Skydance Media

Mission: Impossible – The Final Reckoning (2025): A Wild, Overstuffed Finale That Demands the Biggest Screen Possible

Posted on by Jack Drees

“Mission: Impossible – The Final Reckoning” is directed by Christopher McQuarrie, who also directed the three “Mission: Impossible” installments leading up to this one. This film stars Tom Cruise (Top Gun, Risky Business), Hayley Atwell (Captain America: The First Avenger, Cinderella), Ving Rhames (The Wild Robot, The Garfield Movie), Simon Pegg (Run Fatboy Run, Hot Fuzz), Henry Czerny (Revenge, Ready or Not), and Angela Bassett (Black Panther, Akeelah and the Bee). This film is the eighth installment to the Tom Cruise-starring “Mission: Impossible” franchise and once again centers around Ethan Hunt and his team in a race against time to keep the artificial intelligence known as the Entity from destorying mankind.

Photo by Paramount Pictures and Skydance/Paramount Pictures and Skydance – © 2024 Paramount Pictures

After nearly three full decades and seven installments leading up to this one, I think it is safe to say “Mission: Impossible” has become a reputable franchise. Not every installment has worked for me. The second film is overly goofy despite one or two okay scenes. Other than that, I had a ball watching the franchise over the years. Tom Cruise not only shines as his character, Ethan Hunt, but his commitment to making the best movie possible alongside his fellow filmmakers is deserving of my respect.

This is the latest “Mission: Impossible” project directed by Christopher McQuarrie. The bad news is that this is probably his weakest installment yet. But I feel the same way about the McQuarrie-directed “Mission: Impossible” installments that I do when it comes to Pixar movies. Even a weak “Mission: Impossible” installment directed by Christopher McQuarrie, like a weak Pixar film, is typically a swell time. And a swell time this is.

Am I disappointed by the outcome of “Mission: Impossible – The Final Reckoning?” I would not necessarily say that. But I should note that my expectations for this film were, perhaps, unfairly high. The track record for this franchise has been excellent, especially in recent years. Per usual, a lot of the action and stunts done in the film were done for real, on location. Based on the marketing, this was also supposedly the last time that we would see a film in this particular franchise. After all, Tom Cruise is getting up there in age. There was a lot riding on “Mission: Impossible – The Final Reckoning.” Having seen the film, I can say it is, overall, good, but not fantastic. That said, there were plenty of “fantastic” things in what is ultimately a “good” film.

If you are familiar with the “Mission: Impossible” movies, chances are you know about all the bonkers stuntwork that goes into them. If I had one critique with the stuntwork in this film, it is that the main stunt sequences in this film are semi-borrowed from “Mission: Impossible – Rogue Nation.” You may remember that film having a scene where Ethan Hunt hangs on the side of a plane. You may also recall that film having an underwater scene as well. Variations of those two concepts make their way into “Mission: Impossible – The Final Reckoning.” That said, the sequences in this eighth film are done on a much bigger scale than they are in the fifth film. The two sequences, which take place in a submarine and around a canyon respectively, are worth the price of admission. If there is any reason not only to watch “Mission: Impossible – The Final Reckoning,” but to get off your couch and watch it in a theater, these two scenes make for a compelling argument.

In fact, if I had to be honest, the sequence around the canyon is maybe the franchise’s best. To me, this film felt like watching “Revenge of the Sith,” which deep down, might be a personal favorite “Star Wars” installment, even though its flaws do stand out. For example, even though I had a blast watching every minute of this film as it went by, I truthfully think the pacing could be a smidge better. The film completely caught my attention, but I should note that I was watching it in IMAX. The true test would be to see what it is like to watch this movie at home. I would be curious to see how that goes because I had a great time watching this film in the theater despite it feeling overstuffed. In fact, much like “Revenge of the Sith,” I will likely remember this film most for its franchise-best climax. This is a film where you are not only concerned that its protagonist might not make it out alive, but you have to wonder if the actors had their hearts beating out of their chests while filming.

Speaking of not making it, “Mission: Impossible” is truly a film where the mission at times feels, well, impossible. That is easy for me to say as someone watching this in an auditorium. But not only does the mission itself reek of enormous stakes, the film does a great job at presenting the worst case scenario. Both through its visuals, and the thoughts racing through my head while watching everything play out. The film is also quite timely with its interpretation of artificial intelligence. We got glimmers of the AI, also known as “the entity,” in the previous installment, but here we get a better, more terrifying glimpse.

There are a lot of “Mission: Impossible” movies out, and for some viewers, they might not know every little detail about them or have seen all the movies. This film contains tons of flashbacks to previous films. The flashbacks did not bother me, but there were a lot more in this film than I was expecting. I get why they are there. You want to remind viewers where things have gone in this series. But I would be curious down the line to see if there would be any attempts at making a future cut of this film where the flashbacks are reduced. I would be curious to know how that turns out.

If I had any other complaints about the film, I do think the villain could have been written better. Esai Morales does a decent job playing Gabriel, but he feels like he belongs in a different film at times. Though admittedly, I did find some of his Saturday morning cartoon-like quips and expressions to be quite entertaining. While not perfect, it works sometimes. In “Mission: Impossible” speak, if I had to give him a score between the number 1 to Philip Seymour Hoffman, Morales’ character winds up somewhere in the middle of that scale. He is not perfect, but at times he oozes charisma.

And speaking of charisma, Hayley Atwell continues to prove she is a welcome addition to the franchise as Grace (left). While her character could be improved with a little more depth, watching her in these past two films convinces me that if she were to do another film like this as the lead, I would pay to see it in a heartbeat. Even in the film’s darker moments, she was able to provide a sense of fun. If I cannot have Rebecca Ferguson in this film, Hayley Atwell is more than a fine alternative.

The marketing for this film has pushed it as a big, epic finale. And in a way, it feels like it. Not only do the stunts come off as the most ambitious in the franchise, but the film concludes on a note that is satisfying. But if I had to be honest, if they announced a ninth film, I would not be mad. Other than the second one, I have enjoyed all of the “Mission: Impossible” movies, so chances are I might enjoy another one. That said, now that we are supposedly at the end, I look forward to finding out what Tom Cruise has lined up next in his career. I know he and Christopher McQuarrie have talked about projects like “Top Gun 3” but I am also excited to see what other originals he will take on in the coming years. Heck, I would like to see that one movie where he supposedly goes into space. But if he comes back to “Mission: Impossible,” I will be waiting with a smile on my face. If not, it has been a great run, and this is a solid end to a wonderful franchise.

Paramount Pictures and Skydance/Paramount Pictures and Skydance – © 2025 Paramount Pictures. All Rights Reserved.

In the end, “Mission: Impossible – The Final Reckoning” is far from a perfect film, but I cannot deny that there are a few things in it that would be considered perfect if they were judged by themselves. The underwater scene, the plane scene, the editing, the camerawork. All of it is very exciting and jaw-dropping. Like usual, returning cast members Simon Pegg and Ving Rhames offer their own hints of charisma. If you have never watched any of the other films in the franchise, there are some points where you might have questions while checking out this one, but the story does its best to answer them. This film can definitely be enjoyed by itself, but I would say at minimum, it would be best to check out “Dead Reckoning” before watching this. After all, this film, while not specifically titled as such, is a part two to that one. Tom Cruise and Christopher McQuarrie, again, deliver another thrilling action flick that despite it being great, is ultimately their worst in this franchise. Note my specific use of “their,” I still think John Woo’s “Mission: Impossible II” is an abomination. Nevertheless, this is a triumph that many filmmakers would kill to make. I am going to give “Mission: Impossible – The Final Reckoning” a 7/10.

“Mission: Impossible – The Final Reckoning” is now playing in theaters everywhere. Tickets are available now.

Thanks for reading this review! My next review is going to be for another action sequel, “The Accountant 2.” Stay tuned! Also look forward to my reviews for “Bring Her Back,” “Friendship,” and “Ballerina.” If you want to know my thoughts on the previous “Mission: Impossible” films, good news, I reviewed all of them. Click the following links to know more about my thoughts regarding “Mission: Impossible,” “Mission: Impossible II,” “Mission: Impossible III,” “Mission: Impossible – Ghost Protocol,” “Mission: Impossible – Rogue Nation,” “Mission: Impossible – Fallout,” and “Mission: Impossible – Dead Reckoning Part One.” Yes, I still call it that. 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 “Mission: Impossible – The Final Reckoning?” What did you think about it? Or, now that the series might be over, how would you rank the “Mission: Impossible” films from worst to best? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

Mission: Impossible – Dead Reckoning Part One (2023): Another Epic Mission from Tom Cruise and Christopher McQuarrie

Posted on by Jack Drees

“Mission: Impossible – Dead Reckoning Part One” is directed by Christopher McQuarrie (Jack Reacher, The Way of the Gun) and stars Tom Cruise (Top Gun, Risky Business), Hayley Atwell (Agent Carter, The Duchess), Ving Rhames (Lilo & Stitch, Pulp Fiction), Simon Pegg (Ready Player One, Run Fatboy Run), Rebecca Ferguson (Dune, Reminiscence), Vanessa Kirby (Pieces of a Woman, Fast & Furious Presents: Hobbs & Shaw), Esai Morales (Resurrection Blvd., Bad Boys), Pom Klementieff (Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2, Oldboy), Mariela Garriga (Bloodline, Nightmare Cinema), and Henry Czerny (Ready or Not, Revenge). This film is the seventh installment of the ongoing “Mission: Impossible” movie franchise based on the hit television series of the same name. In this latest installment, Ethan Hunt and crew must track down a dangerous weapon before it is too late.

The “Mission: Impossible” franchise is, in some ways, the definition of irony. Because there is a general saying that a movie’s sequel is not usually as good as the original. If “Mission: Impossible” stopped at two movies that would be true, because I liked the first film quite a bit, but felt a significant dip in quality in John Woo’s “Mission: Impossible II.” Thankfully, “Mission: Impossible III” was better. Not perfect, but J.J. Abrams at least did enough to thwart the franchise in the right direction. “Mission: Impossible – Ghost Protocol,” directed by Brad Bird, not only ended up being really good, but revitalized the franchise. I still think about the scene set around the Dubai Tower on a regular basis. Then we get “Mission: Impossible – Rogue Nation,” directed by Christopher McQuarrie, which much like its predecessor, had incredible action sequences and stuntwork that define Tom Cruise’s career. That would have been my favorite “Mission: Impossible” movie, had it not been for the fact that Cruise and McQuarrie reunited to make the last “Mission: Impossible,” specifically “Fallout.” That film is the peak of what I consider to be one of the greatest action franchises. It was my favorite film of 2018, and I would put it right next to “Risky Business” as my favorite film starring Tom Cruise. The film is simple in plot, but has jaw-dropping action, likable characters, and a bone-chilling climax to back it up. It is everything a modern action movie should be.

This is also part of why I was excited for “Mission: Impossible – Dead Reckoning Part One,” which I put my as my #2 for my top 10 most anticipated movies of 2023. This franchise has a special talent. Specifically, a talent where almost each film ends up surpassing its predecessor. With how good “Fallout” was, this seventh installment had big shoes to fill.

Time for some good news and bad news. Bad news, the streak of these sequels surpassing their predecessors has ended. I think “Fallout” is a better film than “Dead Reckoning Part One.” Good news, “Dead Reckoning Part One” is all around, a great time at the movies. It contains the essentials I am used to seeing in these films between the quick pace, the character moments, the fun action sequences, and everything in between. If you are looking for summer blockbuster thrills, look no further. This film is an excellent outing for everyone involved, and it will make an excellent outing for you once you step outside your home and into the theater.

One of the reasons I, and I imagine many others, ended up looking forward to “Mission: Impossible – Dead Reckoning Part One” is because it is a continuation of Tom Cruise pulling off death-defying stunts. In fact, much of the marketing pushes the moment where Ethan maneuvers a motorcycle off a cliff and shortly thereafter removes himself from said motorcycle, allowing himself to fall through the air like an absolute moron. I can tell you, that stunt alone is worth the price of admission. When that scene came up in my auditorium, I could tell just about everyone felt a shiver through their body.

But what if I told you that is not even the most intense thing this movie has to offer? Because there are a couple of other scenes that continue to stand out to me. First off, there is a chase through Venice that will go down as not only one of my favorite sequences in the “Mission: Impossible” franchise, but also as one of the funniest action scenes I have ever watched in the history of cinema. I do not think I laughed this hard watching action either since “The Suicide Squad” or “Free Guy.” One of those two movies. When I say this action scene is funny, I mean it. There are a lot of visuals that caught me off guard in the best possible way. Although I must say, I apologize to the company because their car is prominently featured in said sequence, I do not think I will be buying a Fiat anytime soon. If there was any product placement involved, I think this action sequence basically told me to not spend my money on one of those cars. I will stick with my Ford for now.

Another standout sequence in “Dead Reckoning Part One” is set further into the movie, specifically on a train. First of all, the interior of the train, which was assembled for this movie from scratch, is stunningly designed. If the Oscars were tomorrow, I would consider putting this film amongst the Production Design nominations for how solid the inside of that train looks. Secondly, this movie may have the greatest train scene since “Spider-Man 2,” which is an impeccably high standard to match. But the reason why this train sequence will stick with me for a long time is because it does what “Mission: Impossible” does best. It does not only put our characters in danger from a story perspective, but as I watch the sequence, I am increasingly worried for their physical safety. Both the characters and the actors playing them. Anyone can do a train sequence in a film if they wanted to. I have seen boring train scenes before, just go watch “Solo: A Star Wars Story.” But this film does it in such a way that had me wondering how the heck anyone could make it out alive. Heck, there is a movie from last year called “Bullet Train,” and the train scene in “Dead Reckoning Part One” is arguably more thrilling than that entire movie. For the record, I liked “Bullet Train.” But my point stands.

If I had a problem with the film, it would be the opening scene. Sure, it is a homage to a respected title, “The Hunt for Red October,” but the dialogue during this scene honestly felt wooden. Maybe if I watch it again it would be better, but it felt more like a parody of “Mission: Impossible” rather than an actual “Mission: Impossible” movie. Which, quite frankly, is a dead on way to describe “Mission: Impossible II.” I said what I said. But other than that, there are not many flaws to point out about “Mission: Impossible – Dead Reckoning Part One.” If there is one, maybe the A.I. was not as threatening as it could have been, but maybe the crew is saving the good stuff for part two. Staying on topic though, I think the antagonist, Gabriel (Esai Morales), is a bit of a step down for the franchise. Especially when compared to August Walker (Henry Cavill) from the previous installment.

On the note of multi-part efforts, despite having part one in the title, I will contend that “Mission: Impossible – Dead Reckoning Part One” plays as a complete movie. It contains a full, concrete story. Sure, there are loose ends, but the main story ties itself up in a bow. It is a much better part one than what “Fast X” gave us a few months ago, which offered possibly the dumbest, most insultingly complicated cliffhanger in recent film. It did not feel like an end to a movie. It felt like the beginning of something much worse. I left “Mission: Impossible – Dead Reckoning Part One” feeling satisfied with what I saw. Maybe I overhyped it a little, but it does not change the fact that it is a solid option for the big screen this summer.

Going back to “Fast X,” when it comes to the big spy movie franchises out right now, the “Fast & Furious” and “Mission: Impossible” franchises are the two that immediately come to mind. This movie manages to get something right that the “Fast & Furious” movies do not. Characterization. Sure, maybe every once in awhile it is soothing to hang out with the “family,” but those movies fail when it comes to getting me onboard with the characters due to a lack of stakes. Once again, this film reinstates the notion that I am worried for everyone’s safety. Part of it is because a lot of the stuff on screen is done for real, but they flesh out the characters and treat them more like people as opposed to big muscular bodies moving from one place to another. Grace (Hayley Atwell) is layered and has an intriguing mysteriousness to her throughout the film. Additionally, Paris (Pom Klementieff) is another new character that stands out and brings a lot to the table. There continues to be genuine chemistry between Cruise, Rhames, and Pegg as friends. When I left this film, one of the thoughts in my mind happened to be that I cannot wait to see “Mission: Impossible – Dead Reckoning Part Two.” Not only to get back to a franchise that I adore, but to continue seeing cool characters like these. Here is hoping the upcoming sequel is a worthy entry to the franchise, much like this one.

In the end, if I had to rank the “Mission: Impossible” movies, “Dead Reckoning Part One” would not be my favorite, but it would be on the higher end. I would put it above “Ghost Protocol,” but I would put it below the last two. The more I think about it, I think I like it just a little more than the 1996 original, which is a great movie on its own. When it comes to pure summer action, “Mission: Impossible – Dead Reckoning Part One” delivers. It is exciting, thrilling, and I left the film satisfied, but still wanting to know what is next. While this may not make as much money as Tom Cruise’s last outing, “Top Gun: Maverick,” “Mission: Impossible – Dead Reckoning Part One” brings in some big guns of its own. I am going to give “Mission: Impossible – Dead Reckoning Part One” an 8/10.

“Mission: Impossible – Dead Reckoning Part One” is now playing in theaters everywhere. Tickets are available now.

Thanks for reading this review! My next review is going to be for “Oppenheimer,” the brand new movie from my favorite filmmaker, Christopher Nolan. Also, I will soon be dropping reviews for “Haunted Mansion,” “The First Slam Dunk,” and “Barbie.” 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 “Mission: Impossible – Dead Reckoning Part One?” What did you think about it? Or, what is your favorite “Mission: Impossible” movie? Mine is “Fallout,” but I want to know yours! Comment below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

Transformers: Rise of the Beasts (2023): Audiences, Roll Out!

Posted on by Jack Drees

“Transformers: Rise of the Beasts” is directed by Steven Caple Jr. (The Land, Creed II), and stars Anthony Ramos (In the Heights, A Star is Born) and Dominque Fishback (Judas and the Black Messiah, Project Power) in the latest adaptation of the Hasbro toy that has become a phenomenon. This time around, the story is set in the 1990s and features the Cybertronian Autobots and Maximals as the two transformative groups must unite to save the planet from Unicron.

“Transformers” was my childhood. Specifically the first Michael Bay movie. Keep in mind, I was born in 1999. I watched that film at least twice every month in 2008 until the earlier half of 2009. I still own it on DVD to this day. As far as CGI goes, the film continues to hold up and rival some of what has come out years later. I even think at times it looks better than its franchise successors. “Age of Extinction,” which kind of has a so bad it is good vibe to it, especially comes to mind. Michael Bay is not my favorite director. In fact, I thought his last film, “Ambulance,” is an atrocity against civilization. Therefore, I was glad to know that, like “Bumblebee,” Bay was not at the helm for this film.

For those of you who followed me long enough, you would know that I never got around to reviewing “Bumblebee.” But I ended up watching it for the first time this month and I thought it easily was the best “Transformers” movie we have gotten since 2007. I think it finally had a main human protagonist that actually exuded charisma and did more than just freak out or spew a one liner every time they saw a robot. I liked Hailee Steinfeld as the lead and thought the movie was a nice blend of “E.T.” mixed with hints of “The Iron Giant.” If that movie did not exist, this franchise may have remained on life support. Michael Bay ended up making too many movies and the further this franchise proceeded, the further the insanity proceeded. “Transformers: Rise of the Beasts” is not a straight up sequel to “Bumblebee” but appears to be set in the same timeline of sorts. Regardless of its placement in the grand scheme of things, I had a good time with “Transformers: Rise of the Beasts.” It is a slight step down from “Bumblebee,” but it is still a trek up from the past couple Michael Bay outings.

“Transformers: Rise of the Beasts” is not without its flaws. The film is about as predictable as movies like this can get at times, but as the old saying goes, it is not about the destination. It is the journey. Thankfully, the journey is quite good. But on the topic of predictability, one thing I was not able to predict was the end of the film. There is a certain event at the last minute that caught me off guard. Those of you who have seen the movie, know exactly what I am talking about. For those of you who are planning to see the movie at some point, fasten your seatbelts.

Speaking of predictability, one cliché this movie continues is that despite the movie being called “Transformers,” it might as well be called “Humans,” because it centers around a human protagonist. I kind of get why that is the case because the audience needs someone to relate to. It is a bit harder to relate to robots from Cybertron. But either way, it is a noticeable trend that has not stopped. That said, the humans in this movie are comparatively likable to the ones in Michael Bay’s later films. I do not think Anthony Ramos’s character of Noah Diaz has as much charisma as Sam Witwicky does, nor is he as likable of a protagonist as him, but Ramos is able to carry the film.

Also in the film is Dean Scott Vazquez as Kris Diaz. His character is so likable that I honestly wanted more of him. Every line out of him is perfect. The main two human leads in this film are Anthony Ramos and Dominque Fishback, who are both good actors. I have nothing against them as performers and I have enjoyed some of their previous work. This movie can keep Anthony Ramos in the lead role for all I care. But having seen some of Dean Scott Vazquez’s smile-inducing charm brought to the table, I kind of wish he was in Dominque Fishback’s spot. Granted, the movie they already crafted makes a lick of sense with Fishback in a greater spotlight, but it would have probably been more fun had Vazquez been there for more of the ride. It would have been a delightful brotherly duo. I got a sense of their chemistry from the beginning and the two actors honestly pair together like chocolate chips and ice cream. I wish I got to see more of that, but what I did see was sweet.

That said, there are plenty of Transformers in this film, including the Maximals in addition to the already commonly showcased Autobots. If you are looking for big screen summer action, look no further. This movie has it. When it comes to spectacle in this franchise, this might be the best that has been brought to the big screen since “Dark of the Moon.”

Speaking of “Transformers,” Noah does get a chance to bond with one in particular, specifically Mirage, played by Pete Davidson. Their chemistry is okay and I like what these two have to go through together, but I have slightly more mixed thoughts on the voice. At times, it blends perfectly with the character, but at other times, all I see is Pete Davidson. I have nothing against Pete Davidson as an actor, as a comedian. I enjoy some of his work on “Saturday Night Live,” “Big Time Adolescence,” “The King of Staten Island,” and as much as I hated “Fast X,” I think his cameo in the movie is one of the miniscule highlights. But my problem with “Transformers: Rise of the Beasts” when it comes to not just Pete Davidson as Mirage, but also Michelle Yeoh as Airazor, is that the actors’ voices are recognizable enough to the point where they become a bit distracting. Granted, it is not absurdly bad. Davidson and Yeoh do an okay job with their material, and when it comes to this problem, I do not think it is as blatant and annoying as say “DC League of Super Pets” when it comes to the leads of Dwayne Johnson and Kevin Hart. But having heard their voices in prior material, it makes me think they are just playing another version of themselves. Instead, I want a character. Live-action roles are a little different where you have the person in the room. I kind of want an escape from that person when they just use their voice sometimes.

Yeoh’s voice is one of a kind, which is both a compliment and a curse. Yeoh is not in the movie a lot, but when she is there, all I see is her sometimes. Thankfully, even though Pete Davidson is in the movie a lot so I pick out his voice more, the admirability of his character makes up for it. He is genuinely charming.

With this in mind, I know this is probably a personal issue that comes from watching some of the prior material from these actors. I imagine a lot of people discovering this film for the first time in the future may find this to be less problematic as other big names rise. Right now as I write this review in 2023, this stands as a flaw based on the events of these times which I have experienced.

Although speaking of voices, Peter Cullen returns as Optimus Prime. And as fantastic as he is here as usual, I picked up some noticeable ruggedness in the character’s voice. Peter Cullen is 81 years old, so obviously his voice is not going to be the exact same as it was years ago. But I wonder if Cullen is getting to the point where he may almost be done with the role. If there is any indication, Chris Hemsworth is going to voice Optimus Prime in an upcoming animation titled “Transformers One.”

The best way to describe “Transformers: Rise of the Beasts” would be to compare it to a trip to Burger King. I enjoyed what was on my plate, but it is sometimes inconsistent and I know what I am getting is not of the highest quality. I am not saying “Transformers: Rise of the Beasts” was not made with the intention to barely pass, but this is a case where negatives stand out, but the positives stand out just a bit more for me to have a good time. The film looks and sounds great. My theater shook on many occasions and the camerawork is honestly smoother compared to some of the other “Transformers” movies that have come out recently. The special effects are top-notch. The action is spectacular. The characters are fine, but could be better. I think Anthony Ramos as Noah Diaz is a better lead than Mark Wahlberg as Cade Yeager. The story has its cliches and predictability. But as far as summer blockbusters go, this is a solid entry in this movie season. I think between “Bumblebee” and this latest effort, the franchise is on a decent path. Maybe we will get more like these two along the way. And much like “Burger King,” I may end up coming back to “Transformers: Rise of the Beasts” despite its blunders.

In the end, “Transformers: Rise of the Beasts” is not quite a masterpiece, but far from a disaster. When it comes to big action movies, this is a good choice. I am not going to pretend that I will run down the streets begging for everyone to check it out, but I am glad I saw it. If you are on the fence of seeing this movie, give it a shot. You may not be disappointed. I would put this film in the same boat as “Godzilla vs. Kong.” It is noticeably entertaining as it is flawed. I am going to give “Transformers: Rise of the Beasts” a very high 6/10.

“Transformers: Rise of the Beasts” is now playing in theaters everywhere. Tickets are available now.

Thanks for reading this review! My next review is going to be for the brand new DC movie, “The Flash!” Also coming soon, I will share my thoughts on “No Hard Feelings,” “Elemental,” “Ruby Gillman, Teenage Kraken,” and “Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny.” 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 “Transformers: Rise of the Beasts?” What did you think about it? Or, what is your favorite “Transformers” movie? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

Luck (2022): Somewhat Charming, Although Not Enough to Be the Luckiest Charm

Posted on by Jack Drees

“Luck” is directed by Peggy Holmes, whose resume, which includes four other directorial credits, has mostly consisted of Disney content. This film stars Eva Noblezada (Yellow Rose, Law & Order: Special Victims Unit), Simon Pegg (Mission: Impossible – Fallout, Run Fatboy Run), Jane Fonda (Grace and Frankie, Klute), Whoopi Goldberg (The View, The Lion King), Flula Borg (Pitch Perfect 2, The Suicide Squad), Lil Rel Howrey (Uncle Drew, Free Guy), Colin O’Donoghue (Once Upon a Time, The Right Stuff), and John Ratzenberger (Cheers, Toy Story). This film follows a girl named Sam who suffers from one unlucky incident after the next. After one particular case of bad luck, she finds herself in a universe where good and bad luck collide to determine the fates of everyone on earth.

Many protagonists have a case for being down on their luck for one reason or another. But this is a case where the protagonist suffers from one incident after another after another after another in just a short amount of time. It’s the whole down on one’s luck thing, but it’s wildly consistent here. Some might say that luck is not cinematic. But after watching Domino in “Deadpool 2,” I think that’s a falsehood. So I was looking forward to whether the movie “Luck” could be the latest charm (haha) from Hollywood. As for the movie itself, was it worth the watch?

Not exactly. The good news is, as far as the studio is concerned, specifically Skydance Animation, this is their first film. Founded by David Ellison and led by former Pixar vet John Lasseter, “Luck” is the first film in the studio’s slate, and they do have more coming like “Spellbound,” which has a stacked voice cast ranging from Rachel Zegler (West Side Story), Nicole Kidman (The Northman), and even John Lithgow (Interstellar). Maybe their second outing will be better. But for now, let’s focus on the mediocre first outing. But hey, they can only go up!

Again, I like the concept of the movie. I love how one person could be this unlucky all the time and a story can be made out of it. In fact, as far as the protagonist goes, being unlucky is not all about the little things. This movie establishes that the main character, Sam, grew up as a foster kid. At the end of the day, she was never able to find her real family. But at some point, she found herself on her own. She started a new job, she started school, she started living in her own apartment. Sam had a plan and she was sticking by it. So I do admire that the film is not just saying that the main character is unlucky every other second and just going with it. Bad luck is literally intertwined as a core foundation of Sam’s backstory, her growing up.

Sam is voiced by the amazingly talented Eva Noblezada. For the loyal followers who remember the 3rd Annual Jackoff Awards, which honored 2020’s cinematic calendar, I bestowed Noblezada with the win for Best Actress for her brilliant performance in the music-centric film “Yellow Rose.” It makes sense that she would be in a movie like this, as her character does sing and she not only has a history of singing originals in “Yellow Rose,” but she was also in the Broadway play “Hadestown,” so she has range of being on and off-screen. I was excited to see what she could do in a voiceover role. I thought Noblezada had a cute presence and fit the character in every way. I also sort of related to her character. I mean, who wouldn’t? I am pretty sure everyone has had that one day in their life. That one day where anything that could go wrong, actually does.

I also like some of the supporting characters in the film. Simon Pegg plays Bob, a black cat who happens to be Sam’s sidekick for most of the film. I thought he brought some personality to the table. Jane Fonda was a great choice to play Dragon, a character that could literally sniff out bad luck. I thought she was larger than life and lively to say the least. As for the real world, there is one character named Hazel that is presented of highest importance. Not only is she well written from a story perspective, notably through her bond with the protagonist, but I think her respective actress, Adelynn Spoon delivered a cute performance that garnered my attention from early on. Overall, the voicework in this film is top notch. Also, unlike the recent “DC League of Superpets,” despite this movie having some big names, I was never distracted. I never felt like I was listening to someone such as Whoopi Goldberg, who happens to portray the character of Captain, play herself.

While I will reiterate that I am not a massive fan of the film and do not intend to watch it again, I think one of the main highlights is a scene from the first five or so minutes where Sam is going through her morning routine. She’s making breakfast, she’s showering, doing everything she needs to get ready to start her day. But this plays into the whole bad luck trend that has been large part of her life. This lends to some of the funniest visual comedy I have seen recently. I think animation often lends itself to some great humor. And this year is no different when it comes to films in that genre like “Turning Red.” While “Luck” may not be as enjoyable as that film, it is a film that like “Turning Red,” can guarantee a laugh out of me for something I see on screen.

As for the music in the film, I think the musical score by John Debney (The Orville, Iron Man 2) is quite impressive and fits the scope of the film. In fact the scope is quite large given the eventual enormity of the protagonist. I also want to talk about the use of the Madonna song Lucky Star. While it may intertwine with the luck theme this movie has going for it, I think its use comes off as nonsensical, and I kind of cringed when it happened. But that is because of how the song is used from a story and script perspective. I am sure that if the song were simply used as an end credits piece, I would have appreciated it more, but it was used as an out of nowhere device to move the story forward. It is almost lazy. Eva Noblezada sang the piece and she did an okay job, but I just feel like its insertion was either through writer’s block or as a joke to cater to adults who knew the song or children that need visuals to lighten the moment. This movie does not have enough lyric-based songs to sell a soundtrack, so I cannot say that is what the writers were going for.

I also feel incredibly conflicted by the ending. Sure, there are things that happen in the end that add up and feel in place. There is even one moment in the end that made me genuinely happy. But I also feel like how we got to a certain point almost felt forced. It is almost kind of cringeworthy. I get why what happened actually happened, but how we got there almost feels nonsensical. Maybe it drives home the lesson of the film for families and children, but even so, it just feels odd watching it. I almost did not buy what I was seeing on screen. This might sound weird, but this is just from my experience. Despite just about everything making sense, the final moments of the film nevertheless became slightly convoluted. I was not angry, I was not disappointed, I was just a little bewildered and questioning whether the protagonist would actually do what she did. I do not know. Maybe if I watch the film a second time I would feel different. But again, the movie is not worthy enough of a second watch, so that is probably going to remain a mystery.

In the end, “Luck” is rather unlucky. The protagonist is perfectly established, some of the supporting characters are fun, and I never found myself outright angry at this film unlike say the recent “Paws of Fury.” Although if you have children and are looking for an animated movie to watch together, there are better options out there. In fact, this movie is on Apple TV+. If you want a great animated movie to watch on the service, I highly recommend checking out “Wolfwalkers.” It is a 2D animated film about a girl who can suddenly transform into a wolf and ends up befriending someone just like her. It is wonderful, it has emotional beats, it is quite imaginative to say the least. This is not to say that “Luck” is not imaginative. I will be frank, I like the concept of having a universe that controls good and bad luck on our planet. I just wish it were done better. There are some good things about “Luck,” but when the ending came into play, I just found myself nearly indifferent about what I just watched. Maybe you will not feel the same, but I have no plans to watch “Luck” again. And that stinks, because I want to see more from Eva Noblezada, but I hope she does something better than this. I am going to give “Luck” a 5/10.

Also, before I move on, I want to address something I was curious about in regard to the movie ever since I saw the trailer. This is a screenshot I took on YouTube. As a Bay Stater, I need to ask everyone who made “Luck” a simple question. Is this movie secretly set in Boston? Look at license plate on the city bus and tell me that is not a Massachusetts license plate! I know it does not say Massachusetts, but look at the thing!

“Luck” is now streaming on Apple TV+. While it did release in theaters in August, there are showtimes listed online and the film will be coming back to several markets starting Thursday, September 22nd. If you want to see the film in theaters, get your tickets now.

Thanks for reading this review! I want to remind everyone once again that this October, I will be doing a Steven Spielberg Month in honor of his brand new film, “The Fabelmans.” In preparation, I will be reviewing “Close Encounters of the Third Kind,” “E.T. The Extra Terrestrial,” “The Post,” and “West Side Story,” so stay tuned for that! 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 “Luck?” What did you think about it? Also, did you ever have a day where everything just went wrong no matter the case? Tell me about it! I would not mind hearing all about it! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

Top Gun: Maverick (2022): Tom Cruise Pilots His Way Through a High Flying Sequel

Posted on by Jack Drees

“Top Gun: Maverick” is directed by Joseph Kosinski (Oblivion, Tron: Legacy) and stars Tom Cruise (Mission: Impossible, Risky Business), Jennifer Connelly (A Beautiful Mind, Hulk), Miles Teller (Whiplash, Fantastic Four), Jon Hamm (Keeping Up with the Joneses, Baby Driver), Glen Powell (Scream Queens, Hidden Figures), Lewis Pullman (The Strangers: Prey at Night, Bad Times at the El Royale), Ed Harris (Dumb and Dumber, Apollo 13), and Val Kilmer (Batman Forever, Kiss Kiss Bang Bang). This film is a sequel over three and a half decades in the making, and follows Pete Mitchell once again as he finds himself in a situation where he teaches younger fighter pilots at Top Gun, including the son of someone he previously flew alongside, making matters personal.

“Top Gun” is a weird movie. I imagine that some people consider it to either be their favorite Tom Cruise movie or maybe even their favorite movie in general. To me, it’s neither. It’s a solid film, but in terms of Cruise’s filmography, it ranks down the middle for me. For all I know, part of why people like it so much could be for nostalgic reasons. I did not grow up in the 1980s, and if you want me to be real, looking back at “Top Gun,” despite the film’s evident advancements in capturing cinematic dogfighting, it feels like a product of its time. It has some cheesy dialogue here and there, the songs feel very much out of the 1980s time period, and the stakes for me did not feel as high as other movies. Then again, it is hard to have stakes when you have fighter pilots that are not actually going up against other fighter pilots, for the most part. But I will also give “Top Gun” credit because for a film where there is almost no threat to begin with, the film still has plenty of intrigue and gives us enough reasons to care for the characters, and not just because they are spiking volleyballs without shirts on.

The best thing about this sequel is that it successfully builds off of a key point of the original. Despite what I said about the stakes being low, there is a moment in the original movie where the main character of Pete Mitchell has to face an event with potentially dire consequences. Thankfully for him, the consequences are not as bad as they could have been. That is, until the events of “Top Gun: Maverick,” where they come back to haunt him, in addition to haunting one of his students.

I am glad that this movie has as good of a story as it does, because without those things, the movie would still be watchable for what it is, but I am satisfied to say that “Top Gun: Maverick” is not a movie that mainly relies on big, loud spectacle, and instead, blends such a thing perfectly into the material written for its respective pages.

On that note, however, my biggest positive for “Top Gun: Maverick” is the spectacle. Through my six years on Scene Before, I have always forwarded a singular thought. Movies are ALWAYS better in the theater. Even a movie as terrible as 2019’s “Cats” is better in a theater because of the weird spectacle. That said, if there is any movie that I recommend you go see in a theater right now, I not only recommend “Top Gun: Maverick,” but this movie commands your attention and it is one you need to see on the biggest screen you can. I had the privilege of going to see “Top Gun: Maverick” at a true IMAX cinema ten minutes from where I live. It was their first weekend open since the beginning of the pandemic, and walking out of the theater, I could barely even move because of how boisterous this movie was. And this movie was not boisterous because it looked like yet another cranked out Hollywood production with tons of digitzed effects, but because a lot of it was actually done for real.

Many of the film’s actors ended up using and flying real planes throughout the film. In an age where more and more movies are relying on green screen, or more recently, StageCraft, it is thrilling to see a film that pushes the boundaries of human limitations while also putting a pinch of reality in our fantasies. Tom Cruise, unsurprisingly, pilots a plane in this film. There are restrictions to his piloting, but knowing and seeing that only enhances the final product. I have had conversations with people where they said Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson is perhaps the manliest person alive. Sure, he’s got the LOOKS of a man with his big strong arms and attractive bald head. But let me know when he pilots a real military jet for audiences around the world to witness, as they bite their nails thinking, “this is the part where he crashes, isn’t it?”. No, seriously. I have watched a lot of movies. Between the previous “Mission: Impossible” and this movie, Tom Cruise is on a trend where he continues to captivate me harder into a scene than most actors, including ones that are perhaps more likely to be nominated for Oscars. And it is not because of how he goes through a scene delivering his dialogue, managing his physicality, and keeping his fellow actors in check. It is because of how much of a daredevil he has become over the years. Even in movies that were not well received like “The Mummy,” you could still look at Tom Cruise’s stuntwork and recognize the effort put into it. I am not saying “Top Gun: Maverick” is my favorite movie of the year. But it is a contender for the movie I will thinking about this year the most in terms of how it has projected me into an environment where I may has well been so close to falling to my death. For that reason alone, you should see “Top Gun: Maverick” on the biggest screen you can find.

However, “Top Gun: Maverick” also faces a problem depending on how you look at things. The movie, even though I believe modern audiences will enjoy it, gets too caught up in the good old days. The opening scene, while an amazing welcoming back to the “Top Gun” universe, only works because of how much it rips off the original movie. The midpoint of the film features an incredible scene between two characters. I will not say much more, but let’s just say that I, an aspiring writer, could not have written a better, more engaging scene between these two characters. You will know it when you see it.

However, there is another moment where everyone starts singing a particular song that did not feel authentic. It felt like nostalgia bait for the sake of nostalgia bait. There are movies that tend to rely on fan service and nostalgia that do such things well. I think “Star Wars: The Force Awakens” did it well when that movie came out. “Top Gun: Maverick” on the other hand, was a little on the nose and it did not land as well as it could have. Some might enjoy it, some might not. Although I thought it was great to hear “Danger Zone” once again. But that also goes to show how one can be emotionally attached to something and therefore perceive something as good. I liked the original “Top Gun,” but I never thought it was my favorite movie. The original “Star Wars” trilogy was something I watched incessantly as a kid, enjoyed immensely, and therefore it is part of why I felt a spark of joy when certain things happened in “The Force Awakens.”

That’s a minor nitpick, but I want to point out a couple things in regard to this film’s depth. First off, I think at times, the relationship between the characters of Pete Mitchell and Penny Benjamin (Jennifer Connelly) felt a tad forced at times. They had chemistry, but it was overall very off and on. I personally think Cruise had better chemistry with Kelly McGillis’s character of Charlie back in the 1986 predecessor. In my review for the original “Top Gun,” I said that I learned of Kelly McGillis and Tom Cruise, the actors, not getting along on set. Having searched more information on that as of recently, I would not know if that is actually true because the only source I have telling me that as of recently is the “Top Gun” IMDb page, which may not be the most reliable place to base one’s information. I will note that McGillis spoke out regarding this love interest shift not long ago, saying she is happy for Jennifer Connelly, so I am glad to see there are no hard feelings.

Speaking of depth, let’s talk about the enemy of “Top Gun: Maverick.” There are multiple references to “the enemy” in “Top Gun: Maverick.” We do not know who they are. Apparently this is also the case in the original movie where the Top Gun pilots have to go into actual combat against another force. In today’s age, I kind of get why they never specifically identify an “enemy” in “Top Gun: Maverick.” The film business is about money, and if Paramount makes a “Top Gun” movie where they identify Germany as the enemy, then chances are they are never going to release the film in Germany as it would tick some people off. If the movie identifies Japan as the enemy, then they can kiss a Japanese release goodbye as some viewers would probably dislike seeing their country as the antagonist. Maybe this is to suggest that the pilots could go up against multiple enemies at the same time, but nevertheless. At a certain point of the movie, there is one specific enemy force that comes into play, but again, we do not know who they are. This movie is fiction, it is not based on actual war. It is not like we are watching “Dunkirk” or “The Patriot” where the sides are specific of an actual time and place, even if they involve fictional characters to further the story along. That said, even though I prefer the story of “Top Gun: Maverick” to the original, it is not free from nitpicks. Even so, you should see this movie. I give it a thumbs up, and I think it is a film that almost anyone can have a good time watching.

In the end, “Top Gun: Maverick” is a blockbuster you should see this summer on the biggest screen possible. I do recommend watching the original first as it does help you appreciate the story of this sequel more, there are many ways to watch “Top Gun” from home, but I do not recommend skipping out on “Top Gun: Maverick” during its theatrical run. Do not wait for Paramount+, do not wait for VOD, do not wait for the Blu-ray. If you are going to watch this movie, find the biggest screen with the loudest sound you can. Buy some popcorn, grab a soda, have a good time. Take your friends, take your family, this is certainly a crowd-pleasing movie that delivers the thrills. As of writing this review, I have tickets to go see this movie a second time with someone close to me. I am going to give “Top Gun: Maverick,” despite my nitpicks, a really high 7/10.

“Top Gun: Maverick” is now playing in theaters everywhere, including large formats like IMAX and Dolby. Tickets are available now!

Thanks for reading this review! If you enjoyed this review for “Top Gun: Maverick” and want to see more of my thoughts on the franchise, check out my review that I did in 2020 for the original “Top Gun” as part of my special Tom Cruise Month! Fun fact, I did this special partially because “Top Gun: Maverick” was not able to come out in 2020! Also coming up on Scene Before, I have two reviews on deck. Pretty soon you will see my thoughts on the new Netflix film “Hustle,” starring Adam Sandler as a basketball scout. My next review after that will be for one my most anticipated movies of the year, “Everything Everywhere All at Once.” I waited forever to see this film, I finally got to watch it with my dad last night, and I promise you I have plenty to say about it. 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 “Top Gun: Maverick?” What did you think about it? Or, which is the better movie? “Top Gun” or “Top Gun: Maverick?” Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

The Adam Project (2022): Ryan Reynolds and Shawn Levy Team Up with Netflix to Deliver Another Excellent Collaboration

Posted on by Jack Drees

“The Adam Project” is directed by Shawn Levy (Night at the Museum, Real Steel) and stars Ryan Reynolds (Deadpool, The Hitman’s Bodyguard), Walker Scobell, Mark Ruffalo (Dark Waters, The Avengers), Jennifer Garner (Love, Simon, Peppermint), Catherine Keener (The Croods, Incredibles 2), and Zoe Saldana (Guardians of the Galaxy, Avatar) in a film where a man named Adam travels back in time and comes in contact with his 12-year-old self. Together, they join forces as they fight to protect time as they know it.

One of my favorite movies of the last year is “Free Guy,” directed by Shawn Levy. The director defined my childhood with the first two “Night at the Museum” movies so I owe him a debt of gratitude. And to know that Levy and Reynolds would be getting together for another teamup after their last totally epic, bonkers outing, was nothing short of exciting. I thought it was somewhat unfortunate that this outing would not be as big of a theatrical release given how this is a Netflix film, but I was still convinced to watch it. After all, I ended up earning a free link to watch “The Adam Project” over a week and a half before the film actually came out. So I watched it, gathered my thoughts, and now I am ready to share them with you all.

Let me just start off with this, “Free Guy” ended up being one of the most gutbusting and smile-inducing movies I watched in the past year. But I also recognize that it is probably not for everyone, even though it ended up being one of the rare action films my mom actually somehow ended up watching from start to finish. But even though these are two different movies, I think if you enjoyed some of the choices and styles represented in “Free Guy,” I think you are going to enjoy some of the choices and styles represented in “The Adam Project.” I do not think “The Adam Project” is going to win Best Picture, but it is a movie that for me, accomplished all of its goals it set out to acquire. It was action-packed, pretty, funny, and ended up having a little bit of heart. Basically, if you combined some of the bigger movies of the 1980s like “Back to the Future” and “Terminator 2: Judgment Day” with “Free Guy,” you basically get “The Adam Project.”

Think about it. All these properties have time travel, the protagonists have to save the timeline in addition to civilization and themselves, and the combo between young and older Adam kind of gives the same vibe I get when looking at the T-800 and young John Connor in “Terminator 2.” Basically, this is “Free Guy” without all the licensed crap attached, which may be a good or bad thing depending on how you look at it. I was extremely satisfied to see Ryan Reynolds holding a Captain America shield in “Free Guy,” but let’s just say I am glad that not every movie in existence is like that.

Ryan Reynolds does wield a lightsaber in this movie. …Kind of. So there’s that.

“The Adam Project” takes its time and sticks to its main characters, there are no humungous cameos, although there are plenty of notable actors in the film. For a film like this, I prefer that. In fact, there are one or two lines in here that I almost feel like are a dig on movie watchers in general, but also a select few that specifically target the stereotypical moviegoer who usually shells out a few bucks for the latest comic book movie, waits two months, shells out another few bucks for an even newer comic book movie, and so on. It’s all part of the lovable chemistry between these two Adams, and speaking of which, we are going to talk about one of them.

This movie is the acting debut of Walker Scobell, and for a first role, Scobell is given a lot to do. And he does all of it well. All of his lines feel authentic, he’s got the right level of hyperactivity for a role like this, I think as far as a young Ryan Reynolds interpretation goes, the hair’s an interesting choice, but we’ve all made altering choices in life. Scobell is an actor I want to keep my eye on, and “The Adam Project” is hopefully the start of a lively career. Ryan Reynolds is also a terrific addition to this dynamic duo. There is a really compelling scene when they first meet, I totally buy into their relationship from the getgo. I believe everything they’re saying. I believe they’re the same person. All I want is for them to stand together a bit longer.

One of the best and worst parts of “The Adam Project” is the visual effects. Like many modern science fiction movies, there are a ton of polished, crisp ships flying around everywhere. There’s a lot of computer generated detail that goes into a movie like this. So when there’s a battle in the air, that provides for an entertaining experience, and one that makes me envious of those who ultimately end up watching this film theatrically. On the other hand, there is a fair share of visuals that look like they belong in a video game. Now, I like video games. Video games are fun. But there is a clear difference between how things should look in a movie and how things should look in a video game. Some of the weaponry in this film looks like stereotypical sci-fi nonsense, and some of it works, but there’s also some that look like they would never exist in real life. They have colors that are almost invisible to the naked eye.

I think the big problem I have with “The Adam Project,” as nitpicky as it may sound, happens to be the scenes where the color palette is as bright as it can be. While this bright color grade matches the lighthearted fun the film has, it also makes the film look too clean and dream-like. It’s like every other scene has too much blue or too much green. Or the lens is permanently soaked in water. It kind of reminds me of what some people say about the “Star Wars” prequels compared to the originals, noting that the prequels are much cleaner than their original counterparts. I wonder if maybe the film changed the color grading a little, or maybe if they shot it in a different format, perhaps on film, that we would have a look that felt more believable. At times, the film reaches for the stars and goes for something that almost resembles a fantasy vibe, but I also want a tad of realism.

Although let’s end this review on a happy note. I am also delighted and surprised to confirm how emotionally charging this film is. I’ve talked about about the two Adams and their connection to each other. But the one thing that I should note to the parents or families reading this, I think the characters will resonate with you in one way or another because of their family dynamic. I’m not just talking about Walker Scobell and Ryan Reynolds, but Mark Ruffalo and Jennifer Garner play roles that feel occasionally nostalgic and charming to take in, especially when you have one or two of the Adams by their side. The end of the movie really got to me, especially as someone who may relate to the young Adam, but not in the way that he experiences life. Let’s just say that I did not go through a family tragedy in the way he did, but I empathize with him at his age for what happened AFTER said family tragedy. This movie is wonderful, watch it if you can.

In the end, “The Adam Project” is a film that feels like it was made in the 1980s, but with a 2022 flair. And I mean that in a good way, because the 1980s have brought some pretty kick-ass movies. I love the connection between young and old Adam, the supporting cast for the most part brought plenty of fun and charisma to the final product, and I had my eyes glued to the screen the whole time. Shawn Levy and Ryan Reynolds are supposedly making “Deadpool 3” together if all goes according to plan. You know what? If it is bound to be as good as the last two movies they made, sign me up! Because “Free Guy” was awesome and now, months after that movie came out, I’m going to give “The Adam Project” an 8/10!

“The Adam Project” is now available to watch anytime on Netflix for all subscribers.

Thanks for reading this review! If you enjoyed this review, be sure to stay tuned for my reviews of “The Batman” and “Turning Red,” coming soon! But before that, ON SUNDAY, MARCH 27TH! PREPARE FOR THE FOURTH EDITION OF THE LEAST MOST IMPORTANT AWARDS CEREMONY OF ALL TIME! THE 4TH ANNUAL JACKOFF AWARDS! Again, that’s SUNDAY, MARCH 27TH! It’s the same day as that other ceremony that refuses to present the entire Film Editing category. If you want to vote for Best Picture, vote here! That said, if you enjoyed this post, follow Scene Before either with an email or WordPress account and check out the official Facebook page! I want to know, did you see “The Adam Project?” What did you think about it? Or, what are your thoughts on “Free Guy?” Which of these two films do you like better? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

Mission: Impossible: Fallout (2018): Tom Cruise Is A Madman!

Posted on by Jack Drees

mv5bmtk3ndy5mtu0nv5bml5banbnxkftztgwndi3mde1ntm-_v1_sy1000_cr006791000_al_

Your mission, should you choose to accept it, can simply be referred to as “out with the old, in with the new.” After reviewing five “Mission: Impossible” movies starring Tom Cruise, it is time to focus on a new chapter while it is still in theaters. With the same amount of Jackassery as ever, you will find some things that if you read the other Scene Before “Mission: Impossible” reviews, or even the Scene Before reviews that aren’t related to “Mission: Impossible,” they’d be like a trip down memory lane. Whether you choose to read this sitting down, standing up, or if you’re Tom Cruise, running around the world, be sure to observe every detail of the review very carefully. As always, should you or any of your Force be caught or killed, the Movie Reviewing Moron will disavow any of your actions. This message will self-destruct in five seconds.

“Mission: Impossible: Fallout” is directed by Christopher McQuarrie, the director of the previous “Mission: Impossible” film, “Rogue Nation,” and stars Tom Cruise (American Made, Risky Business), Henry Cavill (Man of Steel, The Man From U.N.C.L.E.), Ving Rhames (Pulp Fiction, Bringing Out the Dead), Simon Pegg (Star Trek, Shaun of the Dead), Rebecca Ferguson (Life, The Girl on the Train), Sean Harris (The Borgias, Harry Brown), Angela Bassett (Olympus Has Fallen, American Horror Story), Michelle Monaghan (Eagle Eye, Patriots Day), and Alec Baldwin (The Boss Baby, The Departed). This film is the sixth installment in the “Mission: Impossible” movie franchise that has been going on since 1996. While the plot of this film may have a familiar feel to it when compared to other installments in the franchise, there is no denying that it totally works. Now that the IMF is stable again, the same can’t be said for the world. The villain from “Rogue Nation,” Solomon Lane, has some remaining members of his terrorist organization, The Syndicate. These remaining members have now formed a new group by the name of The Apostles. Now it is up to Ethan Hunt and his allies to stop havoc from happening after The Apostles gain possession of plutonium. And no, they are not using it to power a DeLorean in order to travel through time, the reason is much more deadly.

Let me just start off this review as a flashback to those who read my stuff regularly and a newsflash to all of the newcomers or some of you viewers who don’t check out my content as much as some other people. Before the release of “Mission: Impossible: Fallout,” I made an effort to get through each one of the Tom Cruise “Mission: Impossible” installments. This would also help me in creating my review series for all of these movies before “Fallout” was even able to be witnessed by the public. One thing I noticed is that the franchise always seems to step up their game (personally) from one installment to the next. I thought the first movie was great, the second one, stupid, the third one, alright, the fourth one, pretty good, the fifth one, f*cking fantastic. I started to wonder, how would the sixth one be? I had tremendous faith based on how much I appreciated the trailers, the positive buzz, Christopher McQuarrie being in the director’s chair again, all that sort of jazz. I was beginning to wonder to myself, given how much I enjoyed “Mission: Impossible: Rogue Nation,” the fifth movie in the franchise, which just so happened to be my absolute favorite, how could this be topped? Is there any possible chance that they could top the awesome opening sequence with the A400 plane? Is there any possible chance they could top all of the crazy s*it that happened in the opera house? Is there any possible chance that they could top the scene where Tom has to deal with a security system underwater? Is there any possible chance that “Mission: Impossible: Fallout” could top “Mission: Impossible: Rogue Nation?”

Well, it did.

Actually, ya know what? I take that previous statement back. “Mission: Impossible: Fallout” DID NOT top “Mission: Impossible: Rogue Nation,” it DESTROYED it. I’ve seen a lot of movies over the past few years, many of which I’ve actually reviewed here on Scene Before, and I still find it amazing that after all of the movies I’ve seen, my jaw still drops to this day at new content. This movie literally has everything an action movie should have. Some may say the story is cliche or familiar. And while I’m not gonna say that’s an unfair or invalid criticism, I’d personally say that this familiar story was very well done. In fact, I’d say the “Mission: Impossible” movies are doing what the “Transformers” movies should be doing, because both movies seem to have plots or elements of the story that repeat from movie to movie, but the thing about “Mission: Impossible” is that it is either a little less obvious, or I care more about the characters, or perhaps both. This movie has scenes that feel raw. There is reliance on actual stunts as opposed to a green screen. You have your adrenaline rushes, you have exposition that isn’t really that boring, great characters, not too many jump cuts or quick cuts, and moments you just don’t want to end.

There have been many great action movies throughout the 2010s. Some of these include “John Wick,” “Atomic Blonde,” “Skyfall,” “Kingsman: The Secret Service,” “Deadpool,” “Baby Driver.” Comparing “Fallout” to all of the other movies I listed, this movie beats every single one of them. A couple movies on this list, they have an action sequence that I deeply remember. In “John Wick” you have the nightclub scene where Wick basically kills everyone to some kick-ass music. You also have “Atomic Blonde” where there is this beautifully shot one-take sequence where the main character of Lorraine is basically taking everyone down on a stairwell. It was magic. A good action movie can contain a memorable sequence. But an amazing action movie can contain a bunch of sequences worth talking about. In “Mission: Impossible: Fallout,” you get an awesome bathroom fight where Tom Cruise smashes a guy into a mirror. You get a killer chase in the streets where there’s cars, motorcycles, and it’s just epic. You get a great duel on a mountain near a cliff. You get what might possibly be the best chase scene of the decade, the one where there’s a duel between two helicopters. That scene is LIFE.

Seriously, that helicopter scene alone is worth the price of admission! You thought Tom Cruise hanging on the side of a plane in “Rogue Nation” was thrilling? The thrill levels only rise from there! Tom Cruise learned how to fly a helicopter for this movie! I’m not even going to get too much into the helicopter scene, because I want to savor the flavor for those who have not been exposed to the true work of art I like to call “Mission: Impossible: Fallout.” Although I will say once the scene started, not to mention progressed, I was on the edge of my seat with my jaw dropping. Once the scene ended, I wanted more! It was THAT GOOD. Another advantage I had with the helicopter scene is that it was one of the sequences which gave me a bigger image in IMAX theaters. I went to a local AMC which had an IMAX screen, which in reality, is not the IMAX that I would usually go for, but it’s still a very fun experience. Not to mention, since I’m a Stubs member, it was $5 ticket Tuesday so I got a pretty good deal. Once the scene began, the aspect ratio would go from scope format to covering the entire IMAX screen through a scrolling process. It was just epic! Now, without getting into spoiler territory, one thing that I didn’t complain about but I imagine some people seeing this in IMAX would probably complain about is that there is a scene that actually cuts in between moments of the helicopter chase, and the scene is in the scope aspect ratio, so there’s brief moments where you go from the bigger IMAX exclusive aspect ratio to the scope aspect ratio and back to IMAX once again. If this were “Transformers: The Last Knight,” I’d be complaining a whole lot, because all of the aspect ratio changes in that son of a bitch, just happens to be worse than finding lots of hair on a guestroom bed.

Guys, I think it’s especially clear at this point that Tom Cruise might just be one of the greatest action stars of all time! The guy is in his mid-fifties, he still looks and acts like he’s a lot younger than that, and he just commits to his craft. While I can definitely praise Cruise for his portrayal as Ethan Hunt, making it believable, charming, and an overall delight, most of my praise for Cruise has to do with his stunts. One of the reasons why I consider the “Mission: Impossible” franchise to be some of the better action movies is that this is not done on green screen sets. I actually remember hearing that Tom Cruise broke his ankle, which by the way, there’s a moment where the ankle break is caught in the movie. Not only that, but Cruise, as mentioned, learned how to fly a helicopter. He even trained awhile to do a HALO (high altitude low open) jump. This makes Cruise the first ever person to do a HALO jump on camera. There have been HALO jumps in movies before, there was one earlier this decade in “Godzilla,” but this is basically the first REAL HALO jump. It doesn’t rely as much on stock footage, CGI, green screen, none of those cheap tricks. The tricks here are f*cking expensive! These tricks are expensive enough to make this film have a $178 million budget!

Each movie in the “Mission: Impossible” franchise always seems to have at least one notable newcomer in the mix when it comes to the cast. This time, the most notable newcomer is Henry Cavill. He plays a character named August Walker. I liked a lot of things about this character. Seeing him in action was pretty cool, the chemistry he has with Ethan, not to mention Erica Sloan was definitely charming, and I also kind of dig his mustache.

Wait a minute… Should I say that? Henry Cavill had the same mustache in “Justice League” and I didn’t like that. I don’t want to look like a hypocrite!

Another personal standout character for me is also a standout from the last “Mission: Impossible” as well and that is the character of Benji played by Simon Pegg. To me, Benji just seems like a guy who would make a lovely assistant in life. If you need something done, just get Benji to help and you’re good! If you need moral support, Benji will be your cheerleader! If you need a question answered, Benji will do his best to get the best possible answer to you as soon as he can. There’s something about Benji that just makes me want to hang out with him, maybe grab some lunch. I dunno, Benji just seems like a pretty cool dude even though he may sound like a geek. Then again, I’m a geek so yeah…

One returning character is Alan Hunley, played by Alec Baldwin. At the end of “Rogue Nation” it is revealed that Hunley becomes the secretary of IMF. Here, you actually get to see Hunley in said position. Having seen this movie, I think Baldwin is definitely a good pick for this character. That previous thought probably sounds like something I would say in a review for “Rogue Nation,” but in all seriousness, given his transition from “Rogue Nation” to “Fallout,” Hunley is probably in a very believable position and Alec Baldwin continues to play his character very well. My one disappointment however, and this has nothing really much to do with the movie itself, it doesn’t affect my final verdict at all, but it is a thing that I want to bring up. There is a scene in the movie where CNN, the cable news channel, has a heavy presence. Alec Baldwin happens to play Donald Trump on “Saturday Night Live.” There’s not even one point in the script that just MAYBE could have utilized a fake news joke? I do think that there are times in my life where I’d go ahead and say that I’ve had it with politics and hearing about it, but I’d probably admire the use of that sort of joke if it were to have been uttered in the movie.

And of course, we have one of my favorite cast members/characters of the film, Ving Rhames returns once again as Luther. Rhames just knows how to be charming and maintain a presence that doesn’t feel over the top. One of my favorite scenes with his character actually occurs in the start of the movie, when the plot is just beginning to unfold. Without getting into specific details, there’s this one moment where Tom Cruise is just getting pumped with rage and he basically has to take it out on someone. Rhames is trying to avoid this from happening and attempts to calm Cruise down, it’s really engaging.

In the end, there are so many things I can continuously talk about that’s related to “Mission: Impossible: Fallout” until the day I die. From the action to the twists and turns to the cinematography, there’s so much to love about this movie. But one thing that needs to be addressed is that this is pretty much the opposite of what someone like myself would expect out of a movie franchise. Usually you start off good and your future is full of inferiority. While I wouldn’t call each movie a complete step up from the one before it, most of the movies in the franchise are worthy of that label, and “Fallout,” when compared to “Rogue Nation,” to my surprise, is no exception. The first thing I said once I finished watching the movie was a slow but steady “Holy crap.” There was multiple parts where I whispered to myself “Oh my gosh.” There were several moments where my jaw dropped. Every single frame had my attention and I was totally entertained, not to mention appreciative of the genius filmmaking efforts. Towards the end of the movie, I couldn’t breathe. It was one of the best feelings I had in my life, and when I was breathing, that felt equally fulfilling. When it comes to 2018 movies, I can declare that “Mission: Impossible: Fallout” has something in common with “Ready Player One,” “Avengers: Infinity War,” and “Won’t You Be My Neighbor?.” Why? That’s because I’m gonna give “Mission: Impossible: Fallout” a 10/10! This might just be my best movie of the year so far. I can’t say for sure, because a part of me is still trying to process what exactly I just saw, but I really couldn’t help but love every minute of my kick-ass experience. One last thing I will mention, Tom Cruise has an EPIC running scene in this movie. Look forward to it! Thanks for reading this review! I’d just like to take a moment to remind my viewers that I’m going to be utilizing a Facebook page specifically dedicated to Scene Before. If you want to like it or follow it, click the link below that way you can take yourself to the page and do your thing. Also, if you guys currently have “Mission: Impossible” fever, feel free to check out my reviews for the other “Mission: Impossible” movies. Be sure to check all of that out and stay tuned for more great content! I want to know, did you see “Mission: Impossible: Fallout?” What did you think about it? Or, which “Mission: Impossible” movie is your favorite of the bunch? Another question I’ll ask, what is your favorite action movie of the 2010s? I currently don’t have an answer for that as this is still certainly a contender and I am not sure where it should be ranked. But if it is not my favorite, my number one choice would something like “Inception.” Nevertheless, leave your comments below, check out my Facebook page, and be sure to follow me here on Scene Before to stay up to date on my latest reviews, countdowns, thoughts, and more! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

SCENE BEFORE FACEBOOK PAGE: https://www.facebook.com/REALSceneBefore/

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

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

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

MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE: GHOST PROTOCOL REVIEW https://scenebefore.wordpress.com/2018/06/18/mission-impossible-ghost-protocol-2011-your-movie-review-should-you-choose-to-accept-it/

MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE: ROGUE NATION REVIEW https://scenebefore.wordpress.com/2018/07/25/mission-impossible-rogue-nation-2015-a-revisit-to-my-first-mission-impossible-movie/

Mission: Impossible: Rogue Nation (2015): A Revisit To My First Mission: Impossible Movie

Posted on by Jack Drees

mv5botfmnda3zjmtn2y0mc00ndyylwfly2utntq4otqxmmy1nmvjxkeyxkfqcgdeqxvyntg4ndq4ndy-_v1_sy1000_cr006511000_al_

Your mission, should you choose to accept it, has been leading up to this point. The movie reviewing community’s biggest Jackass is about to review the last available “Mission: Impossible” movie before the release of the franchise’s upcoming film, “Mission: Impossible: Fallout.” Your mission is to read through the review. You will eventually discover that this movie is directed by Christopher McQuarrie, who also directed another film starring this film’s lead actor, Tom Cruise, “Jack Reacher.” McQuarrie, believe it or not, will also be directing “Mission: Impossible: Fallout,” making him the first director to do two “Mission: Impossible” movies. As always, should you or any of your Force be caught or killed, the Movie Reviewing Moron will disavow any of your actions. This message will self-destruct in five seconds.

“Mission: Impossible: Rogue Nation” is directed by Christopher McQuarrie (Jack Reacher, Way of the Gun) and stars Tom Cruise (Edge of Tomorrow, Oblivion), Jeremy Renner (The Avengers, The Bourne Legacy), Simon Pegg (Star Trek, Shaun of the Dead), Rebecca Ferguson (The White Queen, Hercules), Ving Rhames (Pulp Fiction, Lilo & Stitch), Sean Harris (The Borgias, Prometheus), and Alec Baldwin (The Departed, 30 Rock). This film is about IMF agent Ethan Hunt as he’s back for another round of action, as he cooperates alongside his team to take down an organization known as the Syndicate, an international rogue organization.

Back before this movie came out, I remember seeing the trailer for this film. I knew what “Mission: Impossible” was, but at the time I technically haven’t been exposed to any of its material. Having seen the trailer and hearing that this film is getting a special countdown in IMAX, I felt it was necessary to go ahead and check out this film in the IMAX format while it was still in theaters, which I did.

For all who happen to be judging me, SHUT UP! That is a PERFECTLY JUSTIFIABLE REASON! I didn’t go to use my phone! I didn’t go to fall asleep! I didn’t go to chit chat with those around me! I went for the experience! Speaking of the experience, I had a really fun time, therefore making me really excited to watch this movie again on Blu-ray, especially considering it has been nearly three years since my first watch. And guys, let me just tell you, out of all the “Mission: Impossible” movies I’ve seen thus far, this is definitely my absolute favorite in the franchise!

Over the past number of days, I’ve been thinking to myself, “Mission: Impossible” is just like “Fast & Furious,” the movies just get better as they go on. The main difference however between “Mission: Impossible” and “Fast & Furious” however is that when it comes to overall quality, it feels like that is something that more associated with the “Mission: Impossible” franchise. Both movies have similar feels that will give adrenaline rushes, but “Mission: Impossible” feels a lot like a movie made for smarter audiences. I’m not saying those who go see “Fast & Furious” are stupid, I enjoy those movies, and one of my personal friends from Texas has a huge fascination towards the franchise. But what I am saying is that when it comes to “Mission: Impossible” and “Fast & Furious,” two franchises that if you look at them, have many similarities, I’d say that “Mission: Impossible” comes off as more than just popcorn entertainment. “Fast & Furious” feels ludicrous, maybe that’s because it’s lighthearted and while perhaps there is stuff at stake, you as an audience member might be more focused on chewing on your popcorn. As I watch “Mission: Impossible” however, I’m absolutely curious to know more about it. Maybe because Tom Cruise has built this reputation of being the biggest daredevil action star of his generation, but when I watch these films, they don’t feel like products meant to feed to the throats of the masses (except “Mission: Impossible II”), these feel like movies. I seriously want to know about these characters because I truly deeply care about them, for example, Ethan Hunt! How could I not care about him at this point?

Ethan Hunt is great once again in this movie, I totally bought Tom Cruise as him, and I think I cared about his character here just about as much as I did in the first one. When it comes to his character, I wouldn’t necessarily say that my appreciation towards Cruise not specifically to just Hunt himself, but I rooted for him. The way his mission is set up in this movie is brilliant, awesome, and kind of sets the stage for what’s to come. Without going into detail, the terrorist organization Hunt is supposed up against, the Syndicate, just became a whole lot more threatening in just a short matter of exposition. However, they’re not the only thing standing in Hunt’s way. Again, without going into detail, Hunt is pursued by the CIA in this movie.

Speaking of Tom Cruise and Ethan Hunt, let’s talk about one of the most disturbing scenes I’ve watched in any movie. This scene might be more disturbing than most horror movies! Remember how in the first “Mission: Impossible” Ethan had to go down into this restricted area on a wire? It might be the most famous scene in all of the “Mission: Impossible” movies. As much as I love this scene, I think I have a much softer spot for another scene in “Rogue Nation.” There’s a scene that is conceptually similar to the famous wire scene in the first movie that appears in this one. But the thing about this scene, is that while Hunt is supposed to go into a restricted area for the sake of completing a mission. And as if this task weren’t already heavy enough, it involves constantly being in an area that’s UNDERWATER. I felt like I was on the edge of my seat during this scene! I am just amazed that five movies in, I STILL manage to feel like this is the original production and I’m watching this franchise for the very first time. Then again, maybe not, because I’ve seen Ethan Hunt grow as a character, therefore I care about him a lot more than I would than if I saw him for the first time (depending on the scenario).

I will say that there are definitely action movies out there that rely on entertaining audiences simply on great action, and maybe leaving story as an afterthought. I wouldn’t say that when it comes to “Mission: Impossible: Rogue Nation.” The story in this movie is pretty solid, I cared about the characters and where this movie happened to be going. But the action scenes in this movie are nothing short of top notch.

You know how I said that the exposition for the Syndicate really set the tone for what’s to come? Well, I was referring to a moment after the opening credits in a record shop. There is one scene that takes place before the opening credits involving a plane, and my gosh, it is one of the best openings to a movie I’ve ever seen. Everything from the cinematography, the music, the writing, it kind of gives you tension as an audience member, I just ate it up! Afterwards, the movie does its opening credits, and while I will give “Mission: Impossible: Ghost Protocol” some credit for being the most creative opening of the “Mission: Impossible” movies, I thought this opening might have been better. It’s a lot like the first movie’s opening, but the music is slightly different. While I did praise the first movie’s opening because it had a TV show feel, I may sound like a hypocrite here, but I really don’t care, this one deserves my praise for its movie feel. With five installments that are technically movies and not TV shows, I personally think that’s a fair sentiment to have.

Speaking of scenes with vehicles, let’s take about that scene where Tom Cruise rides a motorcycle! It’s awesome! It’s quite an amazing ride! Seeing Cruise blaze through the streets in this bad boy is nothing short of a treat, and it’s definitely better than that climax in “Mission: Impossible II.”

Screenshot (351)

One last scene I’m gonna talk about is the action sequence inside the Vienna State Opera. Before this whole scene begins, there is one line uttered by Ethan to Simon Pegg’s character of Benji that I will probably use so many times for the rest of my life.

“You want drama? Go to the opera.”

And drama there was indeed! This is one of the slower-paced scenes in the movie, but it completely worked. The intensity got higher and higher by the second, it was almost as if I didn’t know what was going to happen even though I watched this movie once, and it just reminds me why I think opera might be an underrated art form. In fact, this scene probably wouldn’t have worked if there was a different form of music. If this were a pop concert or jazz band or something, there would be a lot less intensity. The scene might still work and be effective, but it wouldn’t have that oomph that it got here.

In the end, “Mission: Impossible: Rogue Nation” is DEFINITELY the best the franchise has had to offer in all of its movies. Tom Cruise shines as Ethan Hunt, supporting cast members like Jeremy Renner, Alec Baldwin, Rebecca Ferguson, and Simon Pegg all do a great job as well. The direction and screenplay was probably what I’d want out of a summer blockbuster such as this, and speaking of that, Christopher McQuarrie, a screenwriter and the director behind this film, has his name on the credits of the next film, “Fallout,” which is set to come out not long after this post’s publication, once again in the director’s chair and as a screenwriter. Given the job he has done on this movie, it makes me extremely faithful in this upcoming installment. I’m going to give “Mission: Impossible: Rogue Nation” a 9/10. Thanks for reading this review! Be sure to stay tuned for my review of “Mission: Impossible: Fallout.” This completes my series of older Tom Cruise “Mission: Impossible” movie reviews, most of the movies have been good, one although has been a near-death experience. And I don’t know how long it’ll take me to get my “Fallout” review up and ready to go, but I’m making sure I can do it as soon as possible. As for other series’ of older movies I can review, I wanted to do a Jason Statham series since “The Meg” comes out August 10th, but I wanted to do one movie per week, and I’m not quite sure I actually have the time for that, so that’s cancelled. If I do come up with another series of older movie reviews, I’ll make an announcement in a future post, until then, stay tuned for more great content! I want to know, what are your thoughts on “Mission: Impossible: Rogue Nation?” Or, have you gotten a chance to see “Mission: Impossible: Fallout?” Tell me your thoughts on that! Also, if you want to check out my other “Mission: Impossible” reviews, links to those will be provided below! Check em out, follow me, enjoy your day, all that jazz! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

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

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

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

MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE: GHOST PROTOCOL REVIEW https://scenebefore.wordpress.com/2018/06/18/mission-impossible-ghost-protocol-2011-your-movie-review-should-you-choose-to-accept-it/

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

Posted on by Jack Drees

mv5bmty4mtuxmjq5ov5bml5banbnxkftztcwntuymzg5ng-_v1_sy1000_cr006751000_al_

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Posted on by Jack Drees

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

mv5bmtk2mjc2nzyxnl5bml5banbnxkftztgwmta2ota1ndm-_v1_sy1000_cr006401000_al_

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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