Octavia Spencer

Smurfs (2025): One of the Smurfing Worst Animated Movies Ever Made

Posted on by Jack Drees

“Smurfs” is directed by Chris Miller (Madagascar, Shrek the Third) and stars Rihanna (Home, Ocean’s 8), James Corden (The Emoji Movie, Cats), Nick Offerman (Parks and Recreation, The Founder), JP Karliak (X-Men ’97, New Looney Tunes), Daniel Levy (Schitt’s Creek, Happiest Season), Amy Sedaris (The Mandalorian, Clerks III), Natasha Lyonne (American Pie, Poker Face), Sandra Oh (Killing Eve, Grey’s Anatomy), Jimmy Kimmel (Jimmy Kimmel Live!, Win Ben Stein’s Money), Octavia Spencer (Hidden Figures, Gifted), Nick Kroll (Big Mouth, Sausage Party), Hannah Waddingham (The Garfield Movie, Ted Lasso), Alex Winter (Bill & Ted’s Excellent Adventure, Grand Piano), Maya Erskine (PEN15, Blue Eye Samurai), Kurt Russell (The Thing, Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2), and John Goodman (Revenge of the Nerds, The Big Lebowski). This film centers around its titular blue creatures who go on a mission to save Papa Smurf from evil wizards Razamel and Gargamel.

I hate using the term “kids movie,” mainly because it sounds like an insult towards certain people who watch those kinds of flicks. It is kind of like the term “chick flick,” as if a guy cannot watch films like “Easy A” and have a good time. That film is a blast, and I, a straight white male, fully endorse it. That said, having now seen “Smurfs,” I do not think it is a movie for anybody. Not even children.

This is not to suggest the film is inappropriate for kids. But if you were to ask me to recommend a movie for children, “Smurfs” would be the one I would recommend as a punishment. Forget the time out corner! Forget the extra chores! Forget the soap! Putting on “Smurfs” is the ultimate tool for any disciplinarian!

I saw “Smurfs” in a nearly full theater containing tons of families. Almost nobody uttered a sound during the film. Not the parents, not the children, no one. I actually chuckled once, but being the dark soul that I am, my chuckle was towards the fact that a particular character opted to sacrifice themself. One could argue that part of why I was laughing at this joke was that I wanted the characters to die so the movie could end.

It reminded me of “Borderlands” when Claptrap repeatedly gets shot. Spoiler alert, he ends up surviving! But at the time, that scene gave me a dose of optimism, because it hinted there was a chance that the film’s most annoying character could be left out of the picture.

In the case of “Smurfs,” my singular chuckle was not directed at the film’s most annoying character, but my point stands.

“Smurfs” is chock-full of well-known talent. You have Nick Offerman, John Goodman, Natasha Lyonne, Sandra Oh, even Kurt Russell! These are skilled actors, but there is not much for them to do in this film other than read some of the most predictable, unfunny lines in Hollywood movie history. There are a few lines in this film where I was trying to predict what line would succeed it, what joke would flourish as a result. It goes for the obvious joke time and time and time and time again. It is so annoying and makes for something absolutely uninspired. With these recently mentioned big name actors, you might wonder who has top billing. It is none of these people! Shocking, I know. Instead, that honor goes to Rihanna.

Courtesy of Paramount Pictures – © Paramount Pictures

I am not surprised that Rihanna has top billing. She has an impact on popular culture. That said, her music is not for me. I cannot name a single song of hers that I genuinely love. But this movie is Rihanna’s not just in the sense that she plays one of the core characters, but it is also hers through the music. Several of Rihanna’s hits make it into the soundtrack. If you are a fan of Rihanna, you will probably have more fun listening to these songs by themselves. That said, Rihanna does have an original song featured in the film, particularly during the credits, but at times, it is almost headache-inducing. By the end of this film, I truly wanted Rihanna, to “please, stop the flipping music.”

Paramount Animation/Paramount Animation – © Smurfs™ & © PEYO – 2025 Lic. Lafig B./IMPS © 2025 Par. Pics.

When it comes to finding a main character, it seems to clearly identify James Corden’s No Name Smurf (left) as the protagonist, but again, Rihanna’s Smurfette has such a notable presence to the point where she almost steals the spotlight. You might as well call this movie an 89 minute Rihanna music video featuring the Smurfs. I had trouble figuring out what this movie was trying to be. Is it a musical? Is it a comedy? Is it an adventure? Is it the latest attempt at the multiverse craze? The people behind the movie do not seem to know who exactly they are making it for. “Smurfs” is a family-friendly property, so the crew definitely had children in mind. Although one difference between “Smurfs” and another film from this year I frankly disliked, “A Minecraft Movie,” is that the kids at my screening seemed to be into it, whereas “Smurfs” was a misfire for all audiences, including yours truly.

If I had to pick a movie that “Smurfs” reminds me of, my immediate answer is “The Emoji Movie.” Will kids like this movie? Theoretically. Will adults like this movie? Probably not. Is it colorful and polished? Yes. Does have an everyday “nobody” protagonist? You betcha! Does it have generic sounding songs that have had their time on top 40 radio that get stuck in your head once you leave the theater? Absolutely! If you ever read my expletive-riddled review for “The Emoji Movie,” you may remember me comparing that pile of excrement to films like “The LEGO Movie,” “Wreck-it Ralph,” and “Inside Out,” suggesting that “The Emoji Movie” is a remix of those flicks, but significantly worse. “Smurfs” is basically a reskin of “The Emoji Movie.” Sadly, “The Emoji Movie” lingered so much in my mind that I could not think of any good films to compare “Smurfs” to while I was watching it. At one point, “The LEGO Movie” came to mind because No Name Smurf kind of reminded me of Emmet, whose standout quality is being incredibly pedestrian and everyday, but this film, arguably on purpose, felt like a spiritual sequel to “The Emoji Movie.”

Heck, James Corden is in both films! James Corden seems to be at the top of the list called “Actors to hire if you Have no faith in your project.” Between this film, “The Emoji Movie,” “Cats,” “Gulliver’s Travels,” “Superintelligence,” and “Cinderella,” Corden has built quite the resume of films that made me question my position as a movie person.

Did I mention that both movies reference arguably the most famous line from “Casablanca?” Because they do! And I would argue that “Smurfs” somehow trumps “The Emoji Movie” in terms of how poorly executed the delivery of that line was.

Yes, this movie has tons of stars in it. But they are all given a script that feels more akin to something that would go straight to Paramount+. I guarantee, if Rihanna, and perhaps some of these other actors were not in this film, this would be a streaming exclusive.

That said, there is one segment that I admire in this movie. Without spoilers, it involves a multiversal trip. I thought it was kind of creative. Unfortunately, it only lasts for a minute or two, and then the movie goes back to its regularly scheduled so-called programming. I could see this segment being something that one of the film’s animators would be proud to have on their demo reel. It is the greatest spark of creativity in what is ultimately a dumpster fire that lacks any and all imagination. The film is not consistent with its style. One moment it is fully animated. In another it is live-action. And there’s tons of weird blending between the two styles that sometimes make no sense whatsoever.

The film also reminded me of the equally unimaginative 2011 film “The Smurfs.” Not just because the film features the same characters, but the story beats are kind of similar because all the Smurfs end up leaving Smurf Village and end up in the real world. But perhaps more importantly, both films are not funny and absolutely boring! For an 89 minute movie to be boring is a true feat. It is one thing if the movie is two and a half-hours, but this movie flies at a TikTok pace and still manages to make me, and perhaps the children around me, want to fall asleep. The Smurfs in this movie may be blue, but by the time it was over, it had me turning red.

In the end, “Smurfs” is smurfing bad! It sounds like the obvious comment to make at this time, but if anything it is only fitting after watching this predictable 89 minute brain cell eradicator. “Smurfs” is easily the worst film I have seen so far this year. The film’s full of cringeworthy sequences that feel more like they are designed to show off Rihanna’s singing voice rather than tell a compelling narrative. The movie’s script is riddled with jokes that feel dated. And if they are not dated, they likely will be in five years. There is a sibling rivalry subplot between the film’s villains that ends up being a bore. The film surprisingly has enough time to introduce Kurt Russell’s character. By the time we got to his part of the film, my first thought was “Wait, now? Why are we doing this?” I like me some Kurt Russell, but his presence in the film feels out of the blue. No pun intended. If you want a good movie to take your child to, get tickets for “Elio” or if they’re a little older, take them to see “Superman.” I think the film will grab their attention, and possibly stick with them even as they get older. Do not waste your money on “Smurfs.” I am going to give “Smurfs” a 1/10.

You might make an argument that me not liking this film is irrelevant because it caters more towards children than it does adults. I do not know. I think the many silent children in my theater would have something to say to you. And also this brings up another thing, if the children in my theater, or other children who watched this film for that matter, did like it, I wonder what they will think of it in ten years. Will they feel the same way? Again, this is why I always bring up Pixar as animation’s current gold standard, because they are making films that refuse to insult children’s intelligence. Kids like them. Adults like them. Everyone likes them. Heck, I, a 25 year old man, watched “Cars” recently, which I first checked out when I was six years old. It is still worth watching as an adult. The film looks fantastic, features likable characters, and with my older age, I appreciated the film’s commentary on convenience and how that changes society. It did a great job at that by highlighting the unfortunate impact an Interstate had on the small town of Radiator Springs. Sure, “Smurfs” tries to implement a lesson about being yourself, but it feels surface level and is not enough to save the film from being dull and unfunny. Please avoid this movie at all costs, you will thank me later.

“Smurfs” is now playing in theaters. Tickets are available now.

Courtesy of 1.21 – © 1.21

Thanks for reading this review! My next review is going to be for the brand new horror film, “Together.” Stay tuned! Also, I will eventually be sharing my thoughts on “Oh, Hi!,” “Weapons,” “Freakier Friday,” and “Nobody 2.” 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 “Smurfs?” What did you think about it? Or, what is the best piece of “Smurfs” media out there? I need to know because these recent movies do not seem to be doing it for me. If anyone has a recommendation, please send it my way. Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

The Witches (2020): Witch Imperfect

Posted on by Jack Drees

“The Witches” is directed by Robert Zemeckis (Back to the Future, The Walk) and stars Anne Hathaway (Interstellar, The Dark Knight Rises), Octavia Spencer (Hidden Figures, Gifted), and Stanley Tucci (The Hunger Games, Transformers: Age of Extinction). This film is based on the Roald Dahl novel of the same name and follows a young boy and his mother as they stay in a hotel together. One thing leads to another, and the boy finds out the witches’ plan to turn children into mice. From here, we have the main groundwork to let the rest of the movie unfold.

Not only is this movie based on a classic children’s book from Roald Dahl, but to my lack of knowledge, “The Witches” was made into a movie once before. I had no idea that this was true, but there was a 1990 adaptation of the film directed by Nicolas Roeg. I had no idea this movie existed, but here we are. But growing up with Roald Dahl, I cannot say that I am all that surprised. “The Witches” was never a book I was particularly interested in. I imagine I picked it up once or twice for a couple quick glances, but not once have I read it all the way through. Books like “The BFG” and “Charlie and the Chocolate Factory” were of higher interest to me when I was younger. Unlike when I watched the 2005 “Charlie and the Chocolate Factory” for the first time, where I had the original book and 1971 adaptation in my memory, I don’t really have anything to compare “The Witches” to. I cannot say the book’s better, because I have not read it. I cannot say the 1990 adaptation was better, because I have not seen it. But what can I say about the 2020 adaptation of “The Witches?”

It’s not great. Really not that great.

This movie, particularly in the United States, was supposed to hit theaters, but due to a change of plans, it became a direct to HBO Max exclusive. Other than a few scenes that are visually wild, I can see why this went straight to streaming. Because the reality is that the script for this film is kind of bland. At times it’s a little stiff. I know that one major audience for “The Witches” happens to be children, and I will say that in this movie’s favor, there are some scenes that would give me heebie-jeebies at a younger age. That’s not the problem, because this movie is occasionally suspenseful and haunting. The problem is that this movie feels like it occasionally talks down to them. I’ve seen it done worse in a few other movies, but nevertheless. I don’t know who to blame here. Again, I have not read the book. Maybe this script was incredibly faithful to the source material, which can work as a compliment in many instances, but books are books, and movies are movies. They’re different mediums and sometimes everything in a book does not always translate to film.

One of my other big complaints about this film regards its pacing. I often talk about pacing as a complaint because when a movie moves too slow, it occasionally bores me. Thankfully, this movie is not as boring as some others I have seen. Boredom was not achieved. My problem, and this may be seen as a compliment by some people, is that this movie moves very fast. This film wastes no time whatsoever in getting from point A to point B, but I really would have preferred one or two moments where I could breathe. But that’s also probably because of the earlier complaint where this film overembellishes everything for the audience. There’s a whole elongated scene where Anne Hathaway’s character is exposes her plan to turn children into mice and squash them. It takes forever, but somehow it feels like by the end of the scene, only a few moments have passed. It almost feels like that if the movie did not extend itself unnecessarily, it could have been five to ten minutes shorter, maybe even fifteen. I could be wrong. This is arguably the weirdest complaint I’ve had for a film all year, but it stands. Runtime does not always matter, it’s what you do with it. And here, I think they’ve just wasted some of my time.

This is not to say the film’s all bad. I will say that one of the advantages of this film, especially compared to almost everything else in 2020’s slate, is that it looks quite attractive to the eye. The production design is quirky, and much like some other Dahl adaptations, this movie occasionally felt larger than life. For the record, this movie did release in theaters internationally, so they get the benefit of the theatrical experience. If you live in the United States, watch on the biggest home screen you can. For a movie aimed at families and children, this does look like something that would fit in that realm. This is live-action, but it’s colorful and poppy at the same time. Some of the effects, specifically where we see one of the witches sniffing like a maniac, is a little over the top, but other than that, they fit the movie in terms of tone.

One area where I am continuously conflicted is Anne Hathaway. Now, I adore Anne Hathaway. She’s in some of my favorite movies, she has talent, and I will point out that I can tell she gave it her all here. But the way her character is presented is very hit and miss. Again, this is part of the overembellishing problem with this film. I get she’s a witch, I get she’s evil. But at times, she reminded me of a female version of Arnold Schwarzenegger’s Mr. Freeze from 1997’s “Batman & Robin.”

“What killed the dinosaurs? The ice age!”

I will say that per usual, Octavia Spencer is quite charming. She was a good fit for her role, and while I will probably not remember the movie all that much, her chemistry with her son was decent. Not the best I have seen, but decent. Speaking of which, the son character is played by Jahzir Bruno. The cast lists his character’s name as “Hero Boy.” What a name… Is this… A long lost relative of “Protagonist” from “Tenet?”

By the way, watch “Tenet.” Just my recommendation.

I will say, when it comes to Jahzir Bruno, he probably has a bright future ahead. Who knows what’ll happen in regard to his acting career? But his character, while likable, is just a small increment of why this movie is poorly written. One of the things I HATED about this movie, is how far-fetched it is at times.

Now, you might be thinking, that’s what it is supposed to be! It’s a movie where witches can turn humans into mice with a magic potion! You’re not wrong. I don’t mind that at all. What I do mind is that the movie has a scene that throws everything you know about hearing out the window. I do not know how good the witches can hear in this universe, maybe the book explains it more, but there is a scene where Hero Boy lays under a stage where Anne Hathaway’s character gives a speech. From what I can tell, he’s trying to hide, be secretive. When he takes in a certain piece of information, he speaks to himself almost like he’s having a casual conversation. I do not know if that is his fault, or the director’s fault. I hope not, because Robert Zemeckis has been in the business for years. And evidence sometimes shows that it is not always easy to work with child actors. I do not know if Bruno was following a specific order from the script, a last minute adjustment from Zemeckis, or what. I do have faith that Bruno will be in more palatable movies as time goes on, and he is still young, so he can improve his craft a just a hair. I just wish this project was better.

One of the big advantages though of watching this on HBO Max is that other than the subscription, this is practically a free movie. It was not like I was robbed of $12 at the theater, or in the case of the pandemic, $19.99 on Prime Video or Google Play. Even so, I can see why this was dumped to a streaming service. As cool as it would have looked in a theater, it does not have the writing and excitement to back it up.

In the end, “The Witches” could not quite deliver the cheese. I will point out. I’ve seen a lot of movies directed by Robert Zemeckis. All the “Back to the Future” films, “Allied,” “Who Framed Roger Rabbit?,” “The Polar Express.” I’ve enjoyed most of the films I’ve seen from him. Even ones I did not enjoy like “Flight” and “Cast Way” still had elements which I was able to appreciate. “The Witches” fits in the same category as those previously mentioned films, it is one of Zemeckis’s inferior days at the office. And as far as Roald Dahl adaptations go, this one is probably my least favorite. Much like’s Zemeckis’s cinematic library, I can not pinpoint one particular Roald Dahl adaptation I’ve seen that I legitimately hated. But this one was not a golden ticket. I’m going to give “The Witches” a 5/10.

If anything else, one of the best parts of this movie is the score. Unsurprisingly, considering how this movie is directed by Robert Zemeckis, Alan Silvestri did all the composition work. Time will tell, but it is hard to say whether “The Witches” will become a popular Halloween tradition for some. It wouldn’t for me, but who knows? This movie just felt rushed, but by being rushed, it did so by elongating, talking down to its audience. It does a lot by doing very little, if that makes any sense. This is the “Ludicrous Speed” of movies.

Thanks for reading this review! This weekend is one of the bigger ones in regard to movies this year. “The Witches” just hit HBO Max, Prime Video now has “Borat Subsequent Moviefilm,” “The Empty Man,” even though it looks terrible, just hit theaters, and one of my favorite movies of the year BY STORM just hit Netflix and is still playing in some theaters. That movie by the way is the new animated musical “Over the Moon,” which centers around a young girl who longs to find an ancient Moon Goddess. I cannot recommend this movie enough, even though I know a few people who may want to skip certain parts of it. By the way, if you want to read my review for “Over the Moon,” click right here! Be sure to follow Scene Before either with an email or WordPress account so you can stay tuned for more great content! Also, check out my Facebook page! I want to know, did you see “The Witches?” What did you think about it? Have you read the book? Have you seen the 1990 film? Which version of the story do you like best? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

Dolittle (2020): Why, Downey? Why?

Posted on by Jack Drees

mv5bmdnkoda5zgqtodczos00otqxlthhmtitmjk0zmnhmdm0yjnmxkeyxkfqcgdeqxvymdm2ndm2mq4040._v1_sy1000_sx675_al_

“Dolittle” is directed by Stephen Gaghan (Gold, Syriana) and stars Robert Downey Jr. (Iron Man, Chaplin), Antonio Banderas (Interview with the Vampire, Shrek 2), Michael Sheen (Frost/Nixon, Masters of Sex), Emma Thompson (Saving Mr. Banks, Late Night), Rami Malek (Bohemian Rhapsody, Night at the Museum), John Cena (Trainwreck, Playing with Fire), Kumail Nanjiani (Men in Black: International, Silicon Valley), Octavia Spencer (Gifted, Hidden Figures), Tom Holland (Spies in Disguise, Captain America: Civil War), Craig Robinson (Last Comic Standing, Knocked Up), Ralph Fiennes (The LEGO Batman Movie, Skyfall), Selena Gomez (Monte Carlo, Wizards of Waverly Place), and Marion Cotillard (Allied, Inception).

This film is the latest reboot to the “Doctor Dolittle” intellectual property. This time around, Robert Downey Jr. plays the man who can talk to animals and it follows him in a story where a Queen is dying and the only way to save her is to go on a journey to find a healing tree. On said journey, he is joined by his fellow animal friends and a new human apprentice (Harry Collett).

I have no memory of watching any previous material from the “Doctor Dolittle” franchise from beginning to end, so this was sort of my introduction to this world on film. Granted, I knew about about the character, I knew the whole thing about how the character can talk to animals and said animals do not spend too little time making a presence for themselves. I had the basics down, but for this movie, I was getting a new experience, one I never really had before.

But just because my experience was new, does not mean it was enjoyable. If “Cats” made me never want to ever interact with a feline ever again, then “Dolittle” has officially destroyed any chance I previously had of wanting to so much as think about any animal in existence. Thankfully, unlike “Cats,” which I praised for the CGI *at times*, the effects in “Dolittle” are a lot less unsettling, and a bit more satisfying to look at. But if Robert Downey Jr. is going to continue doing films like this after throwing in the towel with the MCU, movie audiences everywhere are in for a world of pain.

Granted, I will say, one of the interesting things about this film is that Robert Downey Jr.’s wife, Susan Downey, is a producer on the film. Plus, the two have kids, and it was just revealed on a clip of “Today” that this was the first premiere that they were taken to. After all, unlike most of the movies that Downey Jr. has done recently, which have been PG-13, “Dolittle” is PG. If “Dolittle” was a chance for two related people to work together, it may sound sweet, but quality should ALWAYS come first. This is why I get worried whenever Melissa McCarthy and her husband, Ben Falcone, are doing a project together, because statistically speaking, they are not usually that well-received. Granted, maybe I am getting a little bit more apprehensive than I really should because the Downey team are also working on a film together to be directed by Richard Linklater, who also directed “Boyhood,” which even though I have not seen the film itself, I know enough about it to realize how innovative and groundbreaking of a film it really is.

As for Robert Downey Jr.’s performance, I could tell that maybe there was some effort put into it, but holy mackerel, that accent sounds like crap! It almost sounds as if Downey was doing a really bad impression of Bilbo Baggins from “The Hobbit!” It’s overemphasizing in how bold it is supposed to come off and unfortunately, it makes me think Robert Downey Jr. at one point must have gotten acting lessons from a ship-sailing pirate.

Speaking of Robert Downey Jr., there is a point in this movie where he says a line where he basically invaded my mind and snatched an idea out of it. Now I know this is a kids movie, I know it is a family movie, some people will tend to say that these types of movies can get away with a few things here and there, cause ya know, kids just want to be entertained. I think that is a cop out of an excuse for a least a good portion of how many times such a thought is uttered. But what I find hilarious about this movie’s script is that there is a point where a bunch of characters are in a room together and Dolittle is basically providing a blueprint of his plan to save the Queen, and there is a point where he has to point out how preposterous his plan sounds.

Shut up, movie. Shut up.

The CGI in this film is not half bad, but that’s something I’d come to expect at this point, I’m willing to bet that maybe if this came out in the past decade or maybe sometime prior to say 2016’s “The Jungle Book,” this could be like another “Avatar.” Granted, if it came out in 2009, which is when “Avatar” came out, it probably would be just another movie, but this feels like a movie that would have probably worked as an experiential technological achievement from the 2000s, but since it came out in 2020, it needed something more.

I do not want to provide too many spoilers for this film, for one thing it just came out, and I imagine there are some people, not everybody, but some, who may have sort of a nostalgic attachment to the “Doctor Dolittle” IP. Out of respect for those people, this review is as spoiler-free as I could possibly make it. With that being said, the climax of this movie delivers one of the most infuriatingly off-putting gags ever put in a kids movie. There is a scene that I imagine young kids will probably get a kick out of, but I thought was the dumbest thing on the face of the earth. It involves farting. That is all I will say. Oh, and speaking of which, the humor in this film is as stale as whatever the latest pop song that always plays radio happens to be! Not all the jokes stood out, but when a joke did, it made me hate my life and everything in it. I am a bit young to have kids, but if I ever did have kids, this movie would probably be banned from movie night. If a find a DVD copy of this thing in the house, chances are I’m going to throw it through the window and break the glass. Any movie that has a scene containing a barely understandable human being playing chess with a gorilla who shows his ass as a way of insulting his opponent is officially on my eradication list.

Ironically, there is a song at the end of the film by Sia. I do not have all that much to say about the song itself, but apparently, in this attempt to recreate “Doctor Dolittle,” the song that plays is called “Original.” This world is becoming increasingly dumber, and there needs to be a cure for this combined dumbassery.

In the end, “Dolittle” just… did little to leave me happy. Will kids like it? Probably if they’re under maybe 10 years old. But I don’t think that this will be a film that families will go to and endlessly remember and quote for the rest of their lives. If anything, this is going to be a film that kids will watch, enjoy, and either move onto the next thing or continue watching until they grow out of it. “Dolittle” as a whole is just boring, formulaic, and none of the iconic names in the cast can save this mess! Robert Downey Jr. in this movie may not be a people person, but now after coming out of “Dolittle,” I have reevaluate my respect for the art of film and ask myself whether or not I am a movie person at this point. I am going to give “Dolittle” a 2/10. Now while I don’t see Universal Pictures dying a horrible death these next few months or anything, this is not the best of times for them. They just did “Cats,” which was awful, and apparently this is one of their next big releases! As one who enjoys Universal’s movies, I wish them luck during this dire time.

Thanks for reading this review! I just want everyone to know that my next review is going to be for Guy Ritchie’s “The Gentlemen,” which I just saw at an advance screening aaaaaaannnnnd… There’s too much to talk about. I’ll save my thoughts for the review. That’s all I’ll say. Be sure to follow Scene Before either with an email or WordPress account so you can stay tuned for more great content! If you want to leave a like or comment, make sure you have the proper account credentials, and speaking of liking, why not hop over to my Facebook page and give that a like too? I don’t see any reason not to! I want to know, did you see “Dolittle?” What did you think about it? Or, what is your favorite “Doctor Dolittle” movie? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

Instant Family (2018): An Emotionally Confusing, Wannabe Feel Good Rollercoaster

Posted on by Jack Drees

MV5BMTkzMzgzMTc1OF5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTgwNjQ4MzE0NjM@._V1_SY1000_CR006781000_AL_

“Instant Family” is directed by Sean Anders (Daddy’s Home, That’s My Boy) and stars Mark Wahlberg, Rose Byrne (Neighbors, Insidious), Isabella Moner (Transformers: The Last Knight, 100 Things To Do Before High School), Margo Martindale (The Americans, Justified), Julie Hagerty (Family Guy, Airplane!), Tig Notaro (In a World…, One Mississippi), and Octavia Spencer (Hidden Figures, Gifted). This movie is inspired by true events experienced by director Sean Anders. It’s about a couple who decided to adopt three children who have no idea what exactly they’ve signed up for.

This movie is directed and co-written by Sean Anders, who actually wrote the screenplay basing it upon his own experiences and before I tell you whether or not this is actually a good movie, this notion gave me the urge to dive deeper into Anders as a person. He, much like the main couple in the movie, appeared to be against the idea of adopting at first, but he eventually adapted to the idea, which seems to have lead to him making this movie a reality. Regardless of the overall quality of “Instant Family,” it is an interesting motive to make a movie based on something that significantly changed your life. That being said, I REALLY don’t know how to feel about this movie.

They say that some movies and stories can be “emotional rollercoasters.” Movies that, logically speaking, can provide multiple feelings throughout such as happiness, sadness, gladness, disappointment, etc. This is that movie, and I don’t think I can say it is quite the emotional rollercoaster I would traditionally ask for. Because this movie manages to make my heart warm, make me laugh, but also question whatever is happening on screen.

One movie I saw in 2018 was “Eighth Grade,” part of why I loved that movie so much is because of how that made me cringe. The idea of cringe is such a strange word in that scenario because in reality, cringing can be seen as a synonym for getting embarrassed. Maybe I have a slight bias towards “Eighth Grade” as an idea and a script because for one thing, I don’t have adopted children. I’m not even a parent for crying out loud. I’ve been through “Eighth Grade,” much like a good portion of other people. The cringe I’ve gotten out of that movie was reminiscent of how I would feel getting scared during certain horror movies. “Instant Family” seemingly tries to replicate an uncomfortable feeling of being a parent, not to mention, being a part of a family, but that’s all I get sometimes during scenes, discomfort. I don’t relate to what is happening to the fullest like I’d want to, or maybe I do, but I just felt more like I was watching “How To Be a Latin Lover,” one of the worst attempts at a comedy of the decade, as opposed to a compelling story.

“Instant Family” started out in a pretty solid manner, it could have been funnier, it could have been better, but it was serviceable. Then somewhere in the middle of the movie, I start to feel uncomfortable. Granted, I will say, the discomfort overall could be a lot worse, because I have a strong feeling that was what the writers happened to be going for. The way this movie this movie plays out is kind of like playing a nearly lucky game of bingo. You have your free space taken, the first three numbers called are all in a row which includes the free space, then for the rest of the game, it does not go the way you planned. All the rest of the numbers either don’t connect the way you want to, or are not even on your board.

I will say though, I gotta give credit to the performances, and when it comes to comedies, that is something that I feel may occasionally be overlooked. Granted, I sometimes make the excuse that a comedy has to make an effort at delivering humor before anything else. I stand by my statement, but performances are an important part of any film regardless of whether it is a drama going for an Academy Award, a horror flick trying to scare audiences everywhere, or in this case, a comedy made specifically to get people to laugh. Granted, compared to some other comedies I’ve seen recently, this seems to have more layers and substance attached to it. The two parents in the movie actually feel like a married couple who are trying to adopt children. The children feel like they act their age, and are quite charming. There’s also a grandmother in the movie that personality-wise, is kind of hyperactive, and while I do consider the character to be rather cliche in ways, I thought she was portrayed and written well for a film like this.

Screenshot (412)

Mark Wahlberg plays Pete in the movie, and as mentioned, he’s portrayed with excellence. Granted, it’s not worthy of awards, but Wahlberg did well with the provided material. With that in mind, it is also worth mentioning that Wahlberg kind of already played this character before. In fact, you can also say that Sean Anders, the director of this film, also directed this character before, played by the exact same person. Anders directed “Daddy’s Home,” which stars Mark Wahlberg as a biological father to multiple kids. The children are living with their stepdad (Will Ferrell), but for some time, Wahlberg is in town so the two raise the kids together. Aside from being a father, one thing that really stood out to me about Mark Wahlberg’s character is that he would teach his kids to be tough and stand up to others. Thinking back on “Instant Family,” I must have achieved a similar vibe during one scene. There is one scene that I thought was completely entertaining where Wahlberg is with his adopted teenage daughter and they break s*it with a hammer.

One minor issue I have with the movie is actually something I’ve been experiencing a lot lately. While this movie has a solid runtime to avoid complete agitation, the pacing could have been better. There are a couple moments where this movie feels climactic, where it feels like it could have a solid ending, but it just chooses to go on. It’s just like the climax to “Deadpool 2” although much less interesting and entertaining.

Let’s be real, “Instant Family” is no masterpiece, and part of me thinks that this movie isn’t for everyone. Sure, it’s heartwarming. Sure, it’s funny. Sure, it’s raw. But it almost at times feels like a surface level movie in certain aspects. The humor at times is barely passable, and the does have that studio feel I bring up from time to time. I feel like a number of people are gonna sit down, watch this movie, and probably enjoy themselves for a couple of hours. However, due to my lack of relatibility to the movie, not to mention my personal critiques, I can’t say it’s a movie for me. I wouldn’t say however to avoid it, but I feel like some people will have more fun than others.

In the end, “Instant Family” is an alright attempt at a feel good comedy. However, it feels more like a reality check on parenting that focuses more on crazy visions of realistic situations than a story that’s supposed to make you smile. I appreciate the vision, but it just didn’t work for me. Plus, if I’m not at that point already, I seem to be getting to the point where I’ve practically seen it all when it comes to comedy. Nothing feels new or fresh. “Instant Family” is by no means 2018’s worst attempt at a comedy, but it adds cliches I have already seen and just doesn’t feel like the best possible product it can truly be. I am going to give “Instant Family” a 5/10. I will say once again, this is an emotional rollercoaster. When I began to leave the theater, the one word I could use to describe my experience was “confusing.” Don’t get me wrong, I understood the movie, it’s not like I watched a deep puzzle-like flick or something, it’s a simple attempt at comedy. But I had a mix of positive and negative emotions throughout the film, and while I had fun watching the movie, I don’t think I have any desire to watch it again anytime soon. There’s a good chance this score could change in the future. What will it change to? I honestly don’t know. Only time will tell. Thanks for reading this review! Next week I’ll be going to see an advance screening of “The Upside.” This movie is a remake of 2011’s “The Intouchables” and I’ll have my review of “The Upside” on the web as early as possible. Also, I’ve talked about them for sometime, I’ve been building them up like Thanos, and now they are going to arrive! My next two posts are going to be my top 10 BEST movies of 2018 and my top 10 WORST movies of 2018! I’m so excited to release these to you all, and I’m looking forward to a great 2019, happy new year everyone! Be sure to follow Scene Before either with a WordPress account or email so you can stay tuned for more great content! I want to know, did you see “Instant Family?” What did you think about it? Or, what is a movie where you cringed due to a relatable moment, scene, or segment? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

90th Academy Awards Hopes and Predictions

Posted on by Jack Drees

mv5bmgu2ngnlmtqtzta5yi00nju5ltlmzgmtmgnlngjkymu1ndc0xkeyxkfqcgdeqxvynti5njiymw-_v1_sy1000_sx675_al_

Hey everyone, Jack Drees here! On March 4th, which is this Sunday, which is also today, the Academy Awards will take place. The Super Bowl for movie buffs, and for at least the next few years, for a handful of people who enjoy hearing Trump jokes. Speaking of which, I can assure you that this Sunday’s Oscars show is gonna YUGE, and I’m not joking around. This year is the 90th show in the event’s history.

mv5bnjm2ndq0odm0of5bml5banbnxkftztgwndi3nte0ndm-_v1_sy1000_cr007561000_al_

Despite being a big number for the Oscars, I’ll say something I said for the 75th Golden Globes this year after it aired. “Seventy-five, undoubtedly, is a big number for any event, however this felt like other “Golden Globes” shows I watched with a 75 shoved in the title.” I imagine I’ll feel the same way for the Academy Awards, although I think it’ll be a much more comfortable and less awkward experience than the Golden Globes. While the Oscars can get, and has gotten, political, my recent experience tells me that vibe is present a bit more at the Golden Globes. In fact, when it comes to the political jokes during the Oscars, I honestly found those to be funnier and more memorable. If you recall last year’s show, the host, Jimmy Kimmel said somethings not necessarily about Donald Trump but TO Donald Trump. What better way to say something to Trump than what might be his all-time favorite form of communication than tweeting. The tweets are located below, and believe me, they were the greatest tweets you will ever see. The only people who hate these tweets are Crooked Hillary, the Mexicans, and Alex Baldwin!

Nowadays, the world essentially has been riddled with jokes about Donald Trump, and out of all the ones we’ve gotten, this is one that is difficult to top. Although if we were gonna get any more Trump jokes this year, I can assure you they might have a little joke sibling that I’m thrilled to see.

If you watched the Academy Awards last year and stayed tuned towards the end of the show, where it was time to reveal the winner for Best Picture, you may remember how that went down. You may have been screaming at your TV hoping for your pick to win either because you support a certain movie, or you just want to win a bet against your stupid friend, I dunno. I was hoping “Arrival” would win, but in reality, that probably wasn’t going to happen. “La La Land” was my second choice however, having seen that movie and loving it. So Warren Beatty and Faye Dunaway are onstage, and they have a card ready. A card that will change everything. So the nominees for Best Picture are presented, the two appear somewhat confused as they’re about to read the card, and suddenly, Dunaway announces “La La Land.” Once I heard that name, my prediction for Best Picture was right, and I thought it was a fair choice. The crowd is roaring, and as everyone affiliated with that project is arriving onstage, it hasn’t sunk in for everyone, but something happened. Jordan Horowitz is onstage and he shouts to everyone something that I can’t even believe I heard. “La La Land” DIDN’T win Best Picture, “Moonlight” did. This made me think I had to see “Moonlight,” and WHAT JUST HAPPENED?! Turns out someone was too busy on Twitter instead of trying to hand the correct card. This win made me tempted to see “Moonlight” nearly a couple weeks later, and I was unfortunately met with underwhelming results. It’s a good movie, but it’s not THAT GREAT.

Even so, you know how at the end of 2015, the Miss Universe pageant was held and Columbia was the assumed winner, and it turned out to be Philippines? It’s almost hard to tell which screw-up was crazier because the Miss Universe one was the host’s fault, not to mention upon personal review, THE CARD LOOKED F*CKING CRAZY! Here however, you have a screw-up between a staff member working for the show, Warren Beatty along with Faye Dunaway, and it affected not just one person, but an entire crew who worked on something together. Also, remember Jordan Horowitz? The guy who was onstage revealing the true Best Picture? Well, he was a producer for “La La Land,” so this must have been hard for him to do. He took it like a good sport, which I couldn’t even believe, which only makes me admire Horowitz even more!

So yeah, it appears the Beatty and Dunaway are presenting Best Picture again, so my first hope/prediction is that they get it right this time!

Speaking of nomination categories, let’s move onto some that I feel are worth tackling. Starting with… Best Supporting Actor. Here are the all-male nominees!

  • Woody Harrelson (Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri)
  • Sam Rockwell (Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri)
  • Christopher Plummer (All the Money in the World)
  • Willem DaFoe (The Florida Project)
  • Richard Jenkins (The Shape of Water)

Out of these, I’ve only seen Harrelson’s performance and Rockwell’s performance from beginning to end. So of the ones I’ve seen, I’ll go with Harrelson. Of the ones I haven’t seen, I’m either thinking Willem DaFoe or Christopher Plummer will take the cake. I haven’t seen “The Florida Project,” and I don’t have too many good things to say about DaFoe other than hearing positive remarks about his performance. Although think about what the crew behind “All the Money in the World” had to do regarding Christopher Plummer. If you have been living under a rock when it comes to news about Kevin Spacey, let me just say you might be living a happier life than some other people who live in this world because Kevin Spacey, as this world now knows, is a sexual predator. Spacey was originally going to be featured in “All the Money in the World” as the character of J. Paul Getty. Now that Spacey has his dark secrets revealed, Plummer was going to take Spacey’s place, which meant a frenzy of reshoots. Keep in mind, Spacey’s case was revealed on October 29, 2017, LESS THAN TWO MONTHS before the release of the picture! How did he do in the film? I don’t know, I haven’t seen it, but with a story such as that, I think Plummer has some potential. Sure, part of it involved more than just acting, but acting plays a key component into all of this.

Next up is Best Supporting Actress. And the nominees are…

  • Octavia Spencer (The Shape of Water)
  • Laurie Metcalf (Lady Bird)
  • Allison Janey (I, Tonya)
  • Mary J. Blige (Mudbound)
  • Lesley Manville (Phantom Thread)

Of everyone listed, I’ve seen NONE OF THEIR PERFORMANCES. But if you want my guess, I gotta go with Laurie Metcalf. I’m hearing a lot of good things about “Lady Bird.” From the acting, to the writing, to the directing, everything. I didn’t see it on opening weekend because let’s face it, “Thor: Ragnarok” was gonna crush it. Part of what people seem to like about “Lady Bird” is the realism it seems to convey, and I imagine that Metcalf’s performance plays a part in that. In all honesty, I don’t see Blige winning because “Mudbound” was distributed by Netflix and I imagine it would have to be in a larger number of theaters for the Academy to accept it. But anything can happen. One actress I thought unbelievably snubbed for this category is Holly Hunter (The Big Sick). When I saw “The Big Sick” this year, I thought Holly Hunter might have been the best part of the movie, and she fit the role of a gritty white mother quite well. She was part of why I thought the movie was “top 10 list” worthy when I did my end of the year “top 10 BEST movies” list. Ah well, you can’t have everything.

Moving onto Best Actor, the nominees are…

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

Out of all of these, there are a few that stand out. A lot of people are rooting for Gary Oldman, so that gives him a chance. Daniel Day-Lewis, one of the most revered actors ever, is nominated for not only a role that people praised, but the last role he’ll ever do on screen, so maybe that and some respect for his chops will land him a win. Daniel Kaluuya was in one of the most talked about movies of the year, and he’s black, which gives him an extended probability of winning. I have not seen any of these films, but if there were one I think would win, it would be between these three. I personally wanted James Franco and Harrison Ford to make this list, but that didn’t happen now didn’t it. Sure, Franco’s allegations could have SOMETHING to do with it and I may be in the minority when it comes to Ford due to my love for “Blade Runner 2049.” Although if you haven’t seen “Blade Runner 2049,” I personally consider that Ford’s all-time best performance I’ve seen.

Onto Best Actress, let’s take a look at the nominees…

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

OK… Meryl Streep has been nominated again… Big surprise. I have nothing against Meryl Streep, but I’m just making a point that she’s basically been nominated countless times. I don’t think she’ll win though. As for Margot Robbie, I’m SLIGHTLY surprised she was nominated. Don’t get me wrong, she’s a great actress, but I don’t remember her performance being the ultimate highlight of “I, Tonya.” I didn’t see “I, Tonya,” but from what I heard, that’s what I’m gathering. I think this will be either another “Lady Bird” win with Saoirse Ronan, or a win for “Three Billboards” with Frances McDormand. I bought “Three Billboards” on 4K today and I ADORED McDormand’s performance. I thought it was rather jaw-dropping at times, she had the right mannerisms, and it just screamed art. Will she win? Hopefully. Make it happen!

Next, we have Best Original Screenplay. These are…

  • The Big Sick (Kumail Nanjiani, Emily V. Gordon)
  • The Shape of Water (Guillermo del Toro, Vanessa Taylor)
  • Lady Bird (Greta Gerwig)
  • Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri (Martin McDonagh)
  • Get Out (Jordan Peele)

As far as the fact that “The Big Sick” is on this list goes, I’m happy, but rather puzzled. Sure, this wasn’t based on a book, video game, comic book, anything like that, but it is based on true events. I mean, I guess it can belong there if “Spotlight” belonged in that category a couple years back. Even so, I hope it wins out of all of these. Maybe I’m overthinking on the nomination process, but even so, I figured I’d say what I wanted to say. Although I can imagine all of these have a good chance, but “The Shape of Water” is on the lower end of the spectrum. “The Shape of Water,” while people are praising it, is more of a gem according to people from a visual perspective. It is getting praise for its story, but the visuals are more of a standout. “Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri,” was rather haunting and intriguing at times. “Get Out” is actually rather relevant and it has been that way for months now. “Lady Bird” is once again, from what I imagine, realistic. All of these have a shot, it’s just a matter of votes. However one thing I’ll mention about “Get Out” that I’ve yet to mention, is that there’s apparently stories going around about older Academy voters not considering it “Not an Oscar movie.” I haven’t seen the movie, but I know a lot of people disagree. I actually saw a couple of funny tweets yesterday putting “Get Out” alongside “The Boss Baby,” which was nominated in the Best Animation category.

Speaking of screenplays, let’s move onto Best Adapted Screenplay.

  • Logan (Scott Frank, James Mangold, Michael Green)
  • The Disaster Artist (Scott Neustadter, Michael H. Weber)
  • Call Me by Your Name (James Ivory)
  • Molly’s Game (Aaron Sorkin)
  • Mudbound (Dee Rees, Virgil Williams)

Alright, once again, “Mudbound’s” a Netflix movie, therefore reducing its chances and that’s all I’m gonna say about it. I did see “Molly’s Game.” I never read the book it’s based on, but the adaptation for it contained a fast-paced, jumping all over the place kind of feeling screenplay and I felt the movie was all the better for it. I also saw “The Disaster Artist,” another book I didn’t read, but it did get a terrific adaptation. In fact, it made my top 3 films of 2017! “Logan” could win as well, but as far as I know, the Academy probably doesn’t usually view comic book movies the way others do. If I had to choose one that I WANT to win, it’s “The Disaster Artist.” Will it win? I don’t know. But I hope it does, its screenplay MADE the movie. It’s one of the funniest screenplays of the decade!

Now we’re moving onto Best Cinematography and THIS, my friends, is gonna be a big one for me. Here are the nominees…

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

Now before we get into what I’ll call “the big guns,” let’s talk about Rachel Morrison. She’s done cinematography for “Mudbound,” as suggested above. And part of me thinks she has a legitimate shot at winning. I know it’s a Netflix movie, I know what I mentioned about it, but there’s a reason she could win and it’s as simple as this. It’s because… she’s a she. This is the ninetieth Oscars show, and it’s the first one where a woman’s been nominated for Best Cinematography. Part of me thinks that some of the more progressive voters behind the Academy will go for her, not to mention it would make for a good story. I don’t think she’ll come out on top, but that’s because part of me’s stuck on three people, including her. One of the other people is “Dunkirk’s” Hoyte Van Hoytema. I went to see “Dunkirk” in IMAX 70mm, I bought it the day it came out on home video, I watched it twice on Blu-ray and twice on 4K. You can obviously tell I ate “Dunkirk” up like pizza. The cinematography was a highlight for me. This is because this movie was shot on IMAX film cameras and standard 70mm cameras. Not to mention, the way various shots on land, water, and air were presented. The dogfight sequences from the perspective of the camera was absolutely astounding for example! Watching this in IMAX 70mm made it even better because multiple sequences once again, were shot using IMAX technology. Although there’s one film I think is much more deserving of an Oscar in this category and that is, “the big guns,” otherwise known as, “Blade Runner 2049.” If you follow this blog, I’ve talked about “Blade Runner 2049” many many many times, so it should be evident by know that I clearly love it. Part of it has to do with the cinematography. I thought it was not only the best cinematography from a 2017 movie I’ve watched, but also some of the best I’ve seen in my entire life. The camerawork was done by a guy named Roger Deakins. If that name sounds familiar to you, I wouldn’t be extremely surprised. Deakins has done cinematography for films such as: “The Shawshank Redemption,” “Fargo,” “No Country For Old Men,” “True Grit,” “Skyfall,” “Prisoners,” “Sicario,” movies like those! He’s been nominated for an Oscar in the Best Cinematography category FOURTEEN TIMES. With this being some of my all time favorite cinematography, if Deakins loses, I’d be OK with Hoytema winning, but if anyone else wins, I’ll riot. You can say I either want Deakins to win for my fanaticism for “Blade Runner” or just his story when it comes to the Oscars, but I can also argue you haven’t seen “Blade Runner 2049.” By the way, WATCH IT!

Now let’s focus on Best Original Score, with nominees including…

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

Out of all of these, I think the one that has the least chance of winning is “Star Wars: The Last Jedi.” Don’t get me wrong, I’m a huge “Star Wars” fan, and there many people out there who either like “Star Wars” or its music. Personally speaking, and perhaps speaking for a lot of other people out there, “The Last Jedi” might be the worst “Star Wars” score of all time. It’s all subjective, but to me, it just felt repetitive and unoriginal. “Three Billboards” could have a chance, but you never know what could happen. Although I will say, if “Dunkirk” wins, I wouldn’t be too surprised. It’s my second favorite score of 2017 (below “Blade Runner 2049”), it suits the tone of a war film, and upon experience of watching “Dunkirk,” the way it is edited also plays a bit into it. So yeah, go “Dunkirk!”

As for Best Animated Feature, I’m not even gonna go into detail about it. Everyone knows it’s gonna be “Coco.”

Also, why would “The Boss Baby” be nominated instead of something like “The LEGO Batman Movie?” No, seriously, WHY?! Ah well, at least it’s not “The Emoji Movie.”

I will however expand the lack of detail when it comes to Best Production Design…

  • Beauty and the Beast
  • Blade Runner 2049
  • The Shape of Water
  • Darkest Hour
  • Dunkirk

Out of all these, I think the first three I listed have the best shot of winning. Maybe “The Shape of Water” in third place, but critics are eating it up so you never know. You probably know I’d be choosing “Blade Runner 2049” right now. If the sets didn’t look great already at home, imagine them all in the theater! I actually watched the bonus features and these sets still astound me! They’re unbelievable!

Now let’s go onto Best Visual Effects, and the five of these I personally believe were all very well selected.

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

A lot of people have been talking about “War for the Planet of the Apes” when it comes to the visuals, so it wouldn’t surprise me if they won in this category. And funny enough, I’ve seen at least a small portion of all of these films except for that one! Honestly, I’m fine with any of these winning. If there’s a film I think WON’T win, it’ll be “Kong: Skull Island,” but it did deserve a nomination in my book.

As for Best Film Editing, let’s take a look at those nominees.

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

I’ve seen three of these films, and all them are ones I feel are competently edited. “Baby Driver” however, I believe will take the cake, and if it does take the cake, I’m cool with it. The way it edits its music and action sequences is superb and I feel that the “Fast & Furious” franchise, as much as I enjoy some of those movies, can take some notes from it in order to improve their films. “Dunkirk” comes close, but no cigar.

The next two categories have to do with sound: Best Sound Editing, and Best Sound Mixing. And believe it or not, the same exact movies were nominated in both categories, so let’s look at them.

  • Blade Runner 2049 (EDITING: Mark A. Mangini, Theo Green) (MIXING: Ron Bartlett, Doug Hemphill, Mac Ruth)
  • Dunkirk (EDITING: Richard King, Alex Gibson) (MIXING: Gregg Landaker, Gary Lizzo, Mark Weingarten)
  • Baby Driver (EDITING: Julian Slater) (MIXING: Tim Cavagin, Mary H. Ellis, Julian Slater)
  • Star Wars: The Last Jedi (EDITING: Matthew Wood, Ren Klyce) (MIXING: Michael Semanick, David Parker, Stuart Wilson, Ren Klyce)
  • The Shape of Water (EDITING: Nathan Robitaille, Nelson Ferreira) (MIXING: Christian T. Cooke, Glen Gauthier, Brad Zoern)

Yes, I credited people here and not in other places, but I don’t care. As for both of these categories, I think the big three rivals are “Baby Driver,” “Dunkirk,” and “Blade Runner 2049.” The sound recordings fit each film, they were great to hear, and when you mesh em all together, you get something fantastic. I would personally be satisfied with any of those three films winning in either category. The same can be said for “The Last Jedi,” but it’s not quite there…

Next we have Best Makeup and Hairstyling, which if you’ve watched last year’s show, you may remember the possibly hilarious and somewhat controversial win for “Suicide Squad.” This year, no comic book movies have been nominated. However, three other movies have.

  • Wonder
  • Darkest Hour
  • Victoria & Abdul

I’ve seen one movie on the list this year, and I don’t think it’ll win (Wonder) and as for the winner, I’m just gonna guess based on what I’ve seen in images. So with that being said, I’ll go with “The Darkest Hour.”

Moving onto Best Production Design, the nominees are…

  • Beauty and the Beast
  • Blade Runner 2049
  • Dunkirk
  • Darkest Hour
  • The Shape of Water

I already talked enough about “Blade Runner 2049” from a visual standpoint, so you probably know my answer there. I think the actual winner will be either “Beauty and the Beast” or “The Shape of Water” but only time will tell.

Now for Best Original Song, we have…

  • This is Me (The Greatest Showman)
  • Remember Me (Coco)
  • Mighty River (Mudbound)
  • Stand Up for Something (Marshall)
  • Mystery of Love (Call Me by Your Name)

This will probably a two-horse race between “Remember Me” and “This is Me.” I’ve seen neither of these films, but given their popularity and likability factor from what I heard, that could help in potentially getting a win.

Next up is Best Costume Design, which includes…

  • Beauty and the Beast
  • Victoria & Abdul
  • Phantom Thread
  • The Shape of Water
  • Darkest Hour

Out of all of these, I believe a few have a shot. “Darkest Hour,” “Victoria & Abdul,” and “Beauty and the Beast.” “Darkest Hour’s” costumes seem to fit the vibe of the film from what I’m looking at. The same can also be said for “Victoria & Abdul.” Although when it comes to “Beauty and the Beast,” that also has potential because it seems to have transferred its costumes over from its animated predecessor quite well, and as costumes, they look elegant. So we’ll have to wait and see.

Next up, we have Best Director, and there are some names that I think are worth discussing here.

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

All of these have potential from what I can tell. These all come off as competently made movies, and the direction seemingly appears to play into all of them. Although the big three here to me are Nolan, Gerwig, and del Toro. I mean, del Toro, from what I heard, is getting a lot of attention right now. Critics are loving “The Shape of Water,” people are rooting for him, and you may also remember, he won a Golden Globe in this category for that movie. This could be another win for him. For Greta Gerwig, I’ll say once again, a couple of actors stand out in this film, and part of it may be due to Gerwig’s realistic take and overall direction for it. Not to mention, Gerwig’s a woman, which could not only make an interesting story, but also a lot of people happy. I’m personally rooting for Christopher Nolan. For those of you who don’t know, Nolan is my favorite director of all time. He’s done so many great films and the man overall may just be a genius when it comes to storytelling. When it comes to “Dunkirk,” his vision was experimental and it made the movie all the better for it. So will the Academy choose Nolan? I don’t think so, it’ll probably be del Toro, but we’ll find out!

And last but not least, we have the biggest category of all, Best Picture…

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

As for the ones that are probably not gonna win, I’m gonna say those are “Get Out” and “The Post.” Once again, I’ll bring up how older Academy voters aren’t viewing “Get Out” as an Oscar film. As for “The Post,” while it is getting lots of positive reception, it doesn’t have too many nominations overall compared to some of the other movies on that list. The ones that I feel have absolute potential of winning are: “Dunkirk,” “The Shape of Water,” “Lady Bird,” and “Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri.” Not only have these films come off as great films to viewers and critics alike, they have all received a high number of nominations compare to some other films you’ll see on here. If I had to choose one film that I want to see win it would probably be “Dunkirk.” It has potential due to a high number of nominations and I personally want it to win based on the replay value it has and how it’s presented from an experimental and technical standpoint. My winner for voter picks would be “The Shape of Water,” because let’s face it, people are talking about it. It was nominated for thirteen Oscars, and it already won Best Picture at the Critics Choice Awards. My runner-up for both the critic picks and personal picks would be “Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri.” I really enjoyed watching the film. I thought it was well shot, terrifically acted, and well written. For the critics, you have to consider past experience regarding this film. This won a Golden Globe for Best Picture in the drama section, and it basically made a sweep at the SAG (Screen Actors Guild) awards. Could it win? I don’t know. It’s hard to say what will ultimately take the cake. We’ll have to see when the awards arrive!

If you are actually reading this before the Oscars begin, I actually kind of congratulate you because they actually start VERY SOON. If you’re reading after, I just hope you’re enjoying my somewhat irrelevant content. I don’t know if I’ll be summing up my final thoughts on the Oscars once the show ends, only time will tell. Besides, I’m already busy doing another review which I’ll talk about in a second, but until time allows me to make a final decision, we’ll just have to see where the road leads. Thanks for reading this post! Be sure to stay tuned for my review for “Annihilation.” I just saw the film earlier today, and I cannot wait to talk about it. I’ve already started the review before it came out, because I figured some topics having to do with the movie (that can be talked about without having seen it) are relevant and I wanted to spit those out. Stay tuned for more great content! I want to know, if there’s still time to type them em in, what are some of YOUR hopes and predictions for the 90th Academy Awards? Also, which is better? “La La Land” or “Moonlight?” Me personally, I’d choose “La La Land!” Leave that info down below and please make sure you’re not too busy sending out important tweets, otherwise I might possibly have some false comments on my hands, so be careful! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

Also, one more thing…

GIVE ROGER DEAKINS HIS OSCAR ALREADY!