Paramount

Mission: Impossible: Ghost Protocol (2011): Your Movie Review, Should You Choose To Accept It

Posted on by Jack Drees

mv5bmty4mtuxmjq5ov5bml5banbnxkftztcwntuymzg5ng-_v1_sy1000_cr006751000_al_

Your mission, should you choose to accept it, is to read the fourth post brought to you by the ultimate Jackoff of movie reviewers in his Tom Cruise “Mission: Impossible” review series. This fourth review, appropriately, is for the fourth chronological movie in the series, “Mission: Impossible: Ghost Protocol.” If the number four does not give you any sort of satisfaction, click away from this review, and avoid reading the same Jackoff’s review for “Sharknado 4: The Fourth Awakens.” Although if you have a fondness for the numbers 1, 2, and 3, be sure to click the links below to go to the previous installments to this particular review series. You will eventually find that this movie is directed by Brad Bird, and the fact that the Jackoff has worked on this review the same weekend that his latest film, “Incredibles 2,” hits theaters, is purely coincidental. As always, should you or any of your Force be caught or killed, the Movie Reviewing Moron will disavow any of your actions. This message will self-destruct in five seconds.

MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE REVIEW: https://scenebefore.wordpress.com/2018/03/30/mission-impossible-1996-this-movie-review-will-self-destruct-in-five-seconds/

MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE II REVIEW: https://scenebefore.wordpress.com/2018/04/29/mission-impossible-ii-2000-impossible-to-enjoy/

MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE III REVIEW: https://scenebefore.wordpress.com/2018/05/24/mission-impossible-iii-2006-the-young-and-the-fearless-spoilers/

“Mission: Impossible: Ghost Protocol” is directed by Brad Bird (The Incredibles, Iron Giant) and stars Tom Cruise (Risky Business, Top Gun), Jeremy Renner (The Hurt Locker, The Town), Simon Pegg (Shaun of the Dead, Star Trek), and Paula Patton (Deja Vu, Precious). This film is the fourth installment in the “Mission: Impossible” film franchise. After the Kremlin is bombed, Ethan Hunt is in trouble. So much trouble in fact, that he is charged with bombing it! Not long into this mess, IMF is shut down and Hunt along with his new team have to go rogue.

As of now, I’ve only watched “Ghost Protocol” once and that one time was specifically for this review. Going into it, I was somewhat excited. I love Brad Bird, he has done some of the best animations I’ve ever seen. Not to mention, that moment when Tom Cruise is on the skyscraper was something I was highly anticipating. Also, this movie was partially shot with IMAX cameras. Some of my favorite movies have been shot on that sort of camera and part of me wanted to see how the crew behind “Ghost Protocol” would utilize that sort of technology. Disappointingly however, I didn’t get to see that. Some movies like “The Dark Knight” if you have the Blu-ray would differentiate the aspect ratio to allow you see which scenes were shot in IMAX, this movie didn’t have that. It’s a minor inconvenience but it still somewhat disappoints me. On the bright side, the movie was enjoyable. I wouldn’t call it the best “Mission: Impossible” movie however.

Maybe this is all because I was watching this at home and not in a theater, maybe it’s because I started this movie near the 10PM mark, but there were just small moments that I thought could have been slightly improved in terms of pacing. And that complaint is somewhat sad because this is a fast-paced movie and it should really keep your eyes glued towards the screen. There were definitely moments where my eyes were glued towards the screen, there’s no doubt to be given about that. However, at random times, I didn’t exactly check out, nor did I lose interest, but I kind of wanted the movie to move along.

The rest of the movie although is mostly positive as far as my thoughts are concerned. I think it’s well shot, well lit, the music is awesome! Seriously, Michael Giacchino is back and his work here makes me continue to appreciate him. Giacchino also did the score for “Mission: Impossible III,” and the more I think about it, I think this “Mission: Impossible” score might be better. As far as characterization goes here, I feel that was executed better in other movies. Obviously it’s better than the second one, but not as good as the first one. I will say that on the bright side that this movie was slightly less cringeworthy than particular moments of “Mission: Impossible III.” Although on the dark side of things, what was cringeworthy in “Mission: Impossible III” probably made me care a tad more for Ethan Hunt than I did in “Ghost Protocol.” Another downside is that my favorite recurring character in the franchise aside from Ethan Hunt, Luther Stickell, is barely in this movie at all. If you don’t know who I’m talking about, he’s played by Ving Rhames and has been present in the franchise ever since the first movie. Maybe I like him a lot because he does the voiceovers for the Arby’s commercials, which are some of my favorite commercials on television, but seriously, he adds a lot of charisma to the film. He’s in the movie, but if you look at IMDb, it’ll state that Ving Rhames’s role was “uncredited.”

Seriously though, one of the most enormous admirations I have for this movie, much like all the others in the franchise is Tom Cruise’s performance and overall commitment to his role of playing the character Ethan Hunt. “Mission: Impossible: Ghost Protocol” just continues to reveal why I love Tom Cruise. I’m no Scientologist, but with that aside, Cruise is one hell of an actor. He may not have the greatest ability to turn himself into another character, but with this “Mission: Impossible” franchise, Tom Cruise has really gotten to a point with the character of Ethan Hunt where he’s just synonymous with the man behind the mask that makes you appreciate both the character and the actor just a bit more. Not to mention, a number of the stunts you see in the film are real and Cruise is just one actor I continue to associate at this point with what one would call “real stuntwork.”

Speaking of characters, one problem I have here that kind of stands out is that the antagonist of the film is pretty forgettable. It might actually be in the conversation for the worst antagonist as far as “Mission: Impossible” movies go. The antagonist is known as Kurt Hendricks and while the villain wasn’t exactly flimsy or stupid, he was just rather disposable. This is not the villain of the franchise that would invest you more than any other, and if you read my review for another Brad Bird film, specifically “Incredibles 2,” this upcoming comment will sound rather reminiscent. Hendricks is coming after a certain point of the franchise where we got one particular awesome villain. Sure, the one in the first film was fine. The second film? Eh, I don’t want to talk about that crap ever again! The third film however, has a villain that just means BUSINESS. There’s one scene on a plane where Hunt is just trying to talk with him, the antagonist is giving threatening answers, it’s a whole thing. There’s a saying that a movie is as good as its villain, as much as I disagree on that statement, because I ended up giving “Mission: Impossible III” a 6/10 and yet it turned out to have the best villain in the franchise, I would agree in the thought that this movie would ultimately be better had the villain been better.

I feel like there a couple of reasons why I’m not liking this movie as much as I kind of hoped I would have. Starting off with Layman’s terms, and I can’t believe I’m saying this… Brad Bird.

Let me just say that Brad Bird is one of my favorite filmmakers working today, but most of the work I adore from him are in the realm of animation as opposed to live-action. He did my favorite animation, “The Incredibles.” He did a worthy follow-up, “Incredibles 2.” He also did another great Pixar film, “Ratatouille.” Before all of that, he did “Iron Giant.” Not only did he direct all of those films, but he also wrote them. This is Brad Bird’s directorial vision off of somebody else’s script, which is a normal thing in filmmaking nowadays, however, I don’t think that’s Brad Bird’s style. “Mission: Impossible: Ghost Protocol” is one of the first times has done something that’s entirely live-action. The only other movie that I can come up with which he’s done that is 2015’s “Tomorrowland,” which to me, is just about as good as this movie. It’s watchable, but I don’t want to go back to it right away. Although interestingly, unlike this film, Brad Bird actually wrote “Tomorrowland.” My advice to Brad Bird is to focus on where his strengths seem to lie. To be specific, animation. Whether it’s “Incredibles 3” (PLEASE START THAT SCRIPT) or something completely new and original, I imagine Brad Bird would make all of our wings fly into the theater.

In the end, I didn’t hate “Mission: Impossible: Ghost Protocol,” I thought it had some creative ideas behind it, there were definitely stakes, and Brad Bird’s reason to shoot the film in IMAX is spot on. He believes that it would bring back a level of showmanship that theaters are starting to lose given how most movies nowadays are shown in multiplexes, where screens are less grand and everything from the vibe to theater itself is shrunken down. And part of me wishes that I actually went out and saw this in theaters. That would have been tricky though because I was twelve years old at the time this came out and the movie is PG-13. Not only that, but I wouldn’t have watched one other “Mission: Impossible” film prior to this had I gone out and witnessed “Ghost Protocol” in a theater. If I went out and got the theatrical experience that I’m quite sure this movie probably deserved, I would probably have enjoyed it just a little bit more. I feel I like I should watch this movie again at a different time of day where I don’t feel the need to have anything else to worry about, perhaps my opinion will change then. I’m gonna give “Mission: Impossible: Ghost Protocol” a 7/10. Once again, a fairly enjoyable movie with some neat qualities behind it, I wouldn’t mind watching it again. Although as of now if I were to watch it again, it would for two reasons. 1. To see if the movie improves over the first watch. 2. I would probably have no distractions surrounding me, allowing myself to further immerse into the movie. As far as watching this movie again goes, only the future can decide such a thing for me.

Thanks for reading this post! If you currently have Brad Bird fever right now, feel free to go to the link at the end of this post and read my “Incredibles 2” review! I feel like I went over a lot that the movie has to offer without exactly giving away spoilers. So if you feel like checking out that review, hit that link below!

Also, this “Mission: Impossible” review series is almost at its closing point. The next entry will be the last review I do in the “Mission: Impossible” franchise prior to the release of “Mission: Impossible: Fallout.” So for the first time ever on Scene Before, I’d like to say, please stay tuned for my review for “Mission: Impossible: Rogue Nation.” That review will be up sometime in July before the release of “Mission: Impossible: Fallout,” which comes out on the 27th. I’ll give you all a warning though regarding my review for “Fallout” if you follow my blog. I don’t know when exactly I’ll be reviewing it. Because on the day it comes out I have to leave early to catch a train for New York City, which is part of a trip that will take several hours. And I also return home that same day. Once I get home, I’m going up to Maine with my family for a couple nights. Trust me, I WANT to see this movie. I know there are some theaters in the area, I’ve done my research. However, based on what the majority intends to do, I’m not quite sure I’ll be able to reach a theater during my stay. I’m not gonna make any guarantees because I’m not exactly sure how this stay is going to go down, but let me just say that for now unless I’m invited to an early screening of “Mission: Impossible: Fallout,” if you are expecting an early review of this particular movie, don’t get your hopes up. Nevertheless, be sure to stay tuned for those reviews, which I do want to post on here at some point, and other great content! I want to know, did you see “Mission: Impossible: Ghost Protocol?” What did you think about it? Or, do you think I should watch the movie again to see if my thoughts change? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

INCREDIBLES 2 REVIEW: https://scenebefore.wordpress.com/2018/06/14/incredibles-2-2018-too-late-fourteen-years-too-late/

Mission: Impossible III (2006): The Young and the Fearless *SPOILERS*

Posted on by Jack Drees

Your mission, should you choose to accept it, is to read the third review in some jackass’s series. The series can go by a number of names, might not even go by a name at all, but it makes up of all “Mission: Impossible” films starring Tom Cruise. If this mission is unacceptable to you, there are other “Mission: Impossible” films which the particular jackass has reviewed prior to this one. Those include the two films released earlier in the franchise, also starring Tom Cruise. As always, should you or any of your Force be caught or killed, the Movie Reviewing Moron will disavow any of your actions. This message will self-destruct in five seconds.

MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE REVIEW: https://scenebefore.wordpress.com/2018/03/30/mission-impossible-1996-this-movie-review-will-self-destruct-in-five-seconds/

MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE II REVIEW: https://scenebefore.wordpress.com/2018/04/29/mission-impossible-ii-2000-impossible-to-enjoy/

mv5bothhnta1yjityzk2ny00m2y1lwjlywutzdqyzdu0ymy5y2m5xkeyxkfqcgdeqxvynju0otq0oty-_v1_sy1000_cr006731000_al_

“Mission: Impossible III” is directed by JJ Abrams (Star Wars: The Force Awakens, Lost) and stars Tom Cruise (The Last Samurai, The Firm), Philip Seymour Hoffman (Almost Famous, The Big Lebowski), Ving Rhames (Pulp Fiction, Lilo & Stitch), Billy Crudup (Big Fish, Princess Mononoke), Michelle Monaghan (Kiss Kiss Bang Bang, The Bourne Supremacy), Jonathan Rhys Meyers (Match Point, Vanity Fair), Keri Russell (Felicity, Malibu Shores), Maggie Q (Nikita, Live Free or Die Hard), and Laurence Fishburne (The Matrix, Mystic River). This film is about Ethan Hunt, who is marrying Michelle Monaghan’s character of Julia, while at the same time, he has to face an arms dealer who threatens both him and the girl whom Hunt intends to marry.

This is my third installment in my Tom Cruise “Mission: Impossible” review series. I’ve already covered my thoughts on the first installment, which I thoroughly enjoyed and the more I think about it, the better it actually gets. The second movie, honestly was a fail and a half. It had some neat cinematography and some neat action with real cuts added to Cruise’s face during the final fight by the way. The “Mission: Impossible” movies, regardless of how good or bad they are when watching them, can become more interesting once you take a gander at the work put into them. This third installment is no exception. Tom Cruise once again does his own stunts, very pleasing to hear personally. This is also the first feature film directed by JJ Abrams, and its budget believe it or not is quite an expensive one for a first time feature film director coming in around $150 million. And the best part about this movie is that it is better than “Mission: Impossible II.” However, it does not mean that this film is perfect. I’ve actually watched the film in two sittings. I did so for two reasons. First, the Celtics-Cavs Eastern Conference Finals game was on. Second, I was kind of bored during the first half-hour at times. As I watched this movie, there were some times where I almost thought about checking out. I came close, but I survived. The story of the movie is nothing I raved about, in fact at times I almost got angry with it because it didn’t feel like an action movie like it’s supposed to be and felt more like a soap opera at times. And there’s your reason for my review title “The Young and the Fearless.” I may be cheating with this because I never watched the whole movie, but it kind of reminded me of “Jaws: The Revenge,” but nowhere near as excessive or terrible.

Say what you want about JJ Abrams. I know a friend who saw his “Star Trek” reboot, she’s a massive “Star Trek” fan and couldn’t be more dissatisfied with it. I am a huge “Star Wars” lover and I found his film, “The Force Awakens” to be one of the best “Star Wars” films ever made. Regardless of how pissed my friend is about “Star Trek” and how happy I am about “Star Wars,” I found “Mission: Impossible III” to kind of be in between those two in terms of the score. Ultimately, “Mission: Impossible III” is somewhere around the average range.

“Mission: Impossible: III” serves its purpose as an action movie where Tom Cruise kicks ass and takes names. Although with that comes some moments where you wonder how much longer the movie has left in terms of runtime and a relationship you kind of WANT to care about, but simultaneously when it comes to that part of the movie you can’t help not giving a single s*it. I buy into the chemistry between Cruise and Monaghan’s characters, but if I had to pick something that I believe deteriorates the film’s overall quality and my ability to fully enjoy it, that would be the #1 aspect of the film I’d choose.

In fact, when it comes to this movie, my favorite things about it have nothing to do with story and characters. I like the characters in the movie, but the real thing that keeps this movie going is the action, Michael Giacchino’s awesome score, and something I never usually point out, the lighting. The lighting in this movie is vivid and colorful at times and felt very suitable for a modern day action flick such as this one. His version of the “Mission: Impossible” theme is similar to Danny Elfman’s, who did the theme for the 1996 “Mission: Impossible” film. And honestly, it’s just as good, which is saying something because I really do admire Danny Elfman’s theme. I also gotta say that when it comes to choosing someone to score this movie, Michael Giacchino’s a great pick, because this is the same guy who did the score for 2004’s “The Incredibles,” and thinking about both intellectual properties, the ideal music I’d think of when it comes to both sound rather similar to each other. I mean, over the years, Giacchino has shown that he has more range in his music than the sounds and visions presented in “The Incredibles” and “Mission: Impossible: III,” but if I heard Giacchino was announced to do the score for this movie back in the 2000s and I had already seen “The Incredibles,” I’d be completely sold.

I know I already said a lot about Tom Cruise, but seriously, I gotta give credit where credit is undoubtedly due, the dude can act, he can do stunts, he can do action, just give him any movie script and he can automatically make the movie better. I will say though, as much as it is a treat to see the character of Ethan Hunt on screen, I wouldn’t say his reasons for having anything to do with the movie made him shine like a star. He, just like a lot of the characters in this film for the most part, feel somewhat wasted. There’s something about them, but I can’t put my finger on what exactly that something could be.

And while I will say that most of the characters feel like they don’t stand out, one character who not only stands out, but also stands tall is Philip Seymour Hoffman’s character of Owen Davian. I… LOVE. THIS GUY. If I weren’t into the technical aspects of movies or action and mainly focused around movie characters, Owen Davian, the film’s main villain, was spectacular in just about every sense of the word. His interactions with other characters, his threatening presence that you as a viewer are automatically subjected to during the film’s beginning, and Hoffman’s performance. Davian is probably my favorite character in the movie, and I gotta say, RIP Philip Seymour Hoffman, you knocked this character out of the park.

Last but not least, this is getting into spoiler territory, so you have been warned. But I want to talk about how Hoffman dies in this movie. He and Cruise are fighting each other and it’s kinda thrilling. They’re outside, and at one point, Cruise is lying on the road. Hoffman is on top of him. Then this truck comes in, it’s very fast, and SHABANG! It makes contact with Hoffman, Cruise is lying under it avoiding the possibility of getting ran over, then seconds later, you see a black shoe that is obviously Hoffman’s. F*cking brilliant. That death is perhaps the one of funniest I’ve seen in the movie, at least for a major villain. The only thing that would make the death funnier is if the truck actually happened to be an ice cream truck playing music, or when Hoffman got hit, you’d hear a Wilhelm scream.

In the end, “Mission: Impossible III” is definitely a much more watchable movie than the gosh-awful “Mission: Impossible II.” Tom Cruise is great, JJ Abrams had a great movie directorial debut, and I have to praise a lot of the technical aspects of the film as well. However, this movie to me does have its issues, and the issues absolutely deteriorate the score. As much as I appreciate the script being about character building, I just wanted more action. And somehow when I was going through the action, it just didn’t satisfy me. I felt like it was just going on for a tad too long in certain sequences. That’s just me though. So for now, I say for now, because this definitely might change in the future depending on what happens. I’m going to give “Mission: Impossible III” a 6/10. This is not a bad movie, very enjoyable indeed, and I’d probably give it another watch in the future, but if the movie adjusts a few things here and there, the score would definitely boost. Thanks for reading this review! Pretty soon I’ll have my review up for “Solo: A Star Wars Story,” I’m seeing that movie tonight and as I promised, I’ll have my review for it up tomorrow. As for other reviews, I still have to see “Deadpool 2,” I might go see a movie this weekend, maybe that’ll be the one, we’ll have to see. But summer’s comin’, which only means I have a lot more free time, and a lot more content that can definitely be produced. So with that in mind, stay tuned for more great content! I want to know, what are your thoughts on “Mission: Impossible III?” Or, as sick as a question as this may sound, I’m somewhat curious to know your opinions on this. What is the funniest death you’ve ever seen in a movie? Now don’t kill me for saying that, I have no motivation to kill any of you, so I don’t see why you should have a motivation for doing the same to me. If you all have a perfectly sane mindset, just jot your thoughts down in the comments section, I’d appreciate hearing them. Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

Mission: Impossible II (2000): Impossible To Enjoy

Posted on by Jack Drees

Your mission, should you choose to accept it, is to read through some jackass’s review of “Mission: Impossible II.” Make sure you read through everything if your enjoyment levels are high. If your enjoyment levels are not high, please seek some counseling or other reading material. This is one of five reviews being done in preparation for the same jackass’s review for “Mission: Impossible: Fallout.” As always, should you or any of your Force be caught or killed, the Movie Reviewing Moron will disavow any of your actions. This message will self-destruct in five seconds.

mv5bn2rkywvkzdqtntmxmi00nwq4lwe2odctnmqzowm2njqzyzdlxkeyxkfqcgdeqxvymjuzoty1ntc-_v1_

“Mission: Impossible II” is directed by John Woo (Hard Boiled, The Killer), stars Tom Cruise (Risky Business, Top Gun), Dougray Scott (Ever After: A Cinderella Story, Deep Impact), and Thandie Newton (Gridlock’d, Beloved) in the sequel to the 1996 mega-hit “Mission: Impossible.” The first movie took a popular TV show, brought it to the big screen with Tom Cruise as the star, and a lot of people ate it up. So naturally, a sequel was released four years later, and this time there’s a genetically modified disease that goes by the name of Chimera. The creator of this disease is killed and stolen by IMF agent Sean Ambrose. Now it is up to Ethan Hunt and Nyah Nirdoff-Hall to go undercover and find out whatever they can about the disease. It’s not an easy task, but if the task is completed, the disease can eventually be brought down.

This movie is the sequel to the highly successful “Mission: Impossible” released in 1996. During its theatrical run it made a final box office total of over $457 million worldwide. This final result made it the third highest-grossing film of the year, just below “Twister,” sitting at #2, and “Independence Day,” taking the cake at the #1 spot. “Mission: Impossible” also made more than any motion picture release from Disney that year, which if your film is doing that nowadays, it says something. Four Disney films released that year were in the worldwide box office’s top 10 by the way. The Disney releases included “The Rock,” “The Hunchback of Notre Dame,” live-action “101 Dalmatians,” and “Ransom.” Now it’s 2000, and “Mission: Impossible II” is on the horizon. Once it came out, guess what happened? It made more than the original! It made a worldwide total of over $546 million. According to Wikipedia, this film’s reviews were “mixed to positive.” Me personally, I felt like I was getting cavities filled on all my teeth at once, so I really did not enjoy what I saw. I did a couple things related to this review before I saw the movie (mainly some stuff that wouldn’t require me to watch the movie), but once I got down to the nitty-gritty, I kind of forgot what I just witnessed on screen. It’s kinda like a dream, ya know. Unless the dream is truly significant depending on what the dream is, not to mention when, and maybe where it happens, or if you keep track of your dreams in a journal, you won’t remember anything about it. I could just say that this is a fun action movie, and at times it is, but a movie like “Kingsman: The Golden Circle” was a fun action movie. Not to mention, it was also a more memorable and admirable sequel than this. This kind of feels like a fun movie, but also made because the studio likes money.

Tom Cruise is the star of this movie as Ethan Hunt, and yes, he is fun to watch without any doubt whatsoever. But sadly, he might be one of the only good things you remember about this movie. Seeing Cruise in various action sequences is a delight, but when it comes to him as a character, talking to other people, that’s when the movie’s weaknesses start to show.

And I feel like this is why the movie falls flat on its face as an overall product, Cruise steals the show as an action star, and the scenes where action is happening sometimes stand out positively like a t-rex in a museum. But when it comes to any sort of moment that needs to trigger with the audience’s thoughts, emotions, anything like that, the movie just doesn’t know what to do. There’s some great direction, some great cinematography, and if you find out some what happens behind the scenes when it comes to the action sequences, the movie might just get better. If you’re coming into this movie, expecting some great character moments, times where you can root for everybody on screen, scenes where there are stakes, that’s not going to happen, at least that’s not what I felt happened.

One of the worst parts of the movie is the romance between Ethan Hunt and another character who goes by the name of Nyah Nirdoff-Hall. I don’t own this movie on DVD, my only source of watching this movie is a Blu-ray disc which is part of a 4 movie “Mission: Impossible” collection, and on the case I have dedicated to said collection, it doesn’t give a single full description for one of the movies. But according to the DVD, it describes the character of Nyah Nirdoff-Hall as “beautiful.” Sadly, that’s the only thing they got right about her. Other than her beauty, nothing else really stood out about her. I kind of bought her as a spy, but there were times I didn’t care about her, I didn’t buy the romance between her and Ethan. That side of the story improved a bit towards the climax, but during the beginning it sucked. It felt really forced, and it almost reminded me of Anakin and Padme in “Star Wars Episode II.” It’s two people who are working together, and somehow they force themselves into a romance because, well, apparently there’s nothing better that can be put in the script! If you had to one day ask me what Nyah was like, I’d either answer to you, “What are you talking about?”, “Who is this?”, or “A Bond Girl.”

You know how in all the “James Bond” stories they have a girl in there that’s basically exclusive to that story? Well, that’s what Nyah feels like to me. And as I do research on this movie, I feel like I like her less. Because this movie actually made a chase scene which was basically inspired by a race featured in “Goldeneye” between Bond and Xenia Onatopp. I can’t talk too much about it considering how I haven’t watched “Goldeneye,” but on IMDb’s trivia page dedicated to “Mission: Impossible II,” it suggests what I just said. It just feels like the crew behind this movie didn’t have any idea how they can define Nyah through an original thought. They just said, “Hey! A lot of people like James Bond, let’s put some of its s*it into our movie!” I’m not saying that “Mission: Impossible” and “Bond” aren’t similar in ways, but I am saying that if you aren’t careful, you can become a ripoff.

I could talk about the villain. But you know what? He’s forgettable. So let’s move on. Enough said.

As suggested, the action in this film is great at times, but then there are times when it just gets–um–yeah I don’t give a f*ck about my life anymore, this movie is s*it! The action just gets so silly and stupid that it’s hilarious!

There comes a point in the movie, that Ethan Hunt and Sean Ambrose are on motorcycles. You can BARELY tell who is who. I was almost even questioning which person I was looking at during certain moments of the film! It was kind of like “The Girl on the Train!” You ever seen that movie? I know, f*cking bats*it crazy! I can let that complaint slide, because it’s more on the nitpicky side, but I don’t know if I should be complaining more about that, or about what I’m going to explain to y’all. Although I will say, part of me… is doing cartwheels of excitement over this! So there’s a point where both bikers stop, they’re looking at each other on their vehicles, and after preparing their motors, they charge forth! Each operator hopes they can annihilate their opponent, both do a wheelie, when all of sudden, they jump off their bikes, making contact with each other, getting violent as they fall off a cliff, all the while both bikes explode, as both beings land on the sand, and they get back up in little to no time whatsoever!

That scene… may have been worth the watch. It’s one of the STUPIDEST things ever, but at the same time, one of the FUNNIEST things ever. But yeah, I gotta say it, f*ck this movie!

In the end, “Mission: Impossible II” was impossible to like. There were several scenes of boredom that made me avoid enjoying myself. Some of the stuff behind the scenes may improve the movie a little bit, but when it comes to the script, that’s the Achilles Heel. “Mission: Impossible II” honestly just feels like a studio film. Created solely just to make money. Maybe some passion was put into it, but based on what was presented to me, I wasn’t able to see any of that passion. This movie took out elements of what made the prior one enjoyable, such as the layers behind it, the characterization, etc, and just stuck to action. Stupid. I’m gonna give “Mission: Impossible II” a 3/10. I enjoy action movies, and I also enjoy Tom Cruise, but this movie felt like an impossible mission to get through. I have heard though that this movie is rather divisive so I’m curious to know some thoughts from the people who actually enjoyed the movie.

Thanks for reading this review! Since next month is May, that means I’ll have another “Mission: Impossible” review for you all to read, this time I’ll be doing “Mission: Impossible III,” directed by JJ Abrams, who according to one of my best friends, “ruined ‘Star Trek'” and according to another group of people I know, “saved ‘Star Wars’.” So I’m interested to see where Abrams is going with this movie. Speaking of “Mission: Impossible,” if you want to read my review for the first Tom Cruise “Mission: Impossible” film, the link to that is down at the end of this post.

Also if you are bored and want to read something that I promise you won’t have spoilers that will ruin the entire meaning of your life, check out my review for “Avengers: Infinity War.” Click the red box below if you want to read it. If you’re reading this and this is the last post I made, you’ll only see one red box and that’s the one you should click on. If you’re reading this and this is not the last post I made, click the red box on the bottom left. Stay tuned for more great content, should you choose to accept it! I want to know, did you see “Mission: Impossible II?” What did you think about it? Where do you personally stand on this movie’s divide? Or, do you think I’m too hard on Nyah Nirdoff-Hall? I mean, she is gorgeous and the movie certainly gets that notion right, but I seriously want to know your thoughts! Leave a comment below, and I just hope I enjoy “Mission: Impossible III” more than I enjoyed “Mission: Impossible II.” Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE REVIEW: https://scenebefore.wordpress.com/2018/03/30/mission-impossible-1996-this-movie-review-will-self-destruct-in-five-seconds/

A Quiet Place (2018): No Words… Should Be Spoken… Except For Ones of Praise

Posted on by Jack Drees

mv5bmji0mdmzntq0m15bml5banbnxkftztgwmtm5nzm3ndm-_v1_sy1000_cr006741000_al_

“A Quiet Place” is directed by and stars John Krasinski (The Office, Something Borrowed) and also stars Emily Blunt (Edge of Tomorrow, The Girl on the Train), Millicent Simmonds, Noah Jupe (Wonder, Suburbicon), and Cade Woodward as members of the Abbott family. This family lives in a setting where it is rather depressing compared to our own here in 2018. When it comes to the phrase “peace and quiet,” that has now turned into “Don’t make a f*cking sound!” Because if anyone makes a sound, monsters start searching and trying to kill you.

This film at a point happened to be up there with films like “Ready Player One,” “Avengers: Infinity War,” “Deadpool 2,” “Incredibles 2,” and “First Man” as one of my most anticipated movies of 2018. So naturally you can tell I had pretty high expectations. Those expectations I gotta say, were met! Is “A Quiet Place” the best film of the year? Not really. But nevertheless, I really enjoyed the film! “A Quiet Place” excels in a number of areas: Scares, heart, and the realization of a vision.

Some of the shots in this movie are truly crisp, smooth, and overall just well laid out. John Krasinski is in this movie as the star and he’s also behind the camera as the director. A number of you may know Krasinski as Jim from “The Office,” a show that I’d probably laugh at if I watch it more, but it’s also a show that makes me groan because of the less than still camerawork. This is also why I tend to usually avoid shows like “Parks and Recreation” and “Modern Family.” I’m not entirely against shaky cam, but there are just scenarios to me when it just looks choppy and lackluster compared to still shots. Luckily, this movie has a ton of still shots, and just about every frame is set to impress.

This movie’s director of photography by the way goes by the name of Charlotte Bruus Christensen, who shot films such as “Fences” and “Molly’s Game.” Another thing I really admire about this movie that I’m glad to see is still going is that it was shot on film. With the rise of digital, which in my book is inferior to film in ways, it almost seems like film is dead, but that’s not the case here.

Emily Blunt co-stars in this movie as Lee’s wife, Evelyn. Throughout this movie, her character just goes to show that you don’t need to tell us everything about them to care. Blunt’s character, much like anyone else in this movie, has barely any spoken lines whatsoever, and when they’re spoken, they’re silent as hell! One big reason why I cared about her is that she was pregnant. So while I did happen to want this family to survive, I was also rooting for her because she was carrying a soul that might not even make it to the part of life where they actually… live!

When it comes to the kids in this movie, I happened to root for them as well. When it comes to “A Quiet Place,” there are two main kids you’ll witness on screen. One of them is Regan (Millicent Simmonds) and the other is Marcus (Noah Jupe). As far as these actors go, I’d say both have very bright futures ahead of them and these roles of theirs along with both actors’ individual performances support that statement wholeheartedly. I’ve actually already seen Jupe in “Wonder” and he was pretty great there, but in this movie, it’s a different kind of great that is delivered. Simmonds however has only been in one project prior to this one, coincidentally, “Wonderstruck.” I have not seen her in that, but having seen her here, I hope more movies and TV shows will cast her in the near future. And if they don’t, maybe I’ll give her a job, we’ll find out.

Speaking of one of the kids, specifically Regan, I really thought what the movie did with her character was really smart. This movie is about a family making an attempt to literally live life in silence. For Regan, that is not an option because she’s deaf. Not only in terms of editing was this plot point handled with such elegance, but in terms of the overall screenplay, it was marvelously written and executed.

When it comes to this movie’s scares, the title pretty much suggests what’s to come in a way. The area is supposed to be quiet, otherwise you’re in deep s*it. So if you wanted to talk about Fight Club, unfortunately, not only will you break the first rule of Fight Club, there will be monsters who may hear you and maybe they’ll understand you talking about Fight Club, I don’t know how deep this movie’s lore goes. But nevertheless, if you are in this movie, you live in 2020, and talk about Fight Club, the monsters will bring the fight to you. In fact, it’s not just people talking, it literally be any noise whatsoever that attracts these monsters. Maybe except rivers and waterfalls so essentially you can say if a creature, mainly a human, makes a noise that comes as a result of themselves, doom shall soon arrive. Say you know nothing about this world, but you spend much time being quiet, then you put on the TV, and “Fight Club” is on AMC. Monsters will be aware and hunt you down!

S*it! I talked about Fight Club! I hope my acquaintances at Fight Club don’t find out!

One thing I often talk about on here is how much I encourage people to go see a movie in theater as opposed to waiting for On Demand, Netflix, Amazon, Blu-ray, DVD, or any other way you’re capable of watching the movie at home. As I watched this movie with barely any dialogue, I probably had one of the spookiest movie experiences in recent memory. When I got to the theater, I ordered myself a large popcorn and a large soda. And when it comes to my grub, most noticeably the popcorn, I was chowing down on it during the trailers. There were about six trailers before the movie started, a few things to promote the owners of the cinema I was going to, and one GENIUS heads up to those attending this showing. Its main message was, “If you don’t shut up during the movie, you’ll fly out of your chair and die!” This advertisement was specifically made for “A Quiet Place” and it set the perfect mood for what was to come. I was expecting to do this as the movie was playing, but as I went through several moments of the film, I was slowing down tremendously on my food and beverage, and when I spent many instances having my popcorn, I would take a piece of it, put it in my mouth, and instead of chewing it, I’d leave it on my tongue and let it dissolve like a Claritin Disintigrating Tablet. When it comes to drinking my soda, I would slowly pick it up out of the cupholder, take steady sips, try to be as silent as possible, and when I’ve had enough, I’d put it back where I found it. Regardless of my thoughts on the movie itself, the overall atmosphere of “A Quiet Place” was eerie and hypnotizing.

Another positive that comes out of this movie is the score. The use of various instruments in this film truly stand out and make numerous scenes and shots better than they already were. So far, I gotta say this is a contender the best original film score of the year. Although I’ll say I gotta rewatch “Annihilation” again because that’s another top spot of mine when it comes to this category. This film’s score is done by Marco Beltrami, who also did the score for films including “Logan,” “Gods of Egypt,” “World War Z,” and “Live Free or Die Hard.”

The thing that honestly truly detracts the film is the ending. Now it’s almost like the film got to its climactic point, and while it seems to have all of its buildup ready, the payoff was something that couldn’t be realized from one of the three screenwriters behind this film. Most of the ending is actually pretty freaking cool, but at the VERY VERY END, you see something and you think to yourself, “What the– OK…?” I didn’t feel offended by it, but I either felt disappointment, confusion, or shock that I truly didn’t want. Maybe a combination of any of those things. I don’t want to get into it because I want to avoid spoiling the movie for you in case you haven’t seen it, and you should see it, I highly recommend it.

In the end, I really had a great time watching “A Quiet Place.” Not only was the movie from a technical perspective, super duper, but the atmosphere I was given throughout my experience was something I rarely feel when I go to a movie theater and watch something on the big screen. John Krasinski certainly knocked it out of the park in terms of his direction, and I certainly want to see more work with him in the director’s chair. Also, when award season comes around and if the Best Cinematography award needs suggestions, may I consider Charlotte Bruus Christensen. This cinematographer’s shots had wonderful symmetry, neat locations to accompany the shots, and this will probably get all you progressives orgasming, this is a woman I’m talking about. If you ask me as a voter of some organization, the gender doesn’t matter, talent comes first, and I see talent from Christensen. We’ll have to see how the rest of the year pans out, and if this movie is remembered by all of the people who are surrounded by “gifted” films coming out from September to December. I’m going to give “A Quiet Place” an 8/10.

Thanks for reading this review! Pretty soon I’ll have my review up for “Mission: Impossible II.” I’m probably gonna end up watching it sometime this weekend, and as far as when my review will be up, I can’t exactly set a date for that. The latest will probably be the 30th of April, because that’s the end of the month, and I’m trying to get this review up by the end of the month.

Speaking of things happening around the end of the month, “Avengers: Infinity War” is coming out! I have opening night tickets for this Thursday at 7PM at my local IMAX theater! That review will probably be up either Friday, the 27th, the day the movie is released everywhere, or Saturday, the 28th. And don’t worry, Thanos made it clear that he demands my silence, so the review will be spoiler-free! I can’t wait to see the movie, I’m going with a few other people who are probably just as excited, so stay tuned for the review! I want to know, did you see “A Quiet Place?” What did you think about it? Or, did you talk about “Fight Club” recently? If so, and this is optional, I’d like to hear some specifications about your “Fight Club” story. Let me know about that down below, and while Thanos may demand everyone’s silence on various points of “Avengers: Infinity War,” just remember that he does not demand your silence on Fight Club. Tyler Durden does. Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

Mission: Impossible (1996): This Movie Review Will Self-Destruct In Five Seconds

Posted on by Jack Drees

Your mission, should you choose to accept it, is to read through the first of the “Mission: Impossible” reviews from Scene Before. More are on the way, such as “Mission: Impossible 2,” a movie whose review shall be published a month after this one. As always, should you or any of your Force be caught or killed, the Movie Reviewing Moron will disavow any of your actions. This message will self-destruct in five seconds.

mv5bmtc3nji2mju0nl5bml5banbnxkftztgwndk3odyxmte-_v1_sy1000_cr006751000_al_

“Mission: Impossible” is directed by Brian De Palma (The Untouchables, Dressed to Kill) and stars Tom Cruise (Top Gun, Risky Business) as an American agent who goes by the name Ethan Hunt. In this movie which is inspired by the television series of the same name, Hunt must find out who framed him for murder of the entire Impossible Missions Force.

This is the first movie of the ongoing Tom Cruise “Mission: Impossible” series, and I imagine there’s a good number of people out there like myself who has seen this movie or another movie in the series and couldn’t compare it to the original TV series. As far as which incarnation is better, I can’t say, but I can say that this movie is super thrilling! Let’s dive into it a bit deeper.

The movie starts off with the crew on a mission. One character, Jack, played by Emilio Estevez (Young Guns, Repo Man), is watching the surveillance, doing his job, and we see one guy in a white tank top being interrogated. The guy asking all the questions is Tom Cruise who eventually reveals his true self, Ethan Hunt by taking his snobby, Spanish-looking Agent Smith mask off. We see Tom Cruise going over to Claire, played by Emmanuelle Béart (Nelly & Monsieur Arnaud, 8 Women), injecting a needle, then we hear Claire, all bloodied up, asking Ethan, “Did we get it?” Ethan responds, “We got it.” Great exchange, great timing, and a great transition to the title sequence featuring the endlessly famous “Mission: Impossible” theme song. Just… perfect. That’s all I gotta say. The intro doesn’t really show all too much except for major characters, but the transition from the intro to the main events of the movie probably couldn’t have been done better.

The “Mission: Impossible” theme used for this movie by the way, was composed by none other than Danny Elfman, and if you have known me, I love Danny Elfman. I will say that sometimes his scores are somewhat underwhelming and don’t deliver the goods that they should (Avengers: Age of Ultron, Justice League), but when his scores are well done from my personal view, they stand out like Marilyn Monroe in a beauty pageant. Elfman from my personal view did a fine job on the movie’s score and this is definitely one of his better ones. Although one interesting thing about it is that it wasn’t supposed to be his.

Alan Silvestri, another terrific composer who has new work coming out in films such as “Ready Player One,” “Avengers: Infinity War,” and “The Women of Marwen,” was originally supposed to do the score, but his was ultimately rejected. That’s not to say that Danny Elfman made a bad score, I think it is very well done. But I listened to Alan Silvestri’s “Mission: Impossible” theme, and I think it is an interesting rival to Elfman’s. For how this movie turned out, I gotta say that Elfman’s is a bit more appropriate for something like this, but Silvestri’s is just killer. The reason why Elfman’s theme works for this movie is because the movie had an intro that made it feel like we were watching TV, and his song was short and effective. Silvestri’s felt really grand and epic at times, especially with the drums. I’ve been looking around online and I don’t think there’s been a single announcement as to who will officially score “Mission: Impossible: Fallout.” Silvestri’s got some stuff up his sleeve as we speak, but I would love to see him come back and score this upcoming movie with the use of his own theme that would have been inserted back in 1996 if no conflict got in the way. By the way, be sure to let me know which of the two “Mission: Impossible” themes you prefer: Elfman’s or Silvestri’s.

Funny thing about these themes is, I gave a compliment to the Elfman one for feeling like a TV show and that is something I usually DON’T want in my movies. The rest of the movie feels like a film, but with this TV-like theme, I can’t help but praise it.

Now I talked a little bit about Tom Cruise here, but I can’t really say I’ve dived into too much depth about him. Tom Cruise’s character of Ethan Hunt has defined the movie and Cruise probably had no idea how much this character would make a newfound path in his acting career. Cruise delivers a fine performance as Hunt in this movie. It’s believable, you feel his pain, you buy him as this agent and his performance maintains a fine line between fun and serious which totally worked for the movie. A couple of other standout characters include Luther, played by Ving Rhames (Pulp Fiction, ER) and Jim Phelps, played by Jon Voight.

Fun fact about Jon Voight by the way, he would have never been in this movie if it weren’t for one thing. Believe it or not, Voight wasn’t the goto as for who would be cast as this character. If you watch the original show and its revival (where he appears as only original cast member to return), you’d know that the character of Phelps is played by none other than Peter Graves and there was a point where he found out about some actions that his character did in the movie. Once he found out about them, he didn’t want to be a part of the project.

Now let’s get to the best part of the movie, and it is probably the part that you all know about if you’ve seen the film, or maybe even if you haven’t seen it, and it’s the wire sequence. Like, holy crap! This is my second time watching this movie, and my jaw literally dropped! Tom’s performance in here is pristine! He’s silent, he’s mentally terrified, but also somewhat determined. The suspense levels during this scene just happens to be unbelievable! It has the environment, if you can call it that, of a library, but it also has the feel of a boxing match! I talked about the music in this movie and how well done it was, but there’s barely any music during this sequence and the movie as a whole is all the better for it! Just… wow! My favorite Tom Cruise movie is “Risky Business,” but if you ask me which scene from a Tom Cruise movie might be the best, this one, I cannot guarantee is my favorite, but it’s certainly a contender, I need to probably make a conclusive list before I decide whether or not it is my favorite.

Also, it’s not just Tom Cruise who has the spotlight here in this scene, some of it is given to a minor character by the name of William Donloe, played by Rolf Saxon (Saving Private Ryan, Woman in Gold). In this scene, he headed to the secure area where Cruise is downloading files, but the fact that he pretty much had a bad meal allows Cruise, conveniently, to carry on the mission with slightly less worries.

In the end, “Mission: Impossible” the second time around actually turned out to be better than the first time. I didn’t hate it the first time, but I’m just saying. “Mission: Impossible” is certainly a fun movie, but at the same time, somewhat dramatic. The tone works overall. On one hand you have a story where the main character has to deal with his crew dying, and on the other hand, you have a story where that same character fights someone on a train with a wind machine going at 140 miles per hour so his face gets distorted, a speed so fast that Tom Cruise himself approved of it because wind at that speed could possibly knock him off the train. The more I find out about this movie and the more I think about it, the more interesting it gets. I’m gonna give “Mission: Impossible” an 8/10. This in my mind, is currently a low 8 on a scale of 1-10, but this could increase overtime. It would probably be a 7 though if less passion were injected and less standout moments and characters were inserted into the final product. I’m honestly willing to bet that next time I’ll watch it, I’ll like it even more. And speaking of products…

*SPONSORSHIP ALERT* (although I’m not getting paid)

Call kids what you may. You can call them what I just said, or you can call them children, offspring, products of two parents, etcetera. You might as well say these products are newly realized each and every day. And one day, the realization will arrive to a male and a female. For example, a gal named Genevieve, and a guy named Paul, will achieve that realization in a number of months. But before that, they had to suffer through the seemingly neverending process, which might as well now be a neverending story, of something that their child will ultimately thank them for. Making them. This is all explained… in “What the IVF?!”

“What the IVF?” is a relatively new series and channel on YouTube, where Genevieve and Paul document their time trying to have a baby. To them, the journey is hard, but they “keep effing trying” as they face tiny victories, but also enormous losses. Get ready for the drama between the two as they encounter problematic situations in sex, testing, wasting money on everything that’s needed for impregnation, and needles so sharp they might as well kill you! Their latest episode listed above is the fourth episode in the series and it is a deep dive on trying to conceive! You see the couple going to Dollar Tree and buying pregnancy tests, Genevieve utilizing an app that might as well be a diary she never wanted, and a shoutout to the drink Surge! By the way, this is a late announcement, but if you haven’t heard, they actually brought the drink back! Just a fun fact because I’m not sure if everyone is aware! To catch up on the latest episodes regarding Genevieve and Paul’s adventure to conception, click the link below to their YouTube channel, be sure to subscribe, like, click the bell, whatever it takes to make them happy without buying something for their baby. Also, be sure to check out their Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and their website! All the links are down below, and if check all of this stuff out, be sure to let them know that Jack Drees sent you over!

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks for reading this review! April is on the way! “Ready Player One” is out! I’m probably gonna catch it in 70mm! Quite a time to be alive! Not only that, but April will also be the month where I continue this series of reviews and focus on “Mission: Impossible II!” Stay tuned for that, and also I want to let everyone know that I made a part 2 to a post I made back in November which got a decent amount of hits, “What the Heck Is Up with Justice League?” In this new post, I talk about the movie’s box office total, how it is shockingly low for the kind of movie it is, and I even give a sense of wonder as to where the Detective Comics Extended Universe could be going from here. The link to that is down below, be sure to check it out, and be sure to follow me here on WordPress so you can stay tuned for more great content! I want to know, did you see the 1996 “Mission: Impossible?” Let me know your thoughts if you did! Do you think the movies or the TV shows are superior? I actually kinda really want to know since I never watched the show on TV. Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

WHAT THE HECK IS UP WITH JUSTICE LEAGUE (2017)? *PART 2*: https://scenebefore.wordpress.com/2018/03/24/what-the-heck-is-up-with-justice-league-2017-part-2/

Annihilation (2018): Yay! Alex Garland’s Second Film!

Posted on by Jack Drees

Before dive into my review for “Annihilation,” we have some promotional material to go over. Hey! Let me just remind you, this content is free! I’m doing this! Let me just have you know something. I’m a guy, and unfortunately, and somewhat understandably, my gender’s individuals usually can’t go at least a single second of each day without thinking about sex. Before you ask, no, I’m not promoting porn. Even though that does involve sex. What I’m promoting to you doesn’t involve that kind of sex. It instead involves what can be referred to as “BIBLICALLY *APPROVED* INTERCOURSE for the PURPOSES of PROCREATION.” Ladies and gentlemen, I’m talking about “What the IVF?!”

“What the IVF?” is a new YouTube channel and series from a couple whose members include Genevieve and Paul. The two are currently expecting a child in upcoming months and unfortunately for both of them, their journey wasn’t as sweet as chocolate ice cream. Instead, it felt more like a rocky road. As suggested, sex plays a part in this series. Not just that, but don’t forget math, tests, costs, small wins, big losses, and all of those stinkin’ needles! The video up above specifically is their second episode, but if you are interested in seeing the other videos in this series, such as the first episode and the trailer, be sure to click the link down below to the YouTube channel for “WTIVF?.” And also be sure to subscribe or hit the notification bell to keep up on their content! Also be sure to check out their other social media pages, along with their website, also down below! Be sure to tell them that Jack Drees sent you!

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

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

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

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

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

mv5bmtk2mjc2nzyxnl5bml5banbnxkftztgwmta2ota1ndm-_v1_sy1000_cr006401000_al_

“Annihilation” is directed by Alex Garland (Ex Machina, 28 Days Later) and stars Natalie Portman (Black Swan, V For Vendetta), Jennifer Jason Leigh (The Hateful Eight, Mrs. Parker and the Vicious Circle), Tessa Thompson (Thor: Ragnarok, Creed), Gina Rodriguez (Deepwater Horizon, Jane the Virgin), Tuva Novotny (Eat Pray Love, Dag), and Oscar Isaac (X-Men Apocalypse, Star Wars: The Force Awakens). This movie is about a biologist who sets up a secret expedition where the laws of nature are thrown out the window. The film is also based on a book by Jeff VanderMeer which is one of the three books in the Southern Reach trilogy. On that topic, according to Alex Garland, he didn’t really think much about making a trilogy. His focus is mainly shifted towards the first book of the same name, so I don’t think we’ll be getting any sequels to this movie in the future.

Before we go any further and dissect “Annihilation,” I just want to bring up one of the banes of my existence. And no, for all of you who don’t know grammar entirely, this has nothing to do with “Batman.” This does however, have to do with Netflix. I recently did a post called “Why I Won’t Review The Cloverfield Paradox.” In it, I explain my prior anticipation to “The Cloverfield Paradox,” and how I won’t review or even watch the movie based on something I didn’t really expect to happen. That unexpected happening by the way is the fact that the movie wouldn’t be released in theaters and instead went straight to the Netflix streaming service. I explain how they basically killed Blockbuster, a nostalgic store I adore that I will surely miss. I go on to say that the way they’re changing movie and TV watching is making certain experiences dwindled from what they could be. Not to mention, they’re also killing movie theaters, which are basically “other homes” of mine, because they think it’s a good idea to have all of their movies go straight to the platform. So I never inserted this in the post, but I’ll say it here. You know the phrase “Netflix & chill?” People nowadays know it as either an invitation to watch Netflix with someone else, or just an excuse to have sex. So I hate to kill the mood, if you know what I mean, but I might as well describe some of the scenarios I recently mentioned as “Netflix & kill.”

Before going to see this movie, I found out apparently that Netflix is apparently distributing “Annihilation” internationally (except for China). I live in the United States, meaning Netflix isn’t distributing the movie to my people. Paramount is doing said job. Let me just say, this movie is very lucky to get its own review, because if it lacked any release in theaters, or if Netflix was doing total distribution, I would have saved some time. In fact, I’m willing to bet that Alex Garland, the director of “Annihilation” might also be somewhat disappointed in what happened to this film. Just read this quote spoken by him down below:

“We made the film for cinema. I’ve got no problem with the small screen at all. The best genre piece I’ve seen in a long time was “The Handmaid’s Tale,” so I think there’s incredible potential within that context, but if you’re doing that – you make it for that and you think of it in those terms. Look… it is what it is. The film is getting a theatrical release in the States, which I’m really pleased about. One of the big pluses of Netflix is that it goes out to a lot of people and you don’t have that strange opening weekend thing where you’re wondering if anyone is going to turn up and then if they don’t, it vanishes from cinema screens in two weeks. So it’s got pluses and minuses, but from my point of view and the collective of the people who made it – [it was made] to be seen on a big screen.”

I hate to sound like a propaganda machine, but I’ll say this anyway. Netflix may have chopped this movie’s head off, but it still has a beating heart. It didn’t totally “annihilate” the film. 😉 Getting back on track, let’s talk about “Annihilation!”

Going into “Annihilation,” I was excited. That’s because I’ve seen a film from Alex Garland which released in 2015 and it was one of the most beautiful looking films of the decade. That film by the way, is “Ex Machina.” While “Ex Machina” isn’t what I’d personally call a 10/10 movie, I have to give major props to the film from a production and directorial perspective because it made me want to be a part of the movie. Heck, it won Best Achievement in Visual Effects at the Oscars! I will also say, “Ex Machina” was Alex Garland’s directorial debut! Garland’s second movie, “Annihilation,” has arrived in various territories, I didn’t know too much about it. I’ve seen a trailer for it, I knew Natalie Portman would have the starring role, I knew it was based on a book, but not much else.

Oh wait, there was one more thing, kind of going off of something I just mentioned.

As suggested, “Annihilation” is based on a book, specifically a book of the same name. The book is part of what’s known as the Southern Reach trilogy, which is named due to a secret agency which plays an important part in the overall plot. All three books were written by Jeff VanderMeer, and were met with positive verdicts.

Funny enough, all of them start with the letter “A.” So I guess if you don’t like calling the series the Southern Ranch trilogy, you can instead call it the AAA trilogy. It’s the perfect series for going out to CVS in your car with three of your friends. Their names are Albert, Alec, and Alex (AAA). You decide to go inside the CVS store, where you end up buying AAA batteries, finding three guys at the register named Aaron, Adam, and Andy (AAA), going back to your car to realize the doors are locked, you left your keys inside, so now you have to call AAA to get this situation settled. Once that’s over, you get back in your car, you’re about the leave the shopping center where CVS is, a very small one at that. It contains other shops including AT&T, Avenue, and Applebee’s (AAA). You suddenly realize, you have some time to kill, so it leads you to pulling out one of the AAA books from the back seat, you start reading it, and you remain in the parking lot going nowhere for a period of time. Oh yeah, and your friends are just questioning why you aren’t driving.

Alright, rambling’s over, let’s get serious.

Since “Annihilation” has some of the stuff it has in it, it’s easy to imagine some people are looking forward to it if they haven’t seen it. I haven’t even read the books and I was kind of stoked! Although there were people who happen to be giving it some flak before it even came out. Why is this? Well apparently, this movie has miscast its characters, and the reason why they’re miscast is because they’re not the correct ethnicity.

Let me just say, I’ve never read the books, so what I’m gathering is from random research. And the research tells me that these complainers have justifiable reasons behind their thoughts. Do I agree with them? Sure I do. It doesn’t mean I don’t like the actors playing these characters or how they perform as these characters, but it doesn’t change the fact that these mistakes are still there. Although I will say, there are two characters when it comes to this complaint. Specifically Natalie Portman’s character of Lena and Jennifer Jason Leigh’s character of Dr. Ventress. Of the two characters, Portman might be the bigger problem here. Again, I like her as an actress, so I don’t see Portman herself as a problem, but I do see this casting choice as a problem. For one thing, she’s the lead role. Also, her ethnicity was revealed in the first book of the trilogy whereas the other character had hers revealed in the second book of the trilogy. When it came to the overall adaptation of this book to film. Garland was more focused towards story than character looks. And while I look for more great stories than I do correct adaptations, this was something that could have easily been altered. While I REALLY enjoyed “Annihilation,” this will subtract its score.

Onto the movie itself, I actually went to see this over a week ago, so I apologize if some of my comments come off as weak. I usually review movies right after I see them depending on the case, but this wasn’t one of them. My Oscar recap was more important. This movie starts off in a small room with a conversation between Natalie Portman and Benedict Wong, and I knew that part of the movie was going to take place there. The overall setting there set the tone for what’s to come. We occasionally cut back and forth between that and some plot-unfolding events of the film. And with all that put together, the tone doesn’t really ever feel ruined. There’s a lot of cutting back and forth, but it doesn’t feel all jumbled together like a pizza with topping options so endless it has toppings like TNT, screws, and LEGO bricks. In other words, this movie’s edited competently and the tone doesn’t feel messed up.

I’ll mention once more, one of the biggest positives I can give to Alex Garland’s directorial debut, “Ex Machina,” is how beautiful-looking the movie is. The movie won Best Visual Effects at the Oscars and it’s easy to see why. Plus, all the scenery might make you feel like you’re on an exotic getaway and you’re on a nature walk. Oh yeah, and robots are there too! Much like “Ex Machina,” this movie has you feeling as if you’re entering a majestic new world. Once all the scientists are together on their journey, they enter an anomaly known as the shimmer. Inside, it can simply just be described as wondrously gorgeous. But not all of it is pretty.

“Annihilation,” at its core, is a sci-fi film. Although it has some elements of horror in there as well. This movie to my personal surprise, features one of the more terrifying scenes I’ve seen in a science fiction film. If you’ve seen the trailer, you may remember that wolf with the sharp teeth, holy s*it!

I also have to talk about the ending. And without spoiling anything, I’ll tell you all upfront. This is one of the best endings I’ve seen this decade. Why do I love sci-fi so much? Well, there’s many reasons that can qualify as an answer to that question for me, but one thing I’ve noticed is how many of those movies have endings that I just often look back on. This movie is no exception. I mentioned in my post titled “Annihilation (2018): NOT Now In Theaters Everywhere” that “Annihilation” originator Jeff VanderMeer gave praise towards this film’s ending and even said in some ways, the movie might actually be better than his own book. That’s a much better reaction than the one given by Paramount financier David Ellison, who thought the film was apparently too complicated for some minds! By the way, f*ck David Ellison. You can clearly tell I’m siding with VanderMeer in this circumstance. The ending overall felt like I was watching “2001: A Space Odyssey.” I can’t talk much about it, but given some of the situations that happen in this film and when you piece it all together. This film feels like “Arrival,” “Jurassic Park,” and “2001: A Space Odyssey” all meshed together in one wonderful package. One more thing about the ending, the music in that moment can only be described as one word, and that’s orgasmic.

Moving onto characters, let’s talk about Natalie Portman’s character of Lena. While I did mention before that Lena is not entirely cast the way that a good number of people think she should be, I’ll add, Portman did a fine job here. I was able to buy her as a biologist. Every single frame I was convinced that she could possibly have a shot at becoming a professor at Princeton. Her husband, Kane, played by Oscar Isaac, also delivers an excellent performance.

All of the characters in this film overall seem to have no qualities that I hate about them, whether they’re in the category of annoying, off-putting, or so hatable because they killed someone you love so much that they must get similar treatment. They all seem to be redeemable and I really think they all did their role quite well. I will admit, some of this movie is kind of dwindling on me. And it’s not because I didn’t like the movie. I thought it was great! I’ll say once again, it’s been over a week since I saw this, and other things mattered more to me than this review. No offense to “Annihilation” and its crew.

One last thing I’ll mention is this. I said already that if you combine “Arrival,” “Jurassic Park,” and “2001: A Space Odyssey,” you might as well get this movie. You might also say that if you combine JUST A HINT of “Ghostbusters,” you get this film too. Just look at this shot and tell me otherwise!

In the end, “Annihilation” is certainly one of those films that I’m gonna have to watch again, and it’s also one of those films that I want to talk about with others for years to come. Is this movie perfect? I wouldn’t say so. I’ve already gone over some minor casting issues that are somewhat understandable after doing some research, but are still there regardless. I must say though, Alex Garland, you’ve done it again! I’m going to give “Annihilation” an 8/10! By the way, if you can’t get this in theaters in your area, chances are you may have this movie available to you now on Netflix. It actually released on the Netflix platform in several areas a day ago, so go watch it if you haven’t already! I don’t use Netflix, but I’ve talked enough about that. Thanks for reading this review! Pretty soon I’ll have a review up for “Mission: Impossible” starring Tom Cruise, which will kick off my “Mission: Impossible” review series in preparation for “Mission: Impossible: Fallout.” Also, for my next movie to see in theaters, I just realized how many options I have. I want to go see “Game Night,” “A Wrinkle in Time,” (can’t believe I’m saying that) “Gringo,” “Red Sparrow,” and you’ve even got “Tomb Raider” coming out next weekend. I don’t know if I’ll catch a movie this weekend, but only time will tell. If you need some more content to hold yourself over, be sure to check out my recap for the 90th Academy Awards, where I talk about “four men and Greta Gerwig,” a jet ski, and what could be regarded one of the of the most well deserved Academy Award wins of all time. If you want to check that out, click the box down below, and will take you to the post! Stay tuned for more great content! I want to know, have you seen “Annihilation?” What are your thoughts? What did you think about the ending? Also, if you saw it, how did you see it? Leave that info down below as a way of annihilating some time! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

Annihilation (2018): NOT Now In Theaters Everywhere. Will I See/Review It?

Posted on by Jack Drees

mv5bmtk2mjc2nzyxnl5bml5banbnxkftztgwmta2ota1ndm-_v1_sy1000_cr006401000_al_

Hey everyone, Jack Drees here! Before we go any further with this current post, I made a promise to someone recently. Her name is Genevieve. If you have followed my blog or know me in real life, you’d know that I’m a tremendous fan of “King of the Nerds.” I don’t watch much reality TV, but that show shaped my life. Genevieve was on that show as a contestant, and she even worked on it after she appeared on camera. Since she was a part of something that altered my life for the better, I’ll return the favor by… well… letting you know about her own life. Genevieve and her husband, Paul, are having a baby. The journey to get there, provided a level of irritation that you probably couldn’t imagine unless you were in their position… is all explained… in “What the IVF?.”

https://youtu.be/qxOgpIfR0Po

As mentioned, “What the IVF?” focuses on the recently stated couple, Genevieve and Paul, who make a two year journey through Painsylvania just to have a baby. This will be a series on YouTube where the couple document their way through various struggles, such as sex, tests, math (can’t wait to see what formulas there are when it comes to having a baby), costs, and ahh! The needles! Get them away! For those of you who are actually reading this post not long after it got published and want to know how you can watch it, I’ve got some news, you can’t. I’m sorry, there is positively no way you’re allowed to watch this, there’s no absolute way you can even hack the system to allow yourself to view this content. I’m sorry, this promotion is completely pointless, and I shouldn’t have done it.

*VOICE IN BACKGROUD*

Wait, what’s that?

*VOICE CONTINUES*

It’s not even out yet? What a revelation!

*VOICE SPEAKS*

Oops! I mean, what a thing that I previously knew that also happens to be a revelation!

“What the IVF?,” or if you’re a mega acronym enthusiast, “WTIVF?,” is gonna have its first episode uploaded on March 5th, be sure to stay tuned, so you can enjoy the unfortunate hardships and the wonderful successes between Paul and Genevieve. If you want to watch the trailer for this, the video’s located up above. Also be sure to click the links to their website, their YouTube, their Facebook, their Twitter, their Instagram, all those links are down below, make the couple happy, and if you want, tell em I sent ya over!

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

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

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

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

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

If you have followed this blog recently, chances are that one of my recent posts may have caught your eye. That post goes by the name “Why I Won’t Review “The Cloverfield Paradox (2018).”” In that post I explain that I have seen “Cloverfield” and “10 Cloverfield Lane.” I enjoyed both movies and I even reviewed “10 Cloverfield Lane” since it was 2016 and I figured I’d talk about a recently released title (by that I mean a title released in what was then the current year). But the one thing holding “The Cloverfield Paradox” back for me, despite its clever marketing, the fact that it’s a another “Cloverfield” movie, and it being a film that looked good from the spots I saw on TV, is where it was placed. Specifically, Netflix. I said I refused to review the movie simply because of where it was placed. With some exceptions (mainly “Sharknado” films), I only review movies released in theaters. Not to mention, I despise Netflix mainly because of what they’re doing to video rental stores like Blockbuster, what they’re doing to physical media, and what they’re doing to movie theaters. Netflix is a streaming service, and while I do happen to use Amazon Video and Crackle from time to time, I much prefer watching movies on physical media. Also, for a company that’s known for making effective content that doesn’t belong on a time slot a “straight to TV” film could take, why aren’t they putting their movies in theaters? And apparently people aren’t even caring, because the movie’s right there in front of them. They don’t have to get off the couch and head to the theater. Heck, they might not even be watching the film on a TV, maybe a phone!

Weeks later, another movie comes out, named “Annihilation.” This has nothing to do with “Cloverfield.” If you watch this movie and think to yourself, “Wow! That was a good “Cloverfield” movie,” just do the world a favor. Either seek some help, or if you SOMEHOW manage to have a movie buff card, turn it in. This movie has recently been released all over the world and people are loving it, calling it a masterpiece, a tour de force, a movie that’s not a sibling to something such as “Batman & Robin.” How is it to me? I don’t know, I didn’t see it. My first memory of hearing about “Annihilation” was when I went to see “Star Wars: The Last Jedi” on opening night. One of the trailers that played was for “Annihilation” and I was pretty freaking stoked simply because of one guy. And that guy… is Alex Garland.

If you don’t know who Alex Garland is, he’s the director of a film that despite how I have praise for it, I don’t really think I have as much praise for it as other people do, but I still think it’s amazing nonetheless. That film by the way is “Ex Machina,” a beautiful looking film about a guy (Domnhall Gleeson) who is flown into this man’s (Oscar Isaac) house. While he is there, he is observing the owner’s work, specifically his AI. From there, it’s a well written, well directed, visually appealing film. From seeing promotional material for “Annihilation,” I didn’t exactly know entirely what to expect, although I thought the movie was gonna be sick, and much like “Ex Machina,” it would be like walking through an art museum at times. Although once I found out something that shocked me harder than electricity, I questioned whether or not this movie was really worth seeing. That something, involved Netflix.

I can’t recall exactly when the first instance happened to be when I saw the name Netflix somewhere in association with “Annihilation,” but still, it doesn’t leave out the fact that a part of me panicked. I wondered whether or not I would need to rethink my decision to go see “Annihilation.” My thoughts on going to see “Annihilation” could have been, well, you know, annihilated. I even told everyone on this blog in the past that I had an “Annihilation” review planned sometime in the future so this would end up being a broken promise depending on the decision I had to make. And that decision was, should I watch the movie? Let me tell you the whole story.

This movie was being released by Paramount Pictures, and it still is, but a deal was struck with Netflix on December 7, 2017. Why? There was a test screening for “Annihilation” and a Paramount financier who goes by the name David Ellison, wanted changes made to the film because he was concerned that it was “too intellectual” and “too complicated.” Garland didn’t approve of any sort of alteration, and a Paramount producer known as Scott Rudin sided with him. The two clashed and this eventually resulted in what exactly cannot be called a total loss in distribution rights, but it’s more of a partial removal than anything else. While Paramount was still set to release the film theatrically in the US and China, those were to be the only two areas they were going to release the movie in that fashion. Netflix would handle the rest of the distribution in other areas and it would go out on their streaming service seventeen days after the film’s theatrical release by Paramount. Alex Garland represented his personal disappointment about this, as shown below.

“We made the film for cinema. I’ve got no problem with the small screen at all. The best genre piece I’ve seen in a long time was “The Handmaid’s Tale”, so I think there’s incredible potential within that context, but if you’re doing that – you make it for that and you think of it in those terms. Look… it is what it is. The film is getting a theatrical release in the States, which I’m really pleased about. One of the big pluses of Netflix is that it goes out to a lot of people and you don’t have that strange opening weekend thing where you’re wondering if anyone is going to turn up and then if they don’t, it vanishes from cinema screens in two weeks. So it’s got pluses and minuses, but from my point of view and the collective of the people who made it – [it was made] to be seen on a big screen.”

Personally, I side with Garland for a number of reasons.

As someone who is such an advocate for movie theaters, I know, sounds political, I don’t care, it rolls off the tongue. I can totally see this as a film that can come off as a success in the theater. I know various films based on books and other material have been released in mediums that aren’t theatrical. Although my view is this, if you want more money, release your film in the theater. Sure, I sound like a greedy moron, but in reality I’m just stating the truth. You’re paying a good amount of money for what perhaps could be an exhilarating experience. In some places, it’s cheaper than others, but it’s usually pricey. If you actually want to watch your movie on your phone instead of in the theater, you’re either a millennial or you don’t know what you’re missing. Also, if it adds anything, I’m a millennial.

Also, what I don’t understand is the request to change the movie to be simpler. Yes, I don’t mind simple movies. Anything, even Emojis, can make a great movie, no matter how simple or complex it is. It depends on how it’s written, directed, etc. With that being said, it’s obvious that Alex Garland had a vision of how this would turn out. Maybe it’s not just Garland, but since this movie’s based on a book written by Jeff VanderMeer, maybe he had a vision too. If the book was complex for a lot of people, I can’t say it is or isn’t, I never read it, I don’t know. It has occurred to me recently how much I appreciate it when studios don’t interfere with films. I mean, look what happened to “Risky Business!” While it’s a near-perfect film, if they kept the original ending, I would have given the film a minor boost in terms of likability. But no, Warner Brothers just had to get in the way! Also, another thing, experience has taught many people that movies that have complex layers, make people think, or take their time at telling a story are artistically well done pieces of work that turned out to be absolute masterpieces. Why do you think people are still talking about movies like “Inception” to this day?

While I didn’t fully form my opinion for “Annihilation” due to my lack of seeing the movie, I know a guy wo did. That guy, is freaking Jeff VanderMeer, who as mentioned, is the author of the book this movie’s based on! According to Collider, after VanderMeer witnessed “Annihilation,” around nine months prior to the film’s release, he said it was “extremely horrific” and “mind-blowing.” Here’s an actual quote from the author.

“It’s actually more surreal than the novel. There are a couple places where I was like, ‘I might need an anchor here.’ The ending is so mind-blowing and in some ways different from the book that it seems to be the kind of ending that, like “2001” or something like that, people will be talking about around the watercooler for years… Visually, it’s amazing. I must say that and that’s all I probably should say.”

Let me just say, I can understand a director getting mad or disappointed over having to change something that they might perhaps be proud of due to studio interference, but this is actually extremely horrific, and not the kind VanderMeer thought of. When the author of a book sees their own story on screen done by somebody else, praises it to the tenth degree, and even calls it better in various aspects, you better respect that author! Yes, it’s Alex Garland’s movie, but you got to remember, this was also Jeff VanderMeer’s book! Let the two have their way!

Although then again, Stephen King hated the movie adaptation of “The Shining” and there’s evidence of Rohld Dahl disapproving of “Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory” and yet those are considered absolute classics so what do I know really? It all comes down to personal taste, but when there is LITERAL CONCRETE EVIDENCE of an original storyteller adoring a piece of work which happens to be an adaptation of their story, other people BETTER KEEP THEIR STINKING PAWS OFF! You know, kind of like how I said Netflix should have kept their paws off “God Partic– err I mean “The Cloverfield Paradox.”

I said in “Why I Won’t Review The Cloverfield Paradox (2018)” that my reason behind what the title suggests has to do with Netflix and my personal disconnect with the company. I can’t imagine myself reviewing a Netflix movie. I can’t imagine myself passionately looking at trailers for Netflix movies. I can’t even imagine myself watching a Netflix movie. But here’s the thing about “Annihilation…”

I ALSO said in “Why I Won’t Review The Cloverfield Paradox (2018)” that Netflix doesn’t release movies in theaters. I might not be serious about this, but I said I’d probably get rid of my Netflix boycott if they start putting films in theaters And while Netflix is keeping this like their other films and keeping it away from theaters, Paramount isn’t. And as far as my country (USA) is concerned, we’re getting it theatrically released here. So, to answer the question, will I see the movie? Yes I will!

Well… Maybe… If I get the opportunity.

I’m really looking forward to “Annihilation.” I never read the book it’s based on, I don’t know if I will, but this movie looks like a great sci-fi film! I said before, I loved Alex Garland’s work on “Ex Machina,” and who knows? Maybe this movie will be even better. Yes, from what I heard from a racial perspective, the characters apparently aren’t accurately presented, but that’s a topic I might touch on a little more if I a post a review for this movie. So yes, “Annihilation,” you’re not on my enemy list. Thanks for reading this post, pretty soon I’ll hopefully have a review up for “Annihilation” as mentioned before, but I also might go see “Game Night” in the near future, and who knows, maybe I’ll go see “Red Sparrow” if the opportunity comes up.

Also I want to make an announcement, I’m not exactly sure when I’ll start this, but I can tell you it is happening at some point, I’ll be doing a series of “Mission: Impossible” reviews. I don’t have exact dates planned out for each one, because I’m not exactly what you call a schedule follower, I can tell you my plans are to do one “Mission: Impossible” film per month and these are going to be all the Tom Cruise installments. In March I’m gonna be doing “Mission: Impossible” from 1996. In April I’m gonna be doing “Mission: Impossible II.” I’m gonna follow up from that in May with “Mission: Impossible III.” I’ll then continue on in June with “Mission: Impossible: Ghost Protocol.” And I’ll conclude the series in July with “Mission: Impossible: Rogue Nation.” This is all being done in preparation for “Mission: Impossible: Fallout,” which is due to come out in theaters July 27 of this year. Stay tuned for those reviews, should you choose to accept them. Also, stay tuned for other great content as well! I want to know, what are your thoughts on this Paramount/Netflix deal? Do you think it’s a good idea? Also, since it’s still somewhat relevant, what are your thoughts on “The Cloverfield Paradox?” Did you see it? I know some people weren’t exactly satisfied with it, but I want to know if you’re in that territory or somewhere else! Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

Why I Won’t Review The Cloverfield Paradox (2018)

Posted on by Jack Drees

mv5bmtawotixmda0mjzeqtjeqwpwz15bbwu4mdg1mjgznzqz-_v1_sy1000_cr006741000_al_

Hey everyone, Jack Drees here! Last night the Super Bowl aired on NBC and with another Super Bowl around that means another set of overpriced ads that are basically trying to become more important than life itself. The ads overall were underwhelming, however there were a few good ones personally. These good ones came from Bud Light, Amazon, Sprint, Groupon, and M&Ms. As usual, the Super Bowl featured a few movie ads. Some of which were trailers for trailers, which is the stupidest thing I’ve ever heard. One movie spot that specifically caught my attention was “The Cloverfield Paradox.”

I actually knew about this movie before it came out, but I didn’t think it would be coming out now. The movie was originally titled “God Particle” and it was going to be in theaters. This film had been in development since 2012 and its release had been delayed several times. After that, it has been confirmed that this is the third “Cloverfield” installment, following “Cloverfield” and “10 Cloverfield Lane.” As the trailer for this film aired during the Super Bowl, some people were surprised, and I was too. I’m not sure about other people, but I wasn’t surprised there was a trailer. I was surprised about three other things. The first surprise was that it was out in a couple of hours after the trailer dropped. The second surprise was that it wasn’t called “God Particle” and instead called “The Cloverfield Paradox,” but hey, you gotta make the title come off as something people know. The third, and biggest surprise, is that it’s coming out on Netflix.

As of now, a number of people have already watched “The Cloverfield Paradox.” Many of the final verdicts of the film are on the positive end. You want to know my verdict on the film? Well, I can’t tell you since I never saw it. As matter of fact, I don’t think there will come a day where I actually sit down and watch it. If you have seen “The Cloverfield Paradox” and enjoyed it, good for you, I’m glad you had a pleasurable experience. My reasons behind not watching the film don’t have anything to do with hate towards the “Cloverfield” films or the fact that I’m lazy. Also, if you hated it, I’m sorry, and you probably deserve your time back. Although now that I say that I’m lazy, I don’t really exercise as much as some people. My lack of review has more to do with my refusal to use Netflix.

I sound like a total weirdo that doesn’t belong in the generation I was born into, AKA the millennials, especially considering that almost everyone I know my age uses Netflix. Although I refuse to support them for a number of reasons.

The first reason behind this sounds absolutely crazy, but it still exists. I miss Blockbuster Video. Sure, I was a kid, so I never really had to deal with paying late fees or maintaining a Blockbuster membership card or driving to the place. Heck, even if I was my mother or father, I wouldn’t usually have to worry about that because we used to have one that was walking distance from my house. Even as a kid, there was such a joy to be had about that store that I could only replicate by going to someplace where you could buy a movie. Every time I went there felt like a small birthday present. You can’t get that with Netflix! Not only that, but on Netflix, you can’t actually get a deeper emphasis of the film you’re watching by looking all over the case, seeing images, descriptions, all sorts of information. Also, you don’t even need WiFi to play a DVD or Blu-ray. There’s something about streaming that’s kind of depressing. Granted I do use certain streaming services such as Amazon Video and Crackle, but if anything, Netflix was the biggest killer of Blockbuster. I can kind of understand certain movies going straight to streaming, much like how I can understand certain movies going straight to DVD or straight to TV. Although with Netflix’s exclusive content, it’s pretty much ALL straight to streaming.

Netflix began making exclusive content for some time now, and I can truly understand if Netflix wanted to make a TV show to put on its streaming service right away. I would prefer for Netflix to make their own TV channel, but apparently that concept is dwindling. I honestly don’t like that. It feels nice having a TV schedule as opposed to a TV clutter, and this is coming from a guy who hates schedules! The thing I really hate, is how every Netflix original movie has to be straight to streaming. People are saying that movie theaters are dying, and that is just UPSETTING. People are trying to get with the times by the endless recliner installation and renovation, which I think is overrated because you have a lot less seats than you would if you went to a theater with normal seats. Do you know why I go to see movies at the theater? Bigger screen, more audible sound, clearer images. Can you imagine someone watching “2001: A Space Odyssey” or “Cast Away” or “La La Land” and it happens to be on a TV? OK, maybe it’s not that bad of an experience depending on your setup, but what if someone is watching one of those movies on a computer or laptop? What if they’re watching it on a tablet? Or an even more terrifying thought, their phone. What Netflix is basically doing is destroying not only history, because people gather at these places for special events, but they’re also destroying one of a kind experiences.

Netflix’s idea of releasing films the way they do is baffling to me because for one thing, if they release their movies in theaters, they have a chance to make more money! Amazon has a strategy which involves them releasing films, putting them in theaters for ninety days, and around the end of the theatrical run, the movie comes out to home video media and streaming. If you’re an Amazon Prime member, you can stream the movie for free on Amazon Video. Amazon’s method of showing their films in theaters has brought me to check out their films for this blog. I didn’t review all of the ones I saw, but I kept their theatrical releases in mind. This idea is a good way to make money while at the same time, providing a decent experience. If someone really likes a movie released by Amazon as they watch it in theaters, chances are they could watch it again once it hits Prime. Netflix apparently isn’t as bright of a bulb as Amazon, no wonder they’re in debt.

Will I watch “The Cloverfield Paradox” sometime in the future? I’m not quite sure. Maybe if they put it out on Blu-ray and I find it for a good price I might take it, but I also hope that maybe by the end of the year they put it in the theater. I mean, I’m not gonna be surprised if Netflix doesn’t allow something like this, because they are going to be distributing Martin Scorsese’s “The Irishman” and there’s a good chance it won’t be in theaters. If you don’t know who Martin Scorsese is, he departed the wolves off of Wall Street and made them join an aviator in flying towards the movie theater. Seeing his name on a project can make some people interested in seeing how said project turns out. It’ll get them right into the theater! But no, Netflix is different, and that’s good! What a bunch of malarkey!

To this day, I never really used Netflix for anything. I’ve been with other people while they used it, but I never used Netflix for anything I wanted to do, and unless they start putting movies in theaters, or maybe pick up a reality TV show that has shaped my life for three seasons (“King of the Nerds”), I will not be using their services, and I will not be reviewing their content. Yes, I’m not even gonna watch “Stranger Things.” I won’t watch “Altered Carbon.” I will not be watching “The Crown.” I’m not watching “Orange is the New Black.” If you like these shows, good for you, enjoy them. I just won’t be watching them. Nor will I be watching “Cloverfield 3,” or “The Cloverfield Paradox,” or “God Particle,” I like that the name the best, it’s kind of kick-ass. Thanks for reading this non-review! I’m sorry if I disappointed anyone, but I can understand considering how Netflix disappointed me during the Super Bowl. Although if you actually want to know, I will be reviewing more movies soon, such as “The 15:17 To Paris.” That comes out in a few days, so I might see that movie rather soon! Stay tuned for more great content! I want to know, what are your thoughts on Netflix? What are your thoughts on streaming? Did you see “The Cloverfield Paradox?” If so, did you like it? Also, where would you rank it along with “Cloverfield” and “10 Cloverfield Lane?” Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

Downsizing (2017): More Like Upboring

Posted on by Jack Drees

mv5bndyxndq5otyxov5bml5banbnxkftztgwotcyodkxndm-_v1_sy1000_cr006401000_al_

“Downsizing” is directed by Alexander Payne (Sideways, The Descendants) and stars Matt Damon (The Martian, The Bourne Identity), Christoph Waltz (Django Unchained, Inglorious Bastards), Hong Chau (Inherent Vice, Treme), and Kristen Wiig (Bridesmaids, The Secret Life of Walter Mitty). This movie is about a guy who shrinks down after the realization that this action would change his life for the better.

I went to see this film with my mother, and both of us knew very little about it. I knew basically what I just described up above. Matt Damon plays a guy who at one point gets shrunken down. I found out a lot of things about this movie as it went on. For example, I found out the movie’s garbage. I also found out the people who are shrunken down go on and live in a tiny land. Another thing I also found out is that the shrinking was an idea to save the environment and the Earth from overpopulation. What’s another thing I found out? Oh yeah, and I found out the movie’s garbage! Allow me to explain the unbelievable boredom that you’ll experience watching “Downsizing.”

Have you ever watched C-SPAN and thought to yourself, what if something like this was full of fictional characters? No, this movie isn’t full of political discussions, but try watching C-SPAN for a number of minutes and try not to change to channel. Speaking of boring, have you ever read a terms of service agreement from beginning to end? This movie has one, it’s short, but if it were longer, that’s basically what this movie is. It’s a long terms of service agreement. Something you don’t want to look at, and in some cases, makes you wonder why you intended on signing up, or in this case, bought tickets, for what you’re experiencing. F*ck this movie!

This movie stars Matt Damon as the character of Paul Safranak. He and his wife decide at one point to shrink themselves down because if they do that, their lives will be better. They can live as large as a king, and work as little as Kim Kardashian. By the way, f*ck Kim Kardashian. Matt Damon gave a rather competent performance as his character. In fact, seeing Damon perform was one of the more redeemable parts of the entire film. There’s something about Matt Damon that makes you appreciate him. I thought his performance here was better than another stinker which came out this year, specifically “The Great Wall,” but it wasn’t enough to make a good movie.

I’m not even gonna get into the other characters. Because I don’t even care about them enough to talk about them! I almost fell asleep while watching this film, which I will say I’ve never done once during a movie while I watched it in the theater. Let me just say that Matt Damon’s wife is played by Kristen Wiig, there’s an Asian chick who doesn’t understand English that well played by Hong Chau, and there’s LITERALLY NOBODY ELSE that I feel should be talked about here in detail because I’d probably have to watch the film again in order to get information on them.

There are so many things that are wrong with this film. Aside from being a total borefest, there are tons of questions that sparked in my mind as I dredged through this atrocity. For instance, why the f*ck am I watching this? But also, how the f*ck is some of this s*it happening? While the film is logical in ways, it doesn’t have any noticeable physics errors for example, there are many questionable things that just come together to create one gigantic mess. As everyone gets downsized, literally all of their hair is shaved. Why?! Another thing that I questioned during the film is how all of these small people got a lot of their items. I mean, the movie never goes into it, but a lot of it is explainable. I’ve got a couple valid reasons in my mind. A big thing I wonder is how these folks get their money. Is money downsized? Are wallets downsized? Also, when everyone gets downsized, they’re naked. Therefore, they don’t have their credit card on them. Another huge question, does the government approve of financial downsizing? I don’t know when this takes place, but it has to either take place in the future or present day. By that logic, I imagine people would still be addicted to their phones. When one person shrinks himself or herself down, it’s a total life changer. Would phones suffer from downsizing? Yes, the downsized world would contain factories producing products like phones and everything along those lines. But why can’t you downsize products? This really makes me concerned about that money thing I just mentioned. I remember Matt Damon using a phone when shrunken down, but I can’t remember if it was one he had before the shrinking process. Also, since downsizing’s a life changer, I gotta say, that s*it doesn’t make any sense. Yes, you’re changing the way you live, not to mention where you live. Ultimately, you’re still the same person. The movie makes it sound like you’re never going to talk to the people you know again. Not only does Matt Damon talk to someone he knows who doesn’t shrink, but in general, how do you talk to people you can’t communicate with easily? Do it on the phone! You can still talk to your family on the phone! Also, once a person gets downsized, this process can’t be reversed. So they couldn’t make a separate machine for upsizing? Or make upsizing an option on the machine? At least say that there’s no way to do that! This movie is nothing but garbage!

I don’t have much else to say, but there’s this awesome pun given during the movie. Matt Damon is on the phone talking to one person in particular, which, yeah, more phone s*it. He says something to get the person to say “Don’t get short with me.” As terrible as this movie is, hearing that line might be worth the price of admission.

In the end, “Downsizing” sounds like an interesting movie on paper. A guy shrinking himself down to live a better life isn’t that bad of a concept, but this film not only bored me, but managed to make me question it more than I intended to. So for that, I wanted only one thing to shrink at this point, which was my anger. Unfortunately, it only grew as the movie progressed. F*ck this movie! I’m going to give “Downsizing” a 2/10. Thanks for reading this review, pretty soon I’m going to have my lists for my top 10 BEST movies of 2017 and my top 10 WORST movies of 2017. I’ve been working on those for quite a bit, and I can guarantee you that as of now, this movie made the worst list for sure! Stay tuned for more reviews, those countdowns, and more great content! I want to know, did you see “Downsizing?” What did you think about it? Or, what are some of the most boring movies you’ve ever seen? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

10 Movies That Have Changes You May or May Not Have Noticed *SPOILERS*

Posted on by Jack Drees

mv5bmja1mjqynju5mv5bml5banbnxkftztgwntc1nji1nte-_v1_sx1777_cr001777755_al_

Hey everyone, Jack Drees here! You might have clicked on this post thinking “Oh, crap! Clickbait! GO BACK! GO BACK! GO BACK!” First off, thank you for giving me one extra view, very much appreciated. Second, regardless of how clickbaity this sounds, I will say what you’re about to read is somewhat interesting. When movies come out, you might think of it in a certain way. You might go back and watch it the way you remembered. Although in some cases you might go back and watch it, and there’s something different about it. Today we’re going to be looking at some of these changes, see if you see the movie in a different view than you did before. One rule I’m making for this list is that no made-for-TV changes apply here. If a movie gets a change from its original release because it airs on TBS or something, it doesn’t count. So changes as the one from “Home Alone” where Buzzy doesn’t say “I wouldn’t let you sleep in my room if you were growing on my ass,” and instead says “butt,” doesn’t qualify. Just for the record, this is not a countdown, these aren’t in any specific order, and I’m not sticking to any sort of idea, stating how much I like or dislike these changes. I might go into that, but I’m not saying I like every single change or dislike every single change. So let’s dive into this.

Revenge of the Nerds: Phone Number

mv5bodu1nzm4nta4nl5bml5banbnxkftztgwmtkxmzcxmte-_v1_sy1000_cr006631000_al_

The first change comes from the 1984 comedy “Revenge of the Nerds.” This is one of my personal favorite comedies. The sequels? Not so much. The movie has been released on VHS, Laserdisc, DVD, and Blu-ray. However, the sequels haven’t gotten past the DVD mark. This is a change that is seen on both the DVD and Blu-ray editions of the film. In 2003, the film was put out on DVD, but with a reedit brought to the mix. There’s a “For Rent” sign in the movie which had a genuine phone number on it. For legal reasons, the footage where the phone number was displayed was removed. Note, I didn’t say blurred, but removed. I have never seen the footage of where the phone number is revealed and as I write this, I’m looking at originaltrilogy.com, where a bunch of users are talking about this change and a couple of them called it “jarring.” I will have to watch the original cut in order to agree or disagree, but if you really want to make everyone happy, just blur the phone number. Also to everyone, please don’t call the phone number. Don’t be a dick.

All the Right Moves: Lea Thompson In the Nude

Remember how I said this isn’t a countdown? Well, I guess this may be an excuse to talk about movies I haven’t seen. Ladies and gentlemen, I give you “All the Right Moves,” starring Tom Cruise (Risky Business, The Outsiders) and Lea Thompson (Jaws 3-D, Back to the Future). Why am I talking about this? Well apparently I was in Connecticut and while I was there, I managed to pick up a bunch of Blu-rays to add to my collection. This movie happened to be one of them and I figured it would go great in my Tom Cruise collection. Due to random research, I came across something interesting. When “All the Right Moves” came out in 1983, there’s a sex scene featuring Tom Cruise and Lea Thompson which contains full frontal nudity, however when the Blu-ray released in 2012, the framing of Lea Thompson’s character in the nude was altered. This prevented people from seeing Lea nude below the waist. I don’t want to sound like a pervert, but I don’t know why that change had to be there. First off, the movie’s rated R. Second, if people who have watched this before are rewatching this today, they might be slightly jarred by what they’re seeing and the experience of that scene might be ruined for them. Not to mention, this is a Blu-ray cut! Not a cut made for television! On TV, I can sometimes understand some movies being altered for certain viewers for a number of reasons. But, on a Blu-ray?! What do I know really? I’ve yet to see the film so I can’t really say much.

2001: A Space Odyssey: “Affirmative, Dave” and Nineteen Minutes of Footage

It’s been almost fifty years since the release of “2001: A Space Odyssey.” In that span of time, the movie has been considered a classic by fans of science fiction and film from a general perspective. You know what they say, if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it. This change, much like the “Revenge of the Nerds” change, didn’t really break the film or anything for some people. In fact you can say it broke the film less because if you think about this, it’s not really that jarring compared to the “Revenge of the Nerds” change. In 1998, MGM released “2001: A Space Odyssey” on DVD, with a slight change in the dialogue. During the scene when Dave is trying to get through the pod bay doors, he asks HAL “Do you read me, HAL?” In that particular release, HAL responds by saying “Affirmative, Dave.” Although in the original release, HAL says “Affirmative, Dave. I read you.” What makes this change extra wacky is that the English subtitles for the DVD released by MGM actually still displays the line from the original release. The full dialogue however was revived in future home video releases from Warner Brothers. Speaking of changes, when “2001: A Space Odyssey” was first released, it was slightly over two and a half hours long. The version which is seen on most home video releases is a version that’s just slightly shorter than two and a half hours. Stanley Kubrick, the director of the film, removed nineteen minutes of footage after the film premiered. It would be nice to see that footage restored for when “2001” comes out on 4K, I’d totally buy that!

Blade Runner: Endless Cuts (SPOILERS AHEAD)

“Blade Runner” is one of the best sci-fi films ever made. In fact, a sequel just released in October and it might be just as good, if not better, compared to the original. Followers over the years have been exposed to multiple editions of what director Ridley Scott regards as “probably his most personal and complete film.” Ridley might not be lying when he says that, and we’ll get to that in a second. “Blade Runner” has had seven different cuts of the film released to the public.

In 1982, the workprint prototype version was shown to test audiences in Denver and Dallas. This was also shown in 1990 and 1991 to audiences in San Francisco and Los Angeles as a “Director’s Cut.” Although it didn’t have the approval of Ridley Scott. We’ll get back to that in a sec.

There was also a San Diego sneak preview version shown to audiences only once in May 1982. This version included three scenes that was never shown in any other version of the film (before or after).

Then we have the version the US audiences saw in theaters. This included a “happy ending” that the studio wanted in the film. Fun fact by the way, there are aerial helicopter shots which weren’t even filmed for “Blade Runner.” These shots were actually from Stanley Kubrick’s “The Shining.” The movie also included narration by Harrison Ford, who played the lead character of Deckard. While some might say Ford either was angry about his task or he intentionally narrated poorly, he said it was simply bad narration. This was also referred to as the “Domestic Cut,” which wasn’t released on DVD until 2007 as part of a collector’s set of the film.

Then we have the International Cut. This cut is a minute longer than the US version, and included more violence in three action scenes than the US version. This cut was eventually released in the US on VHS and Criterion Collection laserdiscs. Interestingly, this version was shown to the US on HBO during the 1980s, the 1990s, and 2015.

In 1986, the US broadcast version was released. This was put together by CBS to meet TV broadcast requirements. There’s even narration that wasn’t in any other version of the film leading up to it, plus a different opening crawl. And yes, I said made-for-TV changes don’t count, but I’m just providing evidence to prove my point.

Next came the Director’s Cut, which was created technically by film preservationist, Michael Arick. This cut was discovered as a 70mm print which nobody had an idea that it actually was the movie’s workprint version. This was discovered after a screening of the film in Los Angeles. Ridley Scott said the cut was roughly edited, lacked a key scene, and the climax missed Vangelis’s score. The Director’s Cut was very popular that it rereleased theatrically in 1992. This cut also brought up a very popular fan theory if you will to the table. At one point in the film, we cut to a clip of a moving unicorn. The original idea for this scene was to cut between Deckard and the Unicorn, but the condition of the print associated with this was not presentable, so it just shows the unicorn trotting. This scene along with a clip of Deckard holding an origami unicorn, may suggest he is a Replicant. Speaking of things this film removed, the movie no longer has the narration from Deckard along with the happy ending the studio wanted. Despite being called the “Director’s Cut,” Scott wasn’t satisfied. To be fair, he was busy with “Thelma and Louise,” time and money happened to be a problem, however this cut brought more satisfaction in general to Scott than the original. There’s one cut although, that brought even more satisfaction to Scott…

Here’s where we get to “The Final Cut.” This is the cut where Ridley Scott had complete artistic control. Remember the unicorn dream? Turns out in this version, the original dream was included. You know, the one where it cuts between Deckard and the unicorn. Other additions include alternate edits and violence featured in the international cut. It turns out there were parts of this version that went through reshoots to fit in this version. One such example is Zhora’s death scene. Fun fact, if it weren’t for Warner Brothers gaining total control over distribution rights in 2006, this would have probably never been released. This project started once the 21st century began, and in mid-2001, legal and financial troubles put the project to a halt.

Porky’s: Cherry Forever’s Extra Nudity

“Porky’s” is an interesting movie to say the least. When it comes to its reception, critics weren’t exactly pleased, but it did gain a cult following and there are still people who go back and watch it today. As far as 1980s coming of age stories go, this isn’t my goto pick. However, back in the 80s, this was a hit among many people who flock to the cinema. The film was #1 at the box office for nine consecutive weekends, suggesting that either a lot of people either wanted to see it, liked it and went multiple times, or happened to be really horny. The film eventually released on VHS and something appeared in that which never appeared in the theatrical release, or the future DVD release. Based on how the release was open matte, more nudity was revealed in the VHS version. This happened during the Cherry Forever scene. The additional nudity was a result of the transfer, and was never intended to be shown. You know, unlike my secret identity–whoops! That was close! I almost told you guys I’m the guy who saved the Golden Gate Bridge from absolute destruction. Oh, crap! I did it! I’m a failure! I was told by a wizard to keep that a secret! Oh, well! Sucks to be me!

xXx: Head-butt

One interesting move executed in battle is a headbutt. There’s something about it, you’re literally using your head to bounce off someone else as a fighting technique. Plus, the term itself is awesome. One movie where a headbutt is shown is 2002’s “xXx,” starring Vin Diesel. This movie isn’t exactly the next “Citizen Kane” or anything, however it is a fun action flick with some interesting lines in the lines in the script. Going back to headbutts, when this movie was released in several territories, audiences were exposed to a moment where a headbutt occurs. One territory where audiences didn’t get to see this however, was in the UK. Similar to the US’s MPAA, the UK operates under a rating system referred to as the BBFC. The BBFC has a rating labeled as 12A/12, which was the rating “xXx” was given. If the headbutt was kept in, the rating wouldn’t have been secured and would have bumped up to 15. This is how the film was presented for years. The headbutt wasn’t even in the eventually released Director’s Cut DVD. Although on January 5th, 2017, the film was rereleased on Blu-ray in honor of the film’s 15th anniversary. It was at this point that the BBFC waived the cuts to the film, and the headbutt was then inserted. The BBFC must have had this slogan for years:

BBFC: We’re buttheads!

Ferris Bueller’s Day Off: Paramount Logo

I love “Ferris Bueller’s Day Off.” It’s a coming of age story that a lot of people in high school can relate to. In fact, you can also include anyone going to school in general, not to mention anyone who’s working a s*itty job can relate to. Sure, “Office Space” kind of does the same thing, but this came first. This change doesn’t even affect much of the movie, it just has to do with the logo. This movie is from Paramount, and if you know who they are, there’s a good chance you’ve seen one of their logos. Some time after the movie was in theaters, it came out on VHS. However, the VHS versions contain a plastered Paramount logo depending on the year the print released. The original logo although was restored on all future DVD and Blu-ray releases.

American Graffiti: Digital Effect

Ah, George Lucas. What have you done? You took a bunch of people’s childhoods, which were epic because of your “Star Wars” movies, and you threw them in the garbage! Because if you haven’t noticed, the original “Star Wars” trilogy has made a crapton of changes over the years! Well ya know what?! I’m not gonna focus on that! Because I already did a countdown focusing on those changes, and apparently George Lucas made a change to “American Graffiti” as well! This change didn’t exactly offend me as much. Then again I only saw this movie once. The change is shown in the 1998 Collector’s Edition DVD and VHS, and once you hear what it is without any specification, it almost sounds like something George Lucas would do. Lucas requested for the opening scene which features Mel’s Drive-In to have a sunset with clouds. The original opening had a cloudy sky with buildings in the background. In this opening, the buildings are still there, but the weather is different. Interestingly, there was also a documentary on the making of “American Graffiti” included as a bonus feature on the DVD, and the original shot was inserted there. Time travel much?

Kindergarten Cop: Little Terrorists

I imagine some people getting a sense of surprise from “Kindergarten Cop.” The film itself is a comedy where a cop goes undercover as a kindergarten teacher in order to locate the ex-wife of a dangerous criminal. This movie released in 1990 and stars Arnold Schwarzenegger. It’s kind of interesting to put the Terminator as the star of a comedy, but stranger things have happened. Although I wouldn’t say it’s all too strange because another comedy, “Twins,” released two years before this one, and while not all critics and audiences appreciated the film, there were a number of them to say it was worth a watch. Interestingly, both comedies were directed by Ivan Reitman, who also directed “Ghostbusters” 1 and 2. And the movie does have some witty Schwarzenegger lines and also has some funny lines given by a bunch of kids as well. Speaking of lines, let’s talk about one of them. As mentioned, this movie released in 1990, which is eleven years before 9-11. Once that day occurred, it inspired the removal of one particular line in all future versions of the film. After Schwarzenegger’s first day with the kindergartners, he has this to say about them.

JOHN KIMBLE: They’re horrible. They’re like little terrorists.

I’d just like to state that if I were in kindergarten watching this film, it would probably be debatable on whether or not I should be watching it given it has a PG-13 rating. However I don’t know if this one incident means this line should be deleted. I don’t know if Reitman decided on this or if Universal did or anyone else for that matter, but you don’t really need to get rid of it. Sure, in reality, kindergartners aren’t commonly associated with terrorists, although that would make for an interesting cartoon or something, but I don’t see how this would offend anyone. I mean, it’s probably better than changing the line, but the elimination felt unneeded. Let’s face it. Kindergartners are crazy, and I know that because I was one. I wouldn’t blame someone comparing me with a terrorist at that age because I was a chaotic brat. Anyways, let’s move on.

Jaws: Smile, You son of a… (SPOILERS AHEAD)

“Jaws” is considered by many to be one of the greatest films of all time. It has a terrific script, admirable characters, and an awesome score from John Williams, who went on to do “Star Wars,” “Superman,” “Raiders of the Lost Ark,” “E.T,” “Home Alone,” “Jurassic Park,” “Schindler’s List,” “Saving Private Ryan,” and “Harry Potter.” If you’ve seen the ending, you’d probably know how it ends. Part of that ending involves the character of Brody. He’s in a duel against the shark and he’s got a gun. He’s in full concentration mode, trying to take the creature down. In honor of the movie’s 30th anniversary, a DVD was released in order to celebrate. This brought a very minor change in one line, in fact, it’s actually one of the lines of the movie that I remember most. In versions prior to this release, before Brody shoots his gun to kill the shark, he says “Smile, you little son of a bitch.” Here, he says “Smile, you little son of a…” and then his gun is shot. Like the original, all the blood and gore remains, but the word “bitch” is removed. I’m glad I’m not Jesse Pinkman from “Breaking Bad,” because finding this out would be the worst day of my life. I can now say that my memory suggests that all the versions of “Jaws” I’ve seen in my life at this point, have this specific “bitch” removed. I want to know how this feels for everyone who has either seen the original version and possibly been exposed to alternate editions of the film. How does this “bitch” removal come off to you? Does it take away from the scene? Does it not take anything away at all? Does it anger you? I really want to know. I can’t say much about this change, but if they ever alter “You’re gonna need a bigger boat,” there will be riots.

Thanks for reading this post, there’s a good chance I just possibly either ruined a scene for you, so if I did, I apologize. If so, don’t blame me, blame the people who changed them! Nevertheless, the year’s almost over, the holiday season is coming to its conclusion, but that also means I will have two countdowns coming up. Like at the end of 2016, I’m counting down my top 10 BEST and WORST movies of the year. I’ve seen a number of films that came out this year. Most of those films are ones I reviewed, and there are others I’ve watched but couldn’t make a review of for the sake of time such as “The Great Wall,” “American Assassin,” and “King Arthur: Legend of the Sword.” Believe it or not I will still be going to see more movies as the year comes to a close, because I have aspirations to go see “Downsizing,” “Father Figures,” “The Disaster Artist,” and if any other opportunities come up to see a movie released this year, I’ll take those as well. Stay tuned for more great content! Also, what is the worst alteration you’ve ever seen in a movie? For me, I gotta say Darth Vader screaming “no” at the end of “Return of the Jedi.” Leave your responses down below! And yes, can also includes ones from TV. Scene Before is your click to the flicks!