Month: September 2025

Honey Don’t! (2025): A Blandly Sensual Ride from Star Margaret Qualley and Director Ethan Coen

Posted on by Jack Drees

“Honey Don’t!” is directed by Ethan Coen (The Big Lebowski, No Country for Old Men) and stars Margaret Qualley (Once Upon a Time in Hollywood, The Substance), Aubrey Plaza (Parks and Recreation, My Old Ass), Chris Evans (Captain America: The First Avenger, The Gray Man), and Charlie Day (It’s Always Sunny in Philadelphia, The Super Mario Bros. Movie). This film is the latest installment what some may call Ethan Coen and Tricia Cooke’s “lesbian B-movie trilogy” and centers around private investigator Honey O’Donahue, who must look into multiple deaths supposedly tied to a church.

“Honey Don’t!” is Ethan Coen and Margaret Qualley’s latest collaboration following the above average “Drive-Away Dolls.” I ended up giving the film a positive score, but it was far from my favorite movie of 2024. I praised the film when it came out, but if I had to name a core weakness, it would have to be the plot. I liked a lot of what went down in the film, but some of the script is kind of forgettable.

Having seen “Honey Don’t!,” I think it has a lot more in common with “Drive-Away Dolls” than its star-director combo. Both films feature its lead playing a homosexual woman finding herself while connected to an ongoing case. The film heavily leans into its sensual vibes. The film is also on the shorter side with a runtime of 89 minutes. And unsurprisingly, it is tightly paced.

Though one thing that individualizes “Honey Don’t!” is that I honestly do not see myself revisiting the film anytime in the near future. I ended up buying “Drive-Away Dolls” on Blu-ray. At best, I see “Honey Don’t!” as background noise while flipping channels and trying to get some sleep at a hotel. Even as I write this down, I am second-guessing myself. This is the kind of movie that I could imagine playing great if the TV were on mute. It has big stars in it, the overall look of the film is not bad. The production design is sometimes picturesque and individualistic. I will even add that some of the costume choices are memorable. But if you are going to ask me what my favorite part of this movie was, I would draw a blank. This is a clear case of all spark but little personality. At times, the film does have a quirky vibe to it, but it does not really do much to make the overall product better. There is a blandness to the quirkiness, if that makes any sense. It feels weirdly flat.

I said this about “Smurfs” recently, and the people behind “Honey Don’t!” can rest easy, because their movie is nowhere near as awful, but this movie somewhat feels like it should go straight to streaming. If I had to guess, the main reason why this film did not end up on streaming is because of the same reason why “Smurfs” did not end up on streaming, and it is not exactly due to how much it cost or how pristine it looks. Some of the production value is not bad. I thought a lot of the film’s style was clever. But its substance was lacking. It kind of reminded me of The Russo brothers’ “The Gray Man,” because the film is nice to look at, but it stars a talented group of people who deserve a better story. Heck, if I needed an even more recent comparison, Wes Anderson’s “The Phoenician Scheme” seems to fit the bill. Ethan Coen is kind of in the same boat as Wes Anderson given their respected resumes and individual filmmaking quirks. But on top of that, both of these films also have star-studded casts. If these films were not directed by people whose names are as well known as they are, I would imagine that someone is going after several big names to compensate for a lackluster story.

In addition to Margaret Qualley, the film stars Aubrey Plaza, Charlie Day, and Chris Evans, the latter of whom was also in “The Gray Man,” so this is not his first dose of mediocrity in somewhat recent times. I would not say that any of these actors give bad performances. In fact, I buy the chemistry of Qualley and Plaza as a horned-up couple. I thought Charlie Day was charming in his supporting role, even if it is not his best work. I have nothing overtly negative to say about him, much like many of the movie’s other cast members. They play their parts well, even if they are not written to their highest potential.

That said, the real standout for me is Chris Evans, who plays the marvelously unhinged Reverend Drew Devlin. Kind of like his outing in “The Gray Man,” Evans is chaotic in all the right ways. He brings an energy to this film that kept me interested. It is almost cartoon-like compared to some others in the cast, but it works. In recent years, Evans has been proving his range by playing complicated or moronic characters that separate himself from the hero who can do no wrong such as Captain America or Buzz Lightyear, and this is the latest example on Evans’ resume. It is not his best performance, but he comes off as if he is having fun with the role.

While I have not rewatched Ethan Coen’s preceding film to this one, “Drive-Away Dolls,” since the theater, I much prefer it to “Honey Don’t!” simply because there is a clear zaniness to it. The film is funnier, I like the characters more, and much like this movie, it is fun to look at. “Honey Don’t!” on the other hand feels like there is something missing. There is an emptiness to it. And empty is not an adjective I would want to use to describe any movie, much less one from a Coen brother and its talented cast. Once again, this is supposedly the second film of an unofficial trilogy. I hope this is the one dud of the bunch. But there is a saying that you are only as good as your last project, and I am a little worried that the next movie could be as flat as this one. I hope that is not the case.

Courtesy of Focus Features – © Focus Features

In the end, if I had genuine words to describe “Honey Don’t!”, I would be blanking. This is not the worst film of the year as I can truthfully name some redeeming qualities such as the technical aspects, some of the performances, and to my surprise, the rather tight pacing. The film by no means feels rushed, though I will admit I did check the time at one point. But when it comes to personality, this is where “Drive-Away Dolls” is a slightly better movie. Margaret Qualley is a great actress, and if you want a better example of her talent, maybe go watch “Drive-Away Dolls.” Heck, I would even recommend “The Substance,” which some of you might hate me for saying this, was far from my favorite film of 2024. But that film was something that “Honey Don’t!” was not. An experience. As much as I was turned off by the climax of “The Substance,” I will also likely not forget it anytime soon. “Honey Don’t!” on the other hand is withering in my brain as we speak. I am going to give “Honey Don’t!” a 4/10.

“Honey Don’t!” is now playing in theaters and is available to rent or buy on VOD.

Photo by Jasin Boland/Jasin Boland – © Courtesy of Vertical

Thanks for reading this review! My next review is going to be for “Eden.” Stay tuned! Also coming soon, I will be sharing my thoughts on “Splitsville,” “The Long Walk,” “A Big Bold Beautiful Journey,” and “Him.” 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 “Honey Don’t!”? What did you think about it? Or, which film do you prefer? “Honey Don’t!” or “Drive-Away Dolls?” Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

Nobody 2 (2025): Hitman: Far from Home

Posted on by Jack Drees

“Nobody 2” is directed by Timo Tjahjanto (The Night Comes for Us, Killers) and stars Bob Odenkirk (Breaking Bad, Incredibles 2), Connie Nielsen (Wonder Woman, Gladiator), John Ortiz (Kong: Skull Island, American Fiction), Colin Hanks (The Great Buck Howard, Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle), RZA (The Man with the Iron Fists, American Gangster), Colin Salmon (EastEnders, Krypton), Christopher Lloyd (Back to the Future, The Tender Bar), and Sharon Stone (Casino, Basic Instinct). This sequel once again centers around suburban dad Hutch Mansell, who is pulled back into his violent past while trying to have a nice family vacation.

Part of me is surprised “Nobody” ended up getting a sequel. If that film came out before COVID-19, we might be having a different conversation, but unfortunately, it came out in March 2021, when some people were still hesitant to go back to the movies. Despite the film likely missing some box office potential, there is no denying that those who ended up seeing it had a good time, including me. I would have totally been down for a second installment, but with the film flying over some people’s radars, part of me wondered if it was reasonable to even get one in the first place. Nevertheless, we did get one, and when I first saw the trailer, I was given the impression that we would be getting more of what worked in the original film.

“Nobody 2” maintains a lot of what was good about the 2021 original, but it is not perfect.

What does work? To no surprise at all, Bob Odenkirk once again kills it as Hutch. A lot of people, including myself, would say “Nobody” shares some similarities to “John Wick.” One similarity happens to be that the protagonist is not only fighting for himself, but for those he loves. While John Wick spent several movies fighting for a dead dog, we see Hutch in this second outing continue to fight for his family. Remember in the first film when Hutch finds out his daughter’s kitty cat bracelet was taken, and he starts to lose his mind? There is a moment in this film that reminds me of that scene. Granted, this scene presents Hutch losing his mind over something perhaps more important than a bracelet, but it goes to show how easily Hutch will lose it if someone messes with his family.

Speaking of family, the rest of the main cast of characters from the last film come back too. I buy into Bob Odenkirk and Connie Nielen as the main couple. They have good chemistry with each other and blend perfectly with their children. The family members all play a significant role in the film to a certain degree. After all, the film sees the group going on vacation together.

I was also very pleased to see Christopher Lloyd come back as David. Not just because he is Christopher Lloyd, but to me, he was the surprise standout from the last movie. In this film, he has a lot less to do, but every scene with him is a riot. I like the way the film handled him, he was directed in such a way where he practically turned into a big ball of energy, but part of me does wish he played a bigger role in the story.

Lendina, the “big bad” in this film, is played by Sharon Stone. To me, this character is an enigma, because she feels like she is in a much different movie than everyone else. Part of me wants to compliment Stone in one regard because she is undoubtedly evil and not afraid to show it. But she is also cartoonishly evil sometimes. There are moments where I thought she reminded me of a “Fast & Furious” villain. In fact, at first I thought I was watching Charlize Theron on screen. But Stone sometimes nears the point where I am convinced she was supposed to be in a “Power Rangers” project and somehow magically ended up on the set of “Nobody 2.” I do not expect Shakespearean performances out of a movie like this, but it would have been nice to get something a step above what the movie delivered. That said, I am also not going to call Stone’s performance incompetent. If anything, I would call it uneven. Though it would not shock me if Stone gets nominated for a Razzie at the end of the year.

This may sound weird considering my previous complaints, but part of me wishes Stone had more screentime. The movie takes a long time to introduce the character. Despite being a pivotal part of the story, her appearance in the film feels kind of out of the blue. It would be one thing if the movie were longer, but the runtime is 89 minutes. It does not give me a lot of time to get invested in the character. By the time we get to the end of the movie and our protagonist must face off against her, the rivalry did not feel as exciting as it could have been.

I am also a little conflicted on how the final fight concludes. The end of the final fight makes a lick of sense considering the film’s overall themes and tendencies to focus on a group supporting each other when they need it most. It also makes sense because we see Hutch is not perfect when it comes to fighting. But truthfully, the fight spent too much time showcasing what the villain is capable of rather than showing what Hutch, the star of the film, can do going up against said villain.

Despite my complaints, I will acknowledge that this film does generally satisfy when it comes to action. There is not one sequence that was improperly shot or lazily done. The filmmakers spared no expense. If you are simply looking for some solid action sequences, “Nobody 2” has them. This is not my favorite action film of the year. It also does not have my favorite action scenes of the year. But that does not mean the film is bad. If anything, it implies that this has been a pretty good year for action, and “Nobody 2” is the latest project to prove that point, even if it is a step below some other recent movies.

In the end, “Nobody 2” is not a bad movie, but it is definitely inferior to the original. It has action that is about as solid as its predecessor, but the story and characterization is sometimes lacking. The past few months have delivered some terrific action movies, particularly “Mission: Impossible – The Final Reckoning,” and “Ballerina.” If you are looking for an action flick to watch in the near future and you want my recommendation, I would probably suggest those two films before this one. I am going to give “Nobody 2” a 6/10.

“Nobody 2” is now available to rent or buy on VOD.

Courtesy of Focus Features – © Focus Features

Thanks for reading this review! My next review is going to be for “Honey Don’t!” Stay tuned! Also coming soon, I will be sharing my thoughts on “Eden,” “Splitsville,” and “The Long Walk.” 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 “Nobody 2?” What did you think about it? Or, which of the two “Nobody” installments do you prefer? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

Freakier Friday (2025): Well… It’s Definitely Freakier

Posted on by Jack Drees

Photo by Disney/DISNEY – © 2025 Disney Enterprises, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

“Freakier Friday” is directed by Nisha Ganatra (You Me Her, Late Night) and stars Jamie Lee Curtis (Halloween, Everything Everywhere All at Once), Lindsay Lohan (Mean Girls, The Parent Trap), Julia Butters (American Housewife, Once Upon a Time in Hollywood), Sophia Hammons (Up Here, The Social Dilemma), Manny Jacinto (The Acolyte, The Good Place), and Mark Harmon (Chicago Hope, NCIS). In this sequel to the 2003 film “Freaky Friday,” Tess and Anna, a mother-daughter duo who have switched bodies with each other in the past, now have to deal with something even wilder… A body switch between three generations, which includes Anna’s child, as well as her future stepchild.

We live in a time where it feels like even the most unnecessary of sequels are popping up in movie theaters. While one could argue almost no movie in history is “needed,” I think a sequel to the 2003 “Freaky Friday” is the year’s most unnecessary movie. Then again, this comes from someone who frankly does not care for the original. That is, if you can actually call that movie an “original.” It is based on a book that was already made into a movie decades prior.

To be honest, even though I read the book and watched the 1976 movie as a teenager, I never bothered checking out the 2003 “Freaky Friday.” For those who want to know, the book is quite good, and the 1976 film could be worse, but it shows its age. I also found the music choices in that film to be a bit weird.

I will not deny that the concept of “Freaky Friday” is intriguing, but I did not feel a need to see it again, despite my love for Jamie Lee Curtis. If you want my quick thoughts on that film, it is the very definition of “fine at best.” It is a movie that seems to lean more towards a female audience than it does male. After all, the two main characters are a mother and daughter. But even so, the film comes off as if it is trying to impress as many demographics as possible to the point where it almost pleases no one.

That said, what do I know? 2003’s “Freaky Friday” is seen as a classic to some, and I have talked to people who said that it is probably Jamie Lee Curtis’ biggest property and role.

Couple things… As long as “Halloween” exists, I am pretty sure “Freaky Friday” is not Jamie Lee Curtis’ biggest role to date. Also, if I were not reviewing movies, there is a strong chance I would not have seen “Freakier Friday,” but here we are.

Unsurprisingly, I did not like the film. In fact, I honestly prefer the 2003 original. This is not the worst film of the year, but I have similar gripes with this film that I do with the original. “Freakier Friday,” like the original, is a family film, and much like the original, it feels like there is something in this film for all ages and demographics. The film seems to be more concerned with how many people it can please to the point where it occasionally feels overstuffed. In fact, “Freakier Friday” seems to suffer from what I like to call the misuse of the “bigger is better” cliche. “Freakier Friday” undoubtedly lives up to its name. It is most certainly “freakier” than the original in the sense that its story involves more characters and threads. But it is almost to a point where I am not as invested in everything the movie’s throwing at me. The movie packs so much into less than two hours and sometimes certain parts feel rushed.

The film’s “switch” is a bit different from previous “Freaky Friday” projects. Instead of two people switching bodies, this movie has four. You have Annabel switching with her daughter, Harper. And you have Annabel’s future stepdaughter, Ella, switching with Tess. This took me a second to comprehend at first, but I have no problem with that. If anything, I am glad to see that “Freakier Friday” could challenge younger viewers. The film could get them to use their heads.

The film does feel more mature than the original, but also maintains the spirit of said movie. It makes sense considering how a core part of the audience are people who watched it when they were young and are now in their 20s and 30s. Another reason is likely because both of the film’s biggest stars this time around are adults. Lindsay Lohan is now grown up, and the same goes for her character. There is a calmer chemistry between Lohan and Curtis throughout the runtime.

One of my favorite characters in the film is Eric Davies (center), played by Manny Jacinto. Remember how I said this film is more mature than the original? Well, it appears Anna has outgrown her boy toy from 2003 as well. The film features Eric and Anna as an engaged couple. The two have their own daughters who are bound to become stepsisters. I also appreciate the film’s approach in regard to how it handles Eric’s personality. Never once did I get the sense that he was an unlikable guy. This movie could have easily set him up in such a way where he could have been the evil stepdad that his future stepchild has no choice but to put up with. Although this film is smarter than that. While it is obvious that Harper does not like Eric, and by extension, Ella, being in her life, never once do I get the sense that she hates him because he does terrible things. For the most part, she simply hates him because she does not like change. It sounds illogical but I get where she is coming from. In Harper’s eyes, this change evokes a similar vibe to moving to a new town at a young age. It is beyond her control and uncomfortable.

That said, as much as I can appreciate the film for somewhat effectively building things up, I cannot say I am a big fan of how it ends. For starters, the climax feels rather rushed. There is a point where we get from one’s lowest low to a certain climactic point with little breathing room. I think fans of the original film will appreciate the ending in certain parts. But as someone who did not grow up watching the original, I do not think the film left the impact it was going for. Without spoiling what happens, I think the ending puts the main four characters in a predictable place, but it does not mean that place is earned. It is a well-intended, happy-ish ending, but not one I buy. I know this is a Disney movie, so a happy ending is perhaps inevitable, but still.

The film tends to pack in a similar lesson also seen in the original. Throughout the film, the characters are put in positions where they realize what it is like to see themselves in another person’s shoes. But I thought that lesson was done better in other interpretations. The telling of that lesson to the audience felt cleaner and more digestible in the 2003 film compared to its 2025 sequel. As much as I thought 2003’s “Freakier Friday” reeked of averageness, I do buy the two leads appreciating each other a little bit more after switching bodies. In this film, it feels more focused on the chaos of the plot rather than finding ways that the characters can appreciate others being in their life or having them learn something about those people.

In the end, “Freakier Friday” to my surprise, was not outright frustrating. But it does not mean that this is a good film. At times “Freakier Friday” feels rushed, slapped together, and lacking on the emotion that it seems to be going for. The film is called “Freakier Friday” for a reason, but it seemed slightly more focused on the freakiness compared to establishing the most robust characters possible. I am not going to pretend I am a huge nut for the “Freaky Friday” IP, but if I did see the 2003 film when I was younger, or maybe even a teenager, the thought of a sequel titled “Freakier Friday” would probably be best fit for a “Saturday Night Live” sketch. But instead, a group of people got together and made a full-fledged movie out of it. I am going to give “Freakier Friday” a 4/10.

“Freakier Friday” is now playing in theaters. Tickets are available now.

Thanks for reading this review! My next review is going to be for “Nobody 2.” Stay tuned! Also look forward to reading my thoughts on “Honey Don’t!”, “Eden,” “Splitsville,” and “The Long Walk.” 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 “Freakier Friday?” What did you think about it? Or, between this film and the 2003 “Freaky Friday,” which one do you think is better? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

Weapons (2025): A Slightly Repetitive, but Undoubtedly Creative Sophomore Outing from Zach Cregger

Posted on by Jack Drees

“Weapons” is directed by Zach Cregger, who also directed the brilliant 2022 horror flick “Barbarian,” and stars Josh Brolin (The Goonies, Avengers: Infinity War), Julia Garner (The Fantastic Four: First Steps, Ozark), Alden Ehrenreich (Solo: A Star Wars Story, Cocaine Bear), Austin Abrams (This Is Us, The Walking Dead), Cary Christopher (Days of Our Lives, The Rookie), Toby Huss (The Adventures of Pete & Pete, King of the Hill), Benedict Wong (Doctor Strange, Annihilation), and Amy Madigan (Uncle Buck, Gone Baby Gone). In this film, several children wake up at 2:17 a.m. and disappear. Now it is up to a community to come together to figure out why these children vanished.

While not my favorite film of 2022, Zach Cregger’s “Barbarian” left me gobsmacked. It is genuinely one of the cleverest horror screenplays I had the privilege of seeing come to life.  That said, I really was not sure what his future would hold when it comes to filmmaking.

By the way, where’s the “Barbarian” Blu-ray? Come on, Disney! I thought you wanted my money!

I was not sure what to think going into “Weapons,” partially because I missed out on much of the marketing. I knew this film was coming out. I had people in my circles who were stoked to see it. But I did not know what I would think of it. Then the week of its release, I watched the trailer for the first time. If I were a higher-up for a studio and someone pitched me this film in an elevator, I would probably follow that person out, needing to know more. This is an incredible idea that has translated into quite a good movie.

“Weapons” sucked me in from minute one. This movie only had one chance to make a first impression, and as soon as it started, I figured I was going to get something of the nature of an epic bedtime story. The movie starts off with narration from a child, and I thought having a child narrate was smart partially because of the subject matter, but also because it makes what’s being told much more mysterious and chilling. If an adult were narrating this, I might have more trouble buying it because the subject matter dives into a certain degree of fantasy. But it is perfect the way it is.

The film contains an unbelievable cast, led with excellence by Julia Garner. Safe to say, she is having quite a year for herself between this film and “Fantastic Four.” She might be the star of the summer, and while she was good in “Fantastic Four,” this film allows her to unleash much more of her chops. While she may not have as high of a profile as some of her co-stars such as Josh Brolin or perhaps even Benedict Wong, this film put her on the map for me. I would like to see her in more movies going forward.

“Weapons” is one of the freshest films of the year. Though I will admit, like another highly rated horror film from earlier this year, “Sinners,” I might have to be a party pooper and say “Weapons” is probably not going to end up amongst my favorite films when I do my countdown at the end of 2025. The film has problems and I have the balls to talk about them. There is a concept in this film involving people eating soup. This is really hard to dive into without giving much away, but I’ll give it my best shot. For those who have seen the movie, you likely know what I am talking about. My biggest question, how do the people eating the soup, one, swallow it, and two, digest it? The people eating the soup all have something in common, and that similarity is boggling my mind as to whether they are actually able to eat. I should probably stay calm about this issue. But I am conflicted as to whether it really makes sense.

One of the things I loved about Zach Cregger’s “Barbarian” is how it successfully blended multiple key perspectives without having the end result feel convoluted or jarring. “Weapons” does not do exactly the same thing, but the film commits to something similar. “Weapons” is much heavier in its storytelling. It combines a multitude of perspectives as a large cast takes in the same event playing in front of their eyes in different ways. Some of these perspectives are handled better than others. A lot of these perspectives are blended nicely, but sometimes it is a little unsatisfying to have the moment play out multiple times. The film itself is finely edited, but every once in a while it does feel a little repetitive.

“Weapons” falls into the horror genre, and it does the number one job these movies are supposed to accomplish, delivering on the scares. When I say that, it should be made clear that I would not call “Weapons” terrifying. If anything, it is more tense than it is scary. I am not going to pretend that this film goes over the top with its scares, but it does not mean it does not fail when it comes to the creeps.

The film is also, at times, surprisingly hilarious. I can probably see some of the comedy being a distraction for some people considering quite a bit of the narrative comes off as serious. But this movie has a knack for delivering naturally funny moments. I went to see this film with a small crowd and I was delighted to see quite a few people other than myself letting out a few laughs.

While the movie does have some bumps in the road, I have to admit that the ending is beyond satisfying. It is one of my favorite scenes of the year. Not only does it do a good job at tying all the loose ends but it is simply one of the most well directed scenes in cinema I can recall seeing recently. Everyone on camera gives it their all. There is sometimes a point of view shot that made me feel like I was in the middle of the scene. The ending is a rollercoaster ride worth seeing on the big screen, much like the film as a whole.

In the end, “Weapons” is another decent outing from Zach Cregger. They say you are only as good as your last project, and thankfully, Cregger’s last couple of projects have me looking forward to whatever he has up his sleeve next. The cast of the film unleashes a ton of talent and they all have a great script that does them favors. The film is endlessly intriguing and well-paced despite some minor flaws. Will I watch “Weapons” again? It’s within the realm of possibility. I am in no rush, frankly, but if a friend were at my place and they wanted to put it on, I would not say no. This is a solid flick. I am going to give “Weapons” a 7/10.

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

Thanks for reading this review! My next review is going to be for “Freakier Friday!” Stay tuned! Also coming soon, look forward to my thoughts on “Nobody 2,” “Honey Don’t!”, and “Eden.” If you want to see these reviews and more from Scene Before, follow the blog either with an email or WordPress account! Also, be sure to like the official Facebook page! I want to know, did you see “Weapons?” What did you think about it? Or, which Zach Cregger movie did you like more? “Barbarian” or “Weapons?” Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!