard Skynard’s “Free Bird” weren’t already cool enough in this sequence, the shock value added a lot to it as well! If “Kingsman 3” ends up being PG-13, it doesn’t mean I won’t go see it. Maybe if I was an average person I wouldn’t go see it, but I’m a wannabe critic, so I kind of have to see it, but there’s a good chance I’d have less anticipation for it than I would for an R rated “Kingsman.” Speaking of “Kingsman,” one character from the franchise goes by the name Princess Tilde. So yeah, she’s now a Disney princess. It’s a little strange to consider Leia from “Star Wars” a Disney princess, but in reality, that’s nothing compared to Princess Tilde. Leia was the combination of a damsel in distress and a badass, Tilde is present in multiple scenes throughout both “Kingsman” installments which have currently been released, and in the first movie, this is some of the dialogue given in one of those scenes:

GARY “EGGSY” UNWIN: Sorry, love. Gotta save the world.

PRINCESS TILDE: (IN THICK, SWEDISH ACCENT) If you save the world, we can do it in the… asshole.

GARY “EGGSY” UNWIN: (CALMLY) I will be right back.

On the bright side, Disney’s history during the end of the twentieth century can leave a glimmer of possibility for future R rated material coming out of Fox. For those of you who don’t know about a company called Miramax, allow me to introduce you to them. Miramax was founded in 1979 as an independent company. I’ve been following the news a lot lately, and I haven’t really kept track of how often this company has been mentioned, but if it has been mentioned at least once, I wouldn’t find it surprising, because it’s owned by Bob Weinstein, along with his brother/recently discovered sex pervert, Harvey Weinstein. Regardless of whoever found the company, they went onto create a number of films over the years. On June 30, 1993, Disney bought Miramax for $60 million. Disney was OK with some R rated films being put out by Miramax throughout its time under Disney ownership. These include films like “Pulp Fiction,” “Clerks,” “Good Will Hunting,” “Kill Bill Vol. 1,” “Kill Bill Vol. 2,” and “Trainspotting.” These films are all considered great by a large number of people, and if Disney didn’t let Miramax do its thing, they probably wouldn’t even be here today. By the way, Disney doesn’t own Miramax anymore. As of 2010, Miramax is owned by Filmyard Holdings.

Back in the day, Mickey Mouse was a lovable cartoon character who became a recognizable mascot for the Disney name. Now, he’s probably got a grimace on his face. Disney keeps making money and it never stops. This then allows them to spend it, and possibly make a crapton more money! They’ll get to a point where they dominate the world, and who knows? Maybe they’ll pay a price for Mars before humans start traveling there. Am I acting like a spoiled brat? Not really, I’ll let you judge for yourself. I’m just asking for Disney to let Fox do its own thing and make sure you don’t really take much control over the brand. You may have noticed I haven’t talked a lot about Fox TV shows, but that’s because I don’t have too much to say about them. Although I will say, it does feel weird that Disney technically now owns TV shows from Seth MacFarlane (“Family Guy,” “American Dad!,” “The Cleveland Show,” “The Orville”). I just hope that not much changes at this point in terms of content. What happens now? I don’t know. Anything can happen at this point. Disney is a money machine. Disney could buy Time Warner in the future. This is such a strange time we’re living in. Thanks for reading this post, and despite how I’m giving some flack towards Disney here, I will say that interestingly, I’m going to promote my review for a recent Disney film. Weird, huh? This film I’m promoting is a movie that had its opening night on December 14th, which was the night I went to see it. Interestingly, the net neutrality talk I gave at the beginning involved an event which occurred on December 14th. Also, the main part of this post involves a deal which officially went through on December 14th! Anyway, I just did my review for “Star Wars: The Last Jedi,” which by the way, has no spoilers. If you want to check that out, there’s a box below stating the title of the post, you can read it right from there. I will say though, my thoughts on the movie have changed a bit since I’ve written that review. By that I mean, the more I think about the movie, the worse it gets. It wasn’t already perfect when I saw it, but it’s steadily declining in terms of my verdict. Stay tuned for more great content! Also, what do you think of this Disney and Fox deal? Do you think any movies or TV shows will be affected by this (positively or negatively) in the future? What do you think Disney will acquire next? Leave a comment below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!