Book

No Other Choice (2025): My First Park Chan-wook Film

Posted on by Jack Drees

“No Other Choice” is directed by Park Chan-wook (Oldboy, Decision to Leave) and stars Lee Byung-hun (Joint Security Area, A Bittersweet Life), Son Ye-jin (A Moment to Remember, April Snow), Park Hee-soon (My Name, Seven Days), Lee Sung-min (Golden Time, The Spy Gone North), Yeom Hye-rann (The Glory, The Uncanny Counter), and Cha Seung-won (Uprising, Believer). This film is based on a novel called “The Ax” and is about a man who quite literally decides to eliminate his competition in order to secure a job.

Courtesy of Neon – © Neon

My experience with Korean cinema is very limited. In fact, to this day, I have never once reviewed a Park Chan-wook film on Scene Before. I have not even seen one of his films. Of course, I have heard of some of his work, but I have never had the chance to watch any of it. However, when I watched “Shelby Oaks” at AMC in October, one of the last trailers that played was for “No Other Choice,” which immediately caught my attention. This trailer boasted its positive reviews in addition to its 100% Rotten Tomatoes score. As of this publication, the score stands at 99%, but this is still mighty impressive. The trailer also made sure to emphasize that the film was from Park Chan-wook, whose last feature, “Decision to Leave,” was nominated for two BAFTAs. Not to mention, his feature prior to that one, “The Handmaiden” actually won him a BAFTA for “Best Film Not in the English Language.” While Chan-wook may not have as much recognition in the States as Bong Joon Ho, I would not be surprised if “No Other Choice” brings him some extra publicity that could make him somewhat of a household name. After all, I got to the see the film a little more than a week ago, and I have to say I found it to be quite good.

I have no idea how this film is going to do with general audiences, particularly those in the United States, but I really hope it succeeds. That sounds like a moot statement. In actuality, I want just about every film that exists to succeed. But I really hope “No Other Choice” in particular does, because the film has themes and ideas I think a lot of people living in the United States, as well as other parts of the world, can relate to.

The film starts off by introducing its lead character, Yoo Man-su, who basically has it all. A good life, a happy family, a couple dogs, a nice house, a good job, even some awards recognition. However, there comes a point where his collective success begins tumbling like a flimsy Jenga tower. He loses his job, keeps applying for other ones in his field but he cannot find success, so he ends up working in retail. With the pay not high enough, Man-su’s wife, Lee Mi-ri, gets to a point where she takes up some part-time work. The family starts sacrificing some of their hobbies and possessions. For Man-su, his extended struggle gets to a point where he feels he has, no pun intended, no other choice, but to kill off his competitors.

Seeing this plot play out is quite entertaining and results in some unpredictable moments. The screenplay weaves a lot of threads. Some some of those threads are more engaging than others. Admittedly, I felt the 2 hour and 19 minute runtime. If anything, that is probably the film’s biggest flaw. It is sometimes, not all the time, but sometimes, tediously paced. Yet it fails to change the fact that I was often intrigued by not just how much was going on, but the execution of all of it.

While “No Other Choice” will probably not end up amongst my top movies of the year, I do have to admit that it is absolutely one of the most technically beautiful movies I have seen in 2025. There are a lot of little quirks the film delivers that almost do not matter at all, but they nevertheless make the final product all the better. For example, there is a scene where we see one character holding a lighter, and there is a cartoony fire effect that comes up as said character flicks it. This is almost like something out of a graphic novel. The color grading in this film is extravagant. I got to see this film in IMAX laser, so I had a pretty bright projector in the auditorium, but I am sure even if it was not that bright, the film would still look incredibly poppy. The film is sometimes dark, but it takes a satirical route. It has a Tarantino vibe at times, so the color palette fits. Speaking of colors, sometimes the sun acts like a secondary character. There are a couple shots where the sun’s dropping or rising and it comes off as an Instagram influencer’s dream. The camerawork is also pretty solid. The film has maybe the sickest zooms I have seen since “Scott Pilgrim vs. the World.” I dropped my jaw at some of these movements. The film is often grounded, but there are occasional moments where the vibe can feel animated, and yet those two moods mesh together perfectly to make something fulfilling.

Another standout in the technical department is the soundwork. I saw this film with a large crowd, about a five to ten minute drive outside of Boston. My screening was almost sold out. The film has plenty of laughs, including some moments that, again, arguably do not matter much, but the fact that they are there makes the project better. There is a moment in the film where Lee Mi-ri is going over the changes that the family has to make in order to save money. One idea she had was to cancel Netflix. Of course, one of the children excuses themselves from the dinner table with an electronic device and says they’re going to get one final stream in. Next thing we hear is Netflix’s well-known “Tudum” sound effect that plays either before one of their programs or when you log in. It got a much bigger laugh from the audience than it should have, but it was timed and mixed so perfectly that it was almost impossible not to laugh.

The other sound effect that could have gone sideways was a specific door chime. You know how when you walk into a store, you hear a chime when the door opens? There is one scene set at a shop where a chime almost plays on a loop. The more it played, the funnier it became. At least to me. The chime itself was rather funny-sounding to begin with, but the fact that it kept playing only added to the comedy. “No Other Choice” has a lot of little things to appreciate in what is ultimately an ambitious ride. It has laughs. It has drama. It has entertainment. It has everything one could want to make a solid flick and more.

Courtesy of Neon – © Neon

In the end, I have no other choice but to recommend this film. I would not be surprised if “No Other Choice” ends up speaking to a lot of people. These include people who lost their jobs, perhaps those close to someone they know who lost a job, or people simply trying to get by. The cost of living, depending on where you reside, is getting out of control, and that is if it has not done so already. This is my first Park Chan-wook movie, and I would not mind seeing more. At some point, I would like to check out some of his older projects, or if he has something new up his sleeve, that could be cool to see too. I am going to give “No Other Choice” a 7/10.

“No Other Choice” arrives in select theaters this Christmas and will have a wide release in January 2026.

Thanks for reading this review! My next review is going to be for “Fackham Hall!” Stay tuned! Also coming soon, I will be sharing my thoughts on “Scarlet,” “The Secret Agent,” “Hamnet,” and “Avatar: Fire and Ash.” If you want to see these reviews and more from Scene Before, follow the blog either with an email or WordPress account! Also, check out the official Facebook page! I want to know, did you see “No Other Choice?” What did you think about it? Or, do you have a favorite Park Chan-wook movie? Let me know your suggestions down below as I would love to get into more of his work. Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

Wicked: For Good (2025): Can This Second Half Follow the Yellow Brick Road?

Posted on by Jack Drees

© Universal Pictures

“Wicked: For Good” is directed by Jon M. Chu, who also directed the prior “Wicked” installment. This film stars Cynthia Erivo (Genius, Widows), Ariana Grande-Butera (Victorious, Scream Queens), Jonathan Bailey (Jurassic World: Rebirth, Bridgerton), Ethan Slater (Lost on a Mountain in Maine, Gen V), Bowen Yang (Awkwafina is Nora from Queens, Saturday Night Live), Michelle Yeoh (Everything Everywhere All at Once, Transformers: Rise of the Beasts), and Jeff Goldblum (Jurassic Park, Independence Day). This film is the second in a two-part adaptation of the “Wicked” musical, which itself is based on a book of the same name. In this story, we see our main characters from the first film return as they embrace their identities of Wicked Witch of the West and Glinda the Good.

© Universal Studios. All Rights Reserved.

If you read my review for “Wicked” over the past year, you would notice that I have not offered the fondest of opinions regarding the film. While I acknowledge the film is by no means broken, I found it to be mostly slow. I thought a lot of the musical numbers were not doing it for me. And I thought some of the film’s technical aspects such as the color grading needed improvement. That said, I know that movie has its fans. I will even say there are things I liked about it. While most of the music failed to impress me, signature songs like “Popular” and “Flying Gravity” were well executed. Cynthia Erivo and Ariana Grande are excellent as the main duo. And even though I thought the film could have been more aesthetically pleasing in certain regards, I was impressed by the production design.

I was quite nervous for this sequel, because I acknowledge that I probably pooped on a lot of people’s parties when it comes to my opinion on the first film. A lot of people I know really dug it. Those people were also looking forward to this one. The film was a shining star over the past awards season, but I wish I aligned with those who praised it. Given how I am a Movie Reviewing Moron of the people, I used one of my A-List reservations to see this film opening weekend.

Having now seen the film, I cannot say “Wicked: For Good” surprised me in any way. I expected to not like the film, and that is exactly what happened. Of course, I go into every movie wanting it to be good. But in the case of “Wicked: For Good,” it did not do it for me.

© Universal Studios. All Rights Reserved.

Believe it or not, there are plenty of positives in “Wicked: For Good.” Many of the things that I found to work in the first film also work here. Then again, this should not be a big surprise given how both titles were shot back to back. That said, much like the original film, the sequel wowed in terms of its production design. Oz feels just as grand as I recall it feeling a year ago. I thought the music was great, and in some ways, it was an improvement over the first part. There were bits of the first film where it felt like the characters were singing almost unnecessarily. In this sequel, every song seemed to have a purpose. They either fit the moment or enhanced a character’s arc. During my review for the first film, I pointed out that the music became so loud at my screening to the point where I almost had a headache. At the risk of torturing myself, I ended up seeing “Wicked: For Good” at the exact same theater and auditorium, which is a Dolby Cinema at an AMC location. I do not know if they turned the volume down in that theater, but I found the soundtrack much more comfortable to listen to than the one from the original. Speaking of sound, the sound editing was top notch. For example, I like the attention to detail the movie gives whenever Glinda is in her bubble. You can hear a little blockage coming through whenever she talks because the camera’s point of view is from the outside of the vehicle.

Another point of praise I would have to give is that most of the cast does a good job with the material they are given. Of course, Cynthia Erivo and Ariana Grande, who had dynamite chemistry in the first film, work well together this time around, that is during whichever moments allow the two to be on screen together.

© PHOTO BY: UNIVERSAL PICTURES – © 2025 UNIVERSAL STUDIOS. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

I am not going to pretend that I found the first film’s screenplay to be phenomenal, but there was at least a novelty to it even though it was based on both a play and a book. This film’s script is consistent with the first film in certain ways. Therefore, like the first film, I found a lot of the fantastical vocabulary to be rather annoying. I get that this film is not directly set on earth, but a lot of the diction dropped by select characters including “thrillifying,” “obsessulated,” and most especially “clock tick” felt too over the top. Every time a character in this film said the words “clock tick,” it felt tacked on. It did not feel authentic, even for Oz. It came off as a fantasy version of “Mean Girls” where instead of people trying make fetch happen, they were trying to make “clock tick” happen.

When I reviewed “Wicked” last year, I pointed out that there was a pink and green tint attached in my presentation. That was not the case this time. I can only make an assumption, but maybe the projector had a filter that should have been removed. I do not know if it was a 3D filter because the screen did not look that dark. Point is, the screen looked normal during “Wicked: For Good.” Shoutout to the staff at the AMC Liberty Tree Mall 20 for the upkeep. I found “Wicked: For Good” to look much better than the original “Wicked” did during my initial watch. The sequel’s viewing experience fully allowed me to see the film the way Jon M. Chu intended. Sadly, I do not know if his vision satisfied me all that much. “Wicked: For Good,” like its predecessor, feels lacking in color. Again, the set design is great. I will even say a quite a bit of the framing is pretty good. But I think the color grading could have been pinched up a little bit, and a lot of the shots seem to lack personality. I hate saying this, because I have a soft spot for these movies, but these “Wicked” films look like select MCU films. They look slapped together and almost done on the fly. Like the original, “Wicked: For Good” has some decent shots, but it is also packed with a lot of shots that look gray, digital, and lifeless.

© PHOTO BY: UNIVERSAL PICTURES – © 2025 UNIVERSAL STUDIOS. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

Overall, I found this film to engage me more than the original did. That said, this film will definitely be enhanced by watching the original, as much as I do not recommend doing so. I found “For Good” to start off with a bang. It quickly establishes the Wicked Witch as a threat amongst Oz, or at least a threat in people’s minds. That said, despite establishing Elphaba as a threat to Oz’s population, I can say that this film feels uneventful by the conclusion. Does this film have a beginning, middle, and end? Yes. But by the time the film is over, I had little attachment to any of the characters. Not Elphaba. Not Glinda. Not a single soul in the cast. This is a film that is supposed to cap off the story and instead of going out with an emotional bang, it closes things off with a dull whimper. I get that “Wicked” in essence paints the story told in “The Wizard of Oz” as an anti-Elphaba propaganda piece, but the way that the film showcases some of the events from “The Wizard of Oz” lacks something the classic tale had. Sure, “The Wizard of Oz” is a formulaic hero’s journey, but like a lot of formulaic hero’s journeys, it had stakes. As I watched parts of “Wicked: For Good,” I almost did not care about a single character in the cast. The film barely paints the Wizard as a threat, even if Elphaba most definitely sees him that way. The closest thing to an unforgivable act I can say he pulled off is him capturing a bunch of animals, which, okay, that is not something reasonable people do. Not to mention, such an action piggybacks off of material from the first film. But even that plot point feels like it barely gets any spotlight. It comes off as an afterthought.

Do things happen in “Wicked: For Good?” Sure. Do characters develop in “Wicked: For Good?” Sure. We see some characters change more than others, but there is some character development to be had. That said, by the film’s conclusion, I felt like nothing really mattered that much. There was not much in the film that left a significant impact on me.

There is quite a bit in this film that I do not like. I did say there are plenty of positives, but I utter such a sentiment with as much generosity as I can provide. That said, if there is one reason why you should watch this movie, especially on the big screen, I think I might be able to pull one out of my sleeve. The soundtrack to “Wicked: For Good” is not as solid as the original. In fact, the parts of the soundtrack I found to be the most memorable are throwbacks to songs from the original movie. There are some good songs, but not anything on the level of say “Defying Gravity,” except for one number. That number being “No Good Deed Goes Unpunished.” There are so many fantastic elements that make this sequence worth writing home about. I almost want to shout out Cynthia Erivo for her ability to carry a tune in this scene like it is nothing. But then I remember that this sequence contains some incredibly dazzling showcases of visual effects. And while I do think the film could have been improved from a color perspective, I thought the overall aesthetic of this scene was perfect at times. Despite a lot of pizzazz going on in the frame, several shots feel kind of dry and rugged. It kind of matched the tension of the film at the time. It came at one of this film’s closest moments to what somebody could call a tipping point. The soundwork in this scene is great, and this was most definitely a treat to hear in Dolby. After seeing these two “Wicked” films, I would be totally fine if I never had any chance to watch them a second time. But I will not lie, part of me could see myself going on YouTube and either watching this clip again for fun, or listening to this song through my headphones.

I have not seen the “Wicked” play. Yes, I know, “No Good Deed Goes Unpunished” is not a song that is original to this film’s soundtrack. That said, I like the way the song is utilized in this film. It satisfies both the eyes and ears. One thing I also like is that in the moments that follow, we have a crowd of people singing a similar sounding song called “March of the Witch Hunters” that changes the core lyrics ever so slightly. It is executed rather chillingly.

Speaking of singing, watching Jeff Goldblum try to sing in this movie is something else. Do not get me wrong, Jeff Goldblum as the Wizard, like many of his other roles, is charismatic. But the guy cannot sing. He can change your apartment, he can change the world, but he cannot sing. He tries. He puts some effort into his material, and even as he fails he still has a sense of star power. Although when the film has Goldblum singing, he comes off like a reserved, yet somewhat noticeably drunk dad who drags his family into the basement so he can try out his new karaoke machine for the first time. I love Jeff Goldblum, but this is not his best work. If I were to judge Goldblum for his performance in the first “Wicked” I would say his performance was perfectly acceptable. But when this movie asks him to sing, which is one of the most important parts of making a musical, that is where the corniness ensues.

In the end, the “Wicked” movies are 0 for 2. I do not mind musicals. I enjoy fantasy movies. To quote that one kid from “A Christmas Story,” “I like ‘The Wizard of Oz.'” If there is one adjective that I could use to describe these movies, it would be “consistent.” The films are consistently boring, consistently colorless, and consistently annoying. I never latched onto the universe that these two movies were trying to sell me. It has simply never once appealed to me. When I reviewed the first “Wicked,” I said it failed on the most important thing a part one is supposed to do, which is get me excited for this film, part two. Wait, sorry, I mean for “For Good…” The title card in the original says “Part One,” why does this one not say “Part Two?” Kind of weird. Anyway, now that I have seen “Wicked: For Good,” it fails at something of equal importance, which is getting me to care about the cast of characters. I like the actors in the film, and I think like the last movie, Ariana Grande easily gives the best performance. But their characters, like the story, rarely, if ever, engage me by the film’s conclusion. I am going to give “Wicked: For Good” a 4/10.

“Wicked: For Good” is now playing in theaters everywhere. Tickets are available now.

Thanks for reading this review! My next review is going to be for “Sentimental Value!” Stay tuned! Also coming soon, I will be sharing my thoughts on “Zootopia 2,” “Wake Up Dead Man: A Knives Out Mystery,” “Jay Kelly,” and “Bugonia.” 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 “Wicked: For Good?” What did you think about it? Or, which of the two “Wicked” movies is superior? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

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

Posted on by Jack Drees

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Frankenstein (2025): Guillermo del Toro’s Take on the Classic Tale

Posted on by Jack Drees

“Frankenstein” is directed by Guillermo del Toro (The Shape of Water, Pacific Rim) and stars Oscar Isaac (Spider-Man: Across the Spider-Verse, Star Wars: The Force Awakens), Jacob Elordi (Priscilla, The Kissing Booth), Mia Goth (X, Infinity Pool), and Christoph Waltz (Django Unchained, Inglorious Basterds). This film is based on Mary Shelley’s book “Frankenstein; or, The Modern Prometheus” and follows the titular scientist and his journey of bringing the Creature to life, as well as the consequences that ensue from his actions.

Guillermo del Toro is one of those names, kind of like Christopher Nolan or Damien Chazelle, that as soon as I see them attached to a project, my curiosity about said project doubles. That said, del Toro is not on the level of those two filmmakers for me in terms of being a priority, but it does not change the fact that he is a reputable name with a solid resume including the moving “Shape of Water,” the super fun “Pacific Rim,” and the 2022 animated gem “Pinocchio.”

As mentioned in previous posts, I am not much of a Netflix guy. But I do try to keep an open mind about some of their projects. After all, when they have the confidence to release a project in theaters, it immediately boosts my interest. So, as I was driving from Massachusetts to Connecticut for a brief stay at a casino, I stopped by a theater on the way to check out the film.

As for the film itself, I found myself having a pleasant time. It is not structured like a traditional film where you have one protagonist and their journey. Instead it seems to share alternate perspectives from Frankenstein as well as the Creature. The film takes its time to share both characters’ sides of the story.

As far as Guillermo del Toro films go, I do not think this has as much visual luster as “The Shape of Water.” I also do not think this film has as much engagement as I felt with “Pinocchio.” When it comes to this film’s future, I do not see it as much replay value as “Pacific Rim.” Do not get me wrong, “Frankenstein” is a good movie, but it is far from Guillermo del Toro’s best work. While this is nowhere near my favorite Guillermo del Toro outing, it is a film that feels distinctly Guillermo del Toro. There is a certain heart and soul to this film that I found right away. Guillermo del Toro’s worlds are so picturesque to the point where I want to step into them and never leave. The film’s color palette is almost like a Peter Jackson “Lord of the Rings” film had a baby with “La La Land.” When I look back at “Frankenstein,” I refuse to call it my favorite film of the year. In fact, it likely will not make my top 10, but this is a film whose use of color, special effects, costuming, and cinematography combine into something totally unique. I cannot recall the last time I sat down and watched a film that looked exactly like this one. While I cannot say that there is a shot in this film that is vividly sticking in my head, I will not deny that this film is consistent it comes to showcasing a plethora of spectacular imagery. That said, the film does teeter to a point where one could argue it has a pacing problem, but it is hard to say I found the movie boring. This is not the most engaging film of the year, but it makes the most of its two and a half hours.

The cast of “Frankenstein” is star-studded. You have Oscar Isaac… Jacob Elordi… Mia Goth… Not only does this film have a ton of big name actors, but all of them fit perfectly into their roles. The chemistry between these actors is immaculate at times. Elordi is compelling as the Creature. I cannot see anyone else but Mia Goth playing Lady Elizabeth Harlander in her respective context. And Oscar Isaac fires on all cylinders.

The more I think about Oscar Isaac, the more I love him. In my review for “Tron: Ares,” I talked about how Jared Leto has not had the best luck with geek-centric projects. Oscar Isaac is the opposite. Sure, “X-Men: Apocalypse” had some mixed reception. But between his excellent performance in “Moon Knight,” his charisma in “Star Wars,” his voiceover chops in “Spider-Verse,” and now arguably his best outing yet in “Frankenstein,” few people are owning the geek space like Isaac is at this point. Isaac is given a lot to do throughout “Frankenstein,” dominating the screen in just about every scene he is in. One of my favorite scenes of the film is set in a lecture hall where Frankenstein demonstrates his ambitions to revive the dead, to less than stellar reception. Throughout this presentation, he gave me a Gene Wilder Willy Wonka vibe, particularly the innocent, ambitious side of him that the public seems to know. That is not to say Isaac lacks range in his performance. When the movie hits its more emotional, heavier moments, Isaac gives the performance his all. It is not my favorite performance of the year, but it is up there.

If I had to name a favorite part of the film, it would probably be around the middle when we first see Victor and the Creature in the same room together. I really enjoyed getting to see the bond between the two, particularly as we see Victor trying to teach the Creature about everything he sees. It does not take long for the film to establish that the bond is not particularly the healthiest, but I thought the realization of that concept was perfect. The film clearly paints Frankenstein as something of a protagonist, but again, this film centers around both Frankenstein and the Creature to the point where we get their side of the story, so the film does a great job, especially when the perspective transitions from one character to the other, at giving the Creature material in which it is easy to sympathize with him. This is a “Frankenstein” story that goes beyond the surface level. The Creature is, well, a creature, but it humanizes the creature much more than Universal’s black and white classic.

In the end, “Frankenstein” is not my favorite Guillermo del Toro movie, but this is still a pretty good flick. It definitely lacks an oomph in certain regards, but the technical aspects stand out magnificently. The film has a great cast, fantastic use of color, and the production design is also worth writing home about. I do not know how well I am going to remember “Frankenstein” in the next five years, but in the moment I found it to be quite decent. Overall it is entertaining and well-crafted, especially for a Netflix release. I am going to give “Frankenstein” a 7/10.

“Frankenstein” is now available on Netflix for all subscribers.

Thanks for reading this review! My next review is going to be for “Good Fortune!” Stay tuned! Also coming soon, I will be sharing my thoughts on “The Running Man,” “Eternity,” “Wicked: For Good,” and “Sentimental Value.” 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 Guillermo del Toro’s “Frankenstein?” What did you think about it? Or, what is your favorite “Frankenstein” story? It does not have to be a movie. It can be anything. Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

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

Posted on by Jack Drees

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Long Walk (2025): No Missteps, No Filler, All Killer

Posted on by Jack Drees

© Courtesy of Lionsgate

“The Long Walk” is directed by Francis Lawrence (The Hunger Games: Catching Fire, Red Sparrow) and stars Cooper Hoffman (Licorice Pizza, Saturday Night), David Jonsson (Alien: Romulus, Industry), Garrett Wareing (Perfect, Manifest), Tut Nyuot (The Dumping Ground, Dark Money), Charlie Plummer (Words on Bathroom Walls, Moonfall), Ben Wang (American Born Chinese, Karate Kid: Legends), Joshua Odjick (The Swarm, Sweet Summer Pow Wow), Roman Griffin Davis (Jojo Rabbit, The King of Kings), Josh Hamilton (Eighth Grade, Reality), Judy Greer (The 15:17 to Paris, Ant-Man), and Mark Hamill (Star Wars, The Wild Robot). This film is based on a Stephen King novel of the same name and centers around a group of young boys who compete in an event where they must keep walking to the finish line at three miles per hour, or die.

Photo by Murray Close/Lionsgate/Murray Close/Lionsgate – © 2025 Lionsgate

“The Long Walk” is the latest work from Stephen King to be adapted for the screen this year following “The Monkey,” which I did not see. As well as “The Life of Chuck,” which I did see and I can confirm it is one of my favorite films of 2025. What brought me out to “The Long Walk” is the same thing that brought me out to “The Life of Chuck,” the marketing. Although in this case, the vibe that the “Long Walk” campaign seemed to be going for was a lot darker and gorier. I dug what the team was going for. But there have been great trailers to bad movies. Just look at my review for “Godzilla: King of the Monsters…”

Thankfully, that is not the case with “The Long Walk,” which is more than just a great film, it is among my favorites of the year. When I left this film, the first thought on my mind was, “How does this rank against ‘The Life of Chuck?’” I have no clue what my best movies of the year list is going to look like, but right now there are two Stephen King adaptations that are serious contenders to be on the top half of the list.

Photo by Murray Close/Lionsgate/Murray Close/Lionsgate – © 2025 Lionsgate

“The Long Walk” supports the notion that sometimes the simplest ideas can make for the grandest stories. The concept of this film is that a group of young men have to walk and avoid getting shot to death. If what I described sounds somewhat boring, I get it. But this movie is much more than meets the eye. The cast may move at a slow pace, but this film is all killer, no filler from beginning to end. This story wastes no time getting straight into the event. We see a letter written to the protagonist, Raymond Garraty, saying he’s been chosen to participate in the Long Walk. Then we see have a moment with his mom, after which he exits the car and goes off on his adventure. This beginning offers a perfect blend of mystery and nerves. Seeing Garraty leave the car reminded me of what it would be like to see your child going off to fight in the military. You do not know what is going to happen. You are fearful of whatever is bound to happen. And you absolutely, positively do not want to see your child get seriously hurt.

This film is directed by Francis Lawrence, whose resume includes the “Hunger Games” franchise. The film does, at times, have a “Hunger Games” vibe considering it is set in the future, and everyone is playing a game where only one can survive. That said, unlike “The Hunger Games,” which features a lot of buildup before the games, the “game” in “The Long Walk” goes on for practically the entire runtime. Again, it does not take long for the game to start, and once it finishes, it does not take that long for the film to end. Speaking of which, if I had any critiques for the film, the ending does feel a smidge unfulfilling, but this film is consistent with its ending based on how quickly it tends to get to the point.

I do not think it is a spoiler at this point to say that people die in “The Long Walk.” Heck, people die in lots of movies. Sorry if I ruined most of your unwatched entertainment. “The Long Walk” is not breaking new ground. But I do dig how it handles its deaths. I did not read the book so I cannot comment on any differences between the film and the source material, but every death in this movie, to some degree, feels appropriate and earned. It does a great job at picking who lives and dies at certain times of the film. It allows time for certain characters to flesh themselves out, and when said characters die, it makes those deaths all the more gripping. The film has a number of characters who linger in the background, but those put in the foreground are all stellar. I enjoyed getting to know every single one, even if they were written in such a way where it was clear the movie was trying to get you to root against them.

Photo by Murray Close/Lionsgate/Murray Close/Lionsgate – © 2025 Lionsgate

This movie stars Cooper Hoffman (center), who continues to make a name for himself after his breakout role in 2021’s “Licorice Pizza.” I had some problems with “Licorice Pizza.” Hoffman’s ability to give a competent performance is not one of them. Similarly, he does a commendable job in “The Long Walk.” Hoffman plays the incredibly layered Ray Garraty. I enjoyed not only getting to know the character in the present, but the movie also effectively uses flashbacks to tell his story and detail his background.

Photo by Murray Close/Lionsgate/Murray Close/Lionsgate – © 2025 Lionsgate

When I think of Mark Hamill, my mind unfairly darts to thoughts of Luke Skywalker. What can I say? I live for “Star Wars.” But forget everything you know about that hero, because Hamill slips into the antagonist role of the Major with ease. He is a character that I love to hate. Hamill plays the part with such a stern, demanding tone where I could easily tell he was having a ball on set. Hamill’s dialogue in the film is minimal, and often to the point. But whenever he does speak, every line is a highlight. They say a movie is only as good as its villain, so by that logic, “The Long Walk” is exceptional. Hamill’s performance is so well-delivered that I cannot see anyone else in his shoes.

In the end, “The Long Walk” is one of the best movies of the year. This film is not for everyone, but if you can handle some blood and gore, I think you are going to have a ball from the first scene to the last. “The Long Walk” is more of a thriller than a horror flick, but it has a lot of elements that would make a “horror” flick so admirable. “The Long Walk” is a concept that is as simple as it gets, but it is done as perfectly and exquisitely as possible. I am going to give “The Long Walk” a 9/10.

“The Long Walk” is now playing in theaters. Tickets are available now.

Thanks for reading this review! My next review is going to be for “A Big Bold Beautiful Journey.” Stay tuned! Also coming soon, I will be sharing my thoughts on “Him,” “Eleanor the Great,” “The Lost Bus,” and “One Battle After Another.” If you want to see these reviews and more from Scene Before, follow the blog either with an email or WordPress account! Also, check out the official Facebook page! I want to know, did you see “The Long Walk?” What did you think about it? Did you read the book? How does the film compare to it? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

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

Posted on by Jack Drees

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks for reading this review! My next review is going to be for “Nobody 2.” Stay tuned! Also look forward to reading my thoughts on “Honey Don’t!”, “Eden,” “Splitsville,” and “The Long Walk.” If you want to see these reviews and more from Scene Before, follow the blog either with an email or WordPress account! Also, check out the official Facebook page! I want to know, did you see “Freakier Friday?” What did you think about it? Or, between this film and the 2003 “Freaky Friday,” which one do you think is better? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

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!

Nickel Boys (2024): The 2024 Academy Award Best Picture Nominee I Did Not Care for

Posted on by Jack Drees

“Nickel Boys” is directed by RaMell Moss (Hale Country This Morning, This Evening, Easter Snap) and stars Ethan Herisse (When They See Us, The American Society of Magical Negroes), Brandon Wilson (Murmur, The Way Back), Hamish Linklater (The Big Short, Battleship), Fred Hechinger (The White Lotus, Thelma), Daveed Diggs (Wonder, The Little Mermaid), Jimmie Fails (Pieces of a Woman, The Last Black Man in San Francisco), and Aunjanue Ellis-Taylor (King Richard, Ray). This film is set mostly during the Jim Crow era and is about the friendship between two African-American men who meet an abusive reform school.

I love when filmmakers experiment and try to insert unique concepts or tricks in their films. In the case of “Nickel Boys,” the film mainly uses a first person perspective to tell its story. If you watch a lot of movies, you will notice that while they do have main characters, the camera, more often than not, acts as a third person. I think a first person point of view is a clever idea for telling a story like this. It could put you in the mindset of someone who lived unfathomable events. I wish I could tell you I was riveted by this concept, but I cannot. The honest truth is, I found “Nickel Boys” to be gimmicky.

Going back to what I said about that first person perspective… Notice how I said it “mainly” uses that perspective. Because the film tends to switch perspectives from time to time, and these transitions tend to come off as distracting. There is a decent story that engages conversation in “Nickel Boys” somewhere. In fact, this story takes inspiration from a book based on unfortunate but true events. But the impact of that story is diminished by unusual tricks that do not stick the landing.

I should note this is not the first time I have seen a film done primarily in a first person view. One of my first reviews on Scene Before, where my writing abilities were definitely not as up to par, was for the action film “Hardcore Henry,” which I thought was okay but ended on a weird, abrupt note. While the movie is not perfect, I thought for the most part, the first person perspective added to the experience of that film. It reminded me of a first-person shooter like “Call of Duty.” I did not feel as immersed or closer to the scene when watching “Nickel Boys.” If anything it sometimes gave the illusion that I was watching life. Granted, this film does have a slice of life feel to it. You might think, “If something is so lifelike, does that not make it immersive?” Technically two and two can go together, but what I am getting at is that there was nothing about this film’s first person perspective that made me escape my reality and enter someone else’s, no matter how hard the filmmakers tried.

There are shining moments of “Nickel Boys” despite its flaws. The acting in this film is excellent. While I meant it as a diss earlier, this film is like watching life. In the sense of everyone’s acting abilities on screen, that is technically a compliment because all the performances are lifelike. While I wish I were more riveted by the relationship between Elwood and Turner, I will not deny that both of their respective performers, Ethan Herisse (above) and Brandon Wilson, knock their performances out of the park. These two seem like genuine friends and part of me wishes I could have been a fly on the wall if they were ever given a chemistry test.

The film does a really good job at establishing the connection between the main character, Elwood (Herisse), and his grandmother, Hattie (Ellis-Taylor). This is best established by what happens when they are separated. There is a scene where we see Hattie talking with Turner, and she reveals her displeasure for how the school would not allow her and Elwood to see each other. The scene even ends on a comforting note. Despite my previous complaints for the way the movie was produced, I thought that moment enhanced the first-person perspective. It is a moment that I thought could have worked in a more conventional manner, but it was made a smidge better since it was done in a first person view.

If I am going to be honest with you, I am going to remember this film mostly for its experimental vision that I imagine could sit well with some viewers, but not so much for yours truly. I think this film’s narrative is only going to become increasingly forgettable over time. I know this is a deep narrative, I just wish I were more compelled by it. The film will undoubtedly have an audience, some of whom will likely revisit it over the years. I just do not know if I will be a part of the crowd that ends up watching the movie more than once. As I watched the film I found myself a bit underwhelmed. I knew in advance about all the accolades and praise this film received from others. There is always at least one film nominated for Best Picture every year at the Oscars that begs me to question or disagree with the majority of viewers in regards to liking it. Last year, it was “Killers of the Flower Moon.” The year before that, it was “Elvis.” This season, it is “Nickel Boys.”

I hate to say this, because I was genuinely was looking forward to this film. By the halfway mark, I was bored. As of writing this, the film is streaming on MGM+, a streaming service whose slogan must be “The streaming service to buy when you finished buying all the other ones.” I watched “Nickel Boys” in a theater, but if I were streaming, I would probably turn it off and watch something else around the halfway point. My time is much too valuable and this would not have been the best use of it. I wish I were more compelled by the story, the characters, and unfortunately I was not. I think others will be. I am likely in the minority. Maybe a second viewing would help. But I do not think that is going to happen anytime soon.

In the end, “Nickel Boys” one of the biggest disappointments of the past year. It is not a broken movie, it is just one that I wish I could have appreciated more. I have seen all of the Academy Award Best Picture nominees from 2024, minus “Emilia Perez.” I would have to say “Nickel Boys” is my least favorite of them all. This was not an easy movie for me to sit through. Other than a couple decent scenes, “Nickel Boys” does not have a lot for me to write home about. The narrative dives into poignant moments that should keep me riveted. Maybe they are better represented in the book that this film is based on. “Nickel Boys” was a one time watch for me. I would watch it a second time to see if it is better, but if I were alone on a Friday night and were looking for something to watch, I would want it to have a better pace than what this movie delivered. I am going to give “Nickel Boys” a 4/10.

“Nickel Boys” is now available to stream on MGM+ for all subscribers.

Thanks for reading this review! Once again, apologies if my posts have been slow lately. I am still catching up on reviews after finishing the 7th Annual Jack Awards. And I have plenty in the pipeline. Soon I will be reviewing “Mickey 17,” “Locked,” “Hans Zimmer & Friends: Diamond in the Desert,” “The Luckiest Man in America,” “The Penguin Lessons,” “Novocaine,” and “The Ballad of Wallis Island.” 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 “Nickel Boys?” What did you think about it? Or, what is your favorite of the 2024 Academy Award Best Picture nominees? It is an easy pick for me, and I am very glad this movie won. I would have to say “Anora.” That was an experience if there ever was one. Let me know your pick down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

I’m Still Here (2024): Fernanda Torres Carries This Moving Drama

Posted on by Jack Drees

“I’m Still Here” is directed by Walter Salles (Central Station, The Motorcycle Diaries) and stars Fernanda Torres (Love Me Forever or Never, The House of Sand), Selton Mello (A Dog’s Will, Lisbela and the Prisoner), and Fernanda Montenegro (Sweet Mother, Central Station). This film is based on a memoir of the same name and is about a mother who deals with the forced disappearance of her husband, former politician Rubens Paiva, who opposed Brazil’s military dictatorship.

In an effort to catch all of this year’s Best Picture nominees before the Oscars, I had to find a way to check “I’m Still Here” off my list. One key difference when it comes to this nominee in particular compared to say “Anora” or “Wicked” or “Dune: Part Two” is that I went into this film knowing nothing about it. All that I really knew was that it was a Brazilian movie, the characters speak Portuguese, and it was getting a lot of critical acclaim. I went in completely blind, having barely come across as much as a poster. Safe to say, I did not know what to expect.

Thankfully, I came out of this movie feeling satisfied.

“I’m Still Here” is not an easy watch. Some of my audience might think I say such a thing because this is a film not made in the United States or a film where English is not the primary language used in the dialogue.. That is not my point. Though I can see why those two things could turn some people off upon a first impression. Instead, this film deals with a serious subject matter that I imagine would be tough for some viewers. The film is dramatic, yet grounded at the same time. It is perfectly balanced in its attempt to be both an inviting slice of life story and an engaging political thriller. The film is like life itself. It has its happy moments. It has its sad moments. And in the long run, it is worth seeking out.

One of my favorite things about this film is how it handles the importance of family, especially when you consider the protagonist’s point of view, as well as the many obstacles she must face just to be with them, or do what is best for them. We see her trying to protect them under their respective political landscape, as well as do anything and everything she can to uncover her husband’s whereabouts. The film shows what it means to stay connected even in the darkest of times.

The family itself is well written and decently cast. There is not a single person on the lineup I found to be out of place, and I thought everyone’s personality shone through. Honestly, the entire cast of the film serves their purpose and does a good job. I cannot name a bad apple on the tree. But Fernanda Torres is on another level with her performance here.

There is a reason why Fernanda Torres was nominated for an Academy Award. She is the film’s soul and I cannot see anyone else playing her. Every moment, every line, every facial expression, she sold me. Torres is commanding in every scene. The movie gives her a lot to do and she handles all of her material very well. I have been doing some research online to see what everyone is saying about this film, and just about every other person I am coming across is losing their mind over Torres. I may not be adding anything new to the conversation that has not already been said, but she is easily the best part of the movie.

This film is based on true events. On that note, the story features real life politician Rubens Paiva (left). I do not know a ton about the real events that inspired this film, but I did some research on Paiva following the film and I have to say kudos to whoever cast Selton Mello, because he looks the part. Granted, acting ability is arguably more important, and thankfully, he has that in spades.

One of the reasons why I have come to realize “I’m Still Here” has some of the best collective acting in 2024 cinema is likely because of the way the film was shot. If you know how movie productions tend to work, not every project is shot in chronological order. “I’m Still Here” is an exception to the rule. I think this move paid off, because it allowed the talent to experience the sense of immersion in their story that viewers like I did while watching it unfold.

On that note, “I’m Still Here” is quite an immersive movie. “I’m Still Here” has more in common with a slice of life tale than a large scale epic, but the movie sometimes feels as large as life itself. Whether I was at a family gathering, the beach, or the inside of a home, I felt like I was a part of this film’s world. Such a sentiment is also true for a prison, which does not emit the most pleasant feeling, but every scene in this film, like it or not, had a sense of verisimilitude. The film takes time to showcase the beauty of life, but also keeps things real by reminding people of the extreme obstacles our characters constantly encounter.

At times, this movie is the definition of the idea that life goes on. An integral part of your life may cease to exist, but as long as you are still around, it is up to you to decide how to navigate things going forward. You could remember your past, run from it, choose to reinvent yourself. Sometimes that integral part may leave you in a literal sense, but deep down, it will always be with you.

The movie ends on a satisfying note. The final scene is exquisitely acted and well directed. It also goes to show the power of silence. Filmmaking is a visual medium, and any opportunity that can be taken to let the visuals do the talking allows for great scenes like this one. I will leave the details undisclosed for now and let you see the proper craftsmanship for yourself.

In the end, “I’m Still Here” was kind of a last minute purchase for me. I probably would not have seen this film if it were not for the word of mouth it racked up during this awards season. And I am happy to have added to it. This film is full of great performances, gripping scenes, and solid chemistry amongst its cast. Of course, Fernanda Torres is the standout, but the supporting actors also add quite a bit to the final product. It is not an easy watch, but I think if you can handle the material, this movie could be worth your time. I am going to give “I’m Still Here” a 7/10.

“I’m Still Here” is now playing in theaters and is available to rent or buy on VOD.

Thanks for reading this review! I have reviews on the way for “Riff Raff,” “Nickel Boys,” “Mickey 17,” and “Locked.” Stay tuned!

And coming on March 30th, look forward to the 7th Annual Jack Awards! The most important awards show in the history of movie blogs! Why? Because I said so! This is a reminder that you have the power to vote for this year’s Best Picture! You can do so by clicking this link and choosing one of the ten nominees. And click this link if you want to know what films are nominated for this year’s ceremony! Unfortunately, “I’m Still Here” was not nominated for any awards this year, but if I were to add a sixth candidate for Best Actress, Fernanda Torres would probably earn that spot. It was a very close call. But rules are rules. I did see this movie before announcing the nominations last week, but Torres’ honestly goes to show how great acting has been across the board for several performers over the past year. If you want to see this upcoming show 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 “I’m Still Here?” What did you think about it? Or, what is the saddest film you saw in the past year? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!