Action

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

Posted on 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.

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

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!

Superman (2025): The DC Universe Begins with a Big Bang

Posted on by Jack Drees

“Superman” is directed by James Gunn (Guardians of the Galaxy, The Suicide Squad) and stars David Corenswet (Twisters, Pearl), Rachel Brosnahan (The Marvelous Mrs. Maisel, House of Cards), Nicholas Hoult (The Menu, Juror #2), Edi Gathegi (Into the Badlands, Twilight), Anthony Carrigan (The Forgotten, Gotham), Nathan Fillion (The Rookie, Firefly), and Isabella Merced (Transformers: The Last Knight, Dora and the Lost City of Gold). This film centers around the titular hero as he takes on Lex Luthor while trying to win back the general public’s trust.

It’s finally here. A brand spankin’ new cinematic universe. Just like DC’s last attempt at one of these ongoing sagas, we are kicking things off with Superman, this time around played by David Corenswet. When the DC Universe was announced, I was excited about it. Yes, I was enjoying the DCEU, but demand for it to continue has clearly diminished with one unsuccessful project after another, so I get why this new universe is happening. What really sold me is who would be involved. There was Peter Safran, a producer behind many of Warner Bros.’ recent films, including some DC fare. And alongside him on the more creative side was James Gunn, the director of this very film.

While Gunn is not my favorite filmmaker working today, he has a respectable knack for the craft. I thought he was perfect to shepherd something like this partially because of his love for comic books, as well as his experience with adapting them into films like Marvel’s “Guardians of the Galaxy.” Plus, with the release of “The Suicide Squad” in 2021, he is responsible for making my favorite DC movie ever. And I say this as someone who has seen every DCEU movie. Every Christopher Reeve “Superman” movie.” Every Christopher Nolan “Batman” movie. Even “The LEGO Batman Movie.” Not to mention “V for Vendetta!” There was a point where “Superman” was my most anticipated film of the year. That has changed having seen the more recent marketing, which was not horrible, but kind of lost steam for me the more I knew about the film. There were undoubtedly plenty of creative marketing stunts in recent weeks, but if we are just talking about trailers, that is where I feel the batting average starts to weaken. But who knows? Maybe I could walk out of the movie having a blast.

A lot was riding on this film between a new cinematic universe, trying to get general audiences onboard, as well as making a relatable story about a god. James Gunn and Peter Safran can take a moment to breathe a sigh of relief. This film is excellent.

Is “Superman” my favorite comic book film of the year? No. I prefer “Thunderbolts*” over “Superman,” but there is no denying that the latter is a blast. That said, there is something that separates “Superman” from a lot of recent comic book movies, even some of the better ones. With this being a brand new cinematic universe, there is no homework to be done to prepare for this movie. “Superman” is not the first entry to the DC Universe. It is the first film installment, but the current cinematic universe started earlier this year on HBO Max with the animated series “Creature Commandos.” Even so, one can go into “Superman” knowing nothing about the DC Universe, the comics, or any other piece of media related to the character and have a good time. It likely helps if you are more attached to that stuff, but it is not necessary.

While “Superman” may not be my favorite comic book film of the year, there is a serious possibility that this is likely the best “Superman” movie ever. It is definitely a more generalized interpretation of the character than “Man of Steel” but it is more pleasing to the palate. Despite my praise for “Man of Steel” and what would be my favorite “Superman” film if it were not for this latest one coming out, “Superman: The Movie,” there are parts of both stories that drag. Meanwhile, in this film, the pacing is quite literally perfect. The film is not exactly an origin story, though it does introduce Superman’s birthparents as well as Ma and Pa Kent. Instead it starts off with Superman losing a battle for the first time. We are not even two minutes into the movie, and it has already made a literal god compelling and relatable with what may be his lowest low as a hero. And it does not even stop there. Because if you stick around for the rest of the film, Superman has to deal with issues that are not only relevant, but incredibly human.

“Superman” astoundingly links to multiple prominent real world issues. Whether it has to do nations or groups of people fighting each other, hostile world leaders, the downsides of social media, or having your life forever changed by false information. The film is also likely an allegory on immigration. After all, Superman is not from Earth. So, despite him living there, he is technically an illegal alien. The rivalry between Superman and Lex Luthor sees the latter irritated by the former because in a sense he, an outsider, is being prominently celebrated to the point where Lex, an Earthling, envies him. This film does an amazing job of putting pressures on a popular figure like Superman. He knows how to be a hero in a general sense, but he is not as super in other areas such as dealing with social media controversy or handling the press. Although I will say, as well as that last concept is, it is a tad unexpected considering Clark Kent works for a news outlet, but still.

When I think about “Superman” my mind often goes to about how hard the character must be to write, and this film does an amazing job in terms of its script. I was genuinely surprised by how hooked I was by James Gunn’s vision from start to finish. But the pressure must have been equally as high for David Corenswet. Some of you who have not seen this movie yet are probably wondering who Corenswet is, but if you watch the film, I think he would be responsible for putting a smile on your face. When it comes to the movie variants of Supes, I do not think a single performer has ever been bad. That said, as much respect as I have for Henry Cavill as Superman in the DCEU, I think Corenswet’s character channels more joy, and he works well that way. Part of this is due to how he was written and directed, but when I look at Corenswet and hear him speak, it allows for an incredibly welcoming presence. While this Superman is very much Corenswet’s own thing, his interpretation somewhat reminded me of what I enjoy about Christopher Reeve’s take on the character. He is a likable role model, albeit flawed in certain ways.

We learn that there is so much more to Superman behind the big fat “S.” Going back to what I said about his handling of controversy, there is a fantastic scene early on in the film where the pressures of an interview are getting to him. Lois Lane is asking him a bunch of questions and he ends up saying things that he then realizes he probably did not want to say. We see that Supes is strong on the outside, but he might not always be the best at hiding his emotions. This is not to say he is a wuss. If anything, it means he avoids falling into the trap of toxic masculinity, but he also is not afraid to showcase how he really feels.

The surprise star of the show? Krypto the Superdog. I genuinely did not expect to like this character as much as I did. First off, I am not a dog person. I am allergic to dogs and my sensitive ears are not exactly the best things to have when a dog happens to be near me and starts barking up a storm. But Krypto is perfectly utilized here. He is not exactly a “good boy.” Though I can see one making a valid argument suggesting he actually is, considering he is loyal to his master. To my surprise, Krypto’s action scenes brought out some of my biggest laughs during the film.

The thing I perhaps loved most about this movie is its nature to embrace the silly and fantastical. Of course, with this being a James Gunn film, there is a scene where Superman takes on a kaiju in the middle of Metropolis. The film skips over Superman’s origin story and introduces other DC heroes like Hawkgirl, Metamorpho, Green Lantern, and the fantastically portrayed Mr. Terrific. James Gunn knows how to inject charisma into characters who may seem like they belong in the background, and Mr. Terrific is one such example. He is most certainly as terrific as his name suggests. I almost cannot see anyone else but Edi Gathegi in his shoes. Every line out of him is given with such pizazz. I would love to have lunch with Mr. Terrific if I was given the chance.

The film kind of reminds me of a Studio Ghibli title like “Ponyo.” One of my favorite things about that film is that even the adults seem to embrace things some in “the real world” would consider to be out there or of the land of make believe. I found it fascinating how Lois Lane, who by the way is excellently portrayed by Rachel Brosnahan, simply accepts the idea that she is flying an intuitive, advanced super vehicle.

That said, with this being a comic book movie, we have the return of one of the most overused jokes in the sub-genre. Specifically, this film has a gag that has something to do with a specific name. This is a joke as common as a Dunkin’ location in New England. It is not always a bad joke, it is just overdone. This time around, it revolves around the group of heroes trying to determine what exactly to call their team. The jokes are passable and by no means offensive. But they sometimes lack originality, especially coming off of “Thunderbolts*” which handled this cliché surprisingly well.

Speaking of humor, that is something that James Gunn is no stranger to in his movies. If you are coming to “Superman” to laugh, I am not saying you won’t, but the laughs in this film are not as strong as say “Guardians of the Galaxy” or “The Suicide Squad.” Then again, laughter is not exactly the most important item on the to-do list of making a “Superman” movie. That said, it is nice to have. The script, while definitely lighthearted, sucks me in to the point where I am more excited to see Lex Luthor lose his mind.

On that note, Nicholas Hoult is irreplaceable as Lex Luthor. They say a movie is only as good as its villain. And I will remember Hoult’s interpretation of the iconic villain for a very long time. Hoult has proven himself to be a solid actor in previous projects like “The Menu” and “Juror #2.” Meanwhile in “Superman,” Hoult unleashes a side of himself I am not used to seeing. His take on Lex Luthor is almost hyperactive nightmare fuel. While Lex Luthor may look like someone who can take a punch at times, he is beyond intimidating. His methods of trying to kill Superman sometimes teeter into Saturday morning cartoon territory, but James Gunn made me buy much of the movie’s over the top tendencies and choices.

With this being the first movie of its cinematic universe, “Superman” spends a little time teasing what is ahead, and I am interested to see what is next. Of course, I am a bit predisposed to these kinds of projects, but I probably would not be as excited for what lies ahead if I was not enjoying what was already in front of me. “Superman” may not be the best movie of the year, but it is unbelievably fun. It would have been a colossal disappointment if this movie failed because you only have one chance to make a first impression. I cannot wait to see what the DCU delivers from here on out.

In the end, “Superman” is a super fun time! Is it James Gunn’s best comic book movie? No. But it is also far from his worst. It is miles better than “Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2.” “Superman” is one of the most joy-filled movies of the year. It is packed with well written, phenomenally cast characters. The film never denies that “Superman” is a godly creature, but also spends lots of time humanizing him. I loved getting to know Clark Kent, as well as his alter ego. The story may be relevant, but it is delivered in such an otherworldly vibe. I was under the impression I was watching James Gunn flip comic book pages right in front of a projector lens. While I thought the score from John Murphy and David Fleming score could have used more memorable original bits and pieces, I thought the nods to John Williams’ music added a nice touch at times. Kind of like “Jurassic World: Rebirth,” I get why Williams’ music made into the final cut. He knows how to craft an epic theme. The film is off and on in the comedy department, but when it lands, it is smooth as butter. Go see this film with a group of people, everyone is guaranteed to have a great time. I am going to give “Superman” an 8/10.

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

Thanks for reading this review! My next review is going to be for the brand new action movie “Guns Up.” Stay tuned! Also coming soon, I will be sharing my thoughts on “The Fantastic Four: First Steps,” “The Bad Guys 2,” “Smurfs,” “Together,” and “Oh, Hi!.” If you want to see these review, and more from Scene Before, follow the blog either with an email or WordPress account! Also, check out the official Facebook page! I want to know, did you see “Superman?” What did you think about it? Or, what are some things you are looking forward to seeing in the DCU going forward? Is there anything that has not been revealed yet that you would like to see? Personally, “Peacemaker” season 2 cannot come fast enough. Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

F1: The Movie (2025): Joseph Kosinski Puts Viewers in the Driver’s Seat for One of the Year’s Most Immersive Blockbusters

Posted on by Jack Drees

“F1: The Movie” is directed by Joseph Kosinski (Top Gun: Maverick, Tron: Legacy) and stars Brad Pitt (Ad Astra, Babylon), Damson Idris (Outside the Wire, Snowfall), Kerry Condon (The Banshees of Inisherin, Better Call Saul), Javier Bardem (Being the Ricardos, Dune), and Tobias Menzies (Game of Thrones, Outlander). This film centers around racer Sonny Hayes, who returns to the track following a long absence to boost his former teammate’s underdog team, all while mentoring a younger driver.

Director Joseph Kosinski has a knack for turning films into experiences. Back in 2010, he directed “Tron: Legacy,” which is one of the prettiest looking neon-infused fever dreams in cinematic history. But like lots of other people, the first film of his that comes to mind when you say his name, perhaps somewhat due to recency bias, is “Top Gun: Maverick.”

I had a blast watching “Top Gun: Maverick.” Is it a perfect movie? No. In fact there are some genuine screenplay problems that have been on my mind ever since I first saw it. That said, when I saw Kosinski’s name attached to “F1: The Movie,” it made perfect sense. If Kosinski can deliver to audiences the same kind of thrilling, high-octane, exhilarating experience that he did with “Top Gun: Maverick,” then I would be quite happy.

I am proud to report that Kosinski’s jump from planes to automobiles is just as exciting, and frankly, has a better story. Though that last part is not saying much. More on that later.

This film is an experience. My pupils dilated beyond their sockets watching this movie in IMAX. Part of this is thanks to the brilliant execution delivered in each shot from cinematographer Claudio Miranda, who previously worked with director Kosinski on “Top Gun: Maverick.” For a great chunk of the film I felt like I was inside the car driving it myself. There are several clever camera angles that gives the viewer the illusion they are moving with the car, whether it is on the side, on top, or while looking at the windshield. Some of these techniques are familiar. But there are select moments where the movie offers a first-person perspective that had me imagining that I was literally the car itself. There is a moment towards the film’s conclusion that is so riveting, so heart-pumping, and so freaking cool to look at that I could not help but glue my eyes to the screen. And it is even better in IMAX because the movie was shot with the company’s digital cameras, which expanded the aspect ratio for the entire film on their screens.

Keep in mind, it is the 1.90:1 aspect ratio, not 1.43:1. In Layman’s terms, it will not cover the whole screen at taller IMAX locations.

Once I saw Hans Zimmer’s name on the opening credits, I knew we were in for something special with the score. And something special we got. Some of the movie’s tunes genuinely got me excited. There is a moment that reminded me of another one of Hans Zimmer’s efforts, particularly “Interstellar,” mainly because the music appeared to be going at 60 beats per minute during one of the races. It seemed to be aiming for that “ticking clock” effect that was present for much of “Interstellar’s” runtime. The percussion in this film’s score is some of the best I have heard since Ludwig Gorranson’s score for “Tenet.”

The soundtrack in this film is not bad either. The film has a fairly rock-heavy soundtrack. There is not a bad track on the lineup. Perhaps the most well-known song on the list is Queen’s ‘We Will Rock You.” There is a pretty good use of it early on in the movie.

The best way I can sum up  “F1: The Movie” is that on the surface, it is the quintessential “dad flick.” It is very much a movie that you can imagine being made for the “dad” crowd. It has fast cars, good looking men and women on screen, it has a good amount of rock music, and it is about someone who is trying to prove himself despite his older age.

I sincerely feel bad for anyone whose first experience of “F1: The Movie” is going to be through Apple TV+. After seeing this film, “Mission: Impossible – The Final Reckoning” has got some competition for the greatest technical achievement of the year. This movie cost anywhere between $200-300 million to make, and I honestly can see all the money on the screen. Yes, the film has a well known star in Brad Pitt. But my jaw was on the floor with this film’s look. The colors. The audio. The camera angles. Everything in this film feels dialed up to an 11.

“F1: The Movie” is quite the ride. So, how is the script? It is not bad. As far as Joseph Kosinski’s library goes, this is a step up from “Top Gun: Maverick” in some ways. Perhaps the biggest improvement is that it never mysteriously refers to the antagonist as “the enemy.” What enemy? Who exactly? Who even cares?

The movie can most certainly be enjoyed by F1 fans, but it is definitely written with general audiences in mind. There are broadcaster bites throughout the film, highlighting every little nook and cranny throughout the race. As someone who has never sat down and seen an F1 race on television, I think this is an okay technique to use. The announcer lines are well done and there are quite a few that sound like they would come from a genuine sports telecast, and they also did a good job at introducing me to the rules of F1 that I probably would not have known right off the bat.

The one big negative, to a certain degree anyway, is that the movie is full of clichés. A lot of parts of the script feel been there done that. Though as I have addressed time and time again, clichés are fine as long as they are done well. And they are done well here. In fact, this movie feels like a genuine cousin to “Top Gun: Maverick” not only in terms of its experience, but structure as well. The film involves a race car driver who is trying to prove himself despite being past his prime, and much of the film sees him teaming up with a younger individual who shares his profession and ambitions. The two are off and on with each other, but ultimately have to work together no matter the obstacle.

If anything, “F1: The Movie” reminded me of Pixar’s “Cars,” and not just because both involve racing. But I happened to watch “Cars” a week before catching “F1: The Movie” in theaters and many of the story beats and character traits presented throughout the film felt interchangeable. “F1: The Movie” is kind of like the original “Cars” if someone gave it a bit of a “Freaky Friday” treatment. In this case, the filmmakers took Doc Hudson and made him the main character and turned Lightning McQueen into the supporting character. Additionally, they gave the Doc Hudson wannabe a little bit of Lightning McQueen’s entitlement.

So, maybe the story is generic, but it does not change the fact that I had fun watching it play out. Sometimes a simple story is effective as long as all the elements that make it up are done right. You have an arrogant but likable main character. You have an ambitious supporting character. All the other characters serve the story perfectly. On top of that, you have one of the most cinematic experiences of the year. What’s not to like about that?

In the end, “F1: The Movie” is an exciting race to the finish. You do not have to be an F1 fan to enjoy this film. It is simply an engaging two and a half hours of cinema that gets into gear and never runs out of gas. The script does not reinvent the wheel, but if you like watching wheels turn really fast, it will leave you beyond satisfied. I left this film thinking that this was likely going to have a strong presence in regards to the technical awards at this year’s Oscars ceremony. If “F1: The Movie” is playing in a theater near you, please check it out. You will have a ball. Do not wait for streaming. I imagine some of you are probably looking for an excuse to use your Apple TV+ subscription, but I guarantee the film will not look or feel as epic as it would on the big screen. I am going to give “F1: The Movie” a 7/10.

“F1: The Movie” is now playing in theaters. Tickets are available now.

Thanks for reading this review! My next review is going to be for another highly anticipated summer blockbuster, “Superman.” At one point, this was my most anticipated film of the year. Admittedly, with more marketing coming out and other films making their presence known, some of the anticipation has dwindled a bit. That does not mean I was not excited, but I was interested enough to see if this film could truly be something special. I will share more of my thoughts during my upcoming review. Also coming soon, look forward to my thoughts on “Guns Up,” “The Fantastic Four: First Steps,” “The Bad Guys 2,” and “Smurfs.” 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 “F1: The Movie?” What did you think about it? Or, do you ever watch actual F1 sporting events? What’s that like? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

M3GAN 2.0 (2025): Does Not Compute

Posted on by Jack Drees

“M3GAN 2.0” is directed by Gerard Johnstone, who also directed the original “M3GAN” installment. This film stars Allison Williams (Get Out, Girls), Violet McGraw (The Haunting of Hill House, Black Widow), Ivanna Sakhno (The Spy Who Dumped Me, Pacific Rim: Uprising), and Jermaine Clement (Moana, The Flight of the Conchords). This sequel sees the return of the original cast a couple years after the titular character went on a rampage. Despite her dangerous antics, said title character is tasked with taking down a robot named Amelia.

Photo Credit: Universal Pictures – © 2025 Universal Studios. All Rights Reserved.

If you told me in 2023 that I would walk out of the original “M3GAN” having a great time, I would summon a lightning cloud and strike a bolt into your head. But to my surprise, the film is solid. And not just because the robot does a funny dance. I found it to be a fine metaphor for technology always being there for you, perhaps to extremely dangerous levels. I liked the first film so hopefully “M3GAN 2.0” would keep up the good work.

“M3GAN 2.0” had an unusual marketing campaign. The trailers seemed to indicate a shift similar to that of a James Cameron sequel like “Aliens” or “Terminator 2: Judgment Day.”  The first film is at its core, a horror movie. This sequel has horror elements, but it is a bit more action-oriented. It is definitely not as scary as the original film, at least not in a direct sense. Although if there was something that was as scary this time around, it would be the overhanging commentary. Another key difference this time around is that M3GAN goes from being a bad robot to a good gal. The film finds a less than buyable way to have her make amends with those she either harmed or nearly killed in the previous installment to justify her goodness, but still.

That is just one of several wrongs in this film’s screenplay. “M3GAN 2.0” is not that scary. Sure, this is less of a horror film than what the first film turned out to be, but there are attempts at horror in this film that do not stick the landing. The film clearly tries to be funny and edgy, but if anything it just sounds like M3GAN is trying her darndest every other second to join the cool kids table. If anything she comes off as a PG-13 robot “Deadpool.” There are select moments and lines where I think the film would have been better if they were done in a more R rated fashion. I am not saying that this film needs to go overboard like it’s the next “Wolf of Wall Street,” but I think it would have helped if M3GAN had a tad less of a filter. Granted, the original film was PG-13, so I guess logically this one had to be as well. If the film goes for an R, that would risk losing the younger audience who likely checked out the last film. But seriously! This sequel changes the genre as well as the titular robot’s personality. Why not a maturity shift? Is it to get more money? Because I do not think your $10 million opening weekend is not doing you any favors.

Honestly, the only genuine laugh I remember having in the film involves a line having to do with a yeast infection. If I did laugh at all for the remainder of the runtime, then said laughter was not that hard or it ended up being for the wrong reasons.

As previously established, “M3GAN 2.0” is an action movie. Is the action good? Well… It is competent. I do not have a ton of complaints regarding the action, but I am not going to pretend any of it was that memorable. Although there was one fun scene between the film’s antagonist and a wealthy individual in his erotic cave. Remember how I said the film was not that funny? Well, this part actually had me laughing for, you guessed it, the wrong reasons. It was not necessarily comedy gold. I was laughing at the movie rather than with it.

One thing that people seem to remember distinctly from the first film is the scene where M3GAN jumps around and dances. That moment is still ingrained in my mind and its memability is noticeable. In this sequel, the filmmakers appear to create a scene inspired by the roaring response that scene got. And quite frankly, it seems that is the only reason why that scene was put in the film. It felt kind of forced.

Speaking of memes, this movie introduces some new meme potential for the M3GAN character… She sings now. I do not want to spoil much about it, but I was so thrown off by this moment to preposterous levels. The moment that M3GAN sings is so out of left field that I would not have been surprised if at one point Lady Gaga’s Harley Quinn showed up in the background asking to perform a duet. It kind of reminded me of the musical planet from “The Marvels,” but at least that moment had some greater context and purpose in the story.

That said, I can somewhat appreciate the film’s commentary, which presents a double edge sword. Part of me wonders how this movie, and the more I think about it, the last one, is going to age. I saw the last movie as a warning that being too attached to your phone, or in some cases, your phone being too attached to you, can be dangerous. If anything, this film is a warning about artificial intelligence. You can argue the last film was as well, but this one feels stricter in that regard. It shows the dangers of advancing technology to a point where it could potentially kill us, and it may lead to an inevitability where we have to adapt to the technology being in our lives rather than ignoring it. As campy as these films occasionally come off, there are moments where they feel down to earth.

Unfortunately, the commentary feels like a downgrade from that of the original because as I said before, this film is not that scary. Part of what made the commentary work in the original movie is that it had a hand in the film’s scares. Here it is just littered throughout the script.

In a way, I can appreciate the crew behind “M3GAN 2.0” for trying something different rather than resorting to the same old tricks. I was looking forward to a more action-centered installment. But what makes this film different either felt too out there or simply put, poorly executed. As for what felt the same, it was kind of lame this time around. It does not matter if you try to go for something different or the same as before. If all of your material is bad, then it is bad. Plain and simple.

In the end, “M3GAN 2.0” was kind of disappointing. It is one of the weakest films of 2025. I was really looking forward to this film after the original turned out to be a delightful surprise. In a way one could say that this sequel was a surprise of its own, but not in the way that I would want it to be. The film differentiates from its predecessor in more ways than one. This is more of an action movie than a horror movie. But no matter what genre it shoots for, I simply wish it were a good movie. And unfortunately, it is not. I am going to give “M3GAN 2.0” a 3/10.

“M3GAN 2.0” is now playing in theaters and is available to rent or buy on VOD.

Thanks for reading this review! My next review is going to be for “F1: The Movie.” Stay tuned! Also, coming soon, look forward to my thoughts on “Superman” and “Guns Up.” 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 “M3GAN 2.0?” What did you think about it? Or, what is a sequel you enjoy that shifts its genre from the original? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

Jurassic World: Rebirth (2025): Dinosaur Dullness

Posted on by Jack Drees

“Jurassic World: Rebirth” is directed by Gareth Edwards (Godzilla, The Creator) and stars Scarlett Johansson (Black Widow, Under the Skin), Mahershala Ali (Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse, Moonlight), Jonathan Bailey (Bridgerton, Wicked), Rupert Friend (Obi-Wan Kenobi, Pride & Prejudice), Manuel Garcia-Rulfo (Sicario: Day of the Soldado, The Lincoln Lawyer), and Ed Skrien (Alita: Battle Angel, Deadpool). This film is about a group of people who are on a mission to extract DNA from dinosaurs in order to achieve a medical breakthrough.

Photo by Universal Pictures and Amblin Entertainment – © Universal Studios. All Rights Reserved.

Here we go again. “Jurassic Park” is undoubtedly a well known franchise. But so far, it is, at best, two for six as far as yours truly is concerned. Maybe three if I am being generous. Of course, the original “Jurassic Park” is peak cinema. I also enjoyed “The Lost World.” The film had some engaging sequences. The other films as far as I am concerned are dinosaur fodder, but I will admit when I watched “Jurassic World” in the theater a decade ago, it was a cool experience, especially in IMAX 3D. But having watched it at home, I think the film as a story and character piece is mediocre at best.

I went into “Jurassic World: Rebirth” with little expectations. After all, the odds were against this film being good based on the data I have provided thus far. Plus, I thought the last film, “Jurassic World: Dominion,” is one of the most abysmal blockbusters of all time. They say you are only as good as your last project.

Photo by Universal Pictures and Amblin Entertainment – © Universal Studios. All Rights Reserved.

I saw “Jurassic World: Rebirth” with a friend. Upon walking out of the film, I told my friend that I thought it was one of the weaker installments. Because that is the truth. I thought compared to the original, this was a waste of time. It is really hard to establish myself as a “Jurassic Park” fan when there is only one outright memorable installment. Yes, the second film has its moments. But other than those two, I have no desire to go back to watch any of the “Jurassic Park” movies, including this one.

There are positives to this film, and thankfully, as a narrative, it is slightly more entertaining than whatever the heck “Jurassic World: Dominion” turned out to be. It certainly helps that this movie chooses to focus more on dinosaurs than it does locusts. The biggest positive I can give to this film is that it is scary. The previous film had only one dinosaur sequence that had me scared for the characters. This latest film improves upon that. Part of that has to do with the direction from Gareth Edwards.

While Gareth Edwards may not be my favorite director working today, he is a name I respect. He can bring a lot to a big budget project. I love how he demonstrates the scale of titans in his work between establishing the titular character in 2014’s “Godzilla” and the AT-ATs in “Rogue One: A Star Wars Story.” Unsurprisingly, there was a sense of wonder to be had with the dinosaurs on screen. There is one particular sequence involving two dinosaurs with long tails in the middle of the grass that honestly took me back to the original “Jurassic Park” when Alan Grant takes off his sunglasses and marvels over the sight of a living dinosaur. There is also some okay dinosaur action… When said action actually happens.

Photo by Universal Pictures and Amblin Entertainment – © Universal Studios. All Rights Reserved.

Gareth Edwards does a good job at handling the action sequences in this film, but much like his “Godzilla” movie, my big problem with it is that I thought the film’s action does not become truly exciting until the film’s second half. There is some action in the first half, but it is honestly kind of a bore. You could argue that the crew wanted to spend time establishing the human characters, and there are snippets where you get to know the film’s cast. But I am honestly not going to remember most of these people. Yes, some of them are played by well known, award-winning actors, but I failed to connect with their respective characters. If you want a better monster movie that perfectly balances characterization with monster action, I hate doing this because Edwards did not direct this installment, but I highly recommend “Godzilla Minus One.”

When it comes to story, “Jurassic World: Rebirth” seems to have an identity crisis. While many movies have a plots and b plots, this movie has a couple different plots that feel like they distract from each other for the most part. The movie spends so much time establishing one set of characters only to suddenly introduce another set who quite frankly do not feel like they belong in this particular narrative.

Photo by Universal Pictures and Amblin Entertainment – © Universal Studios. All Rights Reserved.

But maybe the screenplay will utilize these plots to their full potential and unleash some memorable characters and line delivery! Ha! I wish. Some of the dialogue is cliche. The film seems to have attempts at humor that do not stick the landing. Some lines sound like they are out of a bad Michael Bay movie. And as I said before, the characters could have been better. Even the main ones feel relatively shallow. Do I like Scarlett Johansson? Yes. A lot actually. I think she is talented. I could tell she wanted to be in this film and she looked like she was having fun. But I wish I had more of a reason to care about her character of Zora Bennett.

These are not even the biggest faults of the screenplay. For some time after watching the movie, I thought this was a bad “Jurassic Park” installment. But the more I think about it, the angrier I get based on one particular complaint I have. For reasons I do not understand, the film establishes early on that public interest in dinosaurs has waned since the last movie. I’m sorry, what?!

How is that possible?! Look! Dinosaurs might just be one of the most consistently amazing concepts in history. Think about it! These are magnificent creatures from ages ago who dominated the planet until all of sudden they were taken out by space junk! They’re humungous! They’re boisterous! They come in many different shapes, sizes, types, and colors! Some of them will probably rejoice in the thought of straight up annihilating you! How on earth do dinosaurs become tiresome to the general public? In fact, let’s talk about this franchise alone! Four of these movies made more than a billion dollars! Yes, if you read my review for “Dominion” I thought that film accomplished the unthinkable feat of making dinosaurs boring. But that does not mean dinosaurs as a concept is boring. They were boring in a certain context. Ask ANY young boy living today if they like dinosaurs. I guarantee all of them would answer with a “yes.”

One could argue that the idea of the general public being bored by dinosaurs was written based on the ongoing consensus of the recent “Jurassic Park” installments. The films do not appear to be impressing audiences as much the previous ones did. But even if that is true, it does not change the fact that dinosaurs are still exciting. I live 20 minutes away from Boston, so we have the Museum of Science, and just about every time I go, I cannot help but look at the giant t-rex exhibit.

Saying that public interest in dinosaurs has deteriorated is like assuming that people today are no longer interested in other animals. We still go to zoos! We still go to aquariums! We still have pets! We still go on YouTube and watch cat videos every once in a while! But sure, the general public thinks dinosaurs are boring.

Now I would defend this idea for one reason, which is that dinosaurs spent so much time terrorizing the planet to the point where so many people were afraid to so much as look at one again. After all, they were unleashed into our world between “Fallen Kingdom” and “Dominion.” I do not recall “Jurassic World: Rebirth” making such a point clear, so I continue to question the film’s logic.

By the way, this film is written by David Koepp! The writer for the original “Jurassic Park!” Oh how the mighty have fallen. It is not like he has a perfect resume. After all, in recent years he did “You Should Have Left” and “Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny,” but I cannot recall being as infuriated by one of his screenplays as much as I am with this one.

Photo by Universal Pictures and Amblin Entertainment – © Universal Studios. All Rights Reserved.

Also, going back to what I said about the film’s wonder factor and how it reminded me of a certain scene from the original “Jurassic Park,” some of “Rebirth’s” highest points are those that are borderline nostalgia bait. While Alexandre Desplat is doing the score this time around instead of John Williams, the best musical beats are, unsurprisingly, those that clearly springboard off of John Williams’ original music. Do not get me wrong, these are iconic tunes. But the film does not really individualize itself from a musical perspective. There is, admittedly, a pretty fun chase scene in the climax of the film that feels at least partially inspired by the kitchen scene from the original movie. I will not go into spoilers, but the very end of the film reminded me of the original as well. As I watched it play out, I got the sense the filmmakers were trying to pay tribute to the original’s ending.

That said, if anything, this film makes me want to go back and watch the original “Jurassic Park.” Not necessarily because this film was fun, though there are one or two moments that stand out, but because it spent so much time reminding me of the original’s superiority.

I have nothing against dinosaur movies, and “Jurassic Park” is a franchise with potential. But unfortunately that potential is repeatedly shattered from one bad movie to the next. My interest in dinosaurs has definitely not waned. But my interest in this franchise definitely has.

© Universal

In the end, “Jurassic World: Rebirth” is further proof that this franchise needs to be wiped out by an asteroid. This is one of the worst films of 2025. I honestly think if they continue to make these movies they are going to achieve a fate similar to the “Transformers” franchise when it was under the helm of Michael Bay. These movies have had their moment in the sun, but I think audiences are going to open their eyes and either ask for the filmmakers to aim higher or decide to stop going to these films altogether. Then again, these are literally the only relevant dinosaur movies on the market, so maybe not. This franchise should be exciting but for whatever reason, each movie finds a way to spiral into awfulness. I am going to give “Jurassic World: Rebirth” a 3/10.

“Jurassic World: Rebirth” is now playing in theaters. Tickets are available now.

Photo Credit: Universal Pictures – © 2025 Universal Studios. All Rights Reserved.

Thanks for reading this review! My next review is going to be for “M3GAN 2.0.” Stay tuned! Also, coming soon, look forward to my thoughts on “F1: The Movie” and “Superman.” Blockbuster season is kicking into gear so I hope you are ready to hear what I think about the hottest movies of the summer. Hopefully these movies will end up better than “Jurassic World: Rebirth.” 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 “Jurassic World: Rebirth?” What did you think about it? Or, what is your favorite “Jurassic Park” movie? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

The Phoenician Scheme (2025): One of Wes Anderson’s Weakest Films Yet

Posted on by Jack Drees

© Focus Features

“The Phoenician Scheme” is directed by Wes Anderson (The Grand Budapest Hotel, The French Dispatch) and stars Benicio del Toro (Sicario, Star Wars: The Last Jedi), Mia Threapleton (The Buccaneers, I Am…), Michael Cera (Juno, Scott Pilgrim vs. the World), Riz Ahmed (Rogue One: A Star Wars Story, Sound of Metal), Tom Hanks (Toy Story, Cast Away), Bryan Cranston (Godzilla, Breaking Bad), Mathieu Amalric (Quantum of Solace, The Grand Budapest Hotel), Richard Ayoade (The Bad Guys, The Watch), Jeffrey Wright (Asteroid City, What If…?), Scarlett Johansson (Black Widow, Sing), Benedict Cumberbatch (The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug, Doctor Strange), Rupert Friend (Hitman: Agent 47, Homeland), and Hope Davis (Asteroid City, Greenland). This film is about Zsa-zsa Korda, a wealthy businessman who appoints his daughter as the heir to his estate. During his search for a new enterprise, the two become the target of assassins, terrorists, and tycoons.

Courtesy of TPS Productions/Focus Features – © 2025

Even noticeably solid directors have at least one dud on their resume. Steven Spielberg has “Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull.” Joel Schumacher has “Batman & Robin.” Meanwhile, for Wes Anderson, his dud would be his most recent film, “Asteroid City,” which despite its technical mastery and somewhat intriguing concept, had uninteresting characters, boring scenes, and a lackluster ending. I like Wes Anderson. Just read my reviews for “Isle of Dogs” and “The French Dispatch.”

There is a saying that you are only as good as your last project, so with “Asteroid City” somewhat fresh in my mind, I went into “The Phoenician Scheme” with moderate at best expectations. When the movie started, I was pleasantly surprised. Unfortunately, that feeling fizzled real fast.

Courtesy of TPS Productions/Focus Features – © 2025

“The Phoenician Scheme” has a fantastic hook. The movie starts with a plane crash, which apparently is one of several our protagonist has gone through. In that same scene, not even thirty seconds in, someone’s head gets blown off and flies out into the sky. Very exciting stuff! Having a solid beginning can lead to promise down the road. First impressions matter, and this movie impressed me right off the bat. But I would say that this scene is where the movie peaked. Because what follows is a complete and utter disappointment of a snoozefest some like to call a motion picture.

It did not take long for me after finishing “The Phoenician Scheme” to declare that it might be my least favorite of Wes Anderson’s filmography. I still have yet to see “The Royal Tenenbaums” and “The Darjeeling Limited,” but from his work that I have seen so far, this is probably the one that I can say is the weakest. And that is sad, because I was not a huge fan of “Asteroid City.” Much like “Asteroid City,” there are things to like in “The Phoenician Scheme,” but the film itself underwhelmed me. I knew what I was getting out of this film to a certain degree given its director. If you like Wes Anderson’s quirky style, good news, it can be found here. But I simply wish there was a little more substance to accompany it.

Most of my positives regarding “The Phoenician Scheme” have to do with the film’s technical aspects. This film, to my lack of surprise, has stunning production design. The color choices of all the surroundings are meticulously chosen and easy on the eyes. Everything in the frame feels organized. The film makes the most of its 4:3 aspect ratio that Wes Anderson has previously used in films like “The French Dispatch” or “The Grand Budapest Hotel.” Despite its consistent vibrance, the film has an old timey feel to it. Even with the score sometimes, which is another tour de force from Alexandre Desplat. The music commands your attention and is up there with “Isle of Dogs” as one of my favorites in a Wes Anderson film.

Courtesy of TPS Productions/Focus Features – © 2025

Watching “The Phoenician Scheme” is like going to an art museum but you are consistently bored or unamused by every single exhibit. Yes, this film looks extravagant and is obviously well done, but is it worth my time? Judging by my repeated urge to fall asleep in the auditorium, I do not think so. As easy on the eyes and ears as “The Phoenician Scheme” is, I wish I could have used those eyes and ears to see and hear something much more valuable.

As a director, Wes Anderson is undeniably quirky. Part of his quirkiness shines through the performances he gets out of his actors. Like some of his other films, his unique way of getting actors to deliver dialogue tends to stand out. There is something about their lines, at least to me, that lacks realism, but nevertheless tends to work in the environment of his films. Watching “The Phoenician Scheme” however, the dialogue comes off as stiff and stilted. Every line feels as if the characters are reading off their finest essays rather than speaking off the cuff or acting like genuine human beings. Seriously! Every other line in this film feels disappointingly robotic!

To make matters worse, this film, like some of Wes Anderson’s previous work, has a stacked, talented cast. If you were to ask a friend who their favorite actor is, chances are their pick is in this movie! Everyone from Benecio del Toro to Tom Hanks to Scarlett Johansson to Benedict Cumberbatch to Bryan Cranston! This movie is kind of like “Amsterdam” with a pinch more polish!

Courtesy of TPS Productions/Focus Features – © 2025

The worst offender among the cast for me is Michael Cera, seen above doing his best Adam Conover cosplay. For the record, I like Michael Cera. I am a big “Scott Pilgrim vs. the World” fan. And his performance here somewhat reminded me of his performance in that film. They are not the same on the surface, but when it comes to direction and vision, they feel like they strictly belong in their respective universes. That sounds like a good thing, but in the case of “The Phoenician Scheme,” I was bewildered as to some of the choices they made regarding Cera’s character of Bjørn. Cera unleashes a voice for his character that got on my nerves real fast. The more he talked, the more I wanted to melt my brain.

That said, this film is also shaping up to Mia Threapleton’s (right) big break. For those who do not know, Mia Threapleton is Kate Winslet’s daughter. She was in a few projects before this film, but this is my first time seeing her in a role. She did a great job as Sister Liesl. And I do not mean that by nepotism standards. I got the impression that she could potentially have a career as successful as her mother. She is very talented.

I am by no means a Wes Anderson newbie. I have an understanding that he tends to stylize his dialogue, frame objects or people in the most still-like manner possible, and beautify the background so much to the point where it becomes a character of it own. Anderson is a noticeably a visionary director. He is an auteur. But if anything this is a film that so is overwhelmingly packed with Wes Anderson’s style that he prioritized it before characterization and pacing. As I watched this film, I barely felt anything. I did not care much about the characters, even if they are conceptually interesting. The story occasionally reeked of convolution. Overall, I left this film unsatisfied.

Courtesy of TPS Productions/Focus Features – © 2025

In the end, “The Phoenician Scheme” is a complete bore. One can argue that this film feels like something that only Wes Anderson can do. But if that is the case, that is disappointing because what this film ended up being was a slow, albeit pretty looking espionage story that I won’t even remember in the next year. If you want to watch a good Wes Anderson movie go back and watch “Rushmore.” Go watch “Fantastic Mr. Fox.” Heck, even his earliest feature film, “Bottle Rocket,” was quite fun. If this was my first Wes Anderson film, chances are I would not be looking forward to what he has up his sleeve next. I am going to give “The Phoenician Scheme” a 3/10.

“The Phoenician Scheme” is now playing in theaters. Tickets are available now.

Thanks for reading this review! My next review is going to be for “The Life of Chuck!” Stay tuned! Also coming soon, look forward to my thoughts on “Materialists” and “Elio.” If you want to see more from Scene Before, follow the blog either with an email or WordPress account! Also, check out the official Facebook page! I want to know, did you see “The Phoenician Scheme?” What did you think about it? Or, what is a bad film from a filmmaker whose work you traditionally like? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

Ballerina (2025): Yeah! I’m Thinking I Dig This Spinoff!

Posted on by Jack Drees

“Ballerina” is directed by Len Wiseman (Live Free or Die Hard, Total Recall) and stars Ana de Armas (Blade Runner 2049, Knives Out), Anjelica Huston (The Addams Family, Prizzi’s Honor), Gabriel Byrne (Hereditary, In Treatment), Lance Reddick (Bosch, The Wire), Norman Reedus (The Walking Dead, The Boondock Saints), Ian McShane (Deadwood, Kung Fu Panda), and Keanu Reeves (Point Break, The Matrix). This film is about a woman who trains as an assassin and seeks revenge following the death of her father.

Yeah, I’m thinking the “John Wick” franchise is back! But this time, it is not Wick’s film. He is in it, but the star of the show this time around is Ana de Armas as Eve Macarro. This marks the franchise’s first film spinoff. On the television side, there is also “The Continental,” which I have admittedly yet to see. But every time I watch a proper “John Wick” film, I am reminded of how much potential this franchise has when it comes to its lore. There are tons of stories that could be told within the walls of the many Continental hotels. With “Ballerina” being the franchise’s first film spinoff, does it compare to the proper movies? Honestly, it is worthy of the “John Wick” name.

“Ballerina” is better than I thought it would be. And I feel stupid for saying that. For the record, I was looking forward to this film for multiple reasons. First off, none of the “John Wick” movies have let me down so far. In fact, I find every movie in this franchise to be better than the one that came before. Not all of them are perfect. Some of them are much better with the action than the story. But the franchise is well-rounded from movie to movie. Second, Ana de Armas is in the lead role. This is the actress’s first appearance in this franchise, but I have been dying to see her in this role ever since I first heard about it. I have been hoping de Armas could take on a role like this since watching her in “No Time to Die.” She easily stole the show with her short but sweet appearance. Yes, you could argue in terms of the action genre that maybe she got a big spotlight in Netflix’s “The Gray Man,” but that movie was so mediocre that I almost forgot that it existed. Plus de Armas did not play the main character, unlike Ryan Gosling. “Ballerina” is a much larger showcase of what de Armas can do in these types of films. On top of that, she is an actress who I project could rack up a ton of Oscar noms if given the right roles. While “Ballerina” may not be Academy Award-winning in every regard, it did win me over with Ana de Armas’ presence.

Before we continue with the positives regarding Ana de Armas’ role, I must note that I also went into this film a tad worried despite my excitement. While I was excited to see Keanu Reeves as John Wick again, I was also wondering why he was in this film. What was his purpose? I will not spoil much, but he is in a lot more of the film than the marketing led me to believe. And it was fun to see him on screen once again. I will take any dose of Keanu Reeves I can get. He is breathtaking.

This is also the first film in the franchise where Chad Stahelski does not have a directing credit. That credit instead goes to Len Wiseman. Stahelski’s lack of directorial power specifically does not worry me. If anything it gives the opportunity for someone to bring in a fresh take on the property. That said, the film’s action sequences are often stylistically consistent with the previous movies. Whether they are done on massive, colorfully lit set pieces… Run on extensive, smooth shots… Or involve constant running and gunning, these look like something Chad Stahelski would come up with. Partially because he did. Well, sort of. While the action sequences are the product of Wiseman himself, Stahelski did have a helping hand with enhancing those sequences through reshoots. I think whatever they did may have been worth it because this movie cost $90 million to make, and every dollar looks like it has flown onto the screen. I have to go back to watch the other movies to verify, but this may be the most vibrant and colorful the “John Wick” franchise has ever looked. That might be odd to say considering the film is fairly dramatic and bloody. But if I were to buy myself an OLED TV, “Ballerina” would make for a great test movie.

I said I would go back to Ana de Armas, and now is the time. There are few compliments one can give an actor as positive as “I cannot see anyone else playing their role.” That happens to be the case for Ana de Armas as Eve Macarro. And that says something, because the same character was portrayed by Unity Phelan in “John Wick: Chapter 3 – Parabellum.” For the record, Phelan has very limited acting credits, so I have no problem with de Armas replacing her. De Armas does not disappoint here. She continues to prove she is an action star.

Not only does de Armas handle the choreography given to her with perfection, but she always maintains an aura of toughness and determination. She may be small, she may be pretty sometimes, but she can pack a punch. I also liked getting to know about a bit of her backstory. She seems to have developed her recently mentioned toughness and determination partially because of how hard she was pushed as a ballet dancer. Her childhood also was not perfect in more ways than one. 

There are a couple great action films out right now, both of which are part of major franchises. Since May, you had “Mission: Impossible – The Final Reckoning,” and a couple weeks later came “Ballerina.” If you had to ask me which of these two films I recommend you watch first, my mind would go to “Mission: Impossible – The Final Reckoning.” But “Ballerina” is not far behind. Do not sleep on it. In fact, “Ballerina” actually outshines “The Final Reckoning” in some ways. For starters, the pacing in “Ballerina” is significantly better. There is never a boring moment in either movie. But you can sometimes feel the weight of “The Final Reckoning” whereas “Ballerina” is a consistently thrilling ride. Speaking of consistency, the film never shifts much in tone. At times “The Final Reckoning” gets into Saturday morning cartoon territory with its dialogue and villain. Even with some hyperbolic action and funnier moments, the overall vibe of “Ballerina” maintained a sense of grit.

Courtesy of Lionsgate – © 2025 Lionsgate

That said, the film is, as I said earlier, not going to win every Academy Award. I will give props to the technical side like the production and costume design, the cinematography, as well as the film editing. This film undeniably looks grand, even if the scale seems to take a dip from the previous couple of “John Wick” movies. But there are times where the story lacked hints of engagement. The dialogue, while not bad, is not the best I ever heard. It is also not as emotionally investing as it could be. At times the film tries to go for the emotions, but I did not care for the supporting cast enough to feel those emotions.

But this film already has so much going for it to the point where I can forgive its faults. In true “John Wick” fashion, “Ballerina” shows how you do action shots and choreography. Never once did I look at a scene and wonder who was fighting who or feel jarred by how many takes the editor could splice together in a span of 10 seconds. There are also some cool action scenes involving objects as unusual as dinner plates. Once again, while it is not Keanu Reeves’ movie, he is great in it. He handles all of his material with excellence. He does not phone it in. And Ana de Armas puts on a performance that is arguably better than what this movie deserves. I left “Ballerina” not only wanting to see more of Ana de Armas in action roles, but also more of her in this specific role. Despite the screenplay’s faults, this character has potential. I did like what we got of her backstory, I will give the movie that. Maybe that could be expanded in later films or you can give her something better in the present to work with. “Ballerina” is a solid start for Eve Macarro, unless you technically count “Chapter 3.” Hopefully if she comes back, the crew can find a way to keep up the good work.

Courtesy of Lionsgate – © 2025 Lionsgate

In the end, as far as the “John Wick” franchise goes, “Ballerina” is a weaker installment. It might even be the weakest. But like I often say about Pixar movies, even lower tier “John Wick” is still good. Per usual, the action is world class. The production design is astounding. The camerawork and lighting are top notch. The climax is wildly entertaining. There is a lot to enjoy about this film. I have no clue how many people are going to go see this film in the long run. I have my doubts it will be remembered as a “success.” But if you are an action junkie, there is a lot to like here. I would definitely watch it a second time. I am going to give “Ballerina” a 7/10.

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

Courtesy of TPS Productions/Focus Features – © 2025

Thanks for reading this review! My next review is going to be for Wes Anderson’s latest film, “The Phoenician Scheme.” Stay tuned! Also coming soon, I will share my thoughts on “The Life of Chuck,” “Materialists,” and “Elio.” 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 “Ballerina?” What did you think about it? Or, is there a rising action star who caught your eye in recent years? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

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

Posted on by Jack Drees

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thunderbolts* (2025): Familiar Marvel Characters Take Center Stage in an Unexpectedly Powerful Story

Posted on by Jack Drees

Photo by Marvel Studios/MARVEL STUDIOS – © 2025 MARVEL.

“Thunderbolts*” is directed by Jake Schreier (Paper Towns, Beef) and stars Florence Pugh (Oppenheimer, Midsommar), Sebastian Stan (The Apprentice, A Different Man), Wyatt Russell (Monarch: Legacy of Monsters, Black Mirror), Olga Kurylenko (Quantum of Solace, Magic City), Lewis Pullman (Top Gun: Maverick, Salem’s Lot), Geraldine Viswanathan (Blockers, Miracle Workers), Chris Bauer (The Deuce, True Blood), Wendell Pierce (Suits, The Wire), David Harbour (Violent Night, Stranger Things), Hannah John-Kamen (Brave New World, Killjoys), and Julia Louis-Dreyfus (Seinfeld, Enough Said). This film is about a group of antiheroes who work together on a mission where they must face the darkness of their pasts.

Photo by Marvel Studios/MARVEL STUDIOS – © 2025 MARVEL.

Before we get into my thoughts on “Thunderbolts*,” I would like to take a few moments to discuss my current feelings about the Marvel Cinematic Universe.

Every time there is a new Marvel Studios project out, I imagine that group as if they were a see-saw. The past couple years or so, I have come across a multitude of extremes. “The MCU is dead!”, “The MCU is back!”, “The MCU is dead again!”, “The MCU is back again!” Personally, the MCU is long from dead. And it always has been. There have been missteps along the way, sure. But many filmmakers would kill to have a project as successful as many of those coming out of Marvel. Yes, 2023 was a lesser year for the studio. Yes, “The Marvels” bombed… Yes, “Ant-Man and the Wasp: Quantumania” underperformed… But in the same year, we also had “Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3,” which was super successful. Marvel was down, but not out.

Then in 2024, Marvel churned out the highest-grossing R rated title of all time with “Deadpool & Wolverine.” And “Agatha All Along” also did well on the TV side.

Flash forward to 2025, things are not off to the best of starts. Sure, maybe “Daredevil: Born Again” is well received. But movie-wise, “Captain America: Brave New World” got old really fast. The box office was somewhat respectable, but it was low by Marvel standards. It probably would have been higher if the film did not have a 48% on Rotten Tomatoes. As for my thoughts on the film, I would say it is mediocre. It is the first Marvel film since “Endgame” I did not enjoy. That is honestly not a bad streak.

Photo by Marvel Studios/MARVEL STUDIOS – © MARVEL 2025

Now that much of the discourse of “Thunderbolts*” is finding its way online, I am not going to claim the MCU is back. Again, it never died. But I would say the MCU is in a great position right now because “Thunderbolts*” is an incredible time.

There is a sense of homogeneity from one Marvel movie to the next. While this film manages to maintain some of the cliches from prior Marvel projects, “Thunderbolts*” is undoubtedly unique when it comes to the span of the MCU. While the film features familiar characters, they have arguably never been this well written.

Photo by Marvel Studios/MARVEL STUDIOS – © 2025 MARVEL. All Rights Reserved.

Well, maybe except Bucky. He has been around for a bit. His role in “Captain America: The Winter Soldier” is rather compelling at times.

“Thunderbolts*” goes beyond being a great comic book movie, which is not necessarily a detractor by itself, and gives one of 2025’s deepest narratives yet. This film is about a bunch of nobodies who are tasked to complete a mission together. Basically the Thunderbolts are Marvel’s version of the Suicide Squad. With there being two “Suicide Squad” movies, I would put “Thunderbolts*” in between them. It is nowhere near as bad as the 2016 one, but not quite as enjoyable as the 2021 sequel directed by James Gunn.

What makes “Thunderbolts*” in particular so compelling is its handling of the core characters. Again, these are nobodies. But in some cases, them being nobody is what makes them relatable. I think a lot of people will relate to characters like Yelena because the movie dives into her struggles of having no one by her side. After all, her sister died. She has been away from her parents for some time. She does not have a partner. The movie dives into various obstacles people can have with their mental health. This film came out in 2025, and knowing some of the things going on in the world, it feels like a movie some people will need right now. I can only imagine the conversation this would have gotten had this come out some time in 2020, or 2021, back when COVID-19 started to spread around the world. “Thunderbolts*” is playing a key role in kickstarting this year’s blockbuster season. It is undoubtedly a film that a ton of people are going to see. I imagine a lot of viewers are expecting to have fun. That is a core expectation of many of these tentpole releases. Having seen the film, I can say it is in fact, quite fun. But I also walked out of this film thinking about the people in my life, my social circles, and wonders as to what my future could present should I navigate in a certain direction. Maybe some people could see this film as a bit of a downer, but I think there is enough balance throughout the story to where it could wind up being some of the most fun one can have at the movies this year.

Photo by Marvel Studios/Marvel Studios – © 2025 MARVEL. All Rights Reserved.

On that note, the humor in “Thunderbolts*” works very well. Just about every joke landed for me. The highlight for me throughout the film, in terms of comedy, is easily David Harbour. This comes as no surprise because I found him to be the standout of “Black Widow,” mainly because of his execution of that film’s more comedic moments. Neither of these films are quite “Guardians of the Galaxy” funny, but that is a tall mountain to climb.

In fact, if I had a critique for the humor, it would be that some of the jokes feel like rewrites of what we have gotten in other Marvel projects. This might not be a surprise because there are so many projects already out, but after so many of them, you are bound to follow a formula or repeat something that was done before. One joke that finds its way into the script is the characters talking about how dumb a particular name is. As someone who likes these movies, I have noticed an arguable overuse of this kind of joke. But rarely does it fail for me, and “Thunderbolts*” is not an exception to the rule. Not only did I find this film’s “name jokes” funny, but they also play a key role in the story down the line.

I am an MCU fanboy. I make an effort to see all the films as soon as they come out. But it does not mean I am ignorant of any drawbacks that come my way. And this movie has some. One that comes to mind is Julia Louis-Dreyfus as Valentina. I do not have anything against how the character was written, but if anything, I felt like Louis-Dreyfus was playing herself. Maybe this is due to watching a lot of “Seinfeld,” but when I look at Valentina and listen to her speak, I cannot help but picture a boss lady variant of Elaine.

Another flaw has to do with the pacing. That is if you can call it a flaw. The film has an entertaining first half, but eventually, things pick up fast and furious to the point where the latter half outshines the former. “Thunderbolts*” is a great film, but I am going to remember it more for the second half than the first, which was fun nevertheless.

Knowing the MCU’s track record as of late, this next flaw should not be a shock. Some of the CGI could be a smidge better. Granted, a lot of the CGI in the film is great, and collectively, the effects are much better than say “Black Widow” or “Thor: Love and Thunder.” But some of the computerized effects looked kind of obvious. Although even those that did seem obvious sometimes looked polished or buyable enough to the point where I could be forgiving of their presence.

While the CGI may not be perfect, one technical aspect that pleasantly surprised me was the color grading of the film. With some occasionally obvious effects aside, I cannot say I have seen an MCU film that looks utterly incompetent. Though a common problem I find with some of these movies is through the color palette. Sometimes the colors do not quite match the mood of the film. “Captain America: Civil War” comes to mind. While it is a more serious MCU installment, I thought the colors were a bit too gloomy and dark for what the film turned out to be, especially with the airport throwdown. The color grading in “Thunderbolts*” was also on the gloomier side, but it felt natural for the story that was being told, as well as the vibe that was lingering in the background. The colors were consistent and amazingly did not take away from the more fun moments of the film. The film was always fun, but in the back of my mind, it was also a bit of a downer when it dove into some of the characters’ struggles.

Another common MCU problem that fails to find its way here is the film’s villain. I am not going to dive into a ton of details regarding the character, but not only were they well written, but I thought they fit perfectly into the mental health motif. There is a climactic sequence involving said character that like several others in the MCU, is heavy on the special effects, but it winds up becoming a one of a kind battle that I do not recall ever seeing in this series of films. This is not my favorite MCU climax, but it is safe to say it is up there with some of the best.

Many of the characters in this film have appeared in other MCU projects. Thankfully, I can claim that you do not need to see those other films to understand what is going on in this one. While the film does reference a couple major events in the MCU that have been documented in other stories, I think an MCU first-timer can go into this film with no experience and have a good time with it. This story feels fresh, which is amazing to say considering the amount of familiar faces that make up the cast both on the film and TV sides.

Although for those who did see “Captain America: Brave New World,” there is one major event involving Bucky that is referenced in the film. It is resolved in a cop out-like manner. If you were looking forward to knowing more about that event, you get more. But not a ton. As much as I enjoyed this movie, this sort of shows the haphazardness of the MCU and how supposedly big setups in previous projects can be met with little payoff. Granted, the setup paid off. But perhaps barely.

If I had any other notes regarding the film, I will note that this is the first MCU appearance of Geraldine Viswanathan, and I thought she did a good job. At one point, her character kind of puts things into perspective for the younger people living in this universe, particularly how some of the major events such as the Battle of New York might come off as something that would now be covered in a history class. I thought that was a nice touch. For those who do not know Geraldine Viswanathan, she is a super talented young actress. This is not her best work. If anything, I recommend checking out the TBS series “Miracle Workers” if you want to get a true sense of Viswanathan’s comedy chops. But I am glad to see her make her way into the MCU.

By the way, there are two extra scenes during the credits. And without giving anything away, I got a big, fat laugh while watching the mid-credits scene. There is some line delivery in the clip that simply amounts to perfection.

Marvel Studios/MARVEL STUDIOS – © 2025 MARVEL. All Rights Reserved.

In the end, I would give “Thunderbolts*” two big thumbs up. This was a phenomenal time at the movies. Florence Pugh overdelivers in her lead role. David Harbour is comedy gold. Sebastian Stan is stellar as usual. And Lewis Pullman does a great job playing another supporting character named “Bob” following his efforts in “Top Gun: Maverick.” I am looking forward to seeing what the next few months bring in terms of blockbusters. If this year’s upcoming tentpoles are as good as “Thunderbolts*,” then the summer movie season is gonna rock. I am going to give “Thunderbolts*” an 8/10.

“Thunderbolts*” is now playing in theatres everywhere. Tickets are available now.

Thanks for reading this review! My next review is going to be for “Rust.” Yes, that one. The movie was not playing in too many theaters, but I was at the right place at the right time, and managed to check it out a few weeks ago. Look forward to my official thoughts coming soon. Also on the pipeline, I have reviews coming for “The Ruse,” “Mission: Impossible – The Final Reckoning,” “The Accountant 2,” “Bring Her Back,” and “Friendship.” If you want to read 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 “Thunderbolts*?” What did you think about it? Or, with this being the last MCU movie in phase 5, what did you think of this phase overall? Do you have a favorite film or TV show? Personally, my favorite project was “Deadpool & Wolverine” by a clear mile. Let me know your faves down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

A Minecraft Movie (2025): Chicken Schlocky

Posted on by Jack Drees

“A Minecraft Movie” is directed by Jared Hess (Napoleon Dynamite, Nacho Libre) and stars Jason Momoa (Aquaman, Slumberland), Jack Black (Kung Fu Panda, Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle), Danielle Brooks (Peacemaker, Orange is the New Black), Emma Myers (A Good Girl’s Guide to Murder, Wednesday), Sebastian Hansen (Lisey’s Story, Just Mercy), and Jennifer Coolidge (American Pie, The White Lotus). This film is based on the “Minecraft” video game and is about a group of people who find themselves inside the mysterious “Overworld.” Together, they must use their imaginations to survive and make it back home.

Courtesy of Warner Bros. – © Warner Bros.

If there is a movie coming out this year I could not possibly be less excited about, it is “A Minecraft Movie.” I have never played “Minecraft.” However, I have seen tons of gameplay of it either through family, friends, or on YouTube when I am looking for something to fall asleep to. The game came out just before I was a teenager, but I was never one of the cool kids playing it. It was never my thing. If I were to play a building game as a kid, chances are it would have been “Mall Tycoon.”

In fact, I largely avoided “A Minecraft Movie” when it first came out due to competition. I wanted to see “The Luckiest Man in America,” which came out the same weekend. I still had not seen “Novocaine.” I was lucky to catch it in theaters while I still could. I ended up seeing “A Minecraft Movie” a couple weeks into its run with a friend of mine, who is clearly more into the game than I. Frankly, they seem to be much more into the movie than I as well. Whereas they seemed to be having a ball with everything in front of them, I was cringing beyond belief.

While video game adaptations seem to be getting better with movies like “Sonic the Hedgehog” and TV shows like “The Last of Us,” “A Minecraft Movie” fails to meet the standards of those two projects. Heck, even “The Super Mario Bros. Movie,” one of the most by the numbers hero’s journey stories in years, was more memorable. Granted, unlike “A Minecraft Movie,” I actually played the “Super Mario” games. So there could be some bias.

Thankfully though, this adaptation is a slight improvement over last year’s “Borderlands,” which despite a decent cast, is an intolerable mess. Aside from being bad, “Borderlands” and “A Minecraft Movie” share some similarities. As much as I was not a fan of the way both films are presented through their artificial-looking backdrops, they do seem to implement some key elements from their respective games. “A Minecraft Movie” is full of blocky textures, from buildings to weapons to even some of the characters. It does not change the fact that some of these textures fail to please the eye. The movie sometimes presents its Overworld as a place of wonder, but I never felt that as a viewer. It had an uncanny valley effect at times. It felt like something inside “Ready Player One,” except in that film’s virtual world, just about everything was distinctly animated whereas the Overworld often serves as a hybrid between live-action and animation. I questioned the filmmakers’ decision from the start to make this film live-action, and seeing some of the Overworld on screen makes me feel justified for reacting the way I did. What were they thinking?!

Courtesy of Warner Bros. – © Warner Bros.

I am not a huge fan of the blocky graphics “Minecraft” tends to use in their games, but they are still undeniably unique. If you presented “Minecraft” to someone in the 1990s who was in the middle of playing “Super Mario 64,” and say this is coming out more than a decade later, they could think that video game graphics regressed heavily over the years. But the graphics are still a part of the “Minecraft” brand. I understand this is an adaptation, but the movie just looks off-putting. If I had one positive, if we are going by symbolism, the contrast between the people from the real world and the Overworld is distinct. Perhaps this distinction is an artistic choice. But if I want art, I will simply go watch paint dry.

Going back to “Borderlands,” another similarity that film has with “A Minecraft Movie” is that Jack Black appears in both projects. And just like “Borderlands,” Jack Black basically plays a cartoon. In some ways, Jack Black’s character, Steve, reminds me of my dad. He is pretty expressive, spends lots of time building things, and sings during the most random occasions. Although unlike my dad, I found Steve’s singing to be annoying and nonsensical. There are multiple instances where Steve sings. Not all of them impressed me. There is one song towards the film’s conclusion that I found mildly decent, but other than that, they were headache-inducing.

By the way, I have no idea how many people would be surprised by this, Steve is not exactly what one would call the main character of this film. Sure, the film is sometimes presented from his first-person perspective, but there is also a huge gap where he basically disappears. So, the question is, who is the main character?

Your guess is as good as mine.

The film starts with Steve yearning for the mines and later discovering the Overworld, until we eventually spend some time in the real world with a couple young adults, a retro gamer, a realtor, and some other faces.

Courtesy of Warner Bros. – © Warner Bros.

In the real world, much of the screen time is dedicated to the young adults, who happen to be a brother-sister duo. The sister, Natalie (left) is raising her brother, Henry (right center) while trying to hold a job at a chip factory. The brother means well, but his creative mind seems to get him in trouble. If you were to break this movie down structurally, one can argue the brother is the main character as his arc tends to show him being creative and embarrassing himself in the real world, but having much better luck with such creativity in the Overworld. By the film’s conclusion, the script tries to implement an epilogue for each character, but sometimes they feel half-baked based on the little substance their characters are given during the runtime.

Sticking to the real world, there are a couple characters who come from there who caught my attention from their first appearance – Jason Momoa as Garret Garrison (right), and Jennifer Coolidge as Vice Principal Marlene.

I said earlier that Jack Black basically plays a cartoon, but whereas his performance felt overdone, Jason Momoa had an animated energy that kept me captivated. He plays a game store owner who endlessly brags about a particular accomplishment he made in his career, but ultimately, he comes off as a has-been. Momoa gives 110% with every line, no matter how idiotic.

Warner Bros

Then you have Jennifer Coolidge’s character. She is not in the movie for long, but by the end, she is unhinged. I am not going to pretend her character was perfect. In fact, you could almost write Coolidge out of the film entirely and it would have little to no real effect on the main story. Does it change the fact that her material was mildly entertaining? No. I will admit, Coolidge oozed personality at times. I will also note that this is a film mainly aimed at children, but Coolidge’s character does utter some mature phrases and act out some equally mature scenarios. I think the teenagers might understand what she is doing. The children? Hard to say. Hard to know in this digital age.

“A Minecraft Movie” has five writers. This film is the textbook definition of too many cooks in the kitchen. Again, when it comes to naming a main character, the film is almost confused in who that ultimately is. Maybe I would be more forgiving if all the characters were likable, but several of them were dull or flat out irritating to watch. By the film’s conclusion, the atmosphere honestly feels as bloated as one of the Michael Bay “Transformers” movies.

My experience of watching “A Minecraft Movie” reminded me of when I saw “Avengers: Infinity War” in the theater for the first time. During both screenings, there was no shortage of people applauding and cheering at various points. Although there is a difference between the two experiences. The age range for my “Infinity War” screening skewed more adult, whereas “A Minecraft Movie” had noticeably more kids. I was also not one of the people cheering. Granted, some of the applause breaks were for in-game references, which I would not fully understand anyway. I was not the target audience for those jokes. But one reason why I was not applauding as much as the people around me is because I was not as engaged as they were with the film. I wonder if I would be clapping more if I played the game. I wish I could share the same passion about this film that seemed to be beaming throughout the rest of the auditorium, but I was bored. There is no way around it.

Although I will say, even though my audience seemed to applaud at certain points either out of pure contagion or simply for the sake of doing so, one positive thing about my experience is that no one threw food. On that note, “Chicken Jockey” got a lot of fanfare.

With that in mind, it leads me to something I typically say about movies. Just because the children end up liking it, does not automatically indicate that I had equally as positive of an experience and will therefore give the movie a positive score. There are good movies that are “made for kids.” “A Minecraft Movie” is not one of them. Go watch a Pixar movie or a Studio Ghibli movie if you want a fine example of masterclass visual storytelling. This is just visual noise. Heck, if you want a great commercialized film that kids and adults can enjoy, go watch “The LEGO Movie!” Who would have thought a movie on plastic building blocks would become a beloved hit? Go watch “A Minecraft Movie” and “The LEGO Movie” back to back and tell me which one you think is better. Personally, I think the answer is obvious.

In the end, there is not enough TNT in the Overworld to destroy my memories of experiencing “A Minecraft Movie.” This is a film that I imagine that the people making it will probably be happy to have on their resume, likely because it was popular, and not necessarily because it was good. If you are looking for cinema, look elsewhere. This is not the worst video game movie of all time. I just find a lot of choices in the final product to be questionable. Everything from casting Jack Black as Steve to the uncanny valley-esque live-action style choice to the paint by numbers narrative. I do not play the “Minecraft” game that much. It does not interest me. But I imagine I could have a more pleasant hour and a half playing the game as opposed to watching the movie that it inspired. I am going to give “A Minecraft Movie” a 3/10.

“A Minecraft Movie” is now playing in theaters and is also available to rent or buy on VOD.

Courtesy of Warner Bros. – © Warner Bros.

Thanks for reading this review! My next reviews are going to be for “Sinners,” “Thunderbolts*,” “Rust,” “The Ruse,” and “Mission: Impossible – The Final Reckoning.” Stay tuned! 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 “A Minecraft Movie?” What did you think about it? Or, have you ever played “Minecraft?” Is it fun? Let me know down below! Scene Before is click to the flicks!