Patton Oswalt

Ghostbusters: Frozen Empire (2024): We Came, We Saw, But the Movie Only Barely Exceeded Average

Posted on by Jack Drees

“Ghostbsuters: Frozen Empire” is directed by Gil Kenan (Monster House, Poltergeist) and this film stars Paul Rudd (Dinner for Schmucks, Ant-Man), Carrie Coon (The Leftovers, Fargo), Finn Wolfhard (Stranger Things, It), Mckenna Grace (The Young and the Restless, Gifted), Kumail Nanjiani (Silicon Valley, The Big Sick), Patton Oswalt (King of Queens, A.P. Bio), Ernie Hudson (The Basketball Diaries, Quantum Leap), and Annie Potts (Toy Story, Young Sheldon). This movie traces back to the franchise’s origin point, New York City, and centers around the Ghostbusters’ quest to uncover the connections to an ancient artifact and to keep civilization from being trapped under ice.

Here is a fun fact about Scene Before, “Ghostbusters” literally got this blog started. I am serious. Because I started this blog in 2016 as part of a high school project. One of the big talking points at the time was the trailer for the “Ghostbusters” reboot, which I did not enjoy. Then months later, one of the big talking points was the movie connected to that trailer, which I did not enjoy. Like, really did not enjoy. In fact, when I did my worst films of the 2010s list, that was #1, and I stand by it. Could that movie have worked? Of course it could have! After seeing “The LEGO Movie,” I am under the impression any movie can work. But 2016’s “Ghostbusters” was not funny. The CGI was off-putting. And it is a waste of a lot of people’s talent. When I look back at the film, part of me hates talking about it. Because if I simply say I did not like the movie, there is probably someone out there pointing their finger at me and telling me that I hate women. I am all for women empowerment. Look at how epic “Wonder Woman” was the following year. I just wish this movie were handled better.

When “Ghostbusters: Afterlife” was announced, I was quite excited. I thought it was a little soon for a new “Ghostbusters” outing, but the trailers seemed to successfully balance nostalgia with an immersive, adventurous vibe. It was also nice to see the franchise outside of New York City for once. Unfortunately, I did not get to review the movie due to time constraints. But if you want my quick thoughts, I had a ball with it. I liked the new characters. Paul Rudd was great in his role. The sound design was quite good. And the action sequences were fun. The movie was a delight. The film by no means rewrote what it meant to be a box office success, but it was enough of a hit to justify another movie, in this case “Frozen Empire.”

Just to give a quick ranking of the “Ghostbusters” movies before this one came out, I would have to say the first one is easily the best. “Afterlife” comes in second. “Ghostbusters II” takes third place for me. And again, it pains me just mentioning it, but I have to be honest, my least favorite film of the franchise is the disconnected “Ghostbusters” 2016. So where does “Ghostbusters: Frozen Empire” rank amongst these movies?

Honestly, smack dab in the middle.

In a thumbs up, thumbs down world, “Ghostbusters: Frozen Empire” is an easy thumbs up. There is plenty to like about this sequel. But there is not a lot to love. Does the movie have decent nostalgia? Sure. Does the movie have a good concept? Sure. Is the humor on point? Sure, but it is not as strong as the original movie. Does it handle the newer characters well? Some better than others. This is the one thing about this movie, there are a lot of positives, but when I say positives, I do so knowing that these positives may not be worthy enough for me to go back and watch the movie a second time in the next few months.

Sorry to spoil a movie that is a couple years old, but in “Ghostbusters: Afterlife,” the four original “Ghostbusters” made an appearance towards the end of the film. And yes, I said four. They found a way to inject the late Harold Ramis into the project. In this installment, three of those four are back, and around for a bit longer. Ernie Hudson and Dan Aykroyd have more notable impacts on the story, but Bill Murray manages to squeeze himself in at some point.

One thing I have noticed about the “Ghostbusters” franchise, at least in the movies, is that all of the ghosts are not on the busters’ side. Obviously, if your crew is about killing ghosts, of course, you are going to not play nice with them. But this movie introduces a ghost character who I thought served as a nice antithesis to that idea to some degree. Specifically, Melody played by Emily Alan Lind. Throughout the film we see young Phoebe (Mckenna Grace) develop a connection with her that drives the plot forward significantly. The two have good chemistry and I like seeing them onscreen together. Some elements as to how their bond starts may come off as far-fetched or convenient, but at the same time, it does make sense in a franchise where the Statue of Liberty basically goes “Night at the Museum” during the climax of “Ghostbusters II.”

Although that subplot does not even bring forth the most convenient, perhaps out of left field part of the movie. Because that honor, if you can call it that, goes to something we see out of Kumail Nanjiani’s character, Nadeem Razmaadi (left center). As much as I enjoyed the climax of this movie, if there is one thing I did not like about it, there is a moment where we see Nadeem do something that had me going “Why?” The moment did not feel authentic. Again, I understand, it is “Ghostbusters.” The franchise has jumped the shark before. But I feel the franchise is at its best when there is a balance between reality and fantasy. This leans too far into the fantasy route for me.

This is not to suggest you have to like one movie over the other, but I have a feeling that if you like the 1980s “Ghostbusters” fare, you might feel more comfortable watching this movie at times compared to “Afterlife.” It’s back in New York City, you have more time with the original cast, and it has a much larger scale and feel. If you like those things, you should, on paper, have an okay time with this movie. But the reality is, much like what I said last week about “Kung Fu Panda 4,” if I were to introduce this franchise to someone, I would just start with the original. This follow-up is entertaining, but it does not change the game. It is not going to be remembered as one of the greats. Maybe I will catch it again on cable one day. “Ghostbusters” seems to have a large presence there anyway. But we shall see. It could be better. But for my money, I had fun with it.

In the end, “Ghostbusters: Frozen Empire” is an enjoyable time, but compared to a couple other installments in this franchise, it is not as good. When it comes to pure spectacle, this movie does not fail. There is an action scene in the first act that had me hooked and excited for whatever was going to come next. Was I intrigued by everything that came after? You can say that. But I am not going to pretend I will run down the street screaming my highest recommendations for this film. That said, if you decide to watch it, you might enjoy it. You never know. I am going to give “Ghostbusters: Frozen Empire” a 6/10.

“Ghostbusters: Frozen Empire” is now playing in theaters everywhere. Tickets are available now.

Thanks for reading this review! I have more reviews coming up in the pipeline including “Snack Shack,” “Godzilla x Kong: The New Empire,” “Monkey Man,” “Abigail,” and “Civil War.” Stay tuned! If you want to see these reviews and more from Scene Before, follow the blog either with an email or WordPress account! Also, check out the official Facebook page! I want to know, did you see “Ghostbusters: Frozen Empire?” What did you think about it? Or, what is your favorite “Ghostbusters” movie? And despite everything I said earlier, I welcome any and all opinions about the 2016 reboot. If you like it, more power to you. But for me, the original is the best one. Let me know your picks down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

The Secret Life of Pets 2 (2019): The Secret’s Out: This Movie’s As Lifeless As A Pet Rock

Posted on by Jack Drees

“The Secret Life of Pets 2” is directed by Chris Renaud, who directed the previous installment to this specific franchise. He also has a voice role as multiple characters. Renaud is directing alongside Jonathan del Val, whose work has mainly been in the animation department for other Illumination titles such as “The Grinch” and “The Lorax,” which makes this his directorial debut. This film stars Patton Oswalt (King of Queens, Ratatouille) as the character of Max, a dog who has many pet pals in his vicinity around the city of New York. What’s interesting about that is the first movie had Max be voiced by Louis C.K., but based on eventually surfaced controversy, C.K. was replaced by Oswalt. Alongside Oswalt, we have Eric Stonestreet (Modern Family, Identity Thief), Kevin Hart (Ride Along, Central Intelligence), Jenny Slate (Obvious Child, The LEGO Batman Movie), Tiffany Haddish (Night School, Uncle Drew), Lake Bell (BoJack Horseman, Childrens Hospital), Nick Kroll (Operation Finale, Sing), Hannibal Buress (The Eric Andre Show, Neighbors), Bobby Moynihan (Saturday Night Live, Me, Myself, & I), and Harrison Ford (Star Wars, Raiders of the Lost Ark).

“The Secret Life of Pets 2” follows the story of the recently mentioned Max as he adapts to having a human child by his side, only to eventually become protective of said child, not to mention, his own self. Meanwhile we get side stories involving the bunny Snowball as a superhero and the dog Gidget guarding a toy as she tries to learn the traditions of being a cat.

I saw the original “Secret Life of Pets” back when it came out, and it was also one of my first reviews I have ever done (view my continuously developing content here). When I did that review, I managed to view the movie as decent, and I managed to address a complaint that I imagine a decent number of people had while watching the film. Specifically, the notion that “The Secret Life of Pets” is too similar to “Toy Story.” Yes, there are similarities, but “The Secret Life of Pets” is fine enough to stand on its own if you ask me.

Oh, by the way! Check out my review for “Toy Story 4!”

That first movie managed to make $800 million more than its original budget of $75 million. Regardless of the movie’s quality, that is something both Universal and Illumination should celebrate. So naturally, a sequel seemed to be inevitable.

Well, here we are. And honestly, while I imagine some people like Chris Renaud may be doing this as a passion project, this almost feels like one of those movies that only exists just to make money. I could just say that just from viewing the movie on paper, but I viewed it on a screen. Guess what? I still feel that way! “The Secret Life of Pets 2” is the worst animation of the year so far! If I had to be honest, this just makes me feel bad for Illumination. I know the studio is pretty popular right now, especially with the following of “Despicable Me,” a trilogy I still have yet to see from start to finish. I saw part of the second film, and that is it. No, I have not seen “Minions.” But even though I enjoyed “Sing” and sort of enjoyed “The Secret Life of Pets,” I have yet to see that one film which defines the studio. To add onto this, I watched last year’s “The Grinch” and it was freaking awful. My gosh golly! That movie was a mean one for sure! Sadly, I think this movie’s worse. Because for starters, much like “The Grinch,” there is some occasional nice looking animation in this, but I think “The Grinch” slightly edges out its competitor because “The Grinch” was colorful and zazzy. There was nothing in this film that had a real wow factor. In fact, most of the film is cringe if you ask me!

Seriously! The writing is terrible! The plot is nearly convoluted! Not to mention, the movie almost has this rushed feeling to it. And if you look at the runtime, this statement would not surprise you. I say that because the runtime is 1 hour and 26 minutes. Coincidentally, that is also the runtime of what may be the worst animated film of all time, “The Emoji Movie,” another rushed disaster that might as well exist because, well, the thing it is about is trendy! “The Secret Life of Pets” was a success, why not make another one? We’ll make it the s*ittiest waste of time and money imaginable, and everyone will go see it. The script will be so lazy that it will eventually spend lots of time in one of the crew members’ junk drawers! Granted, “The Secret Life of Pets 2,” admittedly, is much better than “The Emoji Movie,” so this does not say much.

I felt like I already gave a teaser to how chaotic this movie is in terms of building blocks, because it didn’t feel like a movie. Instead, it felt more like a bad situation comedy episode with pets as the main cast. There are multiple plot lines for individual characters, which is fine for a number of films, but the execution was poor in this one. There are cheap jokes that don’t land, and there are anger-inducing moments that make playing a game of pinball where the flipper buttons shock you with each press look fun!

As for Max himself, there is one question I want to ask to the general audience going to this film. Do you care about the replacement voice actor? I could tell the voice difference betweent Oswalt and C.K., but I understand why the replacement happened so it’s not like I entirely give damn. Oswalt did a fine job with the voice, but as an avid moviegoer, I am gonna inevitably notice things, and Oswalt’s voice is not the same as C.K.’s. If you ask me, I would have probably done an audition process to see if someone could be a good match to Louis C.K.’s voice for the movie. Then again, I imagine some people don’t want to think about that guy so that could backfire. In terms of characterization, I understand the purpose of his character throughout the film and how he was written, but Max’s main problem in the movie in terms of how it was executed, nearly made me roll my eyes. Did I feel bad for him at times? Sure. But I still hated myself throughout the experience.

But as he tries to cope with this we get to meet the absolute best character in the movie, Rooster. For one thing, he’s voiced by Harrison Ford, who definitely brings a likable screen presence into a lot of projects, perhaps even if he sleepwalks. He has a couple of funny moments during the film, sadly I saw the characters’s main highlights prior to going into the auditorium. I guess this is what you get for watching promotional material and talk shows. Although unfortunately, because this movie quite literally cannot get any shorter, the amount of screentime Rooster manages to have is slightly underwhelming. I could tell that Harrison Ford was likely trying, but I would almost bet that this was a paycheck movie as far as Ford was concerned. As soon as I saw what I then gathered would be Ford’s final scene in the film, I almost wanted to turn off my brain. And I don’t mean turn off my brain and shove popcorn in my month as I stare at the screen. I mean lose all processes of thinking, knowing, and realizing. Because while I’m not psychic, I imagined that whatever would come next in the film, would be nowhere near as fun or entertaining as the scenes with Ford’s character. And of course, this super genius of film is right once again! Boom! Although I will say one thing about Harrison Ford’s character that is kind of interesting, I guess Han Solo got to play Chewbacca for once!

*Cricket noises*

Chewbacca derives from a Russian word for dog.

There is a lot of crap that happens in this movie to the point where I don’t even have the time to hit all of it (and some hinges into spoiler territory). Some of it includes a scene where Chloe (Lake Bell) is slowly taking in the effects of cat nip as if it was some sort of illegal drug, which might qualify to be one of the most unintentionally disturbing scenes in animation history. The ending is kind of absurd that it almost feels like it is too much for a cartoon, but there is one thing I have yet to cover regarding this film that I absolutely hate as a viewer.

They say a story is only as good as its villain. If that’s the case, THEN THIS STORY IS BULLCRAP! “The Secret Life of Pets 2” has a villain that even makes a good portion of the underwhelming MCU villains come off as menacing and watchable. Specifically, a character by the name of Sergei. The lackluster Sergei is partially responsible for running a circus. His latest addition to the crew is a wild tiger named Hu. Maybe I could appreciate the villain if he wasn’t so over-embellished, but crew went ahead and uttered “F*ck that! Quality? Who cares about quality? Let’s make him talk deep, with a unique yet cliche voice, give him the most boring lines imaginable, give him less personality than a bowling pin, and possibly make him more evil than he should be!” It would be fine if Sergei were some alien from another world or if he… I dunno, just didn’t happen to be human, but behind his black clothing and sidekick wolves, he is very likely just a regular guy. I imagine he would do other things in life aside from his dayjob at the circus. Once he gets home, I imagine he turns on the TV, watches the news, heats up a microwavable pizza, drinks a glass water, takes a shower, lives a normal life. I don’t mind ordinary people becoming extremely villainous for one reason or another, but in this case, it just didn’t work. If this is supposed to be propaganda against the circus or keeping wild animals where they don’t belong, maybe I could appreciate the movie for the direction it decided to take. But I’m sorry, it is overshadowed by cringe, insanity, stupidity, and a villain who makes this movie even more of a waste of my time than I ever imagined it would be. Remember the movie “Up” where the main villain is basically an elderly man who just loved to explore and hunt? He was not a maniac for the sake of being a maniac! Much like this film’s villain, he’s got a pack of animal sidekicks, but they have more dimension than chasing after potential victims. Then again, that’s because in this movie, the wolves are loyal to their one-dimensional owner whereas in “Up” the owner of the mob of dogs managed to have a personality. Man, this movie sucks!

In the end, “The Secret Life of Pets 2” is more intolerable than a bite from a vicious dog. I cannot even believe I am still talking about this movie! But in all seriousness, this movie could have been a lesson to children to make them realize they may have to face their fears, but sadly, I’m a teenager, and now I have self-diagnosed disease of TheSecretLifeofPets2phobia. Maybe it could be a lesson for adults and parents to not to make their children too soft, but even with a lesson like that intact, I learned a different lesson from “The Secret Life of Pets 2.” That lesson by the way is that I don’t ever want to watch this film again! This movie is a bad boy! Bad boy! Or… girl??? Is it a boy or girl? I dunno, who cares? The jokes don’t the work, the screenplay doesn’t work, and everything feels as rushed as math homework done by a student who answered each problem with the phrase “I dunno.” The first movie was OK, and now I am starting to wonder if someone put heavy drugs in my body because maybe if I watch that original film now it could suck. You know, kind of like this movie did. I’m going to give “The Secret Life of Pets 2” a 2/10. Thanks for reading this review! I just want to remind everyone that next week I am going to releasing a giant post related to my Scene Before experience so far this year, which will also include a preview for what I’ll be doing for the rest of the year. Stay tuned for that! Be sure to follow Scene Before either with a WordPress account or email so you can stay tuned for more great content! I want to know, did you see “The Secret Life of Pets 2?” What did you think about it? Or, what is the worst animated movie of the year for you? I did not see “Wonder Park,” but if I did see it, I imagine that would be in the conversation for sure. Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

Who Should Host the 91st Academy Awards?

Posted on by Jack Drees

MV5BOGI4ZTA2MGQtMDI0ZC00Y2RkLWI4ZTItYzkzMTU5MWQ0Mjk5XkEyXkFqcGdeQXVyNTI5NjIyMw@@._V1_

Hey everyone, Jack Drees here! If you have been following some recent news lately, you may have been made aware that Kevin Hart was set to host the Oscars this year. However, that’s not the case anymore. This is due to his recent encounter with his own past, thanks to other people bringing it up. Hart once tweeted jokes that were considered anti-gay and homophobic, thus he decided it would be best to avoid letting himself be a distraction on Oscar night.

As for my thoughts on this, I am personally disappointed. I wanted to see Hart host the Oscars. Not only is he a likable movie personality, but he’s an effective comedian too so he probably could have executed some of the monologues with ease. Not to mention, he’s had hosting experience with CBS’s “TKO: In the Zone.” Also, the departure from the Academy hosting role reminds me of a similar case that happened this year, specifically with “Guardians of the Galaxy” director James Gunn. If you remember, James Gunn had old tweets which resurfaced, causeing his business relationship with Disney to be severed. I want people to be the best person they can be, but the fact is, everyone makes mistakes. Why are we not allowed to reflect on our own mistakes? Nevertheless, the Oscars needs a new host, so I figured since I have time to kill, I wanted to whip up a list of five (or six depending on my mood) capable people, regardless of their past actions, who have the potential to host this year’s Academy Awards show.

Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson

My first pick on this list is, appropriately, someone who has worked with Kevin Hart in the past on “Central Intelligence” and “Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle,” Dwayne Johnson. As far as hosting experience goes, he has hosted “Saturday Night Live” five times, and he has a new show coming up on NBC in January called “The Titan Games.” If a new host is not decided by the time “The Titan Games” is on TV, and Dwayne Johnson gets kudos for stellar hosting skills, the chances of him taking on the Oscars is only going to skyrocket. Not to mention, when I see him do any sort of project, I always have this sense that he is not only doing it for himself, but doing it for other people. He clearly is a happy man, even when he does s*it like “Skyscraper.” I think Johnson would add a shred of enthusiasm and deliver some excellent comedy with smile on the Academy stage.

Patton Oswalt

This next pick is more of a jump on a bandwagon than anything else, but it’s my list, so I’m going with it. I’m talkin’ about Patton Oswalt. Not only has Patton Oswalt been a legitimate movie personality for his work in films like “Ratatouille,” “Young Adult,” and “The Secret Life of Walter Mitty,” but he’s had some excellent roots in comedy as well. He has appeared in multiple episodes of situation comedies including “Two and a Half Men,” “King of Queens,” and now he’s a regular on NBC’s “A.P. Bio.” To add onto his comedy background, he has done several stand-up specials on HBO and Comedy Central. As far as hosting, he has taken on numerous award shows in the past. The Oscars is a step further from what he’s hosted, but I think Oswalt’s got the guts to step up to the plate.

Howie Mandel

Up next, we have Howie Mandel. Known for his comedy since the 1980s, this guy has had experience in both the film industry and hosting. When it comes to hosting, he has done “Deal or No Deal” from 2005 to 2010, that is until it has been recently brought back this year, and the 2009 Game Show Awards on GSN. When it comes to the films he’s done, he is known for “Gremlins,” “Little Monsters,” and “Walk Like a Man.” I think Mandel has the comedy chops to deliver excellent monologues, funny jokes, and a lovable stage presence. He could probably joke about how hard it is to host the Oscars compared to a game where he has to stare at beautiful women opening cases. Plus, when it comes to politics, this is something I never tended to associate with Howie. This may be just me talking, but even if Howie had to joke about politics onstage, I don’t know if they would tend to associate with his political views since he never usually tends to reveal them, at least according to my experience.

MV5BMzgzM2M1ODgtZWI0Ny00ZjNjLWFkY2ItZmNlMWVkNzA3MDY5XkEyXkFqcGdeQXVyNTI5NjIyMw@@._V1_

It has been a trend that talk show hosts have been stepping up to the plate for hosting big award shows. Just this year alone, Seth Meyers hosted the 75th Golden Globes, Jimmy Kimmel hosted the 90th Academy Awards, Stephen Colbert hosted the celebration of Julia Louis-Dreyfus as she received the Mark Twain prize, and James Corden hosted the 60th Grammys. Why not have a talk show host duo? I would like to not only see Conan O’Brien host the Oscars, which would be an awesome thought by itself, but it would also be cool if Andy Richter was there alongside him. The two work flawlessly together, and it is easy to see after so many years. The possibilities are endless for comedy with these two. Also, when Seth Meyers hosted the Golden Globes, he actually took a bit from his own show, “Jokes Seth Can’t Tell,” which takes jokes that wouldn’t be funny coming from Seth Meyers, and lets them fly out of the mouths of other people. I think there are tons of bits that can be taken from Conan’s show and put into the Oscars. I wonder if there would be a rights issue since “Conan” airs on TBS and the Oscars airs on ABC, but I would love it if this were to happen. One bit could be “What Am I Watching?,” which takes TV shows and gives them fake descriptions that can be found with a click of the “info button.” Although instead of TV shows, it could be movie themed. Another one could be “Celebrity Survey,” which takes simple questions about a celebrity’s life, and there are a number of goofy answers that stand out compared to the normal answers. An example for the case of the Oscars would be:

“I don’t want to stop _______”

STEVEN SPIELBERG: Showing off my imagination to moviegoers.

GAL GADOT: Inspiring my fans.

MERYL STREEP: Stealing well-deserved wins and nominations from my fellow acting peers.

One other idea I have for Conan and Andy is at one point, they can come out as Batman and Robin. Conan is Batman while Andy is Robin, and given how Andy is often viewed as nothing more than Conan’s sidekick, that can make for some excellent comedy.

Alec Baldwin

And finally, we have Alec Baldwin. This guy is a triple threat. He does comedy. He does film. He does hosting. In fact, if it weren’t for “Deal or No Deal” coming back on CNBC, Baldwin would be hosting my favorite game show on TV right now, specifically “Match Game.” He has also been a significant part of “Saturday Night Live,” especially in recent years now that Donald Trump is in office. This does bring in my minor concern that maybe the politics will go overboard, but knowing Baldwin, he is able to make politics funny. When it comes to movies, Baldwin’s résumé includes notable credits from “The Departed,” a couple of “Mission: Impossible” films, “The Boss Baby,” and “It’s Complicated.” In fact, of all the potential hosts I listed here, Baldwin is the only one who has been nominated for an Oscar. So it would only be fitting for him to host since he’s had partial experience with the ceremony before.

These are just my picks, and chances are that some of you will disagree me. All of these are just one crazy moron’s opinion, so I want to know, do you have any ideas on who should host the next Oscars? Or, what or who do you think will be nominated this year and for which categories will such a thing or person be nominated? Let me know down below! Thanks for reading this post! This weekend I am gonna try planning to go see a movie, either “Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse,” or “Mortal Engines.” I will also say, this is my last week in my first semester of college, so I currently have a good amount of time on my hands to go see movie. Since it’s December, I have absolute intentions to see a lot of them. I actually wanted to see “The Favourite” yesterday since it was playing at a couple theaters near me on the way home but I passed up on the opportunity. Oh well. Be sure to follow Scene Before either with your email or WordPress account so you can stay tuned for more great content! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!