Scene Before

Star Wars: The Mandalorian and Grogu (2026): The Most Gimmicky Star Wars Movie Yet

“Star Wars: The Mandalorian and Grogu” is directed by Jon Favreau (Iron Man, The Jungle Book) and stars Pedro Pascal (The Fantastic Four: First Steps, The Last of Us), Jeremy Allen White (The Bear, The Iron Claw), Brendan Wayne (Ahsoka, Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.), Lateef Crowder (Mile 22, Tekken), Jonny Coyne (The Toxic Avenger, The Blacklist), Martin Scorsese (Goodfellas, The Wolf of Wall Street), and Sigourney Weaver (Ghostbusters, Avatar). In this film, the title characters go on a mission to recover Jabba the Hutt’s son, Rotta the Hutt, in exchange for information.

Photo by Lucasfilm Ltd™/LUCASFILM – © 2025 Lucasfilm Ltd™. All Rights Reserved.

To me, “Star Wars” is life. As someone who has been reviewing movies on this site for the past decade, I always try my darndest to separate myself from my predisposed biases. When it comes to the “Star Wars” franchise, I think I did a decent job at that for the most part. The one exception that comes to mind is “The Last Jedi.” I gave that movie a 9/10, but upon rewatching it, I found myself highly questioning my original grade. I found the characters more annoying, certain scenes less interesting, and I was reminded of pacing issues I brushed aside the first time around. There are neat things about the movie, but is it a good movie? Not really.

Since my surprisingly positive review of “The Rise of Skywalker,” and yes, I stand by my original 6/10 grade, “Star Wars” has not had a major motion picture come out. They mainly focused on TV, not all of which I watched, but I enjoyed parts of it. Thankfully, “The Mandalorian” is one of those things I enjoyed. “The Mandalorian” season 1 brought something new to the franchise while maintaining the fun of the property. Season 2 kept up the pace, at least for me. Season 3 is definitely the weak point, but it still had its moments. When I first heard a “Mandalorian” movie was going to happen, my first thought was, “Okay. I don’t hate it.” Frankly, a “Mandalorian” movie is probably the safest film idea that Disney and Lucasfilm could have done. Many hardcore and casual viewers know and enjoy the show. It was a huge sell for Disney+ back when the first season came out. And speaking of selling, Grogu merch continues to sell like hotcakes.

Even with a season 3 that is clearly inferior from the others, I was still onboard to see more adventures with the titular characters.

Having now come out of the first “Star Wars” movie in almost six and a half years, I felt that I wanted more out of my experience.

This is a film that checks some boxes. It has action. It has adventure. It has the same feel as the TV show, but one could almost argue that this project feels more TV-like than movie-like. It is weird to say that, because when “The Mandalorian” came out, it felt more film-esque than it did a TV program in some ways. It had a scope aspect ratio. Heck, sometimes the aspect ratio would change to emphasize the feel of certain scenes. The CGI, while not as crisp as some of the movies, was very good. The worlds were oftentimes immersive, even with the Volume’s imperfections.

Now that this is turning into a movie, maybe we’d see the next step in technology to make it look as crisp as say “Rogue One.” In some ways, it is an incredibly immersive film. But sadly, not everyone is going to be able to experience it in the best way possible. My first viewing of this movie was at the AMC Lincoln Square IMAX in New York City. This is one of the largest screens in the entire world. They showed this movie through IMAX’s dual-laser 4K projection system, which is only in a handful of theaters. But everywhere I look, this is the big sell for the movie. Well, maybe aside from being in the “Star Wars” franchise… But I am seeing slogans like “Filmed for IMAX” and “Forged for IMAX” everywhere I go. Trailers, posters, standees, you name it. Do not get me wrong, I am a sucker for IMAX, so I was sold. Should you see this movie in IMAX? If it is still in an IMAX near you, yes. This movie has sequences that are shot for the IMAX format, including the rarely used 1.43:1 aspect ratio. But it is not going to erase the film’s imperfections. Some of the color grading looks abhorrent. There is this one sequence ingrained in my memory perhaps meant to emphasize how green one particular environment is, and it honestly looks like “The Matrix” had a baby with guacamole. It was kind of off-putting. There is no particular scene that wowed me in terms of its looks.

If anything, this movie reminds me a bit of “Star Wars: The Clone Wars.” Specifically, the 2008 movie. Funny enough, without giving much away, there is a callback to that movie that made me chuckle. Much like 2008’s “The Clone Wars,” “The Mandalorian and Grogu” has its moments that are not as cinematic as maybe they should be. This is partially evident in the story. The story does not quite have an identity. What is this movie actually about? Sure, it is about the titular characters, the Mandalorian and Grogu, but what are they doing exactly? What is their purpose? The movie suggests that the team must deal with a hutt, but it sometimes feels unfocused.

I have heard from others that this movie comes off as if it were an extended “Mandalorian” episode or multiple “Mandalorian” episodes combined into a two hour movie, and I see where they are coming from. I don’t mind the first comment, because if it were an extended episode, it would likely maintain focus and stick to one main idea. But it doesn’t. The film ends up feeling like a couple different episodes. These either resemble “Mandalorian” episodes that ended up getting rejected, or episodes that perhaps could have made for a small season or a half-season.

Pacing-wise, this film may be the worst I have experienced during a “Star Wars” installment. Again, with this coming off as several episodes in one piece, there are times where the film felt like it did not know when it wanted to end. I am not saying that I hated what happened in this movie. I was quite entertained through a good portion of it. But all of it probably would have been better if it were divided into bits and pieces. This movie, even though it does not span that much time, feels too heavy. I cannot recall a single moment during this film where I wanted to slap myself in the face or punch the screen or force choke myself to death. At the same time, I also cannot recall many instances where I wanted to jump for joy or cheer or go, “This is the way!” There are scenes where I kind of felt nothing, and that is shocking for a franchise whose original movies gave me a range of emotions from excitement to chills… Whose prequel movies sometimes made me cringe, but at other times made me drop my jaw at some of the lightsaber battles… Whose sequel movies had me locked into whatever the characters were going through such as Rey’s personal struggle of figuring out who she is, as well as Kylo Ren trying to live up to his grandfather, while also sometimes showing his humanity by destroying objects with his lightsaber whenever something goes wrong. This movie does not have any moment that made me go, “I’m going to remember that for as long as I live.” Instead, it is filled to the brim with moments that I passively glanced upon.

I think if you are a huge fan of “The Mandalorian” on TV, you might enjoy this movie. But even as I say that, I question my comment. While I am a fan of the show, I have to admit this movie did not quite do it for me. Is it horrible? No. It has some redeeming qualities, and one of those redeeming qualities is Ludwig Göransson’s score. …Sort of.

Of course, Goransson’s iconic theme music from the show is here and gets some extra pizazz on occasion. That said, I was not a fan of some of his new themes. There was one theme in particular that sounded like Hans Zimmer’s Electro theme from “The Amazing Spider-Man 2” became blood brothers with Atticus Ross and Trent Reznor’s headache-inducing “Challengers” score. Yes. I cannot stand the “Challengers” score. All film is subjective, and in the spirit of subjectivity, I believe that all the cinephiles that raved about that techno nightmare are entitled to their wrong opinions.

There is a particular piece of techno-style music in this film as well, which was not as headache-inducing as the “Challengers” score, but it felt very out of place with the environment. I questioned why it was even playing to begin with. That said, I did stay for the credits and I heard the theme play one more time. I would not say I warmed up to the piece, but it did sound better the second time around. Maybe it works in the right context, but for whatever reason, it does not work here. It was one of the few times I remember watching anything “Star Wars” and thinking the music doesn’t work. Sure, there are times where the music is forgettable, but even in those cases, they still match their scenes and movies overall. This is a massive and unfortunate exception to that idea.

If you are a newbie to the “Star Wars” franchise, I doubt “The Mandalorian and Grogu” is going to be the best entry point for you. Not necessarily because it piggybacks off of a streaming series. I don’t think you have to watch the “Mandalorian” show to understand every single thing that is going on in this film. However, this is not only one of the weaker films, at least in my opinion, but it also comes with very little substance. We do not really see Mando develop much as a character. He does not go through much noticeable change. He feels about as flat as this movie’s color palette. Now Grogu on the other hand is the most interesting of the titular characters. Since he can barely speak, it allows for more show than tell with his character. I found his challenges much more compelling, and as much as I do not want to judge a book by its cover, his challenges fit the “Mandalorian and Grogu” name. It shows how the two work as a team. At times this movie reminded me of those group projects in school, where one person ends up doing all the work. Grogu is that individual sometimes. There is one particular point in the story about two-thirds of the way through the movie that shows what Grogu is capable of.

Although this movie is rather predictable. Do not go in expecting the next “I am your father.” I have no problem with predictability if the story beats are handled decently. But they are not. They feel way too been there done that, not to mention done better. Say what you want about “The Last Jedi,” which I will remind you, is a film I did not like, but at least the film took risks. It came from the singular mind of Rian Johnson. I did not agree with all of his choices, but it felt like his movie for the most part. “The Mandalorian” feels more committee-esque, and I hate to say that because this film is done by a fabulous director. Jon Favreau has proven he can make great movies. “Iron Man,” “Chef,” “Elf,” and while I am not a huge fan of the Disney live-action remakes, I will defend “The Jungle Book.” That film is a technical marvel. I even liked the one “Mandalorian” episode he helmed. So, what happened here?

Admittedly, when it comes to certain technical choices, I think Favreau does a good job. If anything, it felt kind of video-game esque in the sense that we were closely watching characters behind their back in the third person perspective, or getting their view from a first-person perspective. There is a scene where Grogu is blazing through a city and the camera shows the world from his eyes. It was really cool to see it on a big IMAX screen in 1.43:1.

The action scenes are also well done. The opening 10 or 15 minutes are easily the best part of the film because while Mando does not develop much throughout the movie, the movie sets him up as this name that should be feared. Kind of like John Wick. It shows that through and through as he is taking down baddies left and right. While the Mandalorian never takes down a Stormtrooper with a pencil, this movie convinces me he could.

After those opening 10 to 15 minutes, we are introduced to Sigourney Weaver’s character, Ward, who does not really have much to do in the story other than to give Din orders and remind Grogu not to overeat. It is an easy paycheck for her. I do not hate the character, but I wish Weaver, who has built a legendary career in film, had more to do. Weaver’s basically the queen of sci-fi at this point between “Ghostbusters,” “Alien,” “Avatar,” “Galaxy Quest,” and “WALL-E…” Now that she is in “Star Wars,” I wish she had a character that were more memorable than the one we got. Aside from the recently mentioned “WALL-E,” as well as another Pixar feature, “Finding Dory,” the latter of which features Weaver voicing herself, this is probably the easiest money that the actress has made in her entire career.

Speaking of easy money, Martin Scorsese has a voiceover role in this movie as a shopkeep named Hugo. Was the name inspired by Scorsese’s own movie? You decide.

It is honestly hilarious to me that Martin Scorsese is in this movie. Not because I was under the impression that he would never work on a “Star Wars” movie. Weeks before checking out this film I watched an episode of “Light and Magic” on Disney+ and it reminded me of Scorsese’s friendship with George Lucas, but this film nevertheless reminds me of what I would imagine Scorsese thinks of Marvel movies.

“Star Wars: The Mandalorian and Grogu,” and keep in mind, I say this as a fan of the franchise, plays less like a movie and more like a crappy theme park ride. And if anything, the film is using the over the top IMAX plugs in the marketing almost as a way to compensate for its lack of quality in terms of the story. I did say it was cool to see this film in true digital IMAX, but I honestly think that is one of the only reasons this movie should be seen at all, regardless of watching it in a theater and at home. The IMAX enhanced ratio, as incredible as it looks, ultimately feels like a gimmick. I hate saying that, because much like the “Star Wars” franchise, I am also an IMAX fan. I have seen filmmakers like Ryan Coogler, Christopher Nolan, and Jordan Peele play with the coveted aspect ratio and utilize it well in their own productions. This is not Jon Favreau’s first time making something in 1.43:1. 2019’s “The Lion KIng” remake also had 1.43:1 scenes. But I cannot judge those scenes as I missed the film in theaters. The aspect ratio in a way makes up for every other technical aspect that does not work like the lighting, the color grading, as well as the sometimes flat framing.

Look… I am a “Star Wars” fan, so I will plead guilty to watching movies I did not enjoy as much as the others more than once. I have done this with some of the prequels, I have done this with “The Last Jedi.” And like those lesser titles, “The Mandalorian” has redeeming qualities in it. The only “Star Wars” film I have not seen multiple times to this day is “Solo.” If you ever read my review of it, you would know I gave it a 6/10, a barely positive score. At the time I thought it was the most middle of the road “Star Wars” movie ever. I think “Mandalorian and Grogu” gives it a run for its money. I bought tickets to a second screening for reasons beyond simply seeing the movie again, but if I were to buy tickets for this movie one time, and I did not have those tickets, it would be somewhat difficult for me to come up with a valid reason to spend money on this once more.

This is a movie that barely develops its core characters. I think it does a somewhat decent job on Grogu’s arc, but less so on Mando’s. Rotta the Hutt was fascinating at times as he tried to separate himself from his father, Jabba. But there are not many other characters who stood out. Say what you will about that one “Mandalorian” episode with Lizzo and Jack Black, at least it was weird. This movie does not really have a distinct feeling to it, other than blandness. Say what you want about the prequels. At least they had color! Say what you want about “The Rise of Skywalker,” at least it has me quoting “They fly now,” every once in a blue moon.

The more I think about “The Mandalorian and Grogu” the more I am going to think about it the same way others may think about “Star Wars: The Holiday Special.” This is a clear money grab that could best be described as content. It is not clear who this is for. Is this for grown adults who like watching bounty hunters double tap people like they’re pawns in a game of chess? Is it for young children or infants who like watching Grogu get into shenanigans? Is it for fans of the show who just want to see more episodes? As I ask all these questions, I continue to think to myself that maybe this movie is not for me, even if there, admittedly, doses of entertainment.

In the end, “The Mandalorian and Grogu” is by no means the best or worst “Star Wars” movie. It winds up somewhere in the middle. I have seen this movie twice now, and it is admittedly better the second time. The pacing problems still exist, but it did go by a little faster. Probably because I had a clearer concept of what to expect going in. If you enjoy “The Mandalorian” on Disney+, this will likely come off as a comforting return to a long lost home. But is it as good as the first, or even the second season? I don’t think so. I would rather watch all of those episodes again before putting on this movie.

Of all the “Star Wars” films I have seen, I think this one may have the least personality. The action, while good, is not as memorable as some of the other “Star Wars” titles. There are bits of humor, but the comedy does not land quite as well as other installments. The dialogue is not that memorable or quotable. Who knows how this project will age from here? That said, I am having trouble coming up with a reference I would use in a conversation with friends down the line. The movie bridges off of a show that already has three seasons, maintains a look and feel that is somewhat reminiscent of said show, and to my surprise, it sometimes looks cheaper than some of the show’s episodes. I did not hate this movie. It is entertaining, but not to the highest degree. I am going to give “Star Wars: The Mandalorian and Grogu” a 5/10.

“Star Wars: The Mandalorian and Grogu” is now playing in theaters everywhere. Tickets are available now.

Thanks for reading this review! Before we go any further, I would like to remind everyone that Scene Before’s original web series, Movie Requests, is going to feature five additional guests, on top of the 10 that have already been announced! I am not announcing their names at this time. But if you want a hint as to who these guests are, check out the poster above! While you are at it, please be sure to check out the latest episode of the series featuring “Clerks” star Brian O’Halloran. If you want to see more episodes as soon as they drop, you can watch them here on Flicknerd.com, but the fastest way to be notified about the episodes is to subscribe to my YouTube channel and hit the notification bell!

My next review is going to be for “I Love Boosters!” Stay tuned! Also coming soon, I will be sharing my thoughts on “Backrooms,” “Masters of the Universe,” “Another World,” and “The Breadwinner.” If you want to see these reviews and more from Scene Before, follow the blog either with an email or WordPress account! Also, check out the official Facebook page! I want to know, did you see “Star Wars: The Mandalorian and Grogu?” What did you think about it? Or, have you seen “The Mandalorian” TV show? What are your thoughts on it? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

Movie Requests – FIVE MORE GUESTS ARE COMING – Here’s Hints…

Posted on 20 Hours Ago by Jack Drees

10 guests?! That’s so 2026! Now, 15 guests?! That’s… so, much later in 2026. Yes, that works.

Scene Before’s original web series, Movie Requests, has bumped its guest count from 10 to 15!

If you watched my most recent episode of Movie Requests, featuring “Clerks” star Brian O’Halloran, you may have noticed I put a new poster in at the end of the video, which features 5 unrevealed guests! For those who missed the episode, you are just tuning into the big news! Surprise!

It has been more than half a year ago since I first announced what was then titled Celebrity Movie Requests. To paraphrase “The Social Network,” I told myself to drop the “Celebrity,” it’s cleaner. So far, the series has introduced 10 guests who will be shown through individual episodes in the coming months. Five of those guests have been featured thus far, and I am having a blast sharing their film tastes with you, and seeing how much they line up with my own. The videos have been shared on this blog, as well as my personal YouTube channel, which you should most definitely subscribe to.

I made a commitment in 2025 that for Scene Before’s 10th Anniversary, I would ask 10 people what movies they would recommend, deliver those recommendations to you via short prerecorded clips, watch said recommendations, review them, and see if our tastes match. I am proud to say thus far, every movie that I watched for this series, I have enjoyed. With 5 guests down, that means I am halfway through the list and have 5 more guests to go. That would be true. Except I thought, why not add 5 more?…

10 guests for the 10th anniversary? That’s too predictable! Scene Before is not about doing what is expected of me. If that happened to be the case, I would have given “Bugonia” a positive review. I mean no offense to anyone who worked on the film. There is definitely effort put into it, but holy crap, I left the auditorium with a headache…

Back to business! I am adding 5 more guests who have agreed to be a part of this series. Much like the first 10 guests, I met all of these individuals in person, pitched the series to them, and each one agreed to be in a short video documenting their suggestion.

I am not going to share the names of the guests right now. If you look at the poster, you will notice that their identities are hidden, and I am referring to them by various titles… They include…

“An Asgardian…”

“A Ring-Bearer…”

“A Rose…”

“A Ruiner…”

And “A Tenderloin…”

Those are your hints! If you would like to make any guesses, please feel free to leave your comments below! More information on these guests will be revealed soon. For the record, “Movie Requests” is likely going to remain a limited series at this time. When I pitched this series to each person who agreed to join, I presented the list of movies that were already picked by previous guests. If I did a second season or kept this going to 20, 30, or even a hundred guests, it would be somewhat tough for those on the other end to come up with recommendations that do not match somebody else’s.

That is all for this announcement! I want to thank everyone who is continuing to view Scene Before 10 years later, and I hope you are all enjoying Movie Requests as much as I enjoy making it.

If you want to see more from Scene Before, including posts showcasing the new episodes of Movie Requests, follow the blog either with an email or WordPress account! Also, check out the official Facebook page! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

In the Grey (2026): A Surprising Snooze from Guy Ritchie

Posted on 3 Days Ago by Jack Drees

“In the Grey” is written and directed by Guy Ritchie (The Gentlemen, Snatch) and stars Henry Cavill (Man of Steel, Mission: Impossible – Fallout), Jake Gyllenhaal (Stronger, Spider-Man: Far from Home), Eiza González (Baby Driver, Ambulance), Kristofer Hivju (Force Majeure, Game of Thrones), Fisher Stevens (Hackers, Short Circuit), and Rosamund Pike (Gone Girl, Saltburn). This film is about a group of operatives who try to recover a billion dollar debt from a criminal organization.

My relationship with Guy Ritichie is iffy. I like some of his movies, that is of the ones I have seen. In fact, while it may have the DNA of a typical Jason Statham flick, I still remember really enjoying “Wrath of Man.” I thought it was well shot, had great action, and contained likable characters.

While “In the Grey” may not have Jason Statham, it does come packed with a ton of other stars including Henry Cavill, Jake Gyllenhaal, and Eiza González just to name a few. It is always nice when a movie is able to have notable, talented names in front of and behind the camera. So, my question is… Why did everyone waste their talent on this absolute chore of a movie?

This was BORING. And it is really weird to say that, because I could tell that this movie felt like it came from a singular vision. It is definitely Guy Ritchie’s film through and through based on the creative editing choices, the fast pacing, and unique layout of the screenplay. Also, note the use of the word “fast.” If your movie is fast, but also boring, then that is a different kind of special.

I am not going to pretend that “In the Grey” does not have anything good in it. I just wish that this talented, A-List cast who I enjoyed in other projects could have delivered something just as solid as some of their previous work. This movie feels like a step down for them, and I would not go as far as to blame the talent specifically.

That said, there are positives. A lot of the camerawork was eye-popping. Granted, I thought the movie’s color palette was quite underwhelming and looked more like something that belonged on Netflix. But there were quite a few shots I liked, including one at the beginning where we see Maggie Q’s character falling to the side. It reminded me of a similar shot of the same thing happening in “Ready or Not 2: Here I Come” earlier this year. The locations and production design are also neat. The set up of the movie does a halfway decent job at giving a sense of the tone, but what followed did not quite live up to what was given in the beginning.

The more I try to think of redeeming qualities, the more I wish I were talking about better movies released just a short time before this one like “Mortal Kombat II” or “Lorne.” While those are not the best movies I have seen in recent memory, I found something in those movies that this one tends to lack. Personality. Perhaps it is unfair of me to say that considering I already said that this film feels like a singular vision from Guy Ritchie. After all, it technically is. He wrote the movie itself in addition to directing it. If anything, this film reminds me a lot of “The Gentlemen.” Like this movie, that one contains a stacked cast, moves at a breakneck pace, and has a fair amount of action. I think I had more fun with “The Gentlemen” than I did watching this film, partially because I got to watch a rather unhinged Matthew McConaughey.

While I could tell that the actors were doing their best with the characters, they did not stand out in any significant way. Perhaps “In the Grey” does have personality, but said personality is not sitting well with me. You know that saying “Don’t judge a book by it’s cover?” My apologies, I think that saying lacks merit when “In the Grey” sometimes emits a sense of so-called personality that could best be described as grey.

Sometimes the characters will have a good line or two, and other times they won’t. No, seriously. For all I know, maybe the dialogue reads well, but as I watched certain scenes in this movie, the dialogue came off as something one would find in a “Saturday Night Live” parody of a generic action film. It is sometimes overemphasized, uninspired, and somewhat cliche. The movie itself does not entirely feel cliche. Getting from point A to point B is not exactly done in the most usual of manners, but the specific manners did not sit well with me.

In today’s world where second-screen viewing is a common occurrence for some people, “In the Grey” seems to challenge that concept with its constant need to put captions for certain things that may matter throughout the movie. I am not saying that this movie feels like it was designed to cater to the second-screen viewer. In fact, if you partake in second-screen viewing for everything you watch now, good luck with this movie, because the dialogue is some of the least digestible I remember hearing. I wish I could quote some of the characters for you off the top of my head, but I cannot, because every line is given as quickly as the other. The way the dialogue is laid out during the entire movie reminds me of an extended YouTube vlog where there happens to be a jumpcut every five seconds. I am not saying this movie has noticeable jumpcuts, but if you like nonstop talking, this movie is probably going to be Heaven for you.

I like my auteur directors. Christopher Nolan, Quentin Tarantino, and Denis Villeneuve are a few that come to mind. I have come to this conclusion previously, but if anything, “In the Grey” reminds me that maybe Guy Ritchie’s style is not exactly my jam. He is quick, and I do not mind quick. But there is no room to breathe. I would hate to see him do a “Run Lola Run” remake. Also, I do not care what you all think. That movie sucks.

In the end, “In the Grey” is a completely fitting title for what is ultimately one of the dullest flicks of the year so far. After seeing this movie, I am starting to question whether my artistic tastes line up with Guy Ritchie’s. I am sure he is a friendly human being and could be interesting to work with. But this movie is not quite doing it for me. On top of the well-known director, the movie comes with an A-list cast who deserve a script that is much more in line with their talents. I am probably not going to remember “In the Grey” for any reason other than the fact that it nearly put me to sleep. I am going to give “In the Grey” a 3/10.

“In the Grey” is now available to rent or by on VOD.

Thanks for reading this review! If you have not done so already, be sure to check out my latest episode of Movie Requests, featuring “Clerks” actor Brian O’Halloran! In this video I review his recommendation, the 1970 war film “Patton.” To hear my thoughts, click the video above! Be sure to like the video if you enjoyed it and subscribe to my YouTube channel if you want to see more new episodes as soon as they drop! They will also be posted here on Flicknerd.com, but if you want the fastest way to view the episode, subscribing to my channel will do the trick.

My next review is going to be for “Star Wars: The Mandalorian and Grogu.” Stay tuned! Also coming soon, I will be sharing my thoughts on “I Love Boosters,” “Backrooms,” “Masters of the Universe,” “Another World,” and “The Breadwinner.” If you want to see these reviews and more from Scene Before, follow the blog either with an email or WordPress account! Also, check out the official Facebook page! I want to know, did you see “In the Grey?” What did you think about it? Or, what are some Guy Ritchie movies that you enjoy? I liked one of his more recent features, “Operation Fortune: Ruse de Guerre.” It was a lot of fun. I did not have a chance to review it a few years ago, but if I saw it early enough to do so, I would have given the film a positive score. Let me know your favorites down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

The Sheep Detectives (2026): A Flocking Brilliant Family Film

Posted on 4 Days Ago by Jack Drees

“The Sheep Detectives” is directed by Kyle Balda (Minions, Despicable Me 3) and stars Hugh Jackman (X-Men, Real Steel), Nicholas Braun (Zola, Succession), Nicholas Galitzine (Red White & Royal Blue, Cinderella), Molly Gordon (Oh, Hi!, Shiva Baby), Julia Louis-Dreyfus (Seinfeld, Onward), Bryan Cranston (Godzilla, Breaking Bad), Chris O’Dowd (Bridesmaids, The IT Crowd), Regina Hall (Little, Think Like a Man), Patrick Stewart (Star Trek: The Next Generation, American Dad!), Bella Ramsey (Game of Thrones, The Last of Us), Brett Goldstein (The Garfield Movie, Ted Lasso), Hong Chau (Downsizing, The Menu), and Emma Thompson (Saving Mr. Banks, Sense and Sensibility). Based on Leonie Swann’s 2005 novel “Three Bags Full,” this film is about a flock of sheep who try to solve the murder of shepherd (Jackman).

“The Sheep Detectives” had me at Hugh Jackman. Then they showed what his character does, and I refused to miss this movie. That said, for those unfamiliar with the material, do not be fooled, Hugh Jackman’s involvement in “The Sheep Detectives” is minimal, and I knew that, but his presence left me with a solid first impression through what I thought would be a fun family film.

One pleasant surprise about this movie is that it was written by Craig Mazin, whose resume has been… Fascinating to say the least. While I am a little bitter that he is partially responsible for bringing both “Hangover” sequels to life, I will give him credit where it is due, as he is recognized for his success in recent years with HBO. Not only did he write the acclaimed mini-series “Chernobyl,” but he is also involved with “The Last of Us,” which has received rave reviews since its launch in 2023. Mazin knows his stuff.

“The Sheep Detectives” looked moderately funny and charming from the trailers. But color me amazed, because I adore this movie.

Amazon is on a roll right now movie-wise. After releasing “Project Hail Mary” last March, which stands as the best film I have watched in years, “The Sheep Detectives” comes in hot with an experience that is not quite as memorable as “Project Hail Mary,” but much like that movie, I was left with the urge to give this movie a second viewing sometime in the future. Upon watching it, I have talked with family members who heard about the film. One in particular thought it looked stupid. I frankly think they are underestimating what this film is capable of.

After seeing the asinine chore that is “Animal Farm,” it is so fulfilling to see a movie that has fantastic humor. Repeated gags that work and pay off. Memorable and sometimes unpredictable lines. A complete twist on “the chicken crossing the road.” This movie excels when it comes to comedy, and it is perfect for all ages.

“The Sheep Detectives” sort of plays like a more exaggerated Pixar movie. Saying that sounds ironic. After all, “The Sheep Detectives” is live-action, whereas Pixar specializes in animation. But some of the characters, and by that I mean human characters, come off like they belong in a cartoon. When you are making something in live-action, you can only heighten reality to a certain extent, but for whatever reason, this movie sticks the landing in that regard.

This is most evident when showcasing one of the film’s more notable supporting characters, Tim Derry (Nicholas Braun), a local policeman who might as well be this universe’s Jar Jar Binks. Although unlike Jar Jar Binks, I thought this character was well written and executed. Derry is not exactly the brightest of bulbs. But it does not mean he isn’t determined to get the job done. To say he is not good at his job is a bit of an exaggeration. In fact, going back to Pixar, his character almost reminds me of Linguini in “Ratatoullie,” who has no business working in his particular field, but allows unusual outside forces to help them improve at their job.

But it is not just the humans who fascinate throughout the movie. The sheep do their part to bring some solid characterization to the table. One of my favorites in the film is Sebastian (Bryan Cranston). The film takes time to unveil Sebastian’s backstory, where he spent time at a petting zoo. The backstory not only deepens the character, but delivers an emotional reaction. Cranston is not the only big name that makes up the film’s talented voice cast. Other actors include Julia Louis-Dreyfus, Patrick Stewart, Regina Hall, and Brett Goldstein. That last actor, by the way, voices two sheep, and they are responsible for one of the movie’s most memorable jokes.

This film also taps into how sheep interpret the afterlife, and the film gets creative with that idea. Sort of similar to how some people see themselves going to a better place when they die, the sheep believe that when one of their kind dies, they become a cloud. This is well explained during a giant rainstorm, when one of them says that the sheep are dancing when thunder sounds off.

The film does require a bit of suspension of disbelief. This should not be a surprise when the main characters include talking sheep, but the movie makes me believe in its rules and characters, even if they sometimes come off as unusual. The movie’s characters essentially go against mankind’s typical expectations of sheep. In fact, the characters even address how the “term” sheep is often used as a negative when used to describe certain people.

There are certain parts of this movie that I saw coming. However, I did not necessarily find myself peeved by this film’s occasional predictability. Just about every moment in this movie feels earned. By the time we get to the very end of this film, I felt satisfied with what it had to offer.

What is somewhat out of the ordinary regarding this film is its tone that could have easily clashed, but ends up working. This is a murder mystery, but beyond that, it is a movie about the beauty of life. It is about friendship, community, and appreciating what’s in front of you. The movie perfectly shifts its vibe when it needs to. At one point, it is mysterious and somewhat dark. At another, it is lighthearted and fun. Sometimes it successfully finds a middle ground.

I feel like I was one of the few people in the world who was genuinely looking forward to “The Sheep Detectives.” It is a premise that sounds silly, but I do not particularly mind silly as long as it works, and in this movie’s case, it ended up doing more than just working. I will be thinking about my experience watching this film for a long time. This film came out the same weekend as “Mortal Kombat II,” which I said I would watch again in my review. I would do the same for “The Sheep Detectives.” While I am eager to watch “Mortal Kombat II” by myself so I can laugh myself to death without sounding like a lunatic, “The Sheep Detectives” is a movie that I am just as hopeful to watch with somebody else just to see the look on their face once they realize what they are in for. Please watch this movie. Get some friends or loved ones to watch it with you. If you have kids, check this film out with them. It is a solid gateway murder mystery.

In the end, “The Sheep Detectives” is a stupendously satisfying and incredibly engaging film. Between this film and “Project Hail Mary,” I did not think Amazon would be cranking out the year’s two best pieces of cinema thus far, but here we are. While the film revolves around a murder, it is nevertheless delightfully wholesome. If Pixar started doing live action material, I would have been convinced this film had come from them. It feels like something in their DNA. This is a fantastic film for all ages. Give it a shot. It may surprise you. I am going to give “The Sheep Detectives” an 8/10.

“The Sheep Detectives” is now playing in theaters. Tickets are available now.

Thanks for reading this review! If you have not done so already, be sure to check out my latest episode of Movie Requests, the original web series dedicated to yours truly talking about movies recommended by some of your favorite stars. This newest episode features Brian O’Halloran, otherwise known as Dante from “Clerks.” I had a good time checking out his recommendation, “Patton.” Click the video above to see what I thought of it. Leave it a like if you enjoyed it!. And if you want to see more episodes as soon as they drop, be sure to subscribe to my YouTube channel!

My next review is going to be for “In the Grey!” Stay tuned! Also coming soon, I will be sharing my thoughts on “Star Wars: The Mandalorian and Grogu,” “I Love Boosters,” “Backrooms,” “Masters of the Universe,” “Another World,” and “The Breadwinner.” Yep. That is a list of 7 movies. I clearly have time management skills. If you want to see these reviews and more from Scene Before, follow the blog either with an email or WordPress account! Also, check out the official Facebook page! I want to know, did you see “The Sheep Detectives?” What did you think about it? Or, what is a film that you think is better than it deserves to be? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

MOVIE REQUESTS – Brian O’Halloran Requests PATTON (1970)

Posted on 5 Days Ago by Jack Drees

Hello, and welcome to the fifth episode of Movie Requests! This is the series where I, the Movie Reviewing Moron, Jack Drees, take suggestions on films to watch from your favorite personalities, and I review their recommendations.

It has been more than a month since the last episode, featuring the wonderful Katee Sackhoff. Now that I have returned, I am glad to finally get back on track with this series after a variety of obstacles. Work… Travel… Driving… You name it. At long last, it feels like coming home.

For those unfamiliar with this series, it all started with an idea I had last year… I asked 10 people for their suggestions on movies to watch. I recorded their suggestions in a short video where most of them said their name and their film of choice. Then I watch their film, and report my personal experience with it, see if it lines up, see where we differ, and so on.

As a reminder, Scene Before, also known as Flicknerd.com, is 10 years old, and this series is also being done in honor of the blog’s 10th anniversary. It is a privilege getting to talk about movies on the web for the past decade. That said, if you want the fastest method of being able to watch these episodes, please subscribe to my YouTube channel! Also, if you enjoy my videos, please give it a like! It helps the algorithm do its thing!

My guest for today is known as Dante from the “Clerks” franchise, which is responsible for some of my favorite comedies. He is none other than the talented, humble, and all around pleasant Brian O’Halloran!

Please click the video at the top of the page to hear Brian O’Halloran’s suggestion, as well as my thoughts on one of his favorite films, “Patton.” To see who else is in the series through previous episodes as well future ones, check the poster below! Also, STAY TUNED UNTIL THE END OF THE EPISODE FOR AN UPDATE ON THE SERIES! Thanks for your viewership. To those who agreed to be in the series, a very special thanks also goes to you.

Mortal Kombat II (2026): The Best Mortal Kombat Movie Yet

Posted on 8 Days Ago by Jack Drees

“Mortal Kombat II” is directed by Simon McQuoid, who also directed the 2021 “Mortal Kombat” movie. This film stars Karl Urban (The Boys, Dredd), Adeline Rudolph (Chilling Adventures of Sabrina, Riverdale), Jessica McNamee (Packed to the Rafters, Home and Away), Josh Lawson (Superstore, House of Lies), Ludi Lin (Power Rangers, Aquaman), Mehcad Brooks (Law & Order, Supergirl), Tati Gabrielle (The 100, Chilling Adventures of Sabrina), Lewis Tan (Deadpool 2, Into the Badlands), Damon Herriman (Once Upon a Time in Hollywood, Mr Inbetween), Chin Han (Ghost in the Shell, American Born Chinese), Tadanobu Asano (Thor, Shōgun), Joe Taslim (Warrior, The Raid), and Hiroyuki Sanada (Shōgun, Bullet Train). This film is the sequel to 2021’s “Mortal Kombat” and this time around, actor Johnny Cage joins the battle as he and other fighters take on the tyrannical Shao Khan.

I have played some of the “Mortal Kombat” games, and I am a fan of those games. I will sometimes hop on a cabinet in the arcade, or maybe put in a game I have at home. I am a casual player, but I am a player nonetheless. The games are a ton of fun. As for the movies, that’s where things become more complicated.

The 1995 “Mortal Kombat” is far from the greatest movie ever made, but there was a period of time where it was considered the gold standard of video game to film adaptations. Not that that is saying much. The film did have its problems and occasionally felt like a product of its time. Though I did have fun watching it, admittedly.

Then in 1997, the universe was introduced to the disgrace on a bloody stick known as “Mortal Kombat: Annihilation.” It is a movie whose subtitle quite literally described what happened to my brain cells while watching it. I have no plans to do a worst movies of all time list, but I think “Mortal Kombat: Annihilation” is a contender for the bottom of the barrel.

Then comes 2021, when another “Mortal Kombat” hits the big screen (and HBO Max), and I thought it was quite good. It is not perfect, but I thought even with some creative liberties, it did a decent job at capturing the spirit of the games. Plus, unlike the previous “Mortal Kombat” movies, this one was a lot bloodier and gorier. So, while not a home run, I was down for another “Mortal Kombat” should one be in the pipeline.

Now, “Mortal Kombat II” has made its presence known, and while it is not quite a flawless victory, the film may be my favorite so far based on the “Mortal Kombat” property. That is, of the theatrically released ones. There are others that have not been to theaters that I have yet to see.

“Mortal Kombat II,” like the previous installment, terrifically captures the vibe of the games. The locations are big, colorful, and while they may not always be realistic, they are nevertheless palatable. If you have never played a “Mortal Kombat” game, or heck, missed out on the last “Mortal Kombat” movie, you may not know that this film should require some suspension of disbelief.

The film, like many sequels, aims higher and goes bigger than its predecessor, with more violence, a longer runtime, and new characters. The standout of the newbies on the roster, by a clear mile, is Johnny Cage (Karl Urban).

Johnny Cage brings the camp to “Mortal Kombat II.” In most cases, when I use “camp” and “movie” in the same sentence, my mind will think of the combination as a negative, but “Mortal Kombat II” is an unusual exception where I find it to be a positive. The campiness of “Mortal Kombat II” works like a charm, and that is mostly due to Karl Urban’s commitment to making the character of Johnny Cage come off as the coolest has-been movie star of all time.

In Earthrealm, we see our protagonists watch a vision that reveals their “chosen one” to defeat evil. That being Johnny Cage. The movie perfectly sets the tone for what’s to come by showing Cage in perhaps the most 90s-esque action schlock of a movie imaginable. AI could not create this magic. Of course, that time is over, and like some other actors who are not doing as much film work, Cage is making money through conventions. The moment we see the first encounter between Cage and the heroes of Earthrealm, he tries to show as much respect as possible, thinking that they are cosplayers, hoping they would screw off. I thought the first scenes featuring Cage were clever and did a good job at revealing how much Cage has evolved from his prime.

While “Mortal Kombat II” is far from Shakespeare, some lines in the film are poetic in their own way. My favorite moment in “Mortal Kombat II” features Johnny Cage fighting against Baraka, the leader of the Tarkatans. The fight itself is massively entertaining. That is if you can even call it a fight. There is a repeated moment in the choreography that is honestly begging to find its way into today’s meme culture. I saw this film alongside my dad, and there have been instances following its conclusion where we jokingly repeated said moves.

What follows after is Baraka’s purely cinematic line, “That is the greatest fighting I have ever f***ing seen!” Collectively, that may have been the biggest laugh amongst my opening Thursday audience. Truth be told, I read this line back as I write this paragraph, and I am trying my hardest not to roll on the floor.

“Mortal Kombat II” is not perfect. I had the privilege of seeing this film in IMAX, which for this film, is fantastic, as some scenes feature an expanded aspect ratio. But while this critique may not matter for every screening, I think the IMAX scenes could have been handled better, because the way that some of these scenes were edited felt inconsistent or jumpy. It reminded me of “Transformers: The Last Knight,” where the aspect ratio changes every second. It is nowhere near as bad, but it is still jumpy. The CGI at times is utterly amazing and a complete feast for the eyes. I was gobsmacked with the worlds the VFX artists were able to create. But that does not mean that they do not look CGI-ish. Again, the movie looks real when it chooses to. Sometimes the heightened reality works. At other times, it could be better.

The story of the film is very simple, but what complicates it is how often this movie jumps from place to place and has to handle a variety of characters. It is hard to say that the characterization of this movie is the strongest. It is kind of like the last “Mario” movie, though I admittedly had more fun with this video game adaptation compared to that one.

Even with its imperfections, “Mortal Kombat II” is a total blast. Shao Khan is a menacing threat. Johnny Cage has personality for days. I liked seeing more of the characters from the last movie like Raiden, Kano, and Liu Kang. Not that I dislike the original, but I think this sequel is an improvement. I walked out of this movie thinking that I cannot wait to watch it a second time. This is a fantastic movie to watch with friends. If you can handle some blood and gore, you are in for a treat.

In the end, “Mortal Kombat II” is a komplete explosion of epicness! This is a visual effects-heavy, balls out killer time that is by no means going to win any major awards. But if you are a sucker for a big, dumb action movie that sometimes pays tribute to the video games of the same name, this movie might be up your alley. Karl Urban is excellent as Johnny Cage and oozes charisma from start to finish. The action is super fun. This movie maintains a modern look to it, but it also has this occasional throwback feel that ties everything together. I cannot wait to watch this movie again, and I have no shame in saying that. I am going to give “Mortal Kombat II” a 7/10.

“Mortal Kombat II” is now playing in theaters. Tickets are available now.

Thanks for reading this review! This Sunday on Flicknerd.com and YouTube, stay tuned for the next episode of Movie Requests! This episode is going to feature a suggestion from Brian O’Halloran, who you may know from the “Clerks” trilogy! I just watched his suggested movie last night. I cannot wait to share what it is and talk about it with you. If you want to watch the review as fast as possible, do yourself and I a favor by subscribing to my YouTube channel!

My next review is going to be for “The Sheep Detectives!” Stay tuned! Also coming soon, I will be sharing my thoughts on “In the Grey,” “Star Wars: The Mandalorian and Grogu,” “I Love Boosters,” and “Backrooms.” If you want to see these reviews and more from Scene Before, follow the blog either with an email or WordPress account! Also, check out the official Facebook page! I want to know, did you see “Mortal Kombat II?” What did you think about it? Or, what is your favorite “Mortal Kombat” film that has been released thus far? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

Animal Farm (2025): Four Legs Good, This Movie Bad.

Posted on 12 Days Ago by Jack Drees

“Animal Farm” is directed by Andy Serkis (The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring, Star Wars: The Force Awakens). He also stars in the film as a rooster named Randolph and has an uncredited role as Farmer Jones. Joining him in the cast is Seth Rogen (Sausage Party, Knocked Up), Gaten Matarazzo (Stranger Things, Honor Society), Steve Buscemi (Miracle Workers, Fargo), Glenn Close (The Wife, 101 Dalmatians), Laverne Cox (Doubt, Orange is the New Black), Kieran Culkin (A Real Pain, Scott Pilgrim vs. the World), Woody Harrelson (The Edge of Seventeen, The Glass Castle), Jim Parsons (The Big Bang Theory, Hidden Figures), Kathleen Turner (Romancing the Stone, The Virgin Suicides), and Iman Vellani (The Marvels, Ms. Marvel). This film is based on George Orwell’s book of the same name and is about a group of animals whose farm-based revolution results in a pig-led dictatorship.

There are a few major texts I was assigned to read in my English class during my freshman year of high school. One of those includes Homer’s “The Odyssey,” which is being adapted into a film coming out this summer. Another one happens to be George Orwell’s “Animal Farm,” which is now an animated film directed by Andy Serkis. What’s next? Is “Of Mice and Men” getting another film adaptation?

Regardless, “Animal Farm,” through its book and interesting to say the least adaptations, left an impression on me. When the book was a major studying point in school, the class often focused on Orwell’s material linking to the U.S.S.R.. The book presents a fascinating allegory on the dangers of leaders becoming power hungry and bending the rules to their benefit.

The idea of someone like Andy Serkis taking on “Animal Farm” left me intrigued. He has shown his talents in the VFX and directing spaces, and I thought “Animal Farm” would be a fine fit for his skill set.

Then I saw the trailer…

While I thought the trailer overall made the film look cheap, it did end with one note that left me interested, which is that it was recommended for ages 11 and up. While the MPA gave this film a PG rating, which can be seen as okay for many younger audiences, the marketers essentially sent a message saying this might not be for the youngest crowds. Having read “Animal Farm,” that makes sense.

Frankly, after seeing this movie, I have no idea who exactly this is for. It is definitely not for “Animal Farm” purists, as there are some major changes made to the material. For instance, Old Major is not in the movie. There are some characters who are not in the book. No, unlike the 1999 adaptation, the main character is not a dog this time around.

Despite the movie being recommended for ages 11 and up as the trailer suggests, the film has plenty of jokes that feel like they were designed for the under five crowd. I do not know what George Orwell would think of this movie, seeing as he is no longer with us. But I think he and I would agree that toilet humor and “Animal Farm” do not mix. Maybe the conversation would be different if the trailer said the movie was recommended for “all ages,” However, that’s not the case. I would let it slide if this movie resorted to one fart joke, but I remember counting at least five or six instances of jokes related to bodily functions. It would also be forgiven if those jokes made me laugh. But they failed to do so.

This is not to say that I do not think younger viewers should not be exposed to a story like “Animal Farm.” I think it is an important tale, and the more that we experience corruption in power the more it is going to matter. In the case of “Animal Farm” 2026, this is a more modern telling of the tale compared to its mid-20th century source material, as it focuses on capitalism as the big bad. Despite happily living in the U.S. all my life, I think this idea has potential to work. One of the core antagonists of the film is a boss lady who essentially owns all the land in her sight, but she is not satisfied, as she wants to add Animal Farm to her collection.

In this film, Napoleon is played by Seth Rogen. …Okay? What is it with Seth Rogen’s voiceover roles lately? I always thought he was a weird choice for Donkey Kong, but this is another level. And much like Donkey Kong, Seth Rogen often sounds like he is playing himself when sounding off every other line. In fact, one could argue the performance is kind of meta, as there is a scene where Napoleon does the infamous Seth Rogen laugh, and he follows that up with “please do not make fun of my laugh.” Is it just me, or is Seth Rogen’s laugh one of the most recognizable laughs of all time? If I had to make a top 5 list in that regard, Rogen would be up there with Jimmy Carr, SpongeBob SquarePants, Peter Griffin, and J. Jonah Jameson during that one scene from “Spider-Man 2” where Peter asks him if he can get paid in advance.

That said, there is something there with Seth Rogen’s material. As immature as the writing often sounds, there is one scene between his character and a gender-swapped Snowball (Laverne Cox) where the latter is explaining her plan concerning the farm that stood out to me. Every other second, Napoleon, who is not afraid to showcase his opposition to the plan, is constantly mocking Snowball, sometimes calling her boring while they are in front of a large crowd. Again, the material itself comes off as borderline cringeworthy, but the more I think about it, the more it reminds me of the current state of politics in the U.S.. I try to keep my mouth shut in regards to that topic on here, but Napoleon is essentially Donald Trump. He is loud and quite limited in his vocabulary. He calls others names to their faces. And as we have seen in the 2016 and 2024 elections, his biggest rivals tend to be, whether you agree with their policies or not, well-meaning women.

Although there is one woman that Napoleon tends to get along with, and that is the recently mentioned “boss lady,” Frieda Pilkington (Glenn Close). A billionaire who essentially wants everything and will stop at nothing to get it. She owns a giant company that I would perhaps sum up as this universe’s equivalent to Amazon, as it seems to have their fingertips in just about every industry. Her character is by no means broken, but her one-dimensionality definitely stands out.

In fact, this movie is chock-full of big stars. From Jim Parsons to Kieran Culkin to Steve Buscemi. One rising star who I am glad to see in this film is Iman Vellani, who I adore as Ms. Marvel in the MCU. Her roles, and yes, she has more than one, does not give her as much to work with compared to Marvel, but I am glad to see she is getting more work.

Another standout in this film is Woody Harrelson as Boxer. While the film does have its many differences from the source material, the way Boxer was written and executed feels similar to how I would have imagined reading the book as a teenager. Harrelson is a good pick for the role. It is hard to say that “Animal Farm” is one of the most heartfelt films ever made, but I would not deny that Boxer is perhaps the emotional core of the story, even if he is a supporting character.

While this is based on a famous text, “Animal Farm” is not the best when it comes to screenwriting. By the way, it is written by Nicholas Stoller, whose “Muppets” films I did enjoy, but I will also acknowledge his resume also contains duds like “Sex Tape,” “Dora and the Lost City of Gold,” and “Zoolander 2.” Despite Stoller’s best efforts, the jokes do not work. I do not mind “Animal Farm” having jokes, as long as they stick the landing. They did not. Some of the jokes play a part in the film’s clashing tones. At times this film tries to be ridiculous and go for a laugh, and at others it tries to pull the heartstrings or make you shed a tear. Pixar has proven that their films can both be funny and emotional. “Animal Farm,” which is a collaboration between Aniventure and The Imaginarium, tends to fall flat in both categories. The end of the film feels kind of like a Marvel movie, almost as if the climax is aiming too high.

I have nothing against people making changes to source material. I think “Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory” is one of the greatest movies of all time, even if it made some significant alterations from Roald Dahl’s classic tale. This adaptation of “Animal Farm,” like the others that have been brought to the screen, has its differences from the book. Although I went back to watch the other two adaptations and those tended to maintain the tone and spirit that the book was going for. Neither one was particularly groundbreaking or IMDb top 250-worthy, but they did their job in more ways than one. This movie does not feel like “Animal Farm” in the most accurate sense. That would be fine if I liked the movie, but between the bad comedy, several characters lacking dimension, weird editing choices, and some scenes feeling rushed, “Animal Farm” reminded me that not all movies are equal. Some are just plain bad.

In the end, “Animal Farm” is not as bad as I hear other people claim it to be, but to call it good is definitely a stretch. There are parts of the movie that exceeded my expectations, and I am probably being generous with that statement. While I definitely found Rogen’s interpretation of Napoleon to be rather annoying, I do think the way he was written worked in terms of matching the current political climate. He is not the smartest, nor the most calculated leader. But if you ask certain people today what they think about the current U.S. President, they would probably say the same thing. The animation was passable, but not exactly revolutionary. The soundtrack of this film is also kind of weird. Including a rap version of “Old McDonald Had a Farm” is most certainly a choice. The book is definitely more serious than this movie, and I thought when this film tried to be funny, it did not always work. Although there was one gag involving E=mc² that did make me chuckle. This is probably not going to be my least favorite movie of the year as there are glimmers of positivity to be found, but I hope to see a superior version of this tale brought to the big screen one day. I am going to give “Animal Farm” a 4/10.

“Animal Farm” is now playing in theaters and is available to rent or buy on VOD.

Thanks for reading this review! I am happy to announce that the next guest in my ongoing web series, Movie Requests is none other than Brian O’Halloran! You may know him from several of Kevin Smith’s films, including the “Clerks” trilogy! By the way, he is not the first guy from said trilogy I featured in the series, as a couple months ago I took a request from Jason Mewes, AKA Jay of the Jay and Silent Bob duo. As for Brian’s request, that review will be available on Sunday June 7th! You can check it out here on Flicknerd.com, but if you want the fastest method of watching the review, do yourself and I favor by subscribing to my YouTube channel!

My next review is going to be for “Mortal Kombat II!” Stay tuned! Also coming soon, I will be sharing my thoughts on “The Sheep Detectives,” “In the Grey, “Star Wars: The Mandalorian and Grogu,” “I Love Boosters,” and “Backrooms.” If you want to see these review 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 “Animal Farm?” What did you think about it? Or, did you read the “Animal Farm” book? What are your thoughts on it? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

Deep Water (2026): Plane Crashes and Sharks. What Could Go Wrong?

Posted on 18 Days Ago by Jack Drees

“Deep Water” is directed by Renny Harlin (Cutthroat Island, Deep Blue Sea) and stars Aaron Eckhart (The Dark Knight, Midway), Angus Sampson (Insidious, Mad Max: Fury Road), Ben Kingsley (Iron Man 3, Hugo), Lucy Barrett (Skincare, Charmed), and Molly Belle Wright (Omaha, The Best Christmas Pageant Ever). This film is about a group of people who are on a plane flying from Los Angeles to Shanghai, whose flight happens to go by the wayside as they crash in the middle of the ocean. As if things could not get any worse, the group is surrounded by sharks and must do what they can to survive.

It is now time to talk about “Deep Water,” not to be confused with the movie of the same name starring Ben Affleck and Ana de Armas, which is entirely different in premise and execution. Unlike that straight to streaming flick, this is a theatrically released thrill ride that involves a very simple, but intriguing premise.

Last year was the 50th anniversary of “Jaws,” which to this day, remains the best shark movie ever made by a clear mile. But just because “Jaws” is so great, does not mean that other shark movies do not have the potential to work. “Deep Water” is not quite a shark movie, but when the marketing showed sharks, I was sold. This looked eerie, intense, and entertaining. It is definitely a popcorn flick. Though I skipped the popcorn on this movie.

“Deep Water” does not reinvent the wheel when it comes to filmmaking or storytelling, but the film nevertheless delivers a satisfying package. Is it perfect? Absolutely not. But it does not change the fact that the film is worth watching at least once.

When it comes to the overall premise of the film, it keeps things simple. A bunch of people are on a flight from Los Angeles to Shanghai, then next things next, they make an emergency landing in the middle of the ocean. It is at this point where everyone must work together to survive. Although, getting everyone on the same page is not the easiest task.

This film contains a fairly sizable cast of characters, some of whom are played by well-known names. I am quite shocked that some of the names accepted their roles. Their paychecks must have been enormous. Although upon learning that this film had a $40 million budget, maybe not. Plus, this film is directed by Renny Harlin, who has helmed some well known films including “Cliffhanger” and “Die Hard 2.” Then again, he also directed “The Legend of Hercules,” a film so bad that I think it might as well have been better off staying a legend.

That said, while I remember some of the faces in this movie like Ben Kingsley, it is not as easy to remember the characters. Part of it is due to having so many of them, so the movie does what it can to allow everyone to have their moment, but only a particular few stand out. If you were to ask me if I am going to remember these characters in a year from now, I would probably guess not. Heck, I am having trouble recalling some of them even less than a month after seeing the movie. Do I have my favorite characters from the project? Sure.

Is this movie predictable? Perhaps. But I do not mind it being that way, because what it offers is undoubtedly entertaining. We get to know a bunch of people who are on a plane. Everyone from the crew to some of the core passengers, the plane makes an emergency landing in the ocean, and all of the characters who we got to know on the plane have some ongoing effect towards the story from here on out. Sharks appear every now and then, causing all kinds of trouble for the survivors, who realize their journey has only begun. Having said that now, it makes me appreciate this premise more. The only way this movie could have been crazier is if it went full “Snakes on a Plane” and decided to put the sharks on the plane as it was in the air. But as someone who likes logic, I am glad they did not go in that direction. It would just spawn bad memories of torturing myself while watching the “Sharknado” movies.

This movie combines two of my biggest apprehensions. Planes and sharks. For the record, I like planes. I really do. I find air travel fascinating, even if the modern air travel market is an overpriced scam. I do not fly super often, but I do take a plane one to a few times per year, and in the back of my mind I am always nervous about crashing. This movie reminds me of that fear. I always fly out of Boston, whose airport is right next to the Atlantic, a place that has sharks! Of course! Thanks, movie!

This film reminded me of another thing to be afraid of, and that happens to be lithium-ion batteries. They are everywhere. Like planes, I do not outright hate the concept of lithium-ion batteries. I understand their purpose, but the movie essentially kicks into gear because of something that happens to a lithium-ion battery. If you have ever seen a news story involving some kind of a device that contains a lithium-ion battery, I think you can imagine what that incident is. I am a little frightened as I write this review on my laptop, which I will remind you, has a lithium-ion battery inside of it that could blow up if I make one wrong move. There is a reason why people working at airports ask if you have anything with lithium-ion batteries on you before your flight!

Movies are experiences, and to say I experienced fear in “Deep Water” is an understatement. Is this the best movie of the year? No. The characters could be a little deeper (not literally), but it is never boring. It gives the bones of the characters and makes them likable enough. The shark action is sometimes fun to watch. It is not the best I have ever seen. It is not like I am watching “The Shallows” starring Blake Lively, which I still fondly remember about a decade after its release. That said, this film is not 100% camp. It has campy moments, but the plane crash, which goes on for more time than I was anticipating, felt rather dramatic. There happened to be a sense of stakes as the plane was falling down. You could feel the emotions and the nerves running through the characters, and those emotions and nerves stuck around as the sharks came out to play. This movie is thrilling, well-paced, and engaging.

In the end, “Deep Water” is a solid plane crash movie, on top of being a solid shark movie. It takes two disastrously bone-chilling scenarios and neatly combines them into one premise. This is not Shakespeare, but it is also not something that deserves to be tossed aside either. It is a decent movie that allows you to munch popcorn while watching tons of people figure out how not to die. Is this film the next “Jaws?” No. But it is a good watch. I am going to give “Deep Water” a 7/10.

“Deep Water” is now playing in select theaters. Tickets are available now!

Thanks for reading this review! I would like to take a moment to remind everyone that my next episode of Movie Requests is going to feature “Clerks” actor Brian O’Halloran! He has appeared in all three installments of Kevin Smith’s retail-based trilogy, and in the next couple of weeks, I will be reviewing his film of choice. That review is SUPPOSED TO BE HERE on Sunday June, 7th. If you have not done so already, please check out my review for “High Noon,” requested by “Battlestar Galactica” star Katee Sackhoff! If you want to see more reviews throughout the series as soon as they are uploaded, please consider subscribing to my YouTube channel! I will also share them here, but subscribing to my channel is the fastest way you can check them out. Life is short, you know. Might as well spend your time wisely.

I have a buttload of written reviews coming soon! My next reviews are going to be for “Animal Farm,” “Mortal Kombat II,” “The Sheep Detectives,” “In the Grey, “Star Wars: The Mandalorian and Grogu,” and “I Love Boosters.” If you want to see these reviews and more from Scene Before, follow the blog either with an email or WordPress account! Also, check out the official Facebook page! I want to know, did you see “Deep Water?” What did you think about it? Or, what is a movie that reminds you of some of your personal fears? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

Michael (2026): A Middle of the Road Michael Jackson Greatest Hits Album

Posted on 25 Days Ago by Jack Drees

“Michael” is directed by Antoine Fuqua (The Equalizer, Training Day) and stars Jaafar Jackson, Nia Long (Missing, Boyz in the Hood), Juliano Valdi (Arco, The Loud House), KeiLyn Durrel Jones (Better Call Saul, Succession) Laura Harrier (Spider-Man: Homecoming, BlacKkKlansman), Jessica Sula (Recovery Road, Skins), Mike Myers (Shrek, Austin Powers: International Man of Mystery), Miles Teller (Whiplash, Top Gun: Maverick), and Colman Domingo (Sing Sing, Wicked: For Good). This film is about Michael Jackson’s rise to stardom, chronicling his growing up, family life, and the rising conflict he faces as an artist.

The last movie I reviewed on the blog is “Lorne,” and now I am doing “Michael…”

Ladies and gentlemen… We missed a grand opportunity to make the next “Barbenheimer” happen. LORNE MICHAEL? The name writes itself!

Anyway, “Michael” has been on my radar for some time, not necessarily because I was looking forward to it. Not that I thought the movie would be the worst I have ever seen, but Michael Jackson is not my goto artist. Sure, I like hearing “Thriller” every now and then, especially around Halloween. But keep in mind, this guy is called “the king of pop.” I am generally not a pop guy. I am more rock and roll, classical, jazz, heavy metal… Those genres speak to me more.

To be frank, the real reason why I am reviewing this movie is not because it heavily interests me, but rather because it seems to be of interest to so many other people. Some are projecting that this could end up becoming the highest-grossing musical biopic in box office history. I have family members and relatives who grew up with Michael Jackson who wanted to see this ASAP. I do not despise Michael Jackson. I think as a musician he knows his stuff, but he is not the first person I would pick to listen to in my spare time.

Also, some people have nicknamed me “Jackson 5…” So that’s a bonus.

Here is some seemingly shocking news… I have never seen an Antoine Fuqua movie. I have always been meaning to check his work out. My dad has expressed his approval for “The Equalizer” and “Shooter” for example. I just have not had the time or motivation. But given how popular I projected “Michael” to be from the getgo, I felt the need to check this movie out for myself.

Having seen “Michael,” it is better than I figured it would be in some ways, but the movie is not without its faults.

I am not a Michael Jackson fanatic. Again, I recognize his talent, but he is not my jam. That said, I have a feeling that in some way that a lot of Michael Jackson fans are going to see this film as a personal love letter, showcasing some of his greatest hits and career highlights. In that sense, the film feels overstuffed, which is really weird to say given how the film itself plays out.

Do not get me wrong. “Michael” has a story. In fact, when it comes to executing its story, or, based on several factors, as much of the story as it is willing to unveil, I thought it did a better job than the recently released “Super Mario Galaxy Movie.” Interesting enough, I find both movies to be quite similar. Both are based on cultural behemoths, they are aiming towards family demographics to a certain degree, and there seems to be a divide between the critics and audiences as to whether or not the movie is good.

Another thing that puts these two in the same boat is that they seem to rely on nostalgia. If you grew up in the 80s, you may have been playing “Mario” or listening to Michael Jackson. Perhaps both. When I was watching “The Super Mario Galaxy Movie,” I found myself needing more than nostalgia to keep me entertained. That is also the case when it comes to “Michael,” and the case arguably has more merit this time around, as, again, he is not my artist of choice. Of course, I have heard several of the songs in this movie… “Thriller,” “Beat It,” “Billie Jean,” but when they played, I do not think they hit me in the way the crew would have hoped.

What I liked about “Michael” is not so much the music, but rather the journey as to how we got some of the music. “Michael” reminds me a bit of “A Complete Unknown,” because that film seems to explore an artist who wants to play music based on what he is passionate about, and there are obstacles standing in his way of doing that. For Bob Dylan, the protagonist of “A Complete Unknown,” the obstacle was the audience, who put the artist in a box. For Michael Jackson, the biggest obstacle is his family. In some ways, the film highlights the importance of Jackson’s family, but it also sets up his father as an antagonist. We see Michael begin as a member of the Jackson 5 with his siblings, but the more the movie progresses, the more we see Michael feel the need to tread his own path. The only problem, his father wants him to keep making music under his supervision and with his siblings.

I am not going to pretend that “Michael” is the best movie of the year, but there is a decent movie in here somewhere. Is it familiar? Sure. But it is sometimes engaging. When I am watching “Michael,” I do not see myself watching a film about an aspiring performer who became a huge success, even though that idea does play a part in the story. If anything, I found myself mostly invested in the protagonist’s personal conflict of being his ultimate creative self. Yes, the movie presents Michael Jackson’s eccentricities. For example, we see his relationship with his pets. And these are not your typical dogs and cats. These are the kind of pets that Veruca Salt would beg for after finally getting her hands on a golden goose.

Not all of the concert scenes are exactly memorable, but I will not deny that there are some that stood out to me. There is one scene in particular that is shot and edited less like a movie and more like a televised special, or an actual “concert film.” I thought it was kind of clever. The sound mixing is also quite good, and I had a feeling it would be from the getgo, where the movie opens to a crowd chanting “Michael’s” name over and over again. The auditorium was almost shaking at that point.

Perhaps the biggest standout in “Michael” is… Well, Michael himself. Or more specifically, Jaafar Jackson, who plays him. In real life, Jafaar is Michael Jackson’s nephew, so I would have been shocked to say that his performance was not good. Thankfully, he is excellent. It is too early to tell if his performance is awards-worthy, but Jackson brings a flair to his uncle that feels similar to how some would probably imagine the artist in real life. Jackson does a great job at capturing the character’s ambitions and kineticism. It is clear that Jackson did some major studying behind the scenes to capture his uncle’s essence.

“Michael” is Jaafar Jackson’s first movie acting credit. My question is, and I say this as someone who found this performance to be excellent, what is Jaafar Jackson’s future in film? Is he just going to play Michael Jackson and call it quits? I would be interested to see him in another role, as long as it is something completely different than the one he played in “Michael.” I would like to see some range should he continue acting. This is also the biggest factor as to why he may not win an Oscar next year. As great as Jaafar Jackson is, he is playing someone who has a somewhat personal attachment to him. Jackson is superb, but unlike Rami Malek as Freddie Mercury or Austin Butler as Elvis Presley, his performance feels less transformative in comparison.

This does not take anything away from Jackson’s ability to capture the character and bring him to life. I will not deny that he did exactly that. In fact, if there is one positive that I will continue to think about regarding this movie, Jaafar Jackson may be it. All due respect to everyone else involved, including the super talented Colman Domingo as Joseph Jackson, but Jaafar steals the show.

As I watched this movie though, I found parts of it to drag, especially around the middle. For a movie whose trailers promise something exciting and kinetic, I was kind of surprised to find myself bored during certain scenes. I think about 10 minutes of the runtime could have been trimmed just to provide something tighter.

In the end, “Michael” is not the worst film I have ever seen, but it is occasionally bogged down by somewhat poor pacing, feeling somewhat incomplete in the story it is trying to tell, and the concert scenes not having the oomph that I was expecting. For a movie about the King of Pop, it works in some places, but overall, it does not quite pop. This movie is likely going to go down as a success at the box office, and I partially played a factor in that. I cannot say my experience of watching it, however, was exactly the best. Did I have a decent time? Perhaps barely. But I do not see “Michael” having any replay value down the road. I am going to give “Michael” a 6/10.

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

Thanks for reading this review! If you want to see more of me, and by that I mean, literally see me, check out my latest episode of Movie Requests, featuring special guest Katee Sackhoff! She requested I should watch “High Noon,” and I was more than happy to do so! To hear my thoughts, click the video above! Give it a like if you enjoyed it! If you want to see more episodes down the line as soon as they come out, please subscribe to my YouTube channel!

My next review is going to be for “Deep Water!” Stay tuned! Also coming soon, be on the lookout for my thoughts on “Animal Farm,” “Mortal Kombat II,” “The Sheep Detectives,” and “In the Grey!” If you want to see these reviews and more from Scene Before, follow the blog either with an email or WordPress account! Also, check out the official Facebook page! I want to know, did you see “Michael?” What did you think about it? Or, what are your thoughts on Michael Jackson as a performer? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

Lorne (2026): Morgan Neville Puts Up Another W with This Insightful Look at the Creator of SNL

Posted on 29 Days Ago by Jack Drees

“Lorne” is directed by Morgan Neville (Won’t You Be My Neighbor?, Piece by Piece) and is about Lorne Michaels, the creator of “Saturday Night Live” and founder of Broadway Video. This documentary taps into Michaels’ life as a creator, as well as what he likes to do when he is outside of the constant chaos of creating comedy.

Few of my reviews over the years have been for documentaries. Though I have nothing against them. In fact, one of my earliest documentary reviews was for “Won’t You Be My Neighbor?”, which ended up being one of my favorite films of 2018. While the name is not the first that pops in my mind when it comes to listing my favorite filmmakers, Morgan Neville has somewhat been on my radar given his track record. A year and a half ago, I saw the incredibly creative “Piece by Piece,” which is not as good as “Won’t You Be My Neighbor?”, but is nevertheless a one of a kind documentary that I could not have imagined coming to life.

For those who have seen “Won’t You Be My Neighbor?”, you would know that the documentary centers around Fred Rogers, who I thought was a great subject matter with an interesting background, especially as someone who is into film and television. While Rogers was a notable presence on camera for “Mister Rogers’ Neighborhood,” “Lorne” focuses on just as crucial of a presence behind the camera for other productions, most especially “Saturday Night Live.”

If you have watched just about any episode of “Saturday Night Live” during its 50-plus year run, you would know that Lorne Michaels has had an impact on them in some way. He created the show back in 1975 and has long served as its producer.

The group that ends up sitting down for interviews is incredibly stacked between former “SNL” employees to some of the most famous comedy personalities working today, some of whom got an early boost in their career thanks to “Saturday Night Live” like John Mulaney or Conan O’Brien. Those interviews stood out to me for reasons beyond simply admiring both of those people. Not only did the movie end up using a decent amount of footage of these two comedians in particular, but it is weird to think about how these are just a couple of people whose careers had a monumental impact because Michaels let them do their thing. If you look at the cast for “Saturday Night Live,” not every season is like the other.

“Saturday Night Live” is a home to many voices, each and every one with a story to tell. As Lorne Michaels is the subject of the documentary, the camera spends a significant amount of time telling his story too. Everything from his beginnings in Canada, to his time in the United States, and what he likes to do when he is not producing television. Though the thing that stands out about Lorne Michaels is that the way his programming is formatted, it has allowed so many different visions and stories to be brought to life. That is partially why Michaels’ philosophy of everyone’s story needing to be heard stood out to me, even if the story is bad.

To me, “Lorne” sort of plays like an “SNL” episode, which the more I think about it, may not be the most effective comparison. There have not only been so many “SNL” episodes, but when it comes to the show in general, there are nights where the sketches hit, miss, or fall somewhere in between. If I were to be most accurate, if this were an “SNL” episode, this would be one where I like the guest host and the stars, but there are some times where I find the material to be better than others.

The movie kept my interest, but it did drag a little towards the end. It almost overstayed its welcome. But I found the movie’s approach to be rather creative. The narration is effective and intriguing. There are some animated scenes that play well. And as I would hope, it presents the story of Lorne Michaels, who is most definitely an interesting man, in a way that is equally as interesting. Keep in mind that I said “interesting,” because as a producer, he has a say on who hosts “Saturday Night Live,” and he seems to stand by his more controversial choices like Donald Trump or Elon Musk. The choices definitely generate conversation, but not everyone in the audience jumps out of their seat for them.

While the film does not outright accuse Lorne Michaels of, say, his controversial host choices, it is actually nice to see the documentary to at least address that aspect of his career. The film does not suggest that Michaels is right for making those choices, but it does acknowledge that Michael stands by them. The movie goes into Michaels’ other failures, including some he has encountered before “Saturday Night Live” was ever a thing. I enjoyed getting to know more about his work on Canadian television.

When it comes to humanizing Michaels, the movie does a decent job. There is a part of the film that takes place in Maine, where Michaels goes to for some peace and quiet. If anything, I sort of felt the way he wants to feel during his trips there, because as he explains in the film, New York City is quite obnoxious. I know, I have been there. It is practically a second home to me. But the quietest, most calming parts of the movie are, fittingly, in Maine, where Michaels often finds himself in the middle of nowhere.

That said, this movie follows in another project’s footsteps. 2024’s “Saturday Night,” a feature narrative directed by Jason Reitman. I frankly think it might be my favorite film of his. Sorry, “Juno.” While the two movies differ significantly, I think the more interesting and compelling Lorne Michaels story, even if it is fabricated, is in “Saturday Night.” It is more entertaining, fun, and chaotic. But I will not accuse anyone should they decide to watch “Lorne” with me on a Friday night. Heck, even a Saturday night.

In the end, “Lorne” is not Morgan Neville’s best documentary, but it is still a good movie. Lorne Michaels is a fascinating figure, so it is not surprising that he has gotten feature and documentary treatments in the past couple years. Sure, I prefer the feature presentation we got showcasing his perspective on making the first “SNL” episode through “Saturday Night.” Yet “Lorne” is full of fantastic interviews, touches on a variety of interesting topics, and offers clever transitions from one scene to the next that frankly feel like they belong on an “SNL” episode. I am going to give “Lorne” a 7/10.

“Lorne” is now playing in select theaters and is available to rent or buy on VOD.

Thanks for reading this review! If you have not checked it out already, take a gander at my latest episode of Movie Requests, which I posted on May the 4th, AKA “Star Wars Day.” To fit the occasion, I took a request from “The Mandalorian’s” own Katee Sackhoff! She requested I should talk about the western “High Noon.” Click the video above to see what I thought about the movie! I will have another episode coming soon, I have not determined a date just yet. But if you would like to see that episode as soon as it drops, be sure to subscribe to my YouTube channel to get the notification ASAP!

My next review is going to be for “Michael!” Stay tuned! Also coming soon, I will be sharing my thoughts on “Deep Water,” “Animal Farm,” “Mortal Kombat II,” and “The Sheep Detectives.” If you want to see these reviews and more from Scene Before, follow the blog either with an email or WordPress account! Also, check out the official Facebook page! I want to know, did you see “Lorne?” What did you think about it? Or, since it is on topic, has anyone seen the 2024 movie “Saturday Night?” Tell me your thoughts on that! Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

	Movie Requests… on Bugonia (2025): Bu-Go See Some…
	In the Grey (2026):… on The Gentlemen (2019): A Confus…
	In the Grey (2026):… on Lorne (2026): Morgan Neville P…
	In the Grey (2026):… on Mortal Kombat II (2026): The B…
	In the Grey (2026):… on Ready or Not 2: Here I Come (2…