Review

John Wick: Chapter 4 (2023): The Most Action-Packed, Exciting John Wick Yet

Posted on by Jack Drees

“John Wick: Chapter 4” is directed by Chad Stahelski, who has directorial credits on all of the previous installments in the franchise. This film stars Keanu Reeves (The Matrix, Bill and Ted’s Excellent Adventure), Donnie Yen (Rogue One: A Star Wars Story, Ip Man), Bill Skarsgård (It, Barbarian), Laurence Fishburne (The Matrix, Ant-Man and the Wasp), Hiroyuki Sanada (Mortal Kombat, Bullet Train), Shamier Anderson (Goliath, Invasion), Lance Reddick (The Wire, Bosch), Rina Sawayama, Scott Adkins (Criminal, American Assassin), and Ian McShane (Kung Fu Panda, Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides). This film centers around John Wick as he tries to get revenge against the High Table and take down anyone who stands in his way.

I love the “John Wick” franchise. One thing that stands out about this franchise that separates itself from several others is that not only is the first movie good, but every sequel that comes out is a step up from its predecessor. I enjoyed “John Wick: Chapter 2” more than the original, and I found “John Wick: Chapter 3 – Parabellum” more entertaining than “John Wick: Chapter 2.” The objective of a Hollywood sequel is to, perhaps stereotypically, go bigger, but it does not always mean it is better than what came before. “John Wick” has gone bigger in its two sequels to extremely pleasing results. From one film to the next, the action sequences are incredible, the cinematography is amazing, and the lore is fascinating. And it happens to be all the more so with each go. That said, after two successful sequels, I wondered if the franchise ran out of steam. I thought “John Wick: Chapter 4” was just going to be a cash grab that would make most of its money from name recognition. I wondered how they could possibly top the other films.

Now that I saw the film, I can confirm “John Wick: Chapter 4” not only tops its predecessors. It stabs them, shoots them, and sends them tumbling off a cliff. It makes those films inferior and asserts its dominance. “John Wick: Chapter 4” is easily my favorite film in the franchise, and I did not think I would come to that conclusion a year or two ago.

This film is the fourth installment of an ongoing franchise that has made a decent chunk of change. It stars a well-known actor who has continued to maintain his relevancy in an extended career. Some may say that making this film implies Lionsgate would be, understandably, playing things safe. I understand why they made it, but I was not sure if I wanted it, that is until I watched it. I thought when they were making this film, it was a sign that “Hollywood” happened to be running out of ideas. After seeing this masterpiece, and I mean that in every sense of the word, I can confirm that Hollywood is not running out of ideas. Because this movie came up with a buttload of fresh new ways to kill people.

This movie has a great list of characters between all of the returning faces like Keanu Reeves as John Wick, Laurence Fishburne as Bowery King, Ian McShane as Winston, and Lance Reddick as Charon (RIP). But the newcomers manage to steal some of the spotlight for themselves. Donnie Yen, who may be at risk for being typecast as a visually impaired, skilled fighter, is brilliant in this film. I loved every minute he was on screen. Scott Adkins does a great job with his limited screentime as Killa, who is only enhanced by some excellent makeup and costume design. Did I mention assassin dogs?! Bring on the assassin dogs!

Over the past few years, we have practically been in a Keanussance with the previous “John Wick” installments amongst other projects like “Toy Story 4,” “Bill & Ted Face the Music,” “The Matrix Resurrections,” and even the “Cyberpunk 2077” video game. Of all of the projects Keanu Reeves has done in recent years, this is the best one. It is up there with “Point Break” and the original “Matrix” installment as one of the greatest Keanu Reeves projects of all time. But if I have to be real, I should not solely rely on encouraging my readers to take a shot every time I gloriously say the name Keanu Reeves, because the real stars of the show are the people behind the camera. From director Chad Stahelski, who has consistently delivered one good time after the next with this franchise. To writers Shay Hatten and Michael Finch, who have conceived my favorite screenplay in the “John Wick” franchise since the simple but effective original. To cinematographer Dan Laustsen, who has distributed some of the most palatable shots in an action movie to date. To production designer Kevin Kavanaugh, who has built a multitude of sets that do not deserve to look as good as they do in a movie where tons of people get killed by a guy who has successfully utilized a pencil as a weapon.

This is one of the most thrilling action flicks ever put to screen, and it is not only because Keanu Reeves takes names in corners that you did not know existed, but because so much care was put into each frame. If anything, the progression of the “John Wick” movies reminds me of “Mission: Impossible” in recent years. From the third movie and onward, each one felt like a step up from its predecessor. For “John Wick,” each movie feels like a step up from the original, which is already a decent time.

I have said that this is my favorite “John Wick” script since the original. Part of it is because, like all the other installments, it maintains a sense of atmosphere that makes a series like this something of its own. But also because it is the closest the franchise has come to making me relate to or feel strong emotions for the characters. While the first “John Wick” is my least favorite in the franchise, I will not deny what made that first movie work is its ability to make me root for “John Wick” over his loss. It is all the more significant when considering that I am probably the furthest thing from a dog person. The sequels are great, but I remember them more for what the characters did as opposed to why they did it. What makes the fourth movie the best one is that it takes the substance of the first movie and the style that has improved from one installment to the next and showcases what the full potential of what this franchise could be. This is the ultimate “John Wick” experience from scene one to the final frame.

If I had anything else of note to say, I would recommend maybe watching the other movies before this one. For starters, they’re good movies. But I also bring this up because there may be some lore to pick up on before this fourth film. If I had any problems… They are not coming to me. I was worried about the runtime. However, this movie flew by, because I was having fun. That is ultimately what “John Wick” is. And between Keanu Reeves’s trademarks, his dynamite chemistry with Laurence Fishburne, all of the action, this is the epitome of fun. These types of movies are not for everyone. My mom would not like this film. But if you are an action junkie and refuse to watch “John Wick: Chapter 4,” you are missing out on the pinnacle of what this genre is capable of. From a technical perspective, this movie checks every box and receives extra credit. The sound design might end up being the best of the year depending on what comes out after this. Every frame looks like a painting. Some of the music is quite good too. The lighting is balls out and spectacular. At times, the stunts made me wince. I have enjoyed all of the “John Wick” installments, but as far as this movie goes, I am bending over for it like it is my lord and savior.

In the end, “John Wick: Chapter 4” is a thing of beauty, a thing of splendor. It is something I will be thinking about for a long time. The track record for “John Wick” over the years has reminded me of the track record for “Mission: Impossible” over the years. It gets better every time. Keanu Reeves has personally earned a seat at my High Table. When it comes to movies, few things beat a surprise. Few things surpass the time when a movie comes out of nowhere, I am not looking forward to it, but I see it anyway, and it ends up being one of the best things I have watched in recent memory. I was technically looking forward to “John Wick: Chapter 4,” but not on the level that I was going into “Chapter 3.” That said, this is better than chapters 1, 2, 3, all of them. Everything has led to this, the ultimate “John Wick” experience. I do not know if “John Wick: Chapter 4” will be this year’s “Top Gun: Maverick” or “Avatar: The Way of Water” as a select big budget, popular film that shoehorns its way into the Best Picture slate at the Oscars, but we shall see. I am thinking this franchise is not only back, but better than ever! I am going to give “John Wick: Chapter 4” a 10/10!

“John Wick: Chapter 4” is now playing in theaters everywhere. Tickets are available now!

Thanks for reading this review! I have a couple more reviews coming up very soon including one for “Dungeons & Dragons: Honor Among Thieves,” which I plan to see tonight. Also coming soon, I will be sharing my thoughts on “The Super Mario Bros. Movie,” which hits theaters next week. Speaking of which, I figured with the brand new “Mario” film coming out, I thought it would be a perfect opportunity to go back and review 1993’s “Super Mario Bros.,” which I have to remind myself, unfortunately exists. I just rewatched the film earlier this week and I will be sharing my thoughts on it soon. If you want to see this and more from Scene Before, follow the blog either with an email or WordPress account! Also, check out the official Facebook page! I want to know, did you see “John Wick: Chapter 4?” What did you think about it? Or, what is your favorite of the “John Wick” movies? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

Shazam!: Fury of the Gods (2023): A Marvelous Spectacle That Goes Bigger Than Its 2019 Predecessor

Posted on by Jack Drees

“Shazam!: Fury of the Gods” is directed by David F. Sandberg, who also directed the previous “Shazam!” movie. This film stars Zachary Levi (Chuck, Tangled), Asher Angel (Jolene, Andi Mack), Jack Dylan Grazer (It, Luca), Rachel Zegler (West Side Story), Adam Brody (Ready or Not, Promising Young Woman), Ross Butler (13 Reasons Why, K.C. Undercover), Meagan Good (Think Like a Man, Brick), Lucy Liu (Charlie’s Angels, Kung Fu Panda), Djimon Hounsou (Furious 7, Guardians of the Galaxy), and Helen Mirren (Gosford Park, F9: The Fast Saga). This sequel is set two years after Thaddeus Sivana, the main antagonist of the last installment, was beaten. This time around, Billy Batson, otherwise known as Shazam, must team up with his “family” to stop the daughters of Atlas from destroying the world.

Before I give my thoughts on “Shazam: Fury of the Gods,” here is a recap on my thoughts on the comic book movie genre in recent months.

I remember a time when comic book movies were not taken as seriously as they are today. Right now we are getting so many of these projects, particularly ones inspired by Marvel and DC properties, at various times of the year. “Shazam!: Fury of the Gods” is just the latest addition to the collection. I have no problem with the excessive amount of comic book movies we are getting as long as the people making them recognize one thing as we move along. Quality. Sadly, in 2022, comic book movies, while still good, have taken a bit of a dip.

When I look at the MCU, I enjoyed every movie they have done that year, but I had notable problems with each one they released. These could range from the visual effects to the humor to the pacing or certain lines that I was not able to believe once they were spoken. Part of the problem, if you ask me, is the MCU going for such an ambitious, perhaps overcrowded route with its Multiverse Saga and also balancing movies with straight to Disney+-content. This has made the MCU lose some of its novelty in addition to its polish.

When it comes to DC, the last couple years has had its hits and misses. “Black Adam,” the last DCEU film before this one is a barely passable time that only delivers as much charm as it does thanks to its stylized action sequences and performances that are perhaps as well delivered as they could have been by the main cast. I liked “The Batman,” but I thought it overstayed its welcome.

2022, again, while still enjoyable, felt like a significant step down from the year before where Marvel delivered a couple of my favorite movies they have done. Specifically, “Shang-Chi and the Legend of the Ten Rings” and “Spider-Man: No Way Home.” I went back for repeat viewings on both of these films. I have seen the latter four times in theaters specifically, including the extended version. On DC’s turf, “The Suicide Squad” ended up not only being my favorite movie of 2021, but also my favorite DC movie I have ever seen. It is such a perfect balance between heart, humor, and action that I cannot stop thinking about it. It also inspired HBO Max’s “Peacemaker,” a brilliant series on its own.

Now we move forward to “Shazam!: Fury of the Gods,” which follows up what I thought to be quite an entertaining film we got four years ago. I was looking forward to this movie, but I thought the marketing was awful. If anything, the first trailer felt too light for a movie about gods trying to destroy earth. Also, I assumed the second trailer basically revealed the whole movie. That said, I was delightfully surprised. I had a good time with this film. There is a lot to like about it. It has a lot of cool fights and visual effects, which are two mainstays in this genre by now, but I also like how they handled the characters. Especially when it comes to a subplot involving Freddy. Rachel Zegler, who is still developing her career, is one of my favorite parts of this film. I loved the way they handled her character, and while her performance is not as awards-worthy as Maria in “West Side Story,” it had my attention from the moment she appears. I was shocked, not to mention full of joy, to find as many positives as I did in this movie.

If I have to note a standout from “Shazam!: Fury of the Gods,” it would be the action sequences. This movie contains some of the more thrilling scenes this genre has provided in recent years. Is it a lot of it big, bloated CGI shenanigans? Sure, but some of the utilizations of the CGI make these scenes worthwhile. They are a ton of fun to watch. There is also a fun scene towards the beginning of the film where the Shazam family tries to save a ton of people from danger on a bridge. There was one song choice that I was a bit iffy on in that scene, specifically Holding Out for a Hero by Bonnie Tyler. Although one of my favorite parts of the movie is when Billy, AKA Shazam, is holding onto a car, hears the song playing, and he asks the driver if he seriously saved them while they were listening to that song. First off, I think a younger superhero would totally say something like that. Second, it kind of goes to show how much that song has become a part of our culture in terms of heroism. Not just because of the name. I mean, look at how it was used in the climax of “Shrek 2!”

Speaking of which, the Shazam family themselves have fantastic chemistry. We got a glimpse of them in the previous film, but this film features them prominently and they are properly utilized from start to finish. Not only do they try to save the world together, but I found it fun to see how they hang out in their off time. And they actually do feel like a “family.” Sure, they stick together, but they are not afraid to occasionally bicker and argue. Yes, they technically are family, they always have been. But they show the positives and negatives to being with a family on a consistent basis. I think this movie shows that perfectly.

Pacing-wise, “Shazam!: Fury of the Gods” could not be better. The film is 130 minutes long, but it honestly feels shorter than it actually is. It is not rushed, it just goes to show how much fun I was having with everything being thrown at me. This movie never has a dull moment in it. Even in lesser moments, I was never uninterested or bored. The third act in “Shazam!: Fury of the Gods” is nowhere near my favorite third act of all the comic book movies that have come out, but it is also one that had my attention more than several others in recent months. In fact, once it starts, it feels like it never wants to stop. I felt an adrenaline rush from the moment it began.

But of course, we must also address the negatives. While this is a fun, entertaining movie, it is also predictable. It occasionally has its own flair but the structure feels like a comic book movie from a decade or two ago. While I love certain comic book movies from a decade or two ago, they have their shortcomings. The villains, while intimidating and threatening, have basic motivations. Destroy the world we have so they can build a new one of their own. Granted the way they go about it works for what this movie delivers, but a cliché is a cliché.

If I have to name a cream of the crop for my negatives, it would involve a personal pet peeve of mine in films. Product placement. As I have said on posts in the past, product placement is an understandable motive. People need to make money, and companies want their products exposed. That said, if you have ever seen a Skittles commercial and thought it should have unicorns, you are in luck. There is something that goes down in the third act involving Skittles, I will not say what, that continues to grind my gears. It is weirdly written, oddly executed, and even stranger wondering how such a thing came to be. This is possibly the most mind-numbingly obvious instance of product placement I have witnessed since “Sonic the Hedgehog” and its sequel’s blatantly obvious and masturbatory tribute to Olive Garden. Because when I think of “Sonic the Hedgehog,” I think of underwhelming, Americanized Italian food.

Although going back to what was said earlier about the second trailer revealing the whole movie, I can say there are segments of the movie that were never shown. There is also one big surprise at the end that I had no idea about. The final ten minutes of this movie put a huge smile on my face. Apparently this surprise was revealed in the marketing, but I did not see said marketing prior to watching this film, therefore I had a heart-stopping reaction when the scene of interest came up.

In the title of this review, I suggest that “Shazam!: Fury of the Gods” goes bigger than the original, which is an effort several sequels, perhaps stereotypically, aim to achieve. This time around you have multiple threats, a giant dragon, and more heroes trying to save the day. I had fun with what this movie had in store. But as I have suggested with some other sequels in the past, bigger does not always mean better. But unlike say the “Matrix” sequels, going bigger in the case of “Shazam!: Fury of the Gods” is not a hindrance. It does not burn the movie to the ground. I get why “Shazam!: Fury of the Gods” would try to do such a thing, and it works in more ways than one. I think the heroes are likable. The villains, despite their lack of depth at times, are somewhat well realized and nicely performed by their individual actors. The CGI is honestly better than some of what Marvel has put out as of late. Heck, I think when it comes to CGI, I think this is better overall than the last big comic book movie to hit theaters, “Ant-Man and the Wasp: Quantumania.” I liked the movie, and some of the effects are quite good. But at times, some of them are so out of this world that I had trouble believing in them. M.O.D.O.K might just be the MCU’s strangest-looking insertion of effects work yet.

Although speaking of “Ant-Man,” I would say if I learned anything about “Shazam!” after two movies, it is very much the “Ant-Man” of the DCEU. The heroes and stories have their differences, but both are played by tall white men with black hair. Both are naturally snappy and occasionally hyper. And they both have to significantly change their physicality to become their alter egos. But what I have also noticed is that both of their movies, in addition to their franchises, play out in similar fashions. On the surface, both movies feel much smaller than their sister movies. In terms of scale, “Ant-Man” is no “Guardians of the Galaxy.” Similarly, “Shazam!” is no “Aquaman.” “Shazam” might occasionally feel large in scale, but compared to most of the cinematic universe to which it belongs, it is puny. And now, with their latest sequels, “Quantumania” and “Fury of the Gods” respectively, they try to unleash something much bigger than they’ve had before. How they go about doing so is completely different from one another, but they nevertheless try to aim higher in terms of their concept than their other movies. This is not to say 2018’s “Ant-Man and the Wasp” feels smaller than 2015’s “Ant-Man,” but I would say the leap from “Ant-Man and the Wasp” to “Quantumania” is much bigger. While not as seismic, the shift between “Shazam!” and “Shazam!: Fury of the Gods” definitely feels noticeable. There is a lot more action, more world-building, not to mention, more potential world-destroying. Bigger does not always equal better, but in the case of “Shazam!: Fury of the Gods,” going bigger led to a movie that is serviceable in more ways than one, but does not reinvent the wheel. It is a step up from “Black Adam,” but it is not the DCEU’s best work either.

In the end, “Shazam!: Fury of the Gods” is not a masterpiece of the comic book sub-genre, it has its wins, it has its losses, but I had a grand time with it. This film is packed with superpowered, monstrous joy and entertainment. It is not going to win any awards. But I do not say that as a negative because it certainly is not going to take home any Razzies. It is simply put, a decent time at the movies. To those who want to avoid this movie because they are tired of the superhero genre or because the DC universe is getting a reboot at some point, I hear you. I get it. I thought the marketing for this movie looked awful, but I went to see it anyway. Safe to say, I am glad I shelled out a few bucks to see it on the big screen. It is worth your time. I am going to give “Shazam!: Fury of the Gods” a 7/10.

“Shazam!: Fury of the Gods” is now playing in theaters everywhere. Tickets are available now.

Thanks for reading this review! My next review is going to be for “John Wick: Chapter 4!” The film just hit theaters this weekend, and I am very much looking forward to checking it out tonight. My thoughts will be up next week. If you want to see this and more from Scene Before, follow the blog either with an email or WordPress account! Also, check out the official Facebook page! I want to know, did you see “Shazam!: Fury of the Gods?” What did you think about it? Or, did you see the original “Shazam!” film? What are your thoughts? Which of the “Shazam!” movies do you prefer? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

65 (2023): Jurassic Farce

Posted on by Jack Drees

“65” is written and directed by Scott Beck and Bryan Woods, the duo who also scripted “A Quiet Place” and “A Quiet Place Part II” alongside John Krasinski. This film stars Adam Driver (Star Wars: The Force Awakens, Marriage Story) and Ariana Greenblatt (Avengers: Infinity War, Awake) in a story set 65 million years before modern times. In this science fiction adventure, Mills (Driver) crashes on prehistoric earth, which to him is an unfamiliar territory. He discovers within the surroundings of this land, there is intelligent life, specifically a young human girl, and dinosaurs.

“65” is easily one of my most anticipated movies of the year. Yes, it has an early release date. Although it has a lot of promise going into it. Adam Driver is a terrific actor who gives it his all in every project he does. The plot is simple but also engaging enough to not turn me off. Oh, and what was the other thing? A little something called DINOSAURS!

I was not just excited for “65” because dinosaurs were in it, but I happened to be eagerly awaiting to see what precisely “65” would do with these dinosaurs. Because I was hoping we would get a proper use of these creatures after a couple underwhelming “Jurassic World” movies. The last couple were not that great, especially “Dominion,” which I consider an achievement because it somehow managed to make dinosaurs boring. While the trailer for “65” showcased the dinosaurs to some degree, it never fleshed them out. That gave me the impression that the dinosaurs in this movie would be special, they are not going to emit a special kind of staleness. In addition, they will actually come off as scary.

But you know what is also scary? The fact that “65” might just be the worst movie I have seen so far this year.

I am truly disappointed to bring this thought to the table, because I was genuinely excited for this movie. It hurts to watch a movie that sucks. However, it breaks my heart to see a movie that I was rooting for from the beginning turn out as bad as it did. Although I should have seen the writing on the wall. Sony did not do a ton of marketing for this film. While I had no intentions to watch this, mainly because I am not caught up in the franchise, Sony made the decision to release this movie the same weekend as “Scream VI.” “65” is not a pure horror flick, but it has a ton of horror elements wrapped in whatever package it tends to bring forth. Therefore, I would not call it counterprogramming. Maybe Sony thought it could do well as a double feature with its competitor. I am not sure.

Once again, “65” is written and directed by Scott Beck and Bryan Woods, whose experience with “A Quiet Place” speaks volumes. No pun intended. Much like “A Quiet Place,” “65” is a simple movie with a few characters who are simply trying to survive against dangerous monsters. Or in this case, dinosaurs. Although what made the screenplay for “A Quiet Place” so brilliant compared to a ton of other mainstream films is that it has almost no spoken dialogue. There are a few lines. There is also sign language. But it goes to show the power of film as a visual medium. While “65” does not have a script that insults your intelligence, the way certain lines came to life did not end up coming off in maybe the way I would have hoped. There is one particular exchange between Mills and Koe where the former emits a noise, and there is this awkward pause. Not only is the pause, again, awkward, but the noise sounds almost unnatural. For all I know, maybe Driver was poorly directed in that moment.

“65” is like if “Jurassic Park,” “A Quiet Place,” and “The Midnight Sky” got together to create a lovechild. You have dinosaurs, minimal lines, and an older man/younger girl relationship that moves things along. Except in the case of “65,” they forgot the part where they actually had to make a good movie.

This is not to say there are no positives in “65.” The film’s visual effects look clean and slick. They fit perfect within the film’s environment. The tech looks polished. The dinosaurs look real. I have no problem with the way this movie looks. I would also say some of the shots are screensaver-worthy. Not to beat a dead horse, even though this movie was not executed perfectly, the concept was at least intriguing. There was also some tension to be had in the movie regarding a particular element beyond the main characters’ control. Although I wish the writing happened to be better and the characters had more of a personality than what the movie gave me.

If I had to make a guess, “65” sounded like a great movie on paper, but was ultimately a project whose signs of doom appeared somewhere in the edit. If I pitched a movie to a studio about dinosaurs, I am sure the person on the receiving end would at least be curious. How could they not? Unless they are named Barney, dinosaurs equal instant, guaranteed entertainment. And the “Jurassic World” movies, including “Dominion,” which released two years after COVID-19 ruined everything, made tons of money despite what I and others have to say about them. “65” is not the same movie as “A Quiet Place,” but Beck and Woods evidently use similar techniques from one film to the other. There is not much dialogue, and therefore, there are moments where we are shown things instead of being told them. A basic rule of filmmaking is to show instead of tell, which is part of what makes “A Quiet Place” work like a charm. But what also made “A Quiet Place” work is that I bought into the relationships between its characters. I liked the dynamic between the family. The main duo in “65” barely has any chemistry whatsoever. Both Driver and Greenblatt do their best alongside each other with the material given to them. Although it does not change the fact these two are leads in an awkwardly designed story that I wanted to end as soon as possible.

Also, it says a lot when a movie that only goes for 93 minutes, just over an hour and a half, somehow feels too long, not to mention insufferably boring on occasion. This film is set 65 million years before our times, and yet that is how long this movie sometimes feels. Maybe this film would have made for a good video game. You could go around detailed portions of prehistoric earth. You could fight dinosaurs. You could have cool weaponry. But as a movie, this was a waste of time.

In the end, “65” is a roaring disappoint. What is it with dinosaur movies as of late? “Jurassic World: Dominion” is one of the worst blockbusters to have released in recent memory. And now “65,” which I thought could have given a boost to the dinosaur movie realm, only makes me think that these kinds of movies should be extinct. I am not going to remember “65.” In fact, I frankly think I may have tuned almost all of it out of my head by now. That is how bad this movie is. Go something else if you have the chance. I am going to give “65” a 2/10.

“65” is now playing in theaters everywhere. Tickets are available now.

Thanks for reading this review! My next review is going to be for the latest DC movie, “Shazam!: Fury of the Gods.” I had a chance to watch the movie last Thursday, and I cannot wait to share my thoughts on this sequel. If you want to see this and more from Scene Before, follow the blog either with an email or WordPress account! Also, check out the official Facebook page! I want to know, did you see “65?” What did you think about it? Or, what is a movie you saw in recent memory, that you were looking forward to, only to have your hopes shattered? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

RRR (2022): Really Rad Ridiculousness

Posted on by Jack Drees

“RRR” is directed by S.S. Rajamouli (Baahubali: The Beginning, Eega) and stars N. T. Rama Rao Jr., Ram Charan, Ajay Devgn, Alia Bhatt, Shriya Saran, Samuthirakani, Ray Stevenson, Alison Doody, and Olivia Morris. This film centers around two men living in 1920s India who form a bond during a revolution.

Despite how a vast majority of my reviews are for films made in the United States, this post feels long overdue. I have heard the hype regarding “RRR” for the longest time. Everybody is talking about it. But for some reason I never got around to it. Maybe it is the three hour runtime. Maybe it is because it came out as I was finishing my senior year of college. Maybe it is because I thought there were other movies that were more important at the time. I do not know why I did not talk about this film when it was in theaters last year. While the film is available on Netflix now, I thought I would take the chance to talk about it. After all, the Oscars are this weekend, and this film did receive a nomination, so it is only appropriate. Granted it is Best Original Song, but still. Plus, the film is back in select theaters for some time, so I thought I would take the opportunity to check it out with one of my available AMC A-List punches.

As noted with my “Brahmastra: Part One” review I did last year, my experience with Indian cinema is limited. Therefore, I do not have a lot of material I can compare “RRR” to. That said, “RRR” is an incredible theatrical experience. One of the most immersive and engaging I have had in my entire life. It felt like a Broadway musical put on a giant screen. I went to go see this film at a regular 2D auditorium at an AMC. If I had to be real though, the sound in the theater is comparable to what I have experienced with seeing some movies in Dolby Cinema. The sound mix in “RRR” is basically “Tenet,” if you could actually hear what everyone is saying. The action is big, the music is loud, the effects are commanding. But not only does this movie sound like a good time, it is, simply put, a good time.

“RRR” is a simple premise done to the best of the filmmaker’s ability. The film starts off with a girl getting captured, therefore setting the stage for someone to keep her in mind and rescue her. It is definitely an inciting incident that has been done before. For example, every other “Super Mario Bros.” title has done something like this. But much like how the “Super Mario” video game franchise always strives to make the gameplay and design fun despite its simple premises, “RRR” takes this simple premise and dials everything around it up to an 11. In addition to the sound mix, the visual effects are some of the most polished ever produced. In fact, if this movie looks expensive, that is because it is. This movie cost ₹550 crore to make. In U.S. currency, that translates to $72 million. While the U.S. film industry has made plenty of movies that cost more than $72 million, as far as India’s records go, this is their most expensive production ever. When it comes to 2022’s film slate, few films compare visually. The only real rival I can name for “RRR” in this year of film would have to be “Avatar: The Way of Water,” mainly because almost all of the movie relies on CGI and effects. To be frank, “RRR” looks more polished and attractive than all of the Marvel Studios fare that came out in 2022, even “Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness,” which I thought is one of the better-looking films the studio has done so far.

This film is led by N. T. Rama Rao Jr. and Ram Charan. These two are dynamite together. I almost cannot imagine anyone else playing this duo in their respective roles. They are likable, charming, and every scene with these two is nothing more than a joy. I could watch these two actors together in a buddy cop movie if there were ever an excuse to make one with them in it. I did not know a whole ton about this movie going into it, but one thing I always saw through the marketing is this one shot where these two gravitate, and they are holding hands together. I knew from that moment that this connection would be something special, and I was proven correct. Also, having seen that handholding scene play out in the movie, I can declare it is one of the most satisfying shots, not to mention scenes, of 2022 cinema.

A lot of people might hesitate to watch this film because of the three hour runtime. Trust me, I understand how you feel. When I saw that “RRR” is three hours long, I was a bit weary. Although I have reviewed a couple three hour movies over the past few months. As far as their individual runtimes go, they led to mixed results. One ended up feeling like a snoozefest at some point, while another took me on a time traveling journey I never wanted to end. Although if you ask me, I do not care how long a movie is as long they use that runtime to tell an entertaining narrative. “RRR” did not feel like three hours. If anything, at times, it felt shorter.

There were times where I did not want this movie to end. For those of you reading this, specifically those who question why you should watch a film made from someplace that is not Hollywood, not belonging to any preexisting IP, and comes with a runtime that surpasses three hours, I hope that everything I said so far, especially the fact that it feels shorter than it actually is, helps. “RRR” is a jaw-dropping, mind-blowing, earth-shattering spectacle in every sense of the word. Is it kind of cliché? Occasionally. Is it predictable? There are times where it is. But oh my gosh, I had a supersized batch of fun with it. When I say this film has a few clichés sprinkled in, I am being honest. But I will also be honest that those cliches are done brilliantly and supplemented by other things that I would have struggled to imagine until I saw them in this project. It is hard to determine if there will be any replay value with this film given the long runtime. The runtime is not a problem, but it is a commitment nevertheless.

I do not want to give a ton away about “RRR” in this review, partially because despite the movie being a year old, I still sort of went in blind as a bat. I did not know everything about the premise, the characters, how everything plays out. But I can guarantee you that if you want an experience you will never forget, this movie is of utmost importance. Put it at the top of your must see list. If you cannot go see this film in theaters, which you can in certain markets as of this writing, sit in front of your biggest television or crank up the dials in your home theater just to let your pixels go nuts. The film is a lively, obnoxiously immersive, and pleasing story. In addition, it has a style and look to it that pops for its entire runtime. What more could you ask for?

In the end, “RRR” is an incredible three hour extravaganza of insanity. There are films out there that I have called out for relying on style over substance like the “Star Wars” prequels. There are films that have bad looking effects in certain moments, like part of the climax in “Black Panther,” but are nevertheless able to capture my imagination. “RRR” is what happens when you take style and substance and create something special out of both of them. If anything, it is like that scene in “Ratatouille” where Remy bites two different substances and finds the tastiest, most satisfying result out of biting both at the same time. When it comes to style and substance, it is not an and/or. It is an and/and. In this case, the result is “RRR.” I am going to give “RRR” an 8/10.

“RRR” is now playing in select theaters and is available to watch on Netflix and ZEE5 for all subscribers.

Thanks for reading this review! My next review is going to be for the brand new movie, “65,” starring Adam Driver as an astronaut who finds himself on prehistoric Earth. Be sure to check out that review when it drops! If you want to see this and more on 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 “RRR?” What did you think about it? Or, what is the most visually stunning movie you have ever seen? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

Ant-Man and the Wasp: Quantumania (2023): Huge in Scope, Tiny in Believability, But Serviceable in Enjoyment

Posted on by Jack Drees

“Ant-Man and the Wasp: Quantumania” is directed by Peyton Reed, who also directed the prior two “Ant-Man” films. This film stars Paul Rudd (Dinner for Schmucks, Ghostbusters: Afterlife), Evangeline Lilly (The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug, Lost), Jonathan Majors (Lovecraft Country, Devotion), Kathryn Newton (Blockers, Freaky), Bill Murray (Caddyshack, Groundhog Day), Michelle Pfeiffer (Hairspray, Batman Returns), and Michael Douglas (Fatal Attraction, Wall Street). This is the third installment to the “Ant-Man” franchise, in addition to being the 31st film in the Marvel Cinematic Universe. In this latest adventure, Scott, Hope, Cassie, Hank, and Janet are taken into the Quantum Realm via a signal device. When they find themselves in this larger than life environment, they must familiarize themselves with its surroundings and survive. One such obstacle is Kang the Conqueror (Majors), who claims he can allow Scott to make up for lost time with his daughter.

“Ant-Man” is not my favorite franchise within the MCU, although I have always found it to be one that has been continuously distinct. For one thing, these films have always come out a couple months after “Avengers” titles. Specifically “Age of Ultron” and “Infinity War.” I have a feeling these films were placed around these release schedules on purpose. Not just for how it fits in the main story, but because of the vibe these movies try to shoot for. In these stories, Ant-Man is not only small in size, but so are the stakes. It is not say there are not any stakes at all, but compared to “Avengers” titles, where practically the whole world is in peril, the main objective is to save a neighborhood, save a community. After “Avengers: Infinity War,” it felt nice to have a more happy go lucky adventure with these characters in “Ant-Man and the Wasp.” I cannot say the movie was great, but there were glimmers of joy to be had. Overall, these movies are not packed with as much doom and gloom as other adventures the MCU has to offer. This time around, it is a little different.

This film, in addition to starting phase 5 and setting the stage what is to come, prominently features Kang the Conqueror, played by Jonathan Majors. This is not Majors’ first outing in the MCU, as he played the “He Who Remains” variant of this character in the Disney+ series “Loki.” Majors did not have a ton to do in the series, as he was only around for the season finale, but he had a particular, non-glorious purpose in the series as he does in this movie. While I cannot say He Who Remains was the major highlight for me in “Loki,” one compliment I can give to Jonathan Majors in “Ant-Man in the Wasp: Quantumania” is that he steals every scene he is in. There was a lot of hype going in regarding his character and I can confirm it is real. Is it the best MCU villain since Thanos? That depends. I will be real with you, the franchise has actually had some decent villains since his appearance, and I may be cheating a bit since it is a progression of a character that was done in another fashion, but I believe “Spider-Man: No Way Home’s” take on Green Goblin was incredible. Possibly the best use of the character on screen. I would say for me, Kang comes close to that level.

Speaking of the film’s stars, let’s talk about Paul Rudd. Paul Rudd has always maintained a certain down to earth feel within his Scott Lang character with each appearance despite going around in tights. I have always liked that. This time around, while still emitting a similar vibe to his previous appearances, Lang starts off this film a bit differently than before. For one thing, the character has evolved with each go, becoming more and more well known. He is a hero, an Avenger, an icon on the streets. In fact, he starts the movie by promoting his new book, “Look Out for the Little Guy.” I like this concept. I think if there is one thing recent Marvel movies have been doing on a consistent basis that fits into the timeline, it is referencing the progression of the universal canon and its characters. It makes sense that Scott Lang, who has probably burnt himself out a little from being a hero, would resort to writing a book about himself and selling it to an audience. It would make for a page turning story and a chance to continue his fame. If there is one thing that is noticeable about the Scott Lang character, and the movie in general, is that it feels like a tale of two stories, or vibes. One vibe is the consistent “so small it feels big” nature of the previous two installments. The other is this “Avengers-level” feel that kicks in somewhere around the Quantum Realm. There is a point in this movie, and Scott Lang as a character is evident of this, where the lighthearted nature I was previously used to seeing kind of takes a backseat. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn’t.

This time around, there is a new performer in the shoes of Cassie Lang, specifically Kathryn Newton. This makes sense. In the MCU timeline, there was a time jump for five years, therefore it makes it a tad harder to believe that Abby Ryder Fortson, who played Cassie in the prior “Ant-Man” installments, is the age this movie suggests she is. I was excited to hear Kathryn Newton, an actress who I adored since “Blockers,” would be playing Cassie this time around. She does a fine job here. She is not the standout of the movie, but I thought she brought her own sense of joy to this role even though this is a more mature version of this character. I adored Fortson’s performance as Cassie in the previous works because she matched the happy go lucky nature of the film. Newton, while definitely another animal, maintains some of those consistencies. This is not the first time a teen Cassie has been in the MCU, Emma Fuhrmann made an appearance as the character in “Avengers: Endgame.” But I nevertheless think Newton did a swell job with this film in particular.

My biggest problem with “Ant-Man and the Wasp” has been a consistent problem in the MCU lately. The effects. Now let me be fair, there are various aspects of the Quantum Realm, which is pretty much all CGI, that look breathtaking There are a lot of visuals in this film that pop. If anything, I would put “Ant-Man and the Wasp” in the same boat as “Thor: Love and Thunder,” which has plenty of visuals to enjoy, but there are also some noticeable duds. Despite what I said about the Quantum Realm looking nice, there are also particular shots where I thought I was looking at a green screen or a StageCraft setup. Despite how I did not end up loving “Avatar: The Way of Water,” my problems with the film never concerned its looks. What made that film so awe-inspiring is how real everything looked despite being almost entirely done through computers, motion capture, or digital effects. Even though I disagree with Martin Scorcese’s opinion that Marvel movies are nothing more than theme parks, I will say that “Ant-Man and the Wasp: Quantumania” is almost one of the more theme park-esque adventures in the MCU because it is mostly about spectacle, but it almost utilizes its gimmick too much to the point where nothing feels authentic.

In reality, as immersed as I felt at times into the whole Quantum Realm universe, which was definitely aided by the IMAX experience, the problem with the Quantum Realm that it occasionally felt like a universe that was created for a screen and not one that felt like I could go into it. The best comparison I could use in this case would be to say that the Quantum Realm universe is similar to the environment explored in “Strange World.” It tries to be bonkers, but it gets caught up in its bonkers nature that nothing feels real. “Everything Everywhere All at Once,” despite being an indescribably weird movie that travels to many different universes, feels more real than “Quantumania” and “Strange World.”

Speaking of things that do not feel real, I want to talk about M.O.D.O.K.. Not for long though because there were certain things about the character I did not know going into this film. One thing I will say about M.O.D.O.K. is the same thing I will say about the CGI. At times it works, at other times, it is taken to such an extreme that it felt out of place. There is a certain reveal in this movie that kind of makes sense, but it also spawned a problem that constantly came up. The character’s design. There is a certain “design” if you will, to this character that is so off-putting that it makes Power Rangers costumes look more realistic. I will not say more. This is all I have to give on the character. It adds to the plate of this film’s occasionally lackluster visual outlook.

But at the same time, this is honestly disappointing to say because the MCU, which has continued to set a competitive bar for its visuals year after year despite having multiple movies come out, is starting to worsen its craft. Part of it is because this universe is focusing way more on quantity than it used to. With so many shows on Disney+ in addition to the movies coming out months apart, the MCU is starting to feel like school instead of a fun franchise. The movies are part of the core classroom curriculum, the television shows are homework, and the shorter form specials like “The Guardians of the Galaxy: Holiday Special” are extra credit. But when it was just a bunch of movies, it felt simple and easy to understand. Now having watched “Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness” for instance, one of the questions I have had before, during, and after watching said movie regards how many people needed to watch “WandaVision” to fully appreciate or understand everything that was going on. As much as I enjoyed certain shows like “WandaVision” and “Ms. Marvel,” if there were a way to get back to a time where the Marvel Cinematic Universe were only CINEMA specific, I would like to find out about it. The quality has suffered while the quantity has grown. If I had to give one solid mark to phase 4, it is that while no movie is perfect, I liked all of them. I am just waiting for the day when I can love each movie I see, or not quickly forget about one as much. I loved “Spider-Man: No Way Home,” I loved “Shang-Chi.” But I would rather forget about a vast majority of the MCU shows. “Ant-Man and the Wasp: Quantumania” is a sign that the MCU still has its wheels on the wagon, but if they continue to pump out as much content as they are making right now, they might need to realign those wheels a bit.

In fact, one of my bigger problems with this film and how it connects to the whole “see this to understand that” thing is one of the post-credits scenes. Which by the way, if you are planning to stay after the movie, there are two. For the record, the post-credit scenes are not awful. In fact, I liked both of them. But the second movie harkens back to my worry with the MCU feeling like school. Because one of the scenes were specific to an upcoming television program. My apprehension, which could go away, I reserve the right to change my mind, is that this teased television event might not be understood as well unless you saw “Ant-Man and the Wasp: Quantumania.” I am not saying this has happened with every recent Marvel project, and I am not saying it will. That said, this movie reinstates my fear that it will.

“Ant-Man and the Wasp: Quantumania” seems to bridge the gap between where the previous saga, the Infinity Saga, culminates, and sets a stage as to where the Multiverse Saga could be going. This does not start the new saga. We are just starting phase 5 and the Multiverse Saga already kicked off in phase 4. Although one of the most poignant notions about “Avengers: Endgame” is the realization of how much people have missed for five years. When Thanos snapped in “Avengers: Infinity War,” he basically initiated a five-year, luck-based, societal imprisonment. Meanwhile, Lang spent a ton of that time stuck in the Quantum Realm. But the film manages to bridge a gap between lost time and the breaking of the multiverse. It is essentially saying we are moving on from one thing to the next. Unfortunately, it also means that a seemingly investing idea about recovering lost time occasionally takes a back seat in the film for more bonkers, seemingly brooding CGI mayhem. I could tell Peyton Reed was intentionally making a film that separates itself from its two predecessors. I am not saying “Ant-Man” is not allowed to be serious. But I am saying that “Ant-Man” works better when it is lighthearted, but still action-packed.

In the end, “Ant-Man and the Wasp: Quantumania” ranks down the middle for me in terms of the “Ant-Man” trilogy. While this is not as good as the first movie, there are more redeeming elements for me in this third movie than the second. It honestly may come down to pure personal tastes. At its core, this is a film that is full of inconsistencies. In one moment, the story is lighthearted. In another, it is dark. In one moment, the effects are stunning. In another, they are crap. In one moment, there is tons of comedy. In another, the humor takes a backseat. The film is not abysmal, but to call it a masterpiece would be generous. If anything, “Ant-Man and the Wasp: Quantumania” reminds me of “Thor: Love and Thunder.” Both films are wildly inconsistent, despite there being a series of moments that land on their feet with ease. In fact, another way both films are similar is their score, because I am going to give “Ant-Man and the Wasp: Quantumania” a 6/10.

I was going to give “Ant-Man and the Wasp: Quantumania” a 7/10 because I had a great time with it in the theater, but the more I thought about it. A lot of my negatives, in addition to the inconsistencies, stood out, and that muddied the waters a bit. It also seems to work more as setup for what is to come as opposed to a self-contained story. This is not to say the story is uninteresting, but its promises seem to stand out more than what is happening right now. Not a bad movie, but not a great movie either. Nevertheless, it might be a good time at the theater, so I would still, by a slight edge, recommend it.

“Ant-Man and the Wasp: Quantumania” is now playing in theaters everywhere. Tickets are available now.

Thanks for reading this review! If you enjoyed this review, why not check out some of my other ones? I have reviewed a ton of superhero fare over the past year including “Black Panther: Wakanda Forever,” “Black Adam,” “DC League of Super-Pets,” and “Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness.” Check those reviews out at your convenience!

Also, be sure to stay tuned for March 5th, because I will be dropping the 5th Annual Jack Awards! This is the latest edition of my painstakingly prepared film awards show, hopefully to brilliant execution. In addition, there will be video content which will also be posted on my YouTube channel. If you would like to vote for Best Picture for this year’s show, you can do that by clicking the link right here! It will take you to a Google form where you can choose one of the ten movies I previously nominated. May the Best Picture win. To check out the official nominations, click here! If you want to see this and more from Scene Before, follow the blog either with an email or WordPress account! Also, check out the official Facebook page! I want to know, did you see “Ant-Man and the Wasp: Quantumania?” What did you think about it? Or, which “Ant-Man” movie is your favorite? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

A Man Called Otto (2022): Tom Hanks Hits a Grump in the Road

Posted on by Jack Drees

“A Man Called Otto” is directed by Marc Forster (World War Z, The Kite Runner) and stars Tom Hanks (Toy Story, Cast Away) as Otto. The performers joining him in the cast are Mariana Treviño (How to Break Up with Your Douchebag, Overboard), Rachel Keller (Tokyo Vice, Legion), Manuel Garcia-Rulfo (The Magnificent Seven, Murder on the Orient Express), Truman Hanks, and Mike Birbiglia (Orange Is the New Black, Billions). In this adaptation of the Swedish novel and film by the name of “A Man Called Ove,” Otto is a man who has had it all. When a new neighbor moves in, Otto develops a companionship that may turn his frown upside down.

Complaining. It is about as human as breathing. Complaining is the foundation of many protagonists. Some of the most iconic film protagonists of all time started off their story by complaining. In “Star Wars,” Luke Skywalker complains about having to live on the farm for another year. In “Ratatouille,” Remy complains about the way rats treat food compared to mankind. In “Risky Business,” Joel Goodson complains about the landscape of high school as it comes to an end while he tries to pass his exams and get into a good university. We love to complain, and I have done my fair share of it over the years. And I assure a lot of people reading this have too. Now this story centers around that entirely. Otto is an aged man who has seen a lot over the years, maybe too much. He thinks he is smarter than everyone else, and he simultaneously thinks society as a whole is getting dumber. When I think of Tom Hanks, this is a more subversive role for him, much like his appearance the recent shiny, polished turd known as “Elvis.”

Much like “Elvis,” I was not a huge fan of “A Man Called Otto.” Not because I think it is a bad adaptation. I have not seen the original movie or read the novel. Therefore, I have nothing to compare it to. But if I have to be real, this movie was not for me.

As someone who has reviewed movies on the web since 2016, I have learned that sometimes I can be predisposed to liking certain things. I love “Star Wars,” so I often get excited for whatever the franchise has coming up. I am a huge fan of J.K. Simmons, therefore when he is in a new project, I am usually curious. Similarly, when I look back at my experience regarding “A Man Called Otto,” I may have been predisposed to thinking I would not like it. Not because Hanks is playing someone who is complaining, but because the main character himself is complaining. What do I mean? Honestly, I have had enough of it in real life. Look at me, complaining about complaining. Hey, everyone! Time for a new drinking game! Take a shot every time the Movie Reviewing Moron says “complaining!”

I am not saying that characters in a movie should not complain. But what I liked about Luke Skywalker is that when I watched him, complaining never felt like the definitive aspect of his character. Sure, he definitely whined, he definitely did not want to do certain things for particular reasons, but Luke Skywalker felt like a relatable character, at least to me. Part of it is because of his complaining, but it was executed in a way that was palatable. I cannot say the same for Otto. While there is noticeable character development in “A Man Called Otto,” the character of Otto starts the movie calling out everything in sight that he views as unfit or unlike his worldview, and it is hard for him to stop. There are few things that are as important in life as first impressions. If I go to a pizza shop and I end up making a wacko face on my first bite of their pie, that is not the best of signs. I might hesitate to come back. Tom Hanks, or perhaps director Marc Forster, is the pizza shop owner. And the character of Otto, unfortunately, is a lackluster pie.

Although speaking of predisposal, part of me wonders how much the supposed subversiveness of this role rubbed me the wrong way. Tom Hanks is, perhaps stereotypically, America’s dad. And seeing him in a light like this felt jarring. But if you ask me, I do not know if that is the case. Because in reality, Tom Hanks is a great actor. But he feels miscast here. Yes, name recognition helps, but he nevertheless sometimes fails to bind with this role. Plus, after seeing him in “Elvis,” where he potentially gave my least performance he has done as the weirdly accented Tom Parker, and now this, I am beginning to assume that this turn where he plays meaner or comparatively pessimistic roles is not working out. I recently watched “Spirited,” the brand new holiday movie, with my family last December. During said viewing, my mom said she does was not used to seeing Ryan Reynolds or Will Ferrell sing or do anything musical-related. As far as I’m concerned, Ferrell and Reynolds had range whereas Hanks is trying his best and he does not have everything down to a science. In some ways, his character is comes off as one-dimensional as a ragdoll. I love Tom Hanks, but this is not his best work.

This is not to say that “A Man Called Otto” is entirely bad. If anything, it is an interesting concept for a movie that is not done as well as I would have hoped. There are characters I liked in the film including Marisol, played by Mariana Treviño. Every scene she is in, she warms everything up, including my brain. She is perhaps the most adorable character in the entire film. If I could spend an entire weekend with this character, I might take that chance.

The film, which again, is based on previous works from Sweden, also has a nice touch to honor where it came from. There is a scene set in a cafe where Otto shows Marisol a certain usual he enjoys. The moment he explained what it was, I thought it was a nice little touch. As much as I dig on this film, I will recognize some small glimmers of charm it carries.

Although despite the small glimmers of charm, when I take everything that I saw leading up to this film’s final moments, I look back at the film negatively. Almost in as grumpy of a state as Otto himself. There are funny moments in the film, but I cannot say they had me laughing out loud. There are poignant moments in the film, but I never felt a ton of emotional weight. Even though there are certain complexities in regard to Otto’s character that make him interesting, I never felt intrigued enough to say that my time was not being wasted. Ultimately, this film has some likable supporting characters, like the recently mentioned Marisol, but the same cannot be said for the film’s main character.

Though I must add one final note. There has been a lot of talk lately about “nepo-babies” in Hollywood and the film industry. Personally, I have mixed feelings on it given how I can support family business, but it could also exclude equally, more talented, or even more aspiring individuals who hope to enter this industry. With that in mind, I must say this film’s use of Tom Hanks’s son, Truman Hanks, was not only appropriate, but made for some highlights. Truman Hanks plays a prominent role in the film as the younger version of Otto. He is seen in several scenes and he plays the part well. I have no idea to what degree Truman Hanks is hoping to take acting seriously much like his father, but he did a good job in this film as Otto’s younger interpretation.

In the end, “A Man Called Otto” is a shocking movie. Because if you told me that I would watch two movies in the span of a year where I am not fond of Tom Hanks’s character, in addition to his performance, I would have slapped you Will Smith style. But here we are. I love Tom Hanks as an actor, and I would continue to watch anything he is in. Heck, they just announced “Toy Story 5.” I would watch that. But as much as I respect Tom Hanks for trying to spice things up from his usual flair, I think his “nicer” performances work because he executed them so much better. Although art is subjective, so maybe this flair works for others. But it did not work for me. I am going to give “A Man Called Otto” a 5/10.

“A Man Called Otto” is now playing in theatres everywhere. Tickets are available now.

Thanks for reading this review! My next review is going to be for the brand new MCU installment, “Ant-Man and the Wasp: Quantumania.” I had the chance to see the film last weekend, and I will have the review for you to read sometime next week.

Also coming on March 5th, it’s the Jack Awards! Scene Before’s annual awards show is back with a new and hopefully improved name! Get ready for another unnecessarily long celebration of the past year in film with exclusive video content, also featured on my YouTube channel! The nominations for the show are already online, and if you would like to vote for Best Picture, click the link right here, it will take you to a poll and you can vote for one of the ten nominees! May the best picture win.

If you want to see this and more from Scene Before, follow the blog with an email or WordPress account! Also, check out the official Facebook page! I want to know, did you see “A Man Called Otto?” What did you think about it? Or, what is a performance that you hate from an actor you love? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

Plane (2023): Gerard Butler and Crew Thrill by Air and Land

Posted on by Jack Drees

“Plane” is directed by Jean-François Richet (Assault on Precinct 13, Blood Father) and stars Gerard Butler (300, Gods of Egypt), Mike Colter (Evil, Luke Cage), Yoson An (Mortal Engines, Mulan), and Tony Goldwyn (Ghost, The Last Samurai). This film is about a pilot and a group of passengers who crash land together on a plane and find themselves in the middle of a war zone. Their goal, in addition to getting back in the air, is to survive to the very end.

I will not lie, “Plane” sounds like the most generic title that one could have come up with for a movie like this. However, as the old saying goes, never judge a book by its cover. Although when it comes to the cover, I cannot say it was that attractive because the trailer, while it sold me, never resembled anything more than camp. Between Gerard Butler playing the lead, the simple concept, and of course, the title, “Plane” did not necessarily look like a dumpster fire, but to call it the second coming of Jesus would be exaggerative. Oh yeah, this film also released in January. There is that too. Unfortunately, due to other movies being a priority, life events, and me doing my countdowns, I never got around to seeing “Plane” when it came out. I waited until this month, and I ended up going to go see the movie with my dad.

Once the movie ended, my dad and I both agreed on one thing, “Plane” was a good time.

When it comes to the camp factor mentioned earlier, that fails to make its presence known in this story. The film is not serious, but if there were a tone to describe “Plane,” the best word to use is “natural.” If there were a Goldilocks Zone for tone, “Plane” lands right there.

Perhaps the most desirable aspect that makes plane fly smoothly is the characters. All of them are likable, well-written, and well-realized. Gerard Butler pilots this craft of a film with ease and allows everyone else onboard to shine alongside him.

If I have to give a favorite character in the entire cast, it would not even be someone who happens to be amongst the plane’s passengers or staff, it is someone a bit more behind the scenes. That individual would have to be Scarsdale, played by Tony Goldwyn. No disrespect to anyone else who worked on this movie, because there was not one performance I disliked amongst the cast, but when it comes to energy, Scarsdale defines the night and day difference between him and the rest of the characters. He steals almost every scene he is in. He is serious, all business, and comes off as someone who will do anything, no matter the cost, to accomplish his goals. I love his performance, and given what kind of movie this is, it is all the more fitting.

Yes, my friends, a pun is officially coming in for a landing. “Plane” flies by. This movie has a runtime of 107 minutes. Not the longest movie, not the shortest movie. Whether it is long or short is almost irrelevant because of its 107 minutes on screen, the movie refuses to waste a single one. I was never bored. I was never annoyed. I was never nauseated. My eyes were glued to the screen the whole time and I had a joyous experience with these characters. Whether that is referring to Brodie Torrance, the recently mentioned Scarsdale, and I will even include the main antagonist, Datu Junmar, portrayed Evan Dane Taylor, who dialed up my intimidation.

If you are looking for a movie that is simple, effective, and fun, there are few options currently in the theater that match this one. There is nothing deep to “Plane,” but the film’s minimalistic nature is perfect for it. In fact, speaking of minimalism, if you watch the movie, you would notice that the plane is nowhere near capacity. There are quite a few passengers onboard, but there are also enough to justify a story like this and make sure enough characters have one glimmer of the spotlight. Obviously, this is not the passengers’ movie. It is at the end of the day, Gerard Butler’s. But having this many passengers on the plane allows the story to be more personal for everyone involved. Yes, there is an argument to make that having a full plane would have made a large impact because of how many people crash, but I like the approach this movie makes because we spend more time on individual characters and I am not thinking that the movie refuses to tell someone’s story. The movie takes some time to show that the passengers have a reason to get to their destination or someone wants to lash out because of what is happening. Now do I remember select passengers more than others? Yes, but I nevertheless respect the film for trying to give everyone some attention.

I am also not going to pretend that “Plane” is a fresh idea. There are glimmers of other stories or even characters that one could pick out here. It can also be said that the structure has a by the numbers feel to it at times. But it does not change the fact that some of the structure is done well. You can call something cliché, but if you entertain with those clichés, they are not a problem.

This film has been out for a month, and if it is playing in a theater near you, I recommend checking it out there. Not only because it is a good movie, which I have already explained a ton in this review, but I think the experience has its moments too. This film is occasionally ridiculous, but it is the kind of ridiculous I would put “Fast Five” in. It still manages to maintain a sense of reality within its far-fetched nature. The plane crash scene is a definite thrill. The shots were tense, the audio was commanding, and at one point, the scene itself made my brain jitter. Again, the film is simple and effective. But it does not mean it forgets to check off a box that includes fun. “Plane” is an exciting ride that is well-directed by Jean-François Richet. Additionally, it contains a solid cast led by Gerard Butler. “Plane” is a throwback action extravaganza made for a modern age. Check it out.

In the end, “Plane” is… plain great. It is still early in the year, and there are probably many more excellent movies on the horizon, but “Plane” is a solid time at the theater. If you like tense action, this movie is for you. If you like simple premises done well, this movie is for you. Is it the next “Citizen Kane?” Absolutely not. But I say that knowing that “Plane” is a fun movie on its own and not just a big, dumb, Boeing 747-sized eyesore. I am going to give “Plane” a 7/10.

I am also delighted to know that a sequel to “Plane” has recently been announced. Personally, I approve. I cannot wait to see what’s next.

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

Thanks for reading this review! My next review is going to be for “A Man Called Otto,” the brand new movie starring Tom Hanks as a grumpy man who has had it all.

Also, this Sunday, February 19th, I will be revealing the nominees for the 5th Annual Jack Awards! Formerly known as the Jackoff Awards, the 5th Annual Jack Awards will honor the 2022 slate in movies with comedy bits, trips to movie-related locations, and my picks for the best designs, performances, and technical achievements throughout the year in film! Per usual, Best Picture will be chosen by the public, so stay tuned for the poll that will showcase the list of nominees. The ceremony will be available on Flicknerd.com on March 5th! If you want to see this and more from Scene Before, follow the blog either with an email or WordPress account! Also, check out the official Facebook page! I want to know, did you see “Plane?” What did you think about it? Or, what is your favorite movie involving air travel? Not outer space, but air. You know, like the sky. Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

Infinity Pool (2023): Don’t Do Drugs, Because We Will Get More Psychologically Mind-Numbing Bores Such As This

Posted on by Jack Drees

“Infinity Pool” is directed by Brandon Cronenberg (Possessor, Antiviral) and stars Alexander Skarsgård (The Legend of Tarzan, The Northman), Mia Goth (X, A Cure for Wellness), and Cleopatra Coleman (In the Shadow of the Moon, The Last Man on Earth) in a film… that I honestly would not be able to describe in a single sentence if I were asked to do so on the street. It is something… Though in all seriousness, “Infinity Pool” centers around a couple, James and Em Foster, who travel to an island for a getaway. When the couple is involved in an accident, what is supposed to be a relaxing trip turns into a nightmarish and outlandish marathon of events.

I often describe January, and February for that matter, as the time where movies go to die. When I say that, I often refer to the movies being dead on arrival, uninteresting, or just plain lazy. “Infinity Pool,” which premiered at Sundance on January 21st and had a wide release on January 27th, does not meet those three January movie trademarks. While I was looking forward to other movies more, “Infinity Pool,” at the very least, had my interest. It looked meticulously crafted. I know even if a movie looks bad, there are people behind the scenes who aspire to make something significant out of it, and this definitely looked significant, not to mention unique. To be honest though, “Infinity Pool” did not sell me with the trailer. Although to be fair, it did not look like the easiest film to market, which may be another January trademark. Yes, Alexander Skarsgård is a great actor and an increasingly notable name. Yes, Mia Goth is hot right now, especially amongst horror junkies. Yes, the film is written and directed by the son of a man who has made his mark on the industry for years. But if I were a general audience member, I would probably slip past this film. Plus, as I have stated several times, if there were a genre I would consider to be my weakest, horror is a contender.

I saw “Infinity Pool” over a week and a half ago, and I cannot stop thinking about it.

Specifically, about how tiringly dull it is.

Now I will be fair to “Infinity Pool,” like I was saying about the trailer, this film is exquisitely crafted. The shots consistently shine, the locations are easy on the eyes, the set design fits in every frame, the costumes are top notch. When it comes to style, “Infinity Pool” succeeds.

I also like the performances. All of the main characters are well portrayed and nobody feels miscast. No one on screen feels out of place. In fact, if I had to pick one performer who definitely feels like they are in their place, it would be Mia Goth as Gabi Bauer, a fan of author James Foster, the film’s protagonist. Her performance is perhaps the most larger than life of all the ones in this film, especially compared to the main couple, but that is also what I love about it. This makes the performance stand out, even though I found certain moments with said character to be a nuisance. Although maybe that was the point. That said, the point did not land with me. If you know the saying that not every movie is for everyone, maybe that could apply to my reaction to “Infinity Pool.” It definitely was not for me.

I will give credit to “Infinity Pool” for having moments and concepts that fit within its narrative. There were times where the story had my attention. There are some occasionally disturbing moments. Although when it comes to this film’s sequence of events, there was a moment around or past the halfway point where I just tuned out. The runtime for “Infinity Pool” is less than two hours. If I had to be honest, this film feels like it goes for two and a half hours, possibly longer. Structurally, this film is not the simplest to follow and may warrant a second viewing. Although to be quite frank, this movie shows that first impressions matter because some of the things that happen in this movie did not interest me. If you cannot keep me entertained the first time, then why should I return for a second time?

If I had to pick a film “Infinity Pool” would remind me of, it would be “Midsommar.” Both films have their similarities and differences. Off the bat, a similarity that comes to mind is the fact that the main character travels to a foreign environment only to have things get out of hand. Said environments and happenings within them are different, but nevertheless. Although speaking of similarities, if I had to note a similarity between these two horror flicks, it is that they did not necessarily scare me. There are eerie moments and concepts, but as both movies progressed, there came a certain point where I was more annoyed than I was scared. For “Midsommar,” my annoyance grew and peaked in the middle of the climax. In “Infinity Pool,” I had glimmers of annoyance beforehand, but it increased around when the climax started. I respect “Infinity Pool” for never backing down on anything that happens in it, for the most part, I will address something about that in the next paragraph. But when I left “Infinity Pool” I left feeling less like I was going to have a nightmare and instead thinking to myself that I have seen movies that are scarier, not to mention better paced, despite some of the horrific moments this movie provides.

Fun fact about “Infinity Pool,” when this film premiered at Sundance, an unedited, NC-17 version of the film was played. When this film was widely released, an R-rated, edited version was shown. This film is rather disturbing as is, and I am not sure what this film cut out, maybe some nudity or something, but this film is unhinged to the tenth degree. Even though I lack the motivation to watch “Infinity Pool” a second time, I am curious to know how far Brandon Cronenberg was trying to go for this film, because depending on your personality, this might not be an easy film to watch. Again, I found it more headache-inducing than disturbing, but I respect Cronenberg for going as far as he could.

It is hard to come up with any other last minute pros regarding “Infinity Pool.” Although if I had to, I would say some of the dialogue is well-written. I was somewhat invested in the story, even in moments where I was tuned out, there were slight glimmers of my attention that were still intact. I just wish I found the story and script more compelling and less infuriating to sit through. For that reason, I cannot recommend “Infinity Pool,” though I am sure it will find its audience.

In the end, “Infinity Pool” is a bloody terrible time that I wish I could have gotten back. There are moments of this movie that I imagine would have been enhanced had I been drunk or high, but I do not partake in such activities, therefore I just settled for being sober and bored. I had a Diet Pepsi, which has caffeine in it. That is a drug. But I cannot say it kept me awake. While “Infinity Pool” comes off as a greater piece of art than the uninspired hour and a half-long NFL ad in disguise known as “80 for Brady,” it does not mean I want to watch the film again in the near future. I am going to give “Infinity Pool” a 4/10.

“Infinity Pool” is now playing in theaters everywhere. Tickets are available now.

Thanks for reading this review! My next review is going to be for “Plane,” the all new action flick starring Gerard Butler as an airline pilot. I just saw the film last week, and be sure to expect my review for it next week! Also, on Sunday, February 19th, I will be announcing the nominees for the 5th Annual Jack Awards! I will drop all the names you need to know and a form where you can vote for Best Picture! The ceremony drops on March 5th, only on Flicknerd.com. If you want to see this and more from Scene Before, follow the blog either with an email or WordPress account! Also, check out the official Facebook page! I want to know, did you see “Infinity Pool?” What did you think about it? Or, what is the slowest horror movie you have ever seen? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

80 for Brady (2023): If I Wanted To Watch the Comeback of the Century, I Would Just Watch Super Bowl 51

Posted on by Jack Drees

“80 for Brady” is directed by Kyle Marvin (The Climb, All Wrong) and stars Lily Tomlin (Nashville, 9 to 5), Jane Fonda (Barbarella, Monster-in-Law), Rita Moreno (West Side Story, Oz), and Sally Field (The Amazing Spider-Man, Forrest Gump), with Tom Brady. This film is about four New England Patriots-obsessed women who will do anything to go to the Super Bowl and see their hero, Tom Brady.

This movie does not officially have its wide release until February 3rd. That said, a few theaters near me had early screenings of the film, so I decided to partake in one of them. I was not excited for “80 for Brady.” That said, this could have been a surprise. If “M3GAN” has shown anything, it is that not all movies that come out in the middle of winter are dead on arrival. I like the people in the movie such as Rita Moreno and Sally Field. These are all respectable actresses, but I felt like this movie was beneath their caliber. For instance, Moreno was literally in the 2021 remake of “West Side Story,” which was deservedly nominated for several Academy Awards. “80 for Brady” feels like a step down. Great performers, but as I looked ahead at what this movie could be, my nerves set in.

What did I think of “80 for Brady?” It is, in a word, fine. I am not planning on watching it again though.

Before I dive further into my thoughts on the movie, I want to paint a picture. I live in New England, specifically in Massachusetts. I am not into football, but I know people who are. In fact, one of the people I know who is extremely fanatical over football is my grandmother. She loves the Patriots, she loves Tom Brady, she will watch him now even though his playing for Tampa Bay. You know, until he pretends to retire again.

While I was not in love with the trailers for “80 for Brady,” one compliment I can give to this movie is that every time I looked at the four main women, I felt they were representative of my grandmother. In fact as I watched the movie, several moments reinforced this thought. Lily Tomlin’s character’s house is filled with Tom Brady and Patriots merchandise. When I go to my grandparents’ house, there are a couple rooms that have plenty of Pats novelties and such to go around. For several years, Tom Brady was practically my grandmother’s spirit animal. She has a Tom Brady Funko, a Tom Brady bobblehead, she’s got the whole nine yards. All of the main women have some glimmer of my grandmother’s personality wrapped into one quartet. And while I cannot recommend this movie to everyone, I think I would recommend it to my grandmother specifically.

And when it comes to the performances given by Tomlin, Fonda, Moreno, and Field, they do not reinvent the wheel. But they seem to understand the assignment. They have fun with the material given to them, and they bring a lot of energy to their characters. It is almost a bit cartoony, but I also cannot deny that this is the level of energy that a movie like this needed. The actors let themselves loose and that makes their characters rather charming.

“80 for Brady” is first and foremost, a comedy. As a comedy, it has its ups and downs. Most of the jokes are unmemorable, but there are quite a few that had me laughing. Though this movie also had me asking some questions in regard to how it handles logic. This film is based on people, not to mention events, that actually exist. If you watch this movie, you would notice that there are some unrealistic happenings. Some liberties are definitely taken. I will not give any spoilers, but there are multiple scenes where I gathered that what was happening was practically impossible. In fact, if you look up the true story that inspired this movie, you would find out that this is based on the friendship of five women, not four like this narrative presents. Frankly, I am glad it was not five. The movie is only an hour and thirty-eight minutes, but it packs a ton of material in such a short runtime that it felt overstuffed. “80 for Brady” has a semi-interesting journey of four main characters, but it also has a slew of supporting characters that barely added anything anything to the plot other than noise. Their additions to the story mainly came off as wasted time that kept the movie from being more tightly knit. Sure, there are subplots and other characters that help give the main quartet some background. But what does not help is that the background itself, with the exception of one thing that comes up, almost feels like filler.

My biggest problem with “80 for Brady” is that even in more tense moments, it feels like there are very little stakes. It does not help having a main event of the film be a recent Super Bowl that millions of people have already seen. But what I really mean is that even in its more tense moments, the movie does very little to make me think these women are not going to find some convenient way to move on from an obstacle in their path. There is one particular sequence that is so off the rails that I put my hand over my face before it even happened. Rest assured, when it happened, I cringed. Without giving much away, the sequence in particular involved dancing. Although in the case for “80 for Brady,” the crew behind it should sleep easy tonight knowing that the dance sequence in this film at least had more of a purpose than another sports-related movie to come out in recent years, specifically “Uncle Drew.”

When it comes to my overall enjoyment of “80 for Brady,” it is practically all over the map. I cannot say I hated myself after the movie, but even the moments when I thought the movie was hitting some positive marks, they could fired on a few more cylinders to have the entirety of my attention. The four women are great. There are a few celebrity cameos I enjoyed. But this movie is not enough to get me to run down the streets begging everyone I see to check it out. Some people in my circles probably will check it out regardless of what I think because a lot of my friends and family are from New England, but who knows? Maybe this review will be seen as a warning sign of what is to come.

In the end, “80 for Brady” is neither fumble or a touchdown. It is somewhere in between. I could tell that this movie was trying to get me to smile, but in reality, I might have left with what some might call resting Bill Belichick face. Not a smile, not a frown, just indifference. Is the movie better than I thought it would be? Sure, but that does not say much because my expectations were low to begin with. If you are a die hard Pats fan, you might appreciate some of the moments in this movie, but I think going back to watch some of the Super Bowls which they have played over the years might end up being more exciting than seeing this movie. You could make an argument that this is better than Super Bowl 53, which was an utter bore, but nevertheless. I am going to give “80 for Brady” a 5/10.

“80 for Brady” is currently doing early screenings and will be in theaters everywhere February 3rd. Tickets are now on sale.

Thanks for reading this review! If you liked this review, check out some of my other ones! If you want to see more of my comedy reviews, check out my thoughts on “The Unbearable Weight of Massive Talent.” If you want more of my thoughts on movies about football, I made a review back in 2020 where I share my thoughts on the 1983 film “All the Right Moves.” Want another vacation adventure movie? Why not check out my review for “Ticket to Paradise?” Something for everyone! Want to hear about a bunch of movies at once? Check out my picks for the top 10 BEST movies of 2022 and the top 10 WORST movies of 2022! If you want to see 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 “80 for Brady?” What did you think about it? Or, do you watch American football? If so, what team do you root for? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

Missing (2023): This Kinda Sorta Sequel Spinoff to Searching Cannot Compete with the Novelty of Its Counterpart

Posted on by Jack Drees

“Missing” is directed by Nicholas D. Johnson and Will Merrick, both of whom edited the 2018 film “Searching.” This film stars Storm Reid (A Wrinkle in Time, 12 Years a Slave), Joaquim de Almeida (Good Morning, Babylon, 24), Ken Leung (Old, Lost), Amy Landecker (Transparent, Project Almanac), Daniel Henney (My Lovely Sam Soon, The Wheel of Time), and Nia Long (The Fresh Prince of Bel-Air, Boyz in the Hood). This film centers around a young girl named June whose mom goes on a getaway. When June goes to the airport to pick her mom up at a time she was scheduled to arrive back from said getaway, she is nowhere to be seen. This leads June down a spiral of questions, searches, and wonders as to what happened to her mom and what she could be up to via the internet.

This film is from the editors of “Searching,” which I missed during its original release. In fact, despite having a pass to a press screening for this film, I took it almost neglecting the fact that I still have not seen “Searching.” I felt guilty. I heard good things about it and the concept itself sounded unique. Having watched the film the week of said screening, I can confirm the execution is exactly that. A good movie with a unique concept. Naturally, this made me more excited for “Missing.” I was also glad to know that this was from people who were involved with “Searching.” Part of what made that original film so watchable is its ability to multitask. “Searching” has the ability to juggle a quick pace, a wonderfully twisty narrative, and great characterization without the use of full-fledged cameras. I thought this was shockingly well done. In my best movies of 2022 list, I said “Everything Everywhere All at Once” stood out to me because of how much of a one of a kind concept it turned out to be. “Searching,” while not as great of a movie, sits in the same boat.

One of the greatest things about “Searching” was its ability to keep me interested in the story from start to finish despite the unique, perhaps gimmicky filmmaking style. “Missing” nails the start, but as we get closer to the finish, my interest levels waned. Part of it is because this film missed (no pun intended) something that “Searching” had through its full runtime. Each moment in “Searching” felt like something that could actually happen. Each conversation, every action. All of it felt real. Despite some occasionally juicy material, everything that happened came off within the definition of verisimilitude. That said, the first half sold me before we get into some shark jumping moments that ultimately reduced my enjoyment. I did not hate this movie. To say I hated “Missing” would be a hyperbole. But it is also a movie where the flaws stand out just as much as its wins.

The wins for “Missing” would be the performances. Every actor does a good job in this movie. Storm Reid carries this film from start to finish, but it does not mean the supporting roles filled by actors like Joaquim de Almeida and Nia Long were not worthy of my praise. Giving some specification on the latter, I bought the chemistry both between Nia Long and Storm Reid, in addition to Long and Ken Leung, who plays her love interest. The love Long’s character gives to both individuals, even if there is some tension between them and the protagonist, feels genuine.

If there are any other wins, I did find the film surprisingly humorous. Although between both movies, I laughed more during “Searching.” That said, like “Searching,” there were a couple moments that showcase jokes that poke fun at some of the ways we use technology or some of the things we use technology for. There were a couple laughs from me and the rest of my audience.

I loved the use of the screen technology in “Searching.” Not only because of its uniqueness, but how it was used. While “Missing” definitely does not have as many visual effects as “Avatar: The Way of Water,” there are moments where this film has a larger than life feel to it. But this is a rare case where I am using that as a negative. This is especially true in the climax. Larger than life can have numerous meanings. In this case, the meaning applies to how far-fetched the climax felt at times. While there is a moment where my crowd erupted in applause, I on the other hand remained silent because I did not believe what was happening on screen felt like it belonged in a picture like this. I have watched movies where I was able to suspend my disbelief because while I knew what was happening is not realistic in our universe, the movie’s rules made me think it could happen there.

In fact one of my negatives regarding “Missing” is how the movie attempts to connect to “Searching.” This movie just came out, therefore I am going to be as spoiler free as I possibly can, but there is a television program in the film. Not a real program, but one that exists within this film’s universe, that starts off as something that sounds legitimate within the lore. But by the end of the film, it comes off as a cheap joke. I mean that in more ways than one. The end of this film, while it has glimmers of entertainment, feels loosely strung together like a last minute project for a high school class I deemed less important than the others. It did not have the satisfying oomph the filmmakers seemed to be going for. If anything it felt out of place, abrupt, and maybe even a bit lazy. I am not asking for every aspect of “Missing” to be just like its original counterpart, but my hope was for this movie to take what was great about “Searching” and have a story that kind of stands on its own. “Missing” does both those things, but it does not make the story interesting. Before my screening started, they had a promo suggesting that this movie is full of twists and turns. That should be a good thing, right? It could have been. But it did not help that the twists and turns ranged from out of the blue to highly illogical. What do I think about “Missing?” Well, to put it short, something was missing.

In the end, while I did not despise “Missing,” it is definitely no “Searching.” I would much rather watch “Searching” a second time than pop this movie on again. I thought Storm Reid did a great job leading this movie. Her performance and character stood out. The cast is great. The concept, while a reversal of the original, lends itself to some decent ideas. I just wish they belonged in a better narrative. I am going to give “Missing” a 5/10.

“Missing” is now playing in theaters everywhere. Tickets are available now.

Thanks for reading this review! I know I am in the minority when it comes to this movie. The reviews for this film so far have been mostly positive from both critics and audiences. For some reason it did not work for me. But that is the beauty of film. Speaking of films, next weekend I will be watching “80 for Brady.” The brand new movie about four elderly women who will do anything to see a Tom Brady-led New England Patriots play in the Super Bowl. If you want to see this and more from Scene Before, follow the blog either with an email or WordPress account! Also, check out the official Facebook page! I want to know, did you see “Missing?” What did you think about it? Also, did you see “Searching?” Tell me your thoughts on that film as well! Leave your comments down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!