Action | Scene Before

Avatar: Fire and Ash (2025): James Cameron’s Third Smurf Theme Park Ride

“Avatar: Fire and Ash” is directed by James Cameron (The Terminator, Titanic) and stars Sam Worthington (Clash of the Titans, Man on a Ledge), Zoe Saldaña (Guardians of the Galaxy, Star Trek), Sigourney Weaver (Alien, Ghostbusters), Stephen Lang (Don’t Breathe, Public Enemies), Oona Chaplin (The Longest Ride, Game of Thrones), and Kate Winslet (Titanic, The Reader). This is the third installment in the “Avatar” franchise and once again follows the Sully family as they deal with grief and cross paths with an unfamiliar Na’Vi tribe, the Ash people.

After the 13 year wait between the first two “Avatar” movies, it is clear that the hype for this franchise has not died down. Say what you want about the “Avatar” property, but when you have a first film that ends up being the biggest theatrical release of all time, and a second film that also ends up making a couple billion bucks at the box office, it is a sign that things are not over yet. That is where “Avatar: Fire and Ash” comes in. One big difference going into this film is that the wait for it was much shorter than the wait for “Avatar: The Way of Water.” However, that wait may have played a small part into the shrinkage of hype I had for “Avatar: Fire and Ash.”

Another part that played into my low expectations was the result of the last movie. For those who missed my “Avatar: The Way of Water” review, I found the film to be middle of the road at best. It was a step down from the original “Avatar,” which was not revolutionary in terms of structure or story, but at the time, it was technically impressive. It arguably upped the standard for how 3D should look after the first film blew audiences away back in 2009. The CGI makes fantasy come alive. The color palette is incredibly easy on the eyes. So, it is unfortunate that all of this technical splendor was in the same place as a watered down, formulaic, boring script.

I went into “Avatar: Fire and Ash” with about as open of a mind as I could offer. The film, in some ways, met my expectations. Each frame looks dazzling and packs itself with glamour. The style is, unsurprisingly, pleasing. The substance, to my shock, improved somewhat slightly from the last film. Granted, it does require some significant suspension of one’s disbelief. For example, Quaritch is back. Because it is not “Avatar” without Quaritch for whatever reason. By itself, the idea of bringing Quaritch back peeves me because it lessens the stakes of this franchise. But they already revived in him in the second movie, so it is perhaps only necessary keep up the tradition in the third.

That said, once the movie leaps past this logical barrier with this character, it actually gives him some good material to work with. I liked seeing Quaritch, the big bad in the previous two movies, sort of cater to the savagery of the Ash people by presenting them with weaponry. Of all the Na’Vi that have been introduced throughout the three movies, the Ash people are by far the wildest and most untamed.

I never reviewed the first “Avatar,” but if you recall my review for the second, you may know despite my negative opinion regarding the film, I did appreciate it from a technical perspective. The third film is no exception to the rule. Like the past two films, the 3D will dilate your eyes. Like the past two films, the sound editing will energize your ears. It is something that in a sense you have to see and hear to believe. But it would be a lot more exciting if this were not a third installment showcasing tricks we have seen a couple times already.

In fact, “Avatar” is starting to remind me of what has happened in the past decade with Michael Bay’s “Transformers” movies. Like those movies or not, each and every one seems to follow a noticeably similar story and formula. This “Avatar” movie, like the previous ones, introduces a new group of Na’Vi, tries to explain why humans may be monsters, and has big climactic battles with birds flying all over the screen. It is not to say that some of what I described is not enticing, but there is less of a sense of novelty this time around compared to my experiences in 2009 and 2022. Maybe the 13 year gap had something to do with it, but still.

One thing that was featured in the second movie that reappears here is the high frame rate. For those who do not know, most movies are shot and presented in 24 frames per second. “Avatar: Fire and Ash” is a rare exception, as it is shot and presented in 48… Some of the time… “Avatar: Fire and Ash” has some scenes, particularly the more action-centric ones, in 48 frames per second, while the slower, more dialogue-driven scenes are in 24. This kind of reminds me of some filmmakers in recent decades shooting their projects in IMAX, where in the final product, the aspect ratio switches in select scenes. Only in most cases when that happens, the switch does not tend to feel as jarring. Maybe I am just used to that technique, which when it does happen, I often find myself marveled by it. Including this year during “Sinners” and “The Fantastic Four: First Steps.”

I found the switch between the two frame rates to be incredibly distracting. I remember when the movie started and we see the opening logos and there is a scene where characters are flying in the air. All of it is in 48 frames per second. So, when the movie decides to suddenly switch to 24, it felt somewhat jolty. For a movie that prides itself for its immersion factor, this is something that immediately took me out of it.

As I watched “Avatar: Fire and Ash” I immediately thought about Martin Scorsese’s comments about Marvel movies, specifically about them being theme park rides. This sentiment is one I would personally give to the “Avatar” movies at this point. It is really weird to say because I think James Cameron can tell a good story. I love the first two “Terminators.” I love “True Lies.” While I find “Titanic” to be overrated, I do like the chemistry between Jack and Rose. These “Avatar” movies, while they do make a lot of money, feel incredibly cookie cutter and predictable by now. Not to mention, its casts do not stand out as much as the ones in Cameron’s other movies. I do not think it is a bad thing for a franchise to have similar movies. It makes it easy to tell you are watching separate things in the same universe. But I also think there is a little room for variety. Sure, instead of introducing Water Na’Vi, this movie is introducing Ash Na’Vi, but the nuts and bolts of the story feel almost entirely identical to what’s been told before.

Sigourney Weaver once again makes an appearance in this film, and her character, Kiri, stood out to me for a couple reasons. First off, if you pay close enough attention, the film does have an Easter egg to Ripley from the “Alien” franchise, specifically one of her most iconic lines. Second, like the last film, Weaver herself, who is in her 70s, has a tremendous age gap with her teenage character. I am not going to pretend that “The Way of Water” hid this age gap the entire time, but I thought “Fire and Ash” did an inferior job at keeping it hidden. Weaver’s voice sometimes sounds too wise and deep for a 14 year old. I sometimes found this performance to be a tad distracting. I love Weaver. I think she is a phenomenal actress. But the more I watched this film, the more I felt Cameron should have cast someone who was younger to play her character. Perhaps someone unknown.

It may sound like I hate “Avatar: Fire and Ash.” But the truth is that I liked the film more than the last one, which I thought was mediocre. As much as I think the film feels like it plays the hits, it sometimes plays them well. I thought the characterization was also better this time around. Again, once this film finishes jumping the shark with Quaritch’s death in 2022’s outing, I like the direction in which they took him. I also thought this film gave some fascinating material for Spider. I thought the way he was handled in “The Way of Water” was rather questionable, but I like some of the ways he was developed in this film, particularly in regard to his overall connection with the Na’Vi. There is also a gripping scene in the second half of the film where his character serves as a crucial subject of the film’s larger message. We see Jake Sully trying to determine the best of two difficult choices, both of which involve Spider’s character. I thought the scene was excellently dramatized and may be one of the better character moments this franchise has offered.

Speaking of the Sully family, I thought they were another positive in this film. I found myself to care more about the children this time around than I did in the previous outing. I thought them dealing with the loss of one of their own gave each member some substance, including Neytiri, who establishes her opposition for humanity. But if you were to ask me what stood out to me in this film as a positive, I would find it difficult to come up with immediate, definitive answers. There are things I liked, but nothing that I truly loved. Part of me wants to say the CGI and the 3D are great, but “Avatar” can only offer the same thing so many times before it feels less fresh than it did before. If we get an “Avatar 4,” I am slightly more onboard for that than I was for this film. But I am still worried about this franchise becoming an old dog that can no longer learn new tricks. But, what do I know? This franchise makes buttloads of money, and people keep watching them. That is how the business works.

In the end, if you were to ask me if you should go see “Avatar: Fire and Ash,” chances are I would answer yes. That said, it may be a specific yes. I would say to go see the movie, but I would not commit to seeing it at night. Settle for a matinee showtime when it is cheaper. “Avatar: Fire and Ash” sometimes feels like more of the same, but sometimes the repetitive parts work. I also thought the characterization was improved from the second movie. I found myself bored with that experience at times. With a three hour and 17 minute runtime, “Avatar: Fire and Ash” may be five minutes longer than “The Way of Water,” but this threequel comes with a much more engaging, faster pace. I cannot say I found a moment during the film where I wanted to drift off to sleep. In terms of the storytelling, I was surprisingly hooked. “Fire and Ash” does a not great, but good job with that. That said, if they are going to do the high frame rate in “Avatar 4,” I hope the film stays at 48 frames per second the whole time. I think 24 frames per second looks cooler. It makes things look more dramatic. But that is just me. Regardless of how many frames this film handles in a second, the switches honestly jarred me. If anything, it made the high frame rate come off as more of a gimmick. I will give this “Avatar” installment, as well as the others, props for the stunning 3D, which I often find gimmicky in other projects. But the high frame rate? Forget about it. I do not think it needed to be there. I do not give this film the highest of recommendations, but in no way am I going to disapprove of it either. I am going to give “Avatar: Fire and Ash” a 6/10.

“Avatar: Fire and Ash” is now playing in theaters everywhere. Tickets are available now.

Photo by Courtesy of Searchlight Pictures – © Searchlight Pictures

Thanks for reading this review! My next reviews are going to be for “Is This Thing On?” and “Marty Supreme.” Stay tuned! Also coming soon, I will be unveiling my picks for my best and worst movies of 2025! I enjoy doing both lists. It has become an annual tradition. It is always fun to keep up with it. If you want to see these upcoming posts 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 “Avatar: Fire and Ash?” What did you think about it? Or, what is your favorite of the “Avatar” movies? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

Scarlet (2025): Revenge is a Dish Best Served in the Afterlife

Posted on 19 Days Ago by Jack Drees

“Scarlet” is directed by Mamoru Hosoda (Belle, Mirai) and stars Mana Ashida (Pacific Rim, Mother), Masaki Okada (Drive My Car, Confessions), and Koji Yakusho (Babel, Perfect Days). In this film, the titular princess, who lives in Medieval Times, is out to get revenge against her father’s killer. Unfortunately for her, the mission does not go according to plan, because she dies before completing it. Her quest continues in the afterlife, where the killer also happens to reside. In the meantime, she runs into a medical worker from the present day, whose views on violence and revenge strongly conflict with hers.

“Scarlet’s” wide U.S. release does not take place until 2026, but I had the unique opportunity to watch the film in 2025, as it received a very limited engagement in select IMAX theaters. One of those theaters happened to be 20 minutes from home, and given how much I was chomping at the bit to see “Scarlet,” I bought a ticket lickety split. That said, even if “Scarlet” were only playing one, two, three, or even four hours away from where I was, I would have still bought a ticket because the film is from someone who has become a favorite filmmaker of mine in recent years, specifically, Mamoru Hosoda.

If you have read this blog in 2022, or sometime after, you may have discovered that I have a very unhealthy obsession for Hosoda’s movie “Belle,” which I have made multiple posts about, and watched countless times. Since then, I have gone back to watch Hosoda’s other films including “The Girl Who Leapt Through Time,” which was clever and fun. “Summer Wars,” which is creative and full of likable characters. “Wolf Children,” which by the end, triggered all kinds of emotions for me. “The Boy and the Beast,” which I found to be an entertaining journey with a likable duo. And “Mirai,” which I think is the weakest of Hosoda’s filmography, but still charming and neatly animated. Even with his inferior films, Hosoda boasts an incredible resume, and I am proud to say that “Scarlet” just the latest success from the masterclass storyteller.

Every once in a while, there comes in a film that makes people say that such a story is something we need right now, and I would argue “Scarlet” is not just a story we need right now, it is story that we will probably continue to need for years to come. This is not so much a movie as much as it is a message about being kind. A message reminding people of the horrors of violence. A message concerning the importance of the human condition. I really enjoyed seeing the major differences between the film’s two main characters, Scarlet, a princess from medieval times, and Hijiri, a first responder from modern times. Both characters end up dying, meet up in the afterlife, and come to realize each other’s differences.

“Scarlet” is not the only afterlife-centric film I reviewed this year. If you have followed Scene Before recently, you would know I reviewed “Eternity.” Both of these films have clever interpretations on what happens after you die, but both films are likely to hit certain audiences differently. “Eternity” takes a more comedic approach to dealing with the concept of death and the uncertainty of what happens after one ceases to exist. “Scarlet” on the other hand, while it occasionally has a funny moment, is grittier, bloodier, and more violent. If you dig this more dramatic approach, this movie could work for you. One indication of how dramatic this movie can get at times is its messaging about war.

Technically speaking, this film sings. The sound mixing in this film blew me away. There are some lightning claps in this movie that shook me as soon as they emitted. Granted, I saw this film in IMAX, so it is not much a surprise that a lot of the sound effects end up packing a punch. Not surprisingly, like most of Hosoda’s work, this film looks beautiful. Granted, I will say unlike some of his past work like “Summer Wars” or “Wolf Children,” there is a lot less emphasis on color. The film is not only rugged in terms of its vibe, but it is often matched by its color choices, or lack thereof. Though I will note, between this film and “Belle,” Hosoda seems to like focusing on protagonists with pink hair. The animation style is not the easiest to explain in layman’s terms. It is almost “Spider-Verse“-esque considering the film’s mix of 2D and 3D elements. It is not quite on the same level, but at times “Scarlet” does remind me of those films.

The music in this film is also fantastic. There is one song that is original to the film called “A Celebration Song.” I thought it was perfectly timed and utilized around the story’s midpoint. The score, whose percussion elements stood out to me in particular, is composed by Taisei Iwasaki. While I do not think this is as memorable as his “Belle” score, his efforts here result in some chilling tracks.

The story does have elements that are familiar. In fact, “Scarlet” takes a bit from William Shakespeare’s “Hamlet,” but it does not mean it is not its own animal. Scarlet and Hijiri come from different times, different places, different backgrounds. But both note that they are no strangers to war and violence. Scarlet wants to get revenge on the person who killed her father. And Hijiri suggests that people like him are trying to keep the concept of war in the rear-view mirror, despite the difficulty of doing so. He also establishes that his very profession involves saving people from death, and that he has never become used to the idea of people dying despite what his job entails. Scarlet mocks Hijiri, calling him a do-gooder, but he simply wants there to be world peace. As these two navigate the afterlife together, it becomes clear that in a sense, this movie is practically a near two hour plea for pacifism.

I also found the ending quite satisfying. Granted, it does require some suspension of disbelief. But if you can get past the logic leap, then it might hit you in the same way it hit me. Then again, as I say that, I realize how much this film made me suspend my own disbelief. I have no clue what the afterlife is going to be like, but most of my interpretations of the afterlife over the years have a timeline that is almost parallel to the one we experience in “real life.” When someone dies, I sometimes think of them “looking down” at me, or somebody else. The thought has never crossed my mind that there could be another version of me that has already died, or that if I die, I would travel to a time so to speak long before the people I know are born. The afterlife in this film is undoubtedly creative, but it is kind of mind-numbing to think about, and if I did end up there after I died, I would be a bit bewildered. The afterlife feels very specific to the movie’s universe in order to tell its specific story, and it works here. But it does not feel like a place in which people would truly end up after death if you ask me.

I cannot stop thinking about this film’s afterlife, which is in part a good thing because it is clever, but also a bad thing because I sometimes question its logic. But that is not all that is on my mind upon leaving “Scarlet,” because the film reminds me of how I sometimes think about some of the bad things in my life and how I could at one point say to myself, “This is the worst timeline,” or “This is the worst time in history.” But in actuality, my time in history is probably as not as bad as some others. In fact, it is very likely that as I look back in the past, so many people felt that their specific time had an overwhelming amount of negativity attached to it. I look at our world today and there is so much war going on across the planet, but this film reminds me that even though war exists, my generation did not invent it. In fact, many people in my generation are trying to stop it. This film made me wonder what life would be like if I were born at a different time, all the while making me appreciate the good that we have in this current time. I need time to marinate, but “Scarlet” is likely my favorite animated film of the year. It looks pretty, has likable characters, and is also a bit of a thinker.

In the end, “Scarlet” is, to me, in the middle tier of Mamoru Hosoda’s filmography, which is another way of suggesting that I really dug this movie. Hosoda tells a fast-paced, riveting, emotionally satisfying story with a couple of fleshed out main characters. I liked getting to know about both of them. On top of that, the film is beautifully animated and has tons of great music. I am going to give “Scarlet” an 8/10.

“Scarlet” arrives in theatres Feburary 6th, 2026.

Thanks for reading this review! My next review is going to be for “The Secret Agent!” Stay tuned! Also coming soon, I will be sharing my thoughts on “Hamnet” and “Avatar: Fire and Ash.” 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 “Scarlet?” What did you think about it? Or, what is your favorite film from Mamoru Hosoda? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

Zootopia 2 (2025): Zoo Fast, Zoo Furriest

Posted on 29 Days Ago by Jack Drees

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

“Zootopia 2” is directed by Jared Bush and Byron Howard, both of whom had their share of credits on the original movie. This film stars Ginnifer Goodwin (Big Love, Once Upon a Time), Jason Bateman (Game Night, Ozark), Ke Huy Quan (Love Hurts, Everything Everywhere All at Once), Fortune Feimster (Bless the Harts, The Mindy Project), Andy Samberg (Saturday Night Live, Hotel Transylvania), David Strathairn (The Bourne Ultimatum, Godzilla), Shakira (The Voice, Jennifer Lopez: Halftime), Idris Elba (Pacific Rim, The Suicide Squad), Patrick Warburton (Family Guy, The Emperor’s New Groove), Quinta Brunson (A Black Lady Sketch Show, Abbott Elementary), Danny Trejo (Machete, Storks), Alan Tudyk (Rogue One: A Star Wars Story, Wreck-it Ralph), Nate Torrence (She’s Out of My League, Hello Ladies), Don Lake (Watching Ellie, Space Force), Bonnie Hunt (The Bonnie Hunt Show, Cheaper by the Dozen), and Jenny Slate (Everything Everywhere All at Once, Big Mouth). This film once again centers around its main bunny and fox duo Judy Hopps and Nick Wilde as they take on a new case and pursue Gary Da’Snake, the first reptile widely seen in Zootopia in ages.

“Zootopia” released on March 4th, 2016. That is just days after I launched Scene Before. Based on this information, it is possible that I could have made the film my first ever review. Unfortunately, that never happened. Instead, I decided to a make singularly paragraphed and grammatically unsound post on why I was not a fan of the “Ghostbusters” reboot trailer. I am proud of my blog over the years, but if I could go back in time, part of me wishes I could have done a “Zootopia” review as my first ever post, because that would have meant I could have spent time talking about something that gave me joy, rather than something that triggered my apprehension.

If I did not make myself clear, I thought “Zootopia” was a load of fun. Like a lot of animated fare aimed towards families, it packs in a lesson, and I thought it was nicely implemented. “Zootopia” has fantastic commentary on racism, the importance of inclusion, and like a lot of Disney films, it also tells people to follow their dreams. Judy Hopps is an admirable protagonist and a great role model for children. A lot of these ideas were reinforced upon my recent rewatch of the film.

As for this sequel, I was quite excited to see where things could go. Much like the first film, the tone definitely felt kid-friendly, but it also looked like something that adults could watch without feeling like they wasted their time and brain cells. Thankfully, that is what I got with “Zootopia 2.” Does this film match the quality of the original? In some ways, yes. In others, not so much.

The biggest standout for this film to me is the humor. “Zootopia 2” sort of plays out like a late night talk show. If you watch a late night talk show like “The Tonight Show” or “Jimmy Kimmel Live!”, you will notice that there are often several attempts at humor every minute. Not every single one lands, but every once in a while either the host or the sidekick or even one of the guests will deliver something that will have the audience rolling out of their chairs. This is most definitely the case for me with “Zootopia 2.” The film has an endless supply of jokes. Some had me laughing out loud. Others had me chuckling. Others had me silent. And others had me almost rolling my eyes. Comedy is subjective, however, so chances are the jokes could someone laugh nonstop from start to finish. That said, to me, a lot of the jokes work, but there are quite a few that miss the mark and if it were not for this film’s handle on the commentary, which we will get to later, this would probably knock my score down a few points.

One of my favorite jokes, surprisingly, has to do with the song “What Does the Fox Say?”. I have never understood how that song ever became popular, but for whatever reason, there was a moment where someone references the song and it gave me arguably my biggest laugh of the film. I have no idea how that joke is going to land with others, but for whatever reason, it worked for me.

The film includes a fair amount of movie references too. Of course, there are tie-ins to other notable Disney-owned properties, including some under the 20th Century banner like “Alien.” If you pay very close attention, there is a clever cameo from Michael J. Fox that pays tribute to one of his most popular projects. There is a joke that pokes fun at the state of Hollywood and Disney’s ambition to make endless sequels and remakes. …Even though this is, after all, a sequel… The film even inserted a reference in the climax that felt totally out of left field, the children watching will likely not get it, but I think a lot of the adults will. Out of all the movies I thought “Zootopia” could reference as part of an elaborate visual gag, I was not expecting “The Shining.” But here we are.

Is there anything in this film as genuinely gutbusting as the DMV scene? No. Although that is a bit unfair to say because that scene achieves a level of comedic genius greater than God. I rewatched the film a day prior to checking this new one out, and I laughed just as hard, if not harder than I did during my initial watch of the movie in theaters.

“Zootopia 2,” like its predecessor, provides some excellent commentary that could not be more fittingly timed. I do not like to talk about politics on Scene Before, but the film sort of reminds me about how some people are feeling about the current position of the United States. I will not go into specific detail as I will probably spoil the movie, but there is a key part of the story that taps into the importance of history. This is something that you would have to watch the movie to see come to fruition because me saying more would diminish the commentary’s impact. If you know your history, or are living in a certain state of awareness right now, “Zootopia 2” might stick with you upon leaving the theater. The film also showcases the importance of working together while also serving as a reminder that people might not always be on the same page with their partner. Part of working together sometimes means compromise and this film heavily leans into that idea.

The film does not break new ground story-wise, but delivers familiar beats in an entertaining way. If you watched the first film, you would know that the story mainly revolves around a bunny and a fox, an unlikely duo. While that film taps into how unlikely such a duo is, this sequel heavily expands upon that idea to the point where it allows both characters to grow. Parts of the film are rather predictable, but there are moments where we see the tension growing in Judy and Nick’s partnership that hit me. There is one moment on a mountain involving a particular object that felt earned at the exact moment it happened.

Like the first film, which features “Try Everything,” “Zootopia 2” has an original song from Shakira called “Zoo.” Frankly, I am not as big of a fan of this song as I am of “Try Everything.” The song, while by no means incompetent, has a lot less personality than “Try Everything.” Sure, in context of the movie, one could say it is used in conjunction with celebrating 100 years of Zootopia. Although if that were the case, I wish the song would have a had more of an oomph for such a momentous occasion. It lacks splendor and diversity in its beat. Again, the song is not the worst I have ever heard, but I thought it could have been better. I have not gone back to listen to “Try Everything” since “Zootopia” came out. The song, like this one, is a bit too poppy for my taste. But I think the song is perfectly used in the film and the lyrics could not be a better match for what the story was trying to shoot for. The lyrics in this song are okay, but I found “Try Everything” to be inspiring whereas “Zoo” did not leave much of an impact. That said, the day after seeing the film, I was at another cinema waiting for my screening of “Wake Up Dead Man,” only to see a mother and son walking out of their “Zootopia 2” screening, at which point the mother starts singing the lyrics of the song, so what do I know? It’s catchy, perhaps.

“Zootopia 2” features plenty of returning characters, but the film also makes room for new cast members, including Ke Huy Quan as Gary Da’Snake, Generic name aside, the character is likable. While Ke Huy Quan is an incredible action star as seen through films like “Everything Everywhere All at Once,” his high-pitch voice makes it very easy to sympathize with his character. Da’Snake often evokes a friendly presence and ends up playing a notable part throughout the film, which unlike the original, has reptiles.

The film also features the great Patrick Warburton as Mayor Winddancer. It is funny how Warburton can use the same voice for every character and yet carry so much personality each time. It is kind of like Brad Garrett, his normal voice is sometimes the best voice for the role. Even though I think J.K. Simmons is the slightly better performer, I think Warburton’s Mayor character is a slight step up from the original movie’s Lionheart. I liked getting to know about Winddancer’s background as a movie star. If anything, Winddancer is perhaps Zootopia’s closest comparison to Arnold Schwarzenegger, who many know as the Terminator, but he also spent years serving as the Governor of California.

Also, I know not everyone is eager to stay for the end of a Disney animation, but if you have time, you may want to stay for the credits. If you pay close attention at the end, you will notice something of importance.

In the end, “Zootopia 2” may not match the quality of its predecessor, but it is a fun, entertaining, and gorgeous-looking sequel. It does a great job at showcasing the continued journeys of its core characters we have come to know while solidly expanding the universe. Ke Huy Quan is a great addition to the cast, and so is Patrick Warburton. Those two actors in particular stand out. There is a lot of humor in “Zootopia 2,” which does lead to a lot of laughs, but it does not mean that there are no duds in the mix. I will give the writers an A for effort though. It seems like the team had a lot of fun coming up with the jokes. The film is a blast for kids and adults alike. I am going to give “Zootopia 2” a 7/10.

“Zootopia 2” is now playing in theaters everywhere. Tickets are available now.

Thanks for reading this review! My next review is going to be for “Wake Up Dead Man: A Knives Out Mystery.” Stay tuned! Also coming soon, I will be sharing my thoughts on “Jay Kelly,” “Bugonia,” “No Other Choice,” and “Fackham Hall.” 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 “Zootopia 2?” What did you think about it? Or, which of the two “Zootopia” movies do you like better? For me, the original gave me one of my all time biggest laughs as a moviegoer with the DMV scene, so I have to pick that one. Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

The Running Man (2025): Edgar Wright Delivers a Supersonic Ride

Posted on November 30 by Jack Drees

“The Running Man” is directed by Edgar Wright (Scott Pilgrim vs. the World, Last Night in Soho) and stars Glen Powell (Twisters, Anyone But You), William H. Macy (Fargo, Kingdom of the Planet of the Apes), Lee Pace (Foundation, Guardians of the Galaxy), Michael Cera (Scott Pilgrim vs. the World, The LEGO Batman Movie), Emilia Jones (CODA, Locke & Key), Daniel Ezra (A Discovery of Witches, All American), Jayme Lawson (The Batman, Sinners), Sean Hayes (Will & Grace, The Three Stooges), Colman Domingo (Sing Sing, Rustin), and Josh Brolin (Avengers: Infinity War, The Goonies). This future-set film is based on the book by Stephen King and follows Ben Richards who is put on a game show where he has the chance to become a billionaire by surviving for 30 days against hunters.

The 2025 adaptation of “The Running Man” is my first true exposure to the property. Yes, I have long been aware that Arnold Schwarzenegger starred in a previous adaptation years ago. It took me a while to realize that said adaptation was based on a Stephen King book. That said, I was onboard for this 2025 film just for the fact that Edgar Wright was helming it. I love his fast-paced directing style utilized in films like “Scott Pilgrim vs. the World” and “Baby Driver.” He has a knack for sick action scenes.

That said, compared to those movies, “The Running Man” does not hold a candle. Yet at the same time, like I often say about Pixar, an inferior Edgar Wright project can still equal a good movie, and a good movie “The Running Man” is.

While I have not seen the original “Running Man” film, I am aware that former “Family Feud” star and record-breaking lady kisser Richard Dawson played Bobby Thompson, a charismatic game show host. I cannot say much about Dawson’s performance given my lack of experience with the 1987 movie, but I can see why he was cast to play the character. Flash forward to 2025, where we have Colman Domingo, who last I checked, let me check my notes here =flips papers= hosted ZERO game shows. But Domingo’s performance as Bobby T makes me think he could easily kill it as a game show host in real life I would love to see what he could do on perhaps a reboot of “1 vs. 100” if that ever comes back. In fact, at times, that’s what part of “The Running Man” game show feels like, at least before “The Running Man” gets started. Maybe it is because both concepts involve one person trying to fend off a group of people.

Domingo says his role was inspired by Jerry Springer, and I can see where he is coming from, because if you watch those kinds of talk shows, even ones like “Maury” or “The Steve Wilkos Show,” there is a sense of heightened reality that those hosts are responsible for bringing to the table. In fact, when it comes to Domingo’s line delivery and the production design that often matches perfectly alongside it, it reminds me of something I and others would often compare “The Jerry Springer Show” to, specifically wrestling. The theatrics on “The Running Man” are much more extravagant than most real life game shows. At times it makes “Who Wants to Be a Millionaire?”, a show that partially succeeds on its elaborate production design, seem insignificant.

“The Running Man,” like many films set in the future, paints a dystopian, bleak picture of what’s to come. To my surprise, I found quite a bit in common with “The Running Man” and “Idiocracy.” Granted, people are much smarter in “The Running Man,” but if you look at the state of television in both films, you would notice that both heavily feature programming that focuses on people’s pain. Sure, we have that now. One of my all time favorite game shows is “Wipeout,” which features people falling from great heights in each episode. But it is on a different level in this film. Life in “The Running Man” has gotten to a point where gambling is supposedly dominating the world. For Ben Richards, getting on a game show means everything to him. Not necessarily because he likes the shows, but because those shows are a means to make a quick buck. He wants a better life for himself, his family, and game shows are a fast and easy way to get to that point.

Overall, I thought Ben Richards was a likable protagonist. The movie gives him one obstacle after another. He cares about the people he loves. I like the film indicating his distaste for being on “The Running Man” despite doing all he can to make it through. If I had one thing to say though, I feel that of all the characters in this film, Ben Richards is the most likely candidate to receive the title “character that could be played by almost anyone.” I have nothing against Glen Powell. Each role of his proves he is a movie star in the making. Powell has charisma, and he even impressed me in the neither romantic nor funny “romcom” some like to call “Anyone But You.” But as I look back at Ben Richards, I feel that this is maybe the least Glen Powell-esque the actor has been thus far. Through the films in which I have seen him, this is the most “everyday” Powell has come off.

This is a film that fires on all cylinders in act one, keeps up the pace in act two, and while it does not fall apart in act three, if I had to name a “worst act,” it is easily the third. By the time the film reaches its end, I found it to be overstuffed, too long, and close to tonal inconsistency. The third act sometimes feels slow, and slow is the last adjective I should be using to describe a movie called “The Running Man.” The movie is 2 hours and 13 minutes long, and for the most part, it is paced well. That said, the third act has a pacing problem. Certain moments of the third act feel rushed and slapped together, while others tend to drag. It lacks the personality of the acts that came before. It is not the worst schlock I have seen this year, but I do not think it is up to the standards of Edgar Wright, who is generally praised as a filmmaker. This is not Wright’s finest outing, but it does mean the movie is bad. I would still recommend it if you want a fun action-adventure.

In the end, “The Running Man” is worth checking out. The film looks great, sounds great, and at times, it feels like Edgar Wright’s passion for the material shines through. That said, there are quite a few scenes in this film that are noticeably superior to others. “The Running Man” paints a future that I can see happening. It has traces of our present with the popularity of reality TV, gambling, and humanity’s noticeable desire to see others fail for the sake of entertainment. I am going to give “The Running Man” a 7/10.

“The Running Man” is now playing in theaters everywhere. Tickets are available now.

Thanks for reading this review! My next review is going to be for “Eternity!” Stay tuned! Also, look forward to my thoughts on “Wicked: For Good,” “Sentimental Value,” “Zootopia 2,” and “Wake Up Dead Man: A Knives Out Mystery.” 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 Running Man?” What did you think about it? Or, what is your favorite Stephen King film adaptation released this year? As for me, I have not seen “The Monkey” yet, so I am not sure if I can validly answer that question, but I must declare that “The Life of Chuck” is a must see if you have not gotten the chance to check it out already. Leave your thoughts and opinions down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

Tron: Ares (2025): Disney’s Threequel Does Not Compute

Posted on November 5 by Jack Drees

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

“Tron: Ares” is directed by Joachim Rønning (Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Men Tell No Tales, Maleficent: Mistress of Evil) and stars Jared Leto (Morbius, Blade Runner 2049), Greta Lee (Russian Doll, The Morning Show), Evan Peters (Invasion, X-Men: Days of Future Past), Jodie Turner-Smith (A Big Bold Beautiful Journey, The Last Ship), Hasan Minhaj (Patriot Act with Hasan Minhaj, The Daily Show), Arturo Castro (Narcos, Broad City), Gillian Anderson (The X-Files, Sex Education), and Jeff Bridges (The Big Lebowski, True Grit). This is the third film in the “Tron” franchise and is about the rivalry between ENCOM and Dillinger Systems as both corporations attempt to bring digital entities into the real world.

“Tron” is a franchise that I do not think about much these days, but as a teenager, these movies were my jam. When it comes to special effects, both of these films are marvels. I never had a chance to watch “Tron: Legacy” in a theater when I was 11 years old. While I still had not watched the original “Tron” by that time, I am jealous of those who got to watch “Legacy” on the big screen, especially in IMAX 3D.

In preparation for “Tron: Ares,” I went back and watched both “Tron” and “Tron: Legacy.” While neither film is perfect, they both hold up. Sure, the effects in the original might not fly today, but they have such a vintage charm. They have an aesthetic I do not find in many other films, new or old. Between the prior two installments, I was a little more pleased with the look of “Tron,” which I found to be more vivid and appealing in terms of color. As a story, I also found it to be better paced. Not to say that “Tron: Legacy” is bad, but I found Kevin Flynn to be more inviting as a protagonist than Sam.

But the thing about “Tron” and “Tron: Legacy” is that both movies have protagonists whose adventures and character arcs I can fondly appreciate and remember, even if I liked one more than the other. “Tron: Ares,” across the board, has flat characters in comparison. Few, if any, kept my attention. And when one of them did have my attention, their dialogue felt fairly cookie cutter. Am I going to remember Julian Dillinger? Probably not. Elisabeth Dillinger? Don’t think so. Eve Kim? I don’t know. In fact, if I had to name a favorite character in the movie, it would be a monumental undertaking. I would have to get to the point where I would have to name aspects of the film that are not characters as my top dogs.

The best characters in “Tron: Ares” are as follows… Kevin Flynn, played by the legendary Jeff Bridges who is back once again to reprise his role… The Nine Inch Nails… for providing some killer tracks that are not quite on the level of Daft Punk’s “Legacy” music, but manage to hold their own… And of course, the CGI… It is full of detail and eye candy both in the real world and beyond. If I am referring to music and special effects as my favorite characters, it is a telltale sign that “Tron: Ares” is not a good movie. In fact, this is easily the weakest of the three “Tron” movies so far, and maybe ever depending on how well this film does financially. As of publishing this review, the movie’s been out for almost a month and it has not made its budget back.

Just because the movie is weak, does not mean it is lacking in cool moments. But to be honest, I do not know if this movie is best designed for newcomers. On the surface, one could argue “Tron: Ares” is newcomer-friendly due to most of the cast and characters not appearing in the prior two installments. It is to a certain degree, a clean slate. But the movie also noticeably relies on fan service and nostalgia. Admittedly, as someone who has seen the prior two movies, there are select instances where I was shaking in my chair like a rocket ready to blast off.

The more I think about “Tron: Ares” the more it reminds me of “Jurassic World: Dominion.” “Tron: Ares” is significantly more appealing, but the film’s negatives tend to match, partially because both films sell themselves on the hook that its threat is “coming to the real world.” Granted, the dinosaurs in “Jurassic Park” have always been part of the real world, but they have been closed off from towns and cities whereas beings from inside the Grid are exiting their digital society and entering our own. That said, I will give “Tron: Ares” an enormous edge against “Jurassic World: Dominion” because the former actually seems to commit to its idea of digital beings entering the real world, whereas the execution of the dinosaurs entering the real world in the latter feels like an afterthought at times.

Even though I find “Tron: Ares” to not be that good of a film, I do think there are glimmers of decency to be found. While the story of the film itself ends up being a bore, I do think the plot of “Tron: Ares,” which involves companies racing against each other in bringing digital constructs to reality, feels somewhat reminiscent of how tech companies today are heavily pushing artificial intelligence. Part of the similarities are also revealed when the movie exposes a significant flaw regarding the Ares character. The movie not only reminds me of how much these companies seem to be pushing AI, but they will likely go so far to brush away or hide drawbacks that could heavily affect the product or the consumer.

“Tron: Ares” continues to prove that Jared Leto cannot catch a break. He often finds himself in one of two unfortunate situations… Situation one, he is in a movie that does not do well in terms of box office. Situation two, he is in a movie that does not do well in terms of the reviews. He is particularly doing a lot of damage in geek culture. In the past decade, he’s received an off-screen death in the DCEU, bad reviews for his movie in Sony’s Marvel universe, low box office returns on “Blade Runner 2049,” and now, it looks like another science fiction franchise has been met with the curse of Jared Leto. Do not interpret this as me hating on Jared Leto. He is a phenomenal actor and can give a solid performance when cast in the right role. In fact, he is great as Ares. He kind of reminded of a Sheldon Cooper-type. There are one or two scenes from this film where I internally replaced Leto’s face with that of Jim Parsons. To be clear, and this is nothing against Jim Parsons, I am glad they cast Jared Leto instead. It’s best for all parties involved. After Parsons finished “The Big Bang Theory,” I would imagine the last person he’d want to play is a Sheldon Cooper-wannabe.

Whether you see this movie in 2D or 3D is your call. I will defend either choice, but as someone who traditionally does not care for 3D as much as I did when I was 13, 14 years old, I will admit the 3D upcharge for this film is completely justified. Between select sequences where the entire screen is covered in digital effects, to some pretty cool action scenes, this movie makes the extra cost for the glasses worthwhile.

In the end “Tron: Ares” is far and away my least favorite “Tron” installment yet. As far as big budget films go, it is, thankfully, not as insufferable as “A Minecraft Movie.” Though that comparison may not be fair because I had no previous attachment to the “Minecraft” property before going to see the film, whereas with “Tron” I did. Despite the film’s flaws, the attachment did help when it came to the film’s fan service, which was sometimes borderline forced, but at others, it completely flowed. “Tron: Ares” often looks great and sounds great. I just wish it had a screenplay that was just as great. I am going to give “Tron: Ares” a 4/10.

“Tron: Ares” is now playing in theaters. Tickets are available now.

Thanks for reading this review! My next review is going to be for “Bone Lake!” Stay tuned! Also coming soon, I will be sharing my thoughts on “A House of Dynamite,” “The Smashing Machine,” “Shelby Oaks,” “Frankenstein,” and “Good Fortune.” 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 “Tron: Ares?” What did you think about it? Or, what is your favorite “Tron” movie? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

One Battle After Another (2025): Leonardo DiCaprio Delivers the Performance of a Lifetime in Paul Thomas Anderson’s Excellent Thriller

Posted on October 27 by Jack Drees

“One Battle After Another” is directed by Paul Thomas Anderson (Licorice Pizza, The Master) and stars Leonardo DiCaprio (Titanic, Inception), Sean Penn (Daddio, Licorice Pizza), Benicio del Toro (Guardians of the Galaxy, Sicario), Regina Hall (Think Like a Man, Scary Movie), Teyana Taylor (White Men Can’t Jump, Coming 2 America), and Chase Infiniti (Presumed Innocent). Inspired by Thomas Pynchon’s novel “Vineland,” this film is about an ex-revolutionary who must save his daughter from a corrupt military official.

As much as I beat a dead horse with this phrase, I only say it because it is true. To me, there are many cases where an artist can only be as good as their last project. Sure, Yorgos Lanthimos is a director with an admirable hustle, but after “Kinds of Forgettable–” err, I mean “Kinds of Kindness,” I am a little nervous about his latest project, “Bugonia.” Kind of like Lanthimos, I was nervous about what would be in store for “One Battle After Another” especially after the infuriating couple of hours I had watching “Licorice Pizza.” Is it a well made film? Sure, in certain regards. But in terms of characterization, plot, perhaps even pacing, I found the end result to be fairly off-putting. It is not to say that Paul Thomas Anderson is an incompetent director. While it has been years since I have seen “The Master,” I do remember it being beautifully made, so Anderson has his ups and downs.

I saw this film a week after it came out. Not because I wanted to stall on it, but because by complete coincidence, I happened to be staying in New York City for a weekend, and I wanted to see the movie in IMAX 70mm. Anytime you hear people say that they saw the next great masterpiece, it is a sentiment that you have to take with a grain of salt. I will only believe the hype when I see it. Plus, the marketing did not do a lot for me. It gave me an idea of the tone, but I thought there was no real oomph to what was on screen. The biggest selling point seemed to be the names Leonardo DiCaprio and Paul Thomas Anderson. I am not critiquing this. If you have talent, sell it. But as far as the movie itself, the marketing did not do it for me.

Photo Courtesy Warner Bros. Pictures – © Warner Bros. Pictures

Before this goes off the rails any further, I must say “One Battle After Another” is a magnificent piece of cinema. Is it my favorite film of the year? Not quite. But I am also having trouble coming up with genuine problems. There are problems that come to mind, but if my reviews for “Risky Business” or “Revenge of the Nerds” shows anything, I can still dig a movie despite its flaws. One personal problem would probably force me to spoil part of the film’s climax. But let’s just say that as “cool” and “shocking” as it was for the movie to unveil a choice they made for a major character, I questioned the logic behind said choice. I also find the film’s pacing to mostly work, though I must admit that the movie does start off slow and gets better as it goes. This is not to say that the film is bad, but if I had to name a weakest part of the film, it would probably be the first twenty minutes or half hour.

By the way, if you are looking for a short movie, you will want to sit this one out. “One Battle After Another” is two hours and fifty minutes long. I know for some of you this might be intimidating, but at the risk of sounding like a pervert, size does not matter, it is what you do with it. And Paul Thomas Anderson does his best to deliver a spectacular vision made for the big screen.

If you get a chance to see “One Battle After Another” in a theater, please do. The film is easy on the eyes thanks to Michael Bauman’s cinematography, as well as the ears courtesy of Jonny Greenwood’s score. There was a point during the film’s climax where my chair was vibrating like I was at an NFL game.

Speaking of cinematography and camerawork, this film is one of the cleanest I have seen this year. While “One Battle After Another” may not be the most colorful movie, it makes the most of its rather limited palette to the point where everything that’s on the screen pops. There is also a riveting chase scene towards the end of the film that basically turns the road itself into a character. The film contains a shot where we see the road winding up and down and it helped set the mood for what’s to come. Visually, this movie needs no notes. It is also heavily enhanced when watched in the film’s native 1.5:1 aspect ratio, which is typically used for VistaVision.

Going back to the marketing of this film, I mentioned that one of the biggest selling points for “One Battle After Another” is Leonardo DiCaprio. And why wouldn’t he be? He has starred in some of the best films in the past couple decades. Like usual, DiCaprio gives his performance his all. Also, the more I think about his performance, the more I come to a conclusion that I am proud to wear on my sleeve. There are not many other people that I could see playing a character of this type as well as Leonardo DiCaprio could. Maybe Brad Pitt… Perhaps Sam Rockwell… Those two names come to mind. But the more I look at this role and think about the way it was executed, it comes off as if it was written with Leonardo DiCaprio in mind. We see him start off as part of revolutionary group as Pat Calhoun, and he later evolves into a washed-up stoner who goes by Bob Ferguson. You can the see the range coming from DiCaprio as he effectively portrays multiple portions of his character’s life. I also found some scenes featuring the character to be laugh out loud funny. There is a phenomenal gag in this film involving a “rendezvous point” that had me rolling on the floor.

Paul Thomas Anderson and Leonardo DiCaprio are celebrated veterans in the industry, but “One Battle After Another” may also be responsible for some people’s big breaks, including Chase Infiniti, who plays Leonardo DiCaprio’s child. I dug the back and forth between these two. Going back to the evolution of DiCaprio’s character, I thought Infiniti did an superb job at channeling her character’s distaste for her father’s resorting to drugs or his overprotectiveness. Chase Infiniti’s career is likely only getting started and this film is going to open so many doors for her. I look forward to seeing what she does next.

In the end, “One Battle After Another” is an experience. Is this my favorite movie of the year? No. But it is an exquisitely crafted piece of cinema in multiple regards. It is one of the best looking movies of the year. It has one of the best casts of the year. The story, while sometimes slow, is engaging. It is a satisfying film that balances serious topics like political extremes and revolution while also having time to insert scenes where Leonardo DiCaprio acts like a complete buffoon. This movie is a massively successful balancing act. I am going to give “One Battle After Another” an 8/10.

“One Battle After Another” is now playing in theaters everywhere. Tickets are available now.

Thanks for reading this review! My next review is going to be for “If I Had Legs I’d Kick You,” stay tuned! Also coming soon, I will be sharing my thoughts on “Tron: Ares,” “Bone Lake,” “A House of Dynamite,” “The Smashing Machine,” “Shelby Oaks,” and Guillermo del Toro’s “Frankenstein.” 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 “One Battle After Another?” What did you think about it? Or, what is your favorite Paul Thomas Anderson movie? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

Nobody 2 (2025): Hitman: Far from Home

Posted on September 18 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!

The Bad Guys 2 (2025): DreamWorks Delivers a More Entertaining Caper Than the 2022 Original

Posted on August 17 by Jack Drees

“The Bad Guys 2” is directed by Pierre Perifel and JP Sans, and stars Sam Rockwell (Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri, The Way Way Back), Marc Maron (Maron, GLOW), Awkwafina (Shang-Chi and the Legend of the Ten Rings, Renfield), Craig Robinson (Ghosted, The Office), Anthony Ramos (Transformers: Rise of the Beasts, In the Heights), Zazie Beatz (Deadpool 2, Atlanta), Danielle Brooks (The Color Purple, Orange is the New Black), Natasha Lyonne (American Pie, Orange is the New Black), Maria Bakalova (The Apprentice, Borat Subsequent Moviefilm), Alex Borstein (Family Guy, The Marvelous Mrs. Maisel), Richard Ayoade (The Watch, The IT Crowd), and Lilly Singh (A Little Late with Lilly Singh, Canada’s Got Talent). Struggling with acceptance from the general public, the Bad Guys, who have since turned “good,” are recruited for a job by an all-girl squad of criminals.

Kind of like Illumination, it is somewhat unusual for a DreamWorks animated property to not end up getting a sequel at some point. It was perhaps inevitable this would happen with “The Bad Guys.” The first film was well received by critics and was a hit with families. It is also based on a popular series of books. Naturally, it makes sense to create a “Bad Guys” sequel. As for my thoughts on the original film, I thought it was surprisingly fun, but also a bit disposable. There is also a problem I have with the film that, spoiler alert, I also have with this sequel. More on that later.

If you like “The Bad Guys,” chances are you will like “The Bad Guys 2.” I have my problems with “The Bad Guys” but I enjoyed it just enough to the point where I could say I had an okay time. “The Bad Guys 2” maintains everything that works from the original, and delivers it in a new, fresh package that I personally found to be more entertaining.

A lot of the original cast returns for this second outing. Of course you have the film’s big name stars including Sam Rockwell, Awkwafina, and Marc Maron coming back as some of the core characters. Like the original, they unleash tremendous charisma in each of their roles. I appreciated this sequel’s continuation of having Rockwell’s Mr. Wolf (top right) break the fourth wall. It adds a welcoming touch and sucks you into this film’s world.

The film even welcomes back my favorite character from the first outing, Misty Luggins (center), once again voiced by Alex Borstein. Between the two films, she has been promoted from Chief to Commissioner, which ends up becoming one of the script’s many gags. The gag is a simple one… Mr. Wolf repeatedly messes up Luggins’ position. As far as gags go, one could call this lazy, and I would not blame anybody for doing that, but it is saved by how the voice actors, most notably Borstein, deliver their lines. You could feel the ire coming out of Luggins with each misinterpretation.

I like my characters to have depth, but sometimes the simplest character can work if done right. Luggins is one example of this. Because in each scene, much like the previous installment, I got a sense of the character’s passion. Whether it is represented through something as simple as being acknowledged correctly, or as complicated as capturing the Bad Guys once and for all. Luggins feels like DreamWorks’ version of Wile E. Coyote. Between what we saw of her in these two films so far, part of me wishes she could have her own spinoff. Maybe we could see her trying to catch the Bad Guys time and time and time again, and failing. Or maybe a life in a day film showcasing some crazy story or case she has encountered. I think it would also be a great way to showcase Alex Borstein’s chops. She is fantastic in the role.

© DreamWorks Animation LLC. All Rights Reserved.

This is an animated film, so some suspension of disbelief is inevitable. But when the film gets to the climax, I felt the same way that I did during the climax of “Sisu.” The film spends a lot of time getting you immersed into this crazy, zany world, but things that happen on screen get dumber and less realistic by its conclusion. There is a whole concept involving gold that on the surface, sounds intriguing, but the resolution left me with a question regarding how this was handled according to the public eye.

Speaking of suspension of disbelief, much like the original film, I am left wondering why there are not more non-human characters in this world. If “The Bad Guys” were a video game, the only NPCs would be humans. No one else. There are plenty of non-human characters in the forefront, but not so much in the background. Why is this? If you look at a film like “Zootopia,” it has such a diverse group of creatures making up its universe. This film’s universe kind of feels less creative and lazy by comparison. This is not to say the film itself is lazily done. The animation style is stunning and unique. The script is sometimes clever, even if it does get a little too over the top.

When it comes to the DreamWorks Animation library, this is not the most memorable film of the bunch. But it is undoubtedly entertaining. One reason why I would love to go back to it one day is for the action scenes. The film has a couple of creative sequences that feel like they are straight out of a graphic novel. The scenes are flashy and full of life. There is one sequence that takes place in a wrestling ring that is a feast for the eyes.

Although this film is more than just style. As someone who experienced a little trouble finding work once graduating college, there are some scenes that I related to as it properly highlights the competition that comes with the job market. Although in the case of this film’s core group, it is much harder, because they are known for committing crimes, and therefore have a bad reputation.

Heck, they’re literally called the BAD guys! I wonder if Agent Burns from “Bumblebee” would have anything to say about this group.

Sure, the ensemble may have turned good, but their past does not appear to have gone over the general public’s head. Overall, the movie is a good lesson for younger audiences, reminding them to maintain a positive image, because one wrong move could change everything.

To my surprise, at the end of “The Bad Guys 2,” one of the first thoughts that crossed my mind is that I want to see another one. These characters are fascinating and seem to play off each other quite well. I would not mind hanging out with them one more time.

By the way, once the film gets to the credits, do not leave your chair, because there is a mid-credits scene that you might want to stick around for.

In the end, “The Bad Guys 2” is funny, brilliantly animated, and wonderfully paced. It is an all killer, no filler good time. “The Bad Guys 2” maintains many positives from the original and even improves upon some of them. Granted, it also contains some of the negatives. I still cannot get over the fact that there are not more non-human characters in a world like this one. Is that just a me thing? Is this not bothering anyone else? In all seriousness, I think families will have a blast with this film. It is filled with mile a minute humor and my theater, myself included, was laughing quite a bit. I am going to give “The Bad Guys 2” a 7/10.

Before I conclude this review, I would like to point something out in the film’s end credits. Just before the credits conclude, there is a short text that reads “This work may not be used to train AI.” I have no idea if that is a Universal Pictures policy, a DreamWorks policy, or if this was at the request of the director or a producer, but I fully endorse this. I understand that “the future is now,” but as an artist, I would prefer to see more work done strictly by people. We cannot have human stories without a human touch. Anything to have more human stories out there is always a good thing.

“The Bad Guys 2” is now playing in theaters. Tickets are available now.

Courtesy of Paramount Pictures – © Paramount Pictures

Thanks for reading this review! My next review is going to be for another animated family film, “Smurfs.” Stay tuned! Also coming soon, look forward to my thoughts on “Together,” “Oh, Hi,” “Weapons,” “Freakier Friday,” and “Nobody 2.” 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 Bad Guys 2?” What did you think about it? Or, which installment of “The Bad Guys” do you prefer? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

The Fantastic Four: First Steps (2025): Marvel’s First Family Finally Gets the Big Screen Treatment They Deserve

Posted on August 15 by Jack Drees

“The Fantastic Four: First Steps” is directed by Matt Shakman (WandaVision, It’s Always Sunny in Philadelphia) and stars Pedro Pascal (The Mandalorian, The Last of Us), Vanessa Kirby (Mission: Impossible – Fallout, The Crown), Ebon Moss-Bachrach (Andor, The Bear), Joseph Quinn (A Quiet Place: Day One, Stranger Things), Julia Garner (Wolf Man, Ozark), Sarah Niles (Catastrophe, Ted Lasso), Mark Gatiss (Mission: Impossible – Dead Reckoning Part One, The Father), Natasha Lyonne (American Pie, Poker Face), Paul Walter Hauser (The Luckiest Man in America, Inside Out 2), and Ralph Ineson (The Witch, Nosferatu). This film is the latest entry to the Marvel Cinematic Universe and centers around a family of superheroes who must defend earth from the space God Galactus.

Photo by Marvel Studios/MARVEL STUDIOS – © 2025 20th Century Studios / © and ™ 2025 MARVEL.

This movie felt like a long time coming. Remember that sizzle reel Marvel had promoting all the movies coming out in the 2020s, trying to get people back to the cinema following the closures prompted by the COVID-19 pandemic? If you did not see it, I highly recommend checking it out, it is perfectly edited. But if you have seen it, you may recall at the end came this giant “4,” letting fans know that a Marvel Studios attempt at “Fantastic Four” was finally on its way. Only question was, when would we actually see this film come to life? The answer, long before Mahershala Ali gets his own “Blade” movie. That said, while the idea of a Marvel Studios-produced “Fantastic Four” was intriguing, the property comes with some baggage that has likely lowered expectations for future projects.

“Fantastic Four” is one of Marvel’s most celebrated franchises, and much like “Spider-Man,” the property has been adapted for the big screen multiple times. Although unlike “Spider-Man,” “Fantastic Four” has never been a surefire hit. Sure, some people have nostalgia for the 2000s “Fantastic Four” movies, but overall, they do not have the best track record critically. Having seen them, I cannot exactly say those films are good myself. The 2015 film, which some dub as “Fant4stic,” is not the worst comic book movie I have ever seen, but it is undoubtedly soulless and reeks of corporate desperation. On a positive note, if you can call it that, at least that film got released…

…Unlike that discarded project from 1994.

Now that the Walt Disney Company, and therefore Marvel Studios, maintains the rights to the “Fantastic Four” property, I was curious to see what Kevin Feige and crew were going to do with it. This is where “The Fantastic Four: First Steps” comes in. While not everyone appears to agree with me, I love the film’s marketing. The film promises a retro-futuristic ride with a family trying to save their world. I was hoping the movie would be as epic as its trailers had me assume it would be, and I am glad to report it most certainly is.

One thing about the Marvel Cinematic Universe that is both a blessing and a curse is that most of the movies feel the same as the next. This results in a tonal consistency from one project to the next. But it also sometimes leaves little room for variety and outside the box thinking. “The Fantastic Four: First Steps” has some familiarities from Marvel’s other projects, but it comes off as one of the most individualistic entries to the MCU. It sometimes has a “Guardians of the Galaxy” feel due to the film taking place in space, but “Fantastic Four” ultimately feels like its own movie because it is set in a universe outside most of Marvel’s projects. As an added benefit, the film lessens the need for homework or to connect itself to other properties or characters.

Speaking of that “Guardians of the Galaxy” vibe, the film’s space scenes are visually awe-inspiring and full of color. Although whereas “Guardians of the Galaxy” reminds me a bit of “Star Wars,” there are ways that “The Fantastic Four: First Steps” reminds me more of “Star Trek.” The sets sometimes feel like something out of Gene Roddenberry’s mind. Compared to “Guardians,” “Fantastic Four” feels less action-centered. Plus, the film carries this vibe of setting the stage for tomorrow. Much like DC’s “Superman,” “Fantastic Four” maintains a sense of hope. It leans into the idea of persevering even through the impossible. It celebrates brawn, but also brains. The film at one point leans into this seemingly impossible plan on Reed Richards’ mind, all in the hope of saving mankind. If this film were set on Earth-616, which seems to have quite a bit in common with our own universe, I would probably be more critical of Richards’ plan. But the movie is instead set on Earth 828, which likely opens the doors for more creativity and imagination. Therefore, as silly as Richards’ plan sounds, I was so sucked into this film that part of me was going along for the ride.

Speaking of Reed Richards, Pedro Pascal is in way too many projects! …Is what I might say if he did not do a good job as this film’s lead. Pascal has been busy lately between this film, “Eddington,” “Materialists,” among other projects. But there is a reason why he is getting so much work. He never fails to impress. First off, I am super happy to see Pascal redeem himself in the comic book movie sub-genre after the colossal disappointment that is “Wonder Woman 1984.” Second, Pascal is charming as Mister Fantastic. He is never over the top, but I bought into Pascal’s constant drive, and sometimes his disappointment. There is a scene in the middle of the film where Richards faces a large crowd and lets out his brutally honest thoughts, and I could truly feel his pain with each word that came out of his mouth.

While not my favorite character in the film, its heart and soul for me is Sue Storm, or the Invisible Woman. I liked Vanessa Kirby leading up to “The Fantastic Four: First Steps,” but this might be the first film where I can say I truly love her. Kirby gives such a powerful performance. I got a sense that she wants what is best for other people, especially her family. I also like how the film utilizes her powers, even if the action in this movie is minimal. More on that in a second.

Joseph Quinn puts on a good portrayal of Johnny Storm. Whereas Reed and Sue feel grounded, Johnny’s placement in the film shows him to be upbeat and hyperactive. Of the family, he comes off as the comic relief. Throughout the film I also could not help but notice Joseph Quinn and think he looked like a younger Chris Evans. Of course, if you know your Marvel history, Evans played Johnny Storm in the 2000s “Fantastic Four” movies. As for which performance is better, Quinn excels by miles, perhaps unfairly, given how he had much better material to work with as opposed to having every other line out of his mouth showcase his womanizing tendencies.

I would have to watch the film a second time to confirm how I really feel, but I think the Thing might be my favorite hero in the film. Ebon-Moss Bachrach unleashes a heap of charisma as one giant pile of CGI rocks. The special effects look pristine and there is not a moment where they took me out of the movie. Ultimately, if I had to choose one member of the Fantastic Four to meet for lunch somewhere, it would easily be The Thing. Ben Grimm is a genuinely likable guy who appears to be great with children. He has fun with everything that comes with his superhero life.

The action in “The Fantastic Four: First Steps” is really good, but if you are looking for nonstop, chaotic sequences, this is where “Superman” will serve you better. When it comes to the action in “The Fantastic Four: First Steps,” what we get is great, but it left me wanting more. The best thing I can say about the action is that each sequence had a logical and meaningful place in the story. Never once did I feel that I was watching an action sequence that was overdone just for the sake of showing off flashy effects.

On that note, while some Marvel projects as of late have some problematic special effects, I cannot think of one scene in “The Fanatastic Four: First Steps” where the effects were bad. I thought everything looked polished and maintained a sense of verisimilitude.

The climax in “The Fantastic Four: First Steps” undoubtedly comes with a sense of finality, but it also in a sense feels much smaller than some of the other films in the MCU. Despite my appreciation for the film unveiling Reed Richards’ smarts, I wish we could have gotten a tiny bit more of a showcase of his superpowers. I do not hate the climax, but I could understand people watching it and thinking “Man, that was short,” or, “Wow, that could have used more sparkle.” But for me, I appreciated it because it put the characters first. You have Galactus with an easy to understand motivation. Then you also have a family of superheroes thinking on their feet, while trying to protect the planet and their circle.

Speaking of Galactus, he looks terrific. He is quite literally a massive improvement over whatever the heck the crew behind “Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer” conjured up. Unlike that film, Galactus is a tall space god, not a giant cloud. And his motivation is nothing more than to consume worlds. Sometimes you do not need to go higher than that. The film makes such a simple idea so compelling. Ralph Ineson does a good job with the role.

Photo by Marvel Studios/20TH CENTURY STUDIOS/MARVEL STUDIOS – © 2025 20th Century Studios / © and ™ 2025 MARVEL.

On that note, speaking of villains, I thought Julia Garner was well cast as the Silver Surfer. To my surprise, the film does such a marvelous job at humanizing her. I did not know what to expect from the trailers. It did not show a ton of her character, but I was pleasantly delighted to see how the movie handles her. Also, props to the effects team for bringing her to life. She looks attractively glossy but also menacing when she needs to be.

Part of why I was so sucked into this movie was its narrative. Also like “Superman,” “The Fantastic Four: First Steps” skips over the origin story. The film does explain it, but it does not spend much time showing it. What the film is really about is the team, most especially Reed Richards and Sue Storm, preparing for the birth of their child. Only thing is, there is a whole galactic event that could prevent such a thing from going smoothly. The characters are presented with an incredible dilemma that seems tough to take in once it is given to them. However, it is one that depending on what choice is made, other people could interpret as self-centered. I love this dilemma. It kind of reminds me of that scene in “Spider-Man” where the title character is faced with a choice to save Mary Jane or the people onboard the Roosevelt Island tram, but this stakes here are so much higher. There are many more lives that these characters have to worry about. For those not in the know I will not spoil how this dilemma gets resolved, but I imagine some of you could probably predict how it unfolds.

For years, I thought Marvel ate DC for breakfast when it comes to their film slate. This is evident in so many regards including story, characters, humor, tonal consistency, and world-building. But while select titles like “Avengers: Infinity War” and “Endgame” have moved me with their original scores, DC has always slayed when it comes to its music. I am not the biggest fan of “Wonder Woman 1984,” but I play that film’s tracks on a highly consistent basis. That said, Michael Giacchino may have delivered the best score in a Marvel Studios film, not to mention a contender for my favorite score of the decade so far.

As mentioned before, “The Fantastic Four: First Steps” heavily dives into the realm of retro-futurism, and the music compliments that vibe to perfection. By itself, it is an epic superhero theme. When you break it down even further, it combines the magnificence of old school orchestras but every other millisecond you will hear a sound that evokes a sense of moving forward. As I hear this film’s main theme, I both imagine myself wanting to hear it at Carnegie Hall while also thinking about what it would be like to get down to it at the club. This is my favorite Michael Giacchino score since “Rogue One: A Star Wars Story,” and that says something considering how boisterously epic that music gets at times, especially towards the climax.

“The Fantastic Four: First Steps” might be my favorite comic book movie of the year. Is it a perfect film? No. If anything, I think it would benefit from a smidge more action. That said, I have no problem with the action scenes we have. Each one is essential to the story and feels special. Nothing feels overdone. Even the big final fight feels smaller for Marvel standards, but that does not mean it is bad. The fight successfully ties up loose ends established throughout the film, and finishes in a fashion that leaves me more than satisfied. Much like “Thunderbolts*,” another Marvel title released earlier this year, “The Fantastic Four: First Steps” is a film that I will remember fondly because of how well utilized its main ensemble turned out to be. If the characters do not work, then the movie does not work. Thankfully, the characters are phenomenally written and truly feel like a family.

By the way, the film contains two scenes during the credits. The second one is more of a “fun scene.” It does not really add much to the film other than referencing something that was highlighted earlier. You will not miss much if you skip it. But make it your mission to stay in your seat for the first one. DO NOT get up when the credits roll. If you are at risk of being late for your table at Seasons 52, then so be it! Do not miss the mid-credits scene!

In the end, I cannot wait to watch “The Fantastic Four: First Steps” a second time. This film is legitimately some of the most fun I have had at the movies this year. It is a film that never lets its characters escape from conflict. Every single scene had me engaged. While his motivation is not complicated, Galactus quite literally stands tall with such a commanding screen presence. “The Fantastic Four: First Steps” is an exceptional start to phase 6, and it only has me beaming for whatever Marvel has up its sleeves next. It is by far the best “Fantastic Four” movie without “Incredibles” in the title. I am going to give “The Fantastic Four: First Steps” an 8/10.

“The Fantastic Four: First Steps” is now playing in theaters. Tickets are available now.

Thanks for reading this review! My next review is going to be for “The Bad Guys 2!” Stay tuned! Also coming soon, look forward to my reviews for “Smurfs,” “Together,” “Oh, Hi!,” “Weapons,” “Freakier Friday,” and “Nobody 2.” 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 Fantastic Four: First Steps?” What did you think about it? Or, what are your thoughts on the other “Fantastic Four” movies we have gotten? Do you have a favorite “Fantastic Four” movie? I am willing to bet most people would agree that this latest one is the best of the bunch, but it is the Internet. Crazy things can happen. Leave your comments down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

Guns Up (2025): Kevin James Punches and Kicks His Way Through This Fun but Tonally Uneven Action Flick

Posted on August 8 by Jack Drees

“Guns Up” is written and directed by Edward Drake and stars Kevin James (King of Queens, Here Comes the Boom), Christina Ricci (Speed Racer, Casper), Maximilian Osinski (Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D., Ted Lasso), Luis Guzmán (The Limey, Oz), and Melissa Leo (The Fighter, All My Children). This film is about a mob henchmen whose final job goes wrong and now it is up to him to keep his family safe.

I watch less television than movies. But sitcoms have played a heavy role in my TV habits through the years. One show that has long been a mainstay of mine is “King of Queens.” It is a fantastic show, but it is also one that comes with a side effect due to seeing Kevin James’ character from one episode to the next for a long time. Kevin James is super funny on “King of Queens” as Doug Heffernan, but ever since his noticeable jump to film following the series finale, I sometimes have trouble seeing James as anyone else. Sure, Paul Blart has a mustache. Whatever. Films like “Zookeeper,” “Grown Ups,” and “Pixels” see Kevin James playing variants of Doug Heffernan, despite some noticeable differences. But “Guns Up,” kind of like another recent Kevin James film, “Becky,” feels like an unexpected move coming from the comedic actor. Also like “Becky,” I thought “Guns Up” was a solid, albeit imperfect flick.

Going off of what I just said about Kevin James, if someone were to pitch “Guns Up” to me and said they wrote the screenplay with Kevin James in mind for the lead role of Ray Hayes, I would gladly tell that person to belly flop into a kiddie pool naked to think about what they have done. But I was pleasantly surprised. James does a good job carrying the film and just about every scene featuring him is fun to watch. I was also surprised to see how well he handled some of the action choreography. I am not sure how much of it was done with a double, but James did a good job with the action scenes and I bought into his character. There are elements of James’ previous, more comedy-based performances that sneak themselves into his latest one, but this is definitely one of the more unique outings James has had as an actor. I thought “Becky” was an unexpected turn for James when that film came out. But having now seen that film along with “Guns Up,” I am open to seeing James in many types of projects that I probably would have never imagined he’d take on about a decade ago. I have no idea if he would take on an Oscar bait role in the next five years. That said, Dwayne Johnson seems to be doing so right now with “The Smashing Machine” based on how that film is being marketed, so anything is possible. Heck, for all I know he could have a turn similar to his occasional co-star, Adam Sandler, like he did in “Uncut Gems.”

The screenplay is one of the more grounded ones James has taken on, though there is plenty of comedy sprinkled throughout. I am not going to say all of it was funny. There is one gag involving the f-word that was so overdone that it almost made me want to utter some swears myself. But there are gags that work, including one that shows the children learning how to shoot a gun. I thought that scene was cleverly executed and had a couple unpredictable lines. When it comes to comedy, the real star of the show for me is Leo Easton Kelly as Henry. To me, his character would sometimes remind me of myself when I was younger. I got the impression he would sometimes just jump into a conversation almost randomly just to get some attention. While I do not remember the exact lines, I recall Henry giving me perhaps the two biggest laughs in the movie. I do not know if “Guns Up” is going to be Kelly’s big break because the movie is from a lesser known studio and had a day and date release. As a matter of fact, on opening weekend, there were no showtimes for this film in my home state of Massachusetts, including Boston. I was lucky enough to be in Illinois, where this film happened to be playing when it came out.

“Guns Up” is an action-comedy, and there are plenty of films where those two genres can blend together seamlessly. Films like “Ride Along,” “Free Guy,” and “Zombieland” are a few that come to mind. As mentioned, “Guns Up” is not a bad movie, but it does not mean it is tonally consistent. Going back to “Free Guy,” it is a film where the action and the comedy tend to work together. You have Ryan Reynolds trying to take down a bigger, badder, nuder version of himself by the end of the movie. It is hilarious and also easy on the eyes. “Guns Up” is a movie where it is a little bit of action and a little bit of comedy. The genres at times feel like they distract from each other rather than do what “Free Guy” does which is make them work together. This is not to say the action is bad. This is not to say the comedy is bad. But it feels like it comes from two different visions. Only one person wrote the film, so this is not a result of too many cooks in the kitchen. That said, if this film were being prepared in the kitchen, it is perhaps possible that it is being made by a cook that is dealing with a Franken-recipe at times.

Speaking of the action, “Guns Up” is by no means the next “John Wick,” even though there is a line towards the climax that tries to make the audience think otherwise. In fact, the climax is a lot of fun. All of the characters play off each other well. The action, while not the best I have ever seen, is decently handled. There is a good mix of people working with their hands as well as using more advanced weaponry.

Much of the film is fluidly shot and decently cut. I cannot confirm the exact budget of “Guns Up,” but having seen the film, its budget definitely comes off as somewhat limited. I say this film is not the next “John Wick,” but I say that knowing that the “John Wick” franchise does not always come with a tiny budget. The film perhaps does not pop like a “John Wick” movie does sometimes, but it most certainly gets the job done and kept me on the edge of my seat.

One of my favorite moments of action in “Guns Up” involves a group of people going through a doorway, at which point the camera does not move. The shot shows tons of combat without having to pan, tilt, or cut to the next angle. It is such a minimalist idea, but it is executed beautifully. Take notes, “Taken 3!”

In the end, “Guns Up” gets a thumbs up. For the record, it is not a big thumbs up. The film’s budgetary limitations sometimes make themselves clear. The tone of the movie is sometimes inconsistent. Again, this film is an action comedy, and while neither of those two aspects are done horribly, the film’s action and humor are not the best I have ever seen. Other than the main family, the film’s supporting cast did not entirely stand out. That said, the film is most definitely entertaining and if you were to check it out, you would not be wasting your time. Is it a fantastic watch? No. Is it a decent watch? Yes, that seems to be a fair assessment. I am going to give “Guns Up” a 6/10.

“Guns Up” is now available to rent or buy on VOD.

Thanks for reading this review! If you enjoyed this review, be sure to look forward to some of my other ones! I have a long list of reviews coming including for “The Fantastic Four: First Steps,” “The Bad Guys 2,” “Smurfs,” “Together,” and “Oh, Hi!” 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 “Guns Up?” What did you think about it? Or, what is your favorite project featuring Kevin James? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

	Top 10 BEST Movies o… on Secret Mall Apartment (2024):…
	Top 10 BEST Movies o… on Is This Thing On? (2025): Brad…
	Top 10 BEST Movies o… on The Life of Chuck (2024): The…
	Top 10 BEST Movies o… on Hans Zimmer & Friends: Dia…
	Top 10 BEST Movies o… on The Long Walk (2025): No Misst…