Comcast

The Odyssey (2026): The Ultimate Sword and Sandal Experience

Posted on by Jack Drees

“The Odyssey” is directed by Christopher Nolan (The Dark Knight, Oppenheimer) and stars Matt Damon (Saving Private Ryan, The Martian), Tom Holland (Spider-Man: Homecoming, Cherry), Zendaya (Spider-Man: Homecoming, Challengers), Anne Hathaway (Interstellar, The Intern), Robert Pattinson (The Batman, Tenet), Lupita Nyong’o (Star Wars: The Force Awakens, The Wild Robot), Samantha Morton (The Walking Dead, Elizabeth: The Golden Age) and Charlize Theron (A Million Ways to Die in the West, Atomic Blonde). This film is based on Homer’s epic poem of the same name and follows Odysseus as he makes a dangerous journey back home to Ithaca to reunite with his wife, Penelope (Hathaway).

Well… It is finally here. The movie that may as well be my most anticipated of the year, perhaps even of the decade. 

“The Odyssey” is more than a movie. It is a story that follows an epic that has been around for several thousand years. Despite being an old story, there is a sense of innovation being brought to the table with this film. During my time in high school, “The Odyssey,” or at least adaptations of it, happened to be assigned to me as required reading in English class. I enjoyed getting to know about the story of Odysseus. It was a grand adventure tale that sparked the imagination. While I cannot say that it prompted a fascination with Greek myth in the way it may have with other readers, I found the material to make for a good read.

I even thought “The Odyssey” could make for a decent flick. Granted, the story is old, so there are, unsurprisingly, screen adaptations of it already. But I thought perhaps, unfairly, this would be a decent film from the likes of Peter Jackson, who is a master of sword and sandal cinema. Little did I know that my all time favorite director would one day be stepping in to handle this highly celebrated story.

Christopher Nolan is responsible for some of my favorite films ever, including 2014’s “Interstellar,” which came up in a conversation recently with family. My uncle asked me if I thought this new movie could surpass “Interstellar” in terms of quality. My response at the time, “It’s possible…” Having now seen “The Odyssey,” this did not surpass the quality “Interstellar,” but it finds a way to nearly match that cinematic masterpiece’s high bar. “The Odyssey” is gargantuan in every way. In fact, that is one of the reasons why I found “Interstellar” to have such tremendous replay value. It is a movie that feels larger than life. “The Odyssey” goes by the same philosophy. It is a story that emits endless verisimilitude.

Every frame of this movie, despite being part of a mythical epic, felt real. I believed in the film’s world. Its environment. Its characters. Its sets. If you are looking for peak immersion, this is the movie for you, regardless of what format in which you see it. I kid you not when I say every shot looks beautiful. Just about everything on screen was done for real, in camera. Nolan is a master of practicality. I genuinely could not believe what I was looking at during certain moments. Everything from the various interiors that fill your vision to a Cyclops that made my jaw drop to a crucial night scene in the water that showcases the wrath of a storm.

Given how much I love this movie, and believe me, I love this movie, I think it is arguably fair that I get into my flaws early on in the review. The biggest flaw I have in this film is the lighting. I have seen this movie three times, and the lighting is by no means atrocious overall, but there is a scene or two where I think it could have been pinched up a little. During my first viewing, I do not know if it is more of a fault of the projector than anything else, but it was somewhat hard to pick up all the details in several frames during the Cyclops scene. It is a dark cave, and as immersed as I was in the movie, one could debate that I was too immersed. I think the frames could have been brighter to better highlight essential information. Some of the dialogue is borderline cheesy and out of place, but we are talking bits and pieces. For the most part, I do not have a problem with the writing, but the problems I do have may as well be addressed.

And yes, I made sure as a die-hard IMAX fanatic, that my first viewing of this movie would be in 15/70mm film. I bought my ticket a year ago, as soon as they went on sale, dedicating myself so heavily to this film and its technical glory by buying a ticket in a completely different part of the country from where I live. For the record, I live in Massachusetts. New England forever! I bought a ticket to see this film in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. I am the last person who wants to spend time in Florida in July. I remember walking around Disney World in June when I was 18 years old… I am shocked I did not melt in the middle of Tomorrowland. My trip to see this movie, or my odyssey rather, was worth it despite my apprehensions, and eventually finding out that a theater in Providence, Rhode Island would also be getting the movie in the premium format. Not only is this a great movie, but it is one that I urge everyone reading this to watch in a theater at least once.

When I look back at Nolan’s last movie, “Oppenheimer,” I was amazed by the use of IMAX film in that project. It was most certainly worth the extra money for the IMAX experience. But I will not deny that of all the projects in which Nolan used IMAX to shoot it, “Oppenheimer” might have been the one of the bunch that was not as essential to view on an IMAX screen. This is not a diss. If “Oppenheimer” is playing in an IMAX near you, go check it out. You’d be doing yourself a favor. The trinity test and the black and white scenes are cool to see on a giant screen. That said, I think if you were to view “Oppenheimer” on a traditional cinema screen, you will not miss a whole ton, even if the aspect ratio suggests otherwise. On the other hand, “The Odyssey,” while excellent on any screen, becomes an event when bringing the IMAX experience into play. I have been to many IMAX experiences. This has to easily be a top 5 IMAX experience of all time. “The Odyssey” in IMAX is better than sex. “The Odyssey” in IMAX is better than winning the lottery. Once that IMAX logo flashes on the screen, get ready for 172 minutes of some of the most amazing cinema of your life. Not just because every frame fills the screen, showcasing some of the best imagery of any movie I have seen this decade courtesy of Hoyte van Hoytema’s brilliant camerawork, but because the movie is just that good.

Also, this review is being published after three viewings of the film, the last of which included a four-minute preview of “Dune: Part Three,” which is exclusive to IMAX 70mm screenings. My friends, YOU ARE NOT READY. Anyway, I digress. I just figured I should add that in as a bonus incentive.

The story may be simple and not every character has significant depth, but the movie does a great job at handling Odysseus (Matt Damon) as the center of the story. Damon’s struggle here is that he just wants to get home. He finished fighting in the Trojan War, he is surrounded by his men, and together, they work to overcome the various obstacles that stand in their path. Everything from a Cyclops to Laestrygonians to Sirens. The movie does a great job in its less action-packed moments, of which there are plenty, of showcasing Odysseus’ personal connections to his beliefs, his love, and his family.

Speaking of which, Anne Hathaway plays Penelope in what is her third Christopher Nolan movie. This is her best performance of the three. Hathaway constantly has to deal with the struggle that her husband is gone, and the dilemma as to whether he is gone gone. Meanwhile, tons of suitors are vying for her hand in marriage, thus making them king of Ithaca.

As this is going on, we see Tom Holland as Telemachus watching all of this from the sidelines, believing that “his dad is coming home.” Yes, weird line. There is one of those questionable dialogue choices. But even with some odd dialogue here and there, Tom Holland handles every line given to him with brilliance. This is one of the best performances of his career so far. Holland’s essential presence towards the end of the film is a highlight. That said, if I have one thing to say, of all the actors in the cast, Holland is perhaps the least disguisable. There are a lot of recognizable stars in this ensemble, and if I had to pick a weak link of the performances, Holland may be it. That is not to say he is doing a bad job with his role. But his transformation is not as noticeable as others in the cast. Even with what I just said in mind, if the Academy were to nominate him for his efforts, I would understand it. He is tremendous.

I am not kidding when I say this movie is full of recognizable stars. This feels like the “Super Smash Bros. Ultimate” of movie casts. Everyone is here. Zendaya. Charize Theron. Jon Bernthal. Robert Pattinson. John Leguizamo. Elliot Page. Lupita Nyong’o. Even Travis Scott. Much like one of Nolan’s previous projects, “Tenet,” Scott made an original song for this film.

Sadly, there is no Michael Caine. I cannot blame him though. He says he is getting old, and I respect his choice to stay out of this project.

Although if I had to name a favorite secondary character in this film, it is not Telemachus. It is not Athena. It is not Menelaus. It is the score.

It is so great to acknowledge the extraordinary talents of Ludwig Göransson, especially after watching “The Mandalorian and Grogu,” which I not only found to be his worst work yet, but the first time I recall watching a “Star Wars” project and being turned off by the music. This is Göransson’s third project with Christopher Nolan, and like a certain song suggests, three is indeed the magic number. I thought Göransson’s earliest collaboration with Nolan through “Tenet” was already a contender for the best score of the decade. This might beat that. The score almost serves as a hint of irony, especially when considering how this movie was entirely shot on a format as huge as IMAX. Compared to some of Nolan’s other works, the music is not that complicated. There is no huge, sweeping orchestra. Though much like “Tenet,” there is a lot of percussion. There are several scenes in which the tunes stand out, including one that dives into some background about the Trojan Horse. There is a particular beat that repeats, but every other second that beat increases speed. It is almost like a track you would put in a trailer for a horror movie. Another piece I love is a particular tune that sounds off every time Odysseus readies his bow. It is almost like his superhero theme. When you hear a specific set of four notes towards the final 10 minutes of the movie, they mean business.

I do not approve of filming in movie theaters while the film is playing. No, seriously. Stop it. This has gotten out of control. But I did see a video online where the four note leitmotif plays in the final 10 minutes and the audience just starts losing their minds like they are at a concert. Having seen this exact moment, I get why.

While there is still debate as to whether “The Odyssey” is the year’s best film so far, I am more than certain I witnessed my favorite climax so far this year. Having been exposed to “The Odyssey” in high school, I was familiar with some of what was about to go down, but even with beforehand knowledge, the final 20, 30 minutes of the film were unbelievably satisfying and come after an entire movie whose buildup is immaculate. There is a scene towards the end where Odysseus narrates about something that happened during the war, and just when I thought his words were powerful enough, the visuals were just as emotionally charged. The final ten minutes deliver a well put together action scene that had me glued to the screen. “The Odyssey” is a several thousand-year-old text, so I have no idea if how much I would be spoiling here, but holy heck… Parts of this ending may leave you with all kinds of chills.

And of course, those chills are best experienced in IMAX… For more reasons than one.

IMAX screenings for this movie, whether they are in 70mm, dual-laser, XT laser, or even 2K digital, are selling like there’s no tomorrow. I have an IMAX 10 minutes from home. And it is not part of a multiplex. It is a proper, 8 story IMAX. Trying to get a ticket there is harder than solving a Rubik’s Cube! But if you can see this film in IMAX at least once, consider yourself blessed. For one thing, this is the first Hollywood feature shot entirely on IMAX film. There have been movies shot entirely on IMAX cameras, like “Avengers: Infinity War” and “Avengers: Endgame,” but those were shot digitally, and in lower resolutions. As for IMAX film in Hollywood cinema, Christopher Nolan has always been at the forefront when it comes to utilizing the technology ever since his first go with it in “The Dark Knight.” The results are always a feast for the eyes and allow the movie to reach full immersion. But never did I think we would see an IMAX movie entirely shot with the company’s film cameras. Leave it to Sir Nolan to prove me wrong, and put a gigantic grin on my face. This is something I have been dying to see for a good chunk of my life, if I could not make it happen myself. I have been obsessed with the IMAX film format since my early teens. I am happy to know Nolan has done everything in his power to keep it going.

One surprise I discovered in this film is that I was just about able to make out each line of dialogue given by the characters. As much as I enjoyed “Tenet,” I thought the sound mixing in that film was sometimes a failure. There is one scene in that movie that takes place on the water where subtitles are essentially required to understand everything that is being said. Not here. Nolan seems to understand this problem. On top of making new IMAX cameras, one thing that was made specifically for this production was a blimp that would cover the IMAX camera while it was in use. This was to solve issues related to background noise, including how much noise the camera itself makes. Yet the same time, having such a big blimp creates its own problems. On top of making the cameras themselves heavier to lug around during certain scenes, it can make it harder for the actors to see each other. So, a mirror system was built that way the actors could maintain eye contact. Despite the source material being old, “The Odyssey” feels like a generational product that is not only fun to watch, but brings new tricks to the table when it comes to filmmaking.

It is hard to tell if “The Odyssey” is going to be a one time thing, or if we are going to see more movies shot on IMAX film from start to finish. In fact, where does Nolan go from here? Nolan is at the center of implementing IMAX into Hollywood cinema, but in a way, this feels like the ultimate goal. It is his equivalent to climbing Mount Everest. He has not shot anything on IMAX 3D cameras. I do not think he is a fan of 3D, but that has to be the next step, right?

Do not get me wrong, any theatre is worth the price of admission for “The Odyssey.” IMAX… LIEMAX… NO-MAX… But I stand here saying that I do not think there is a single film in history that has been worth the price of admission for IMAX more than “The Odyssey.” This film is big, loud, clear, and most importantly, an excellent time regardless of the technical aspects.

In the end, “The Odyssey” is my favorite Christopher Nolan movie since “Interstellar.” There are movies, there are epics, and then there is Christopher Nolan’s latest masterpiece. Going back to “Interstellar,” which I have seen 5 times in theaters ranging from 2014 to 2025, “The Odyssey” is likely going to get at least three viewings from yours truly during its initial theatrical run. For awhile I was thinking that “Project Hail Mary” had a straight shot at being my favorite film of the year. I am not saying I like “The Odyssey” more, but if there was a runner-up right now for my top movies list of 2026, this is it. “The Odyssey” is the cinematic form at its absolute peak. This movie has already made more than a billion dollars at the box office, it is a hit with critics and audiences, and I can see why. The entire cast is on their A-game. The score is stupendous. The techniques that went into the making of this film look incredible in the finished product, and those are just the ones that you can see for yourself. I do have some slight nitpicks with the lighting, but they do not take much away from what is an excellent time at the movies. I am ecstatic to know that premium and IMAX screens are selling out for this film, even about a month after its release. If there is one movie you should see on the big screen this year, it is “The Odyssey.” I was talking to cousins recently and they said they might wait for streaming to watch “The Odyssey” as it is not their type of movie. I get that completely, but I think if you wait for streaming to watch “The Odyssey,” you are going to be doing yourself a massive disservice. If everything I just said has not yet convinced you to buy a ticket for “The Odyssey,” then maybe my score will, because I am going to give the film a 9/10.

As far as I am concerned, this film’s legacy is not going to fizzle anytime soon. I studied “The Odyssey” in high school, and if that continues to be a part of students’ required material, I am going to be so jealous. Nolan’s film is rated R, so we shall see if students, particularly those in certain years of high school or below, will be able to watch it in class, but if they are given permission, they are going to be introduced to one of the finest masterpieces of cinema ever created with a crowd of their peers. Frankly, if I were in an English class, and I got to watch “The Odyssey” as a required assignment, I would probably kiss my teacher on the mouth. Please go see this movie. You will thank me later.

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

Thanks for reading this review! If you have not done so already, check out my latest episode of Movie Requests featuring Elijah Wood, Frodo from “Lord of the Rings” himself! In the video, he requested I should watch “Festen,” or “The Celebration” as it is known in English. To find out what I thought of the movie, click the video above! If you enjoy the video, please leave a like and subscribe to my YouTube channel!

Also, I will let everyone know that my next guest in the series is going to be Amy Sedaris! You may know Sedaris from films like “Elf,” “Is This Thing On,” “Jennifer’s Body,” and “Puss in Boots.” You can also find her on television shows like “Strangers with Candy,” “The Mandalorian,” “At Home with Amy Sedaris,” and “Unbreakable Kimmy Schmidt.” She has quite the prolific resume! Work has already started on her episode, I will have more details soon, but look forward to it. It is gonna be a good one.

My next review is going to be for “Her Private Hell!” Stay tuned! Also coming soon, I will be sharing my thoughts on “Haunted Heist,” “Spider-Man: Brand New Day,” “I Want Your Sex,” “The Invite,” and “Cookie Queens.” 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 Odyssey?” What did you think about it? Or, what is the greatest movie theater experience you ever had? And I am not just talking about the quality of the movie… What is a cinema experience that checked every box for you? The film looked great, sounded fantastic, and truly felt like a once in a lifetime event? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

Disclosure Day (2026): Spielberg’s Latest and Most Complex UFO Story

Posted on by Jack Drees

“Disclosure Day” is directed by Steven Spielberg (Close Encounters of the Third King, The Fabelmans) and stars Emily Blunt (Edge of Tomorrow, The Fall Guy), Josh O’Connor (Challengers, Emma.), Colin Firth (Love, Actually, Kingsman: The Secret Service), Eve Hewson (Bad Sisters, The Knick), and Colman Domingo (Sing Sing, Wicked: For Good). This film is about a meterologist and a cybersecurity expert who find themselves in the center of a movement to unveil government secrets about alien life.

© Universal Studios. All Rights Reserved.

Sort of in the way that there are no two words in sports that seem to match the excitement of “Game 7,” there are no two words in cinema that seem to match the excitement of Steven Spielberg. Or… At least that seems to have been the case until recently. Prior to “Disclosure Day,” Spielberg’s two directorial outings post-COVID were “West Side Story” and “The Fabelmans.” Both films are astounding in their own way, but neither was a financial success. Sure, both came out at a time where moviegoers were staying home more and perhaps more selective with what they chose to see. But if the sales for Christopher Nolan’s “The Odyssey” say anything, we still live in a world where a director’s name can be a huge selling point for a film. Spielberg is one of the best in the industry, so of course I bought a ticket for “Disclosure Day” as soon as I could.

When I see a ton of actors I recognize in one movie, it often gets me excited to see how they play off each other. I always get the impression that these people know what they are doing and do it well. At the same time, it is a little distracting, because having seen this cast’s faces, I already have an idea of what to expect from them. Thankfully, everyone in this film is brilliant. From Josh O’Conner, who does a great job allowing the audience to feel the wonder of the story. To Colman Domingo, whose character’s direct mannerisms do a fantastic job balancing the film’s overall tone. To Emily Blunt, who… What can I say? Emily Blunt has never been better. And there is a chance she will never be better than she is in this film.

© Universal Studios. All Rights Reserved.

We are only halfway through 2026, but I hereby declare that the race for Best Actress is already over. If we get a performance that somehow surpasses the incredible talents and range on display from Emily Blunt, then this is likely going to be one of the greatest years for cinema ever. Blunt is tasked with so much throughout the film, some of which I downright refuse to spoil. I remember watching the trailer, and seeing that moment where she was speaking gibberish during a weather forecast. It is super engaging in the full context of the film. I was also shocked at how well the gibberish came across. When I heard it in the marketing, part of me thought, “Well, that’s probably gonna end up sounding like nails on a chalkboard.” I was delighted to be colossally wrong.

Speaking of surprises, John Williams has still got it. I really shouldn’t be surprised. It’s John Williams. He’s done some of the best film scores. But there was a magic to this one in particular. The dude is 94, which in my mind meant a couple things. Between his previous experience and his old age, he’s already done so much great work to the point where it makes me wonder if he’s possible to deliver something as memorable as he did back in the day. I was wondering if he was just going to phone it in. But at the same time, with age comes knowledge. And knowledge is power. Trust me when I say this score is mighty powerful.

© Universal Studios. All Rights Reserved.

Prior to seeing “Disclosure Day,” I heard from some people who had already seen it comparing it to Christopher Nolan’s “Tenet.” For the record, I have liked every film Christopher Nolan has helmed. “Tenet” included. It is not his easiest film to understand, even after several viewings, but it is an experience unto its own. There are few movies that gave me something akin to it. I can see why the two films share some similarities. Both feature clever sci-fi concepts, contain brilliant musical scores, and run at a rather quick pace. In fact, one thing I thought both movies did very well is that they set the tone and got straight to the action from the first minute. The movies may be long, but they do not waste time. Much like “Tenet,” I would also like to watch “Disclosure Day” a second, perhaps a third time. And unlike “Tenet,” one of those reasons is not because the sound mixing was sometimes terrible. The sound in this movie is actually quite great. In fact, technically, this film is one of the best overall cinematic experiences of the year. The color palette had this old school pop to it. The editing was impeccable. There is not one shot in the movie that I thought looked questionable.

Although like “Tenet,” “Disclosure Day” can sometimes feel clunky. “Tenet” is clunky in its complicated, confusing approach to its story and progression. “Disclosure Day” on the other hand feels a little more straightforward and easier to digest. Yet as the film enters its climax, it does sometimes feel riddled with conveniences. The climax is exciting and it did have me, at times, on the edge of my seat, but nevertheless. Am I rooting for the protagonists? Sure. Yet at the same time, there seems to be a lot of dumb luck that throws things off for me. Much like Edgar Wright’s “The Running Man,” the climax of “Disclosure Day” is most definitely the weak point. This film’s climax is much better. Despite its flaws and recently mentioned conveniences, it is undoubtedly entertaining and fits the flow and spirit of the story.

If I had to rank the Steven Spielberg-directed UFO films, I think I would put “Close Encounters” on the bottom. It is a good movie, but I like certain parts of it more than others. At the top, is “E.T.,” which has solid characters and an emotionally powerful ending. “Disclosure Day” is somewhere in between. It is good, but not fantastic. That said, I am curious to know if the ranking could change after multiple viewings. That said, figuring out my next viewing for this film is going to be tough. I have so many movies to watch, and so little time.

© Universal Studios. All Rights Reserved.

In the end, “Disclosure Day” is a thrilling, albeit confusing ride. Even with its flaws, I do think this movie is worth watching at least once. And depending on how that initial viewing goes, maybe it is worth watching again. Not necessarily because it could end up being your favorite movie on the first go. I say this because this comes off as a movie that I imagine getting better as I digest it and unpack it. Maybe the same could be true for you. Although if there is any reason to watch this movie at all, it is Emily Blunt, who gives a career-defining performance as Margaret Fairchild. Trust me, look forward to seeing some of the best acting of your life. I am going to give “Disclosure Day” a 7/10.

“Disclosure Day” is now playing in theaters. Tickets are available now!

Thanks for reading this review! In case you missed it, be sure to check out my latest episode of Movie Requests, featuring Sandi Harding, the owner of the last Blockbuster Video that is still open! She requested I should watch “The Goonies!” What did I think of it? Watch the video and find out! Be sure to like the video and subscribe to my YouTube channel if you want to see new episodes of Movie Requests as soon as possible!

My next review is going to be for “Toy Story 5!” Stay tuned! Also coming soon, I will be sharing my thoughts on “Supergirl,” “Jackass: Best and Last,” “Obsession,” “Maddie’s Secret,” “Gail Daughtry and the Celebrity Sex Pass,” and “The Odyssey!” 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 “Disclosure Day?” What did you think about? Or, what is your favorite Steven Spielberg UFO film? Or even, your favorite film of his in general? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

I Love Boosters (2026): Boots Riley Delivers a Bright, Colorful, Mind-Freak of a Flick

Posted on by Jack Drees

“I Love Boosters” is written and directed by Boots Riley (Sorry to Bother You, I’m a Virgo) and stars Keke Palmer (Nope, Password), Naomi Ackie (The End of the F***ing World, Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker), Taylour Paige (Zola, Ma Rainey’s Black Bottom), Poppy Liu (The Afterparty, Sunnyside), Eiza González (Ambulance, Baby Driver), LaKeith Stanfield (Sorry to Bother You, Get Out), Will Poulter (Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3, The Maze Runner), Don Cheadle (Space Jam: A New Legacy, Iron Man 2) and Demi Moore (The Substance, Ghost). This film is about a group of shoplifters who go after a fashion maven and try to sell their clothes at a lower price.

© 2026 – Neon

“I Love Boosters” is not my first exposure to Boots Riley’s filmography. While I missed it in the theater, I ended up checking out his film “Sorry to Bother You” after buying it on Blu-ray. I was fairly impressed with it. I thought it had good performances, clever writing, and an excellent use of color and production design. While “I Love Boosters” was not the biggest release over Memorial Day weekend, I will not deny that I was constantly exposed to its marketing, particularly one of its posters. Other than that, I went in with no memory of watching any trailers or hearing the film’s general premise. I heard interesting things about the movie, and I was onboard. I am delighted to say that this film is a unique cinematic experience that I will think about for a long time.

This is not my favorite film of 2026, but there is truly no picture that I have seen this year that provides an experience like this one. “I Love Boosters” is one of those movies that could have easily clashed its tones to such an unbelievable degree. But this picture is smarter than that. It finds a way to present likable heroes of their own story, a compelling antagonist in Christie Smith (Moore) whose mere existence brings forth diabolical charisma, all the while showcasing some of the most rad production elements I recall seeing in a film recently.

Courtesy of NEON – © Courtesy of NEON

Perhaps my favorite thing about “I Love Boosters” is that it is so vivid and colorful. Then again, given one of this film’s initial opponents at the box office, there could be some recency bias to take into account with this sentiment. This film came out the same weekend as “Star Wars: The Mandalorian and Grogu,” and not only do I think this is the better movie, but to my surprise, “The Mandalorian and Grogu” comes off as an occasional eyesore between its questionable color palette choices, dull presentation, and lack of flair. Within the first five minutes of “I Love Boosters,” I thought I was on drugs. This film’s emphasis on color is some of the finest I have ever seen. It has a look that belongs on a children’s TV program but perfectly blends itself into a mature story. Everything from the many eye-popping outfits that the characters don on screen… To the multitude of interiors that sometimes answer the question, “What if an M&M were a floor or a wall?”… Even seeing the different colors on the characters’ hair make me think that in another universe that this movie would be selling action figures like hotcakes.

Speaking of things that you have to see to believe, this film’s editing is jaw-dropping. This film moves fast, and boy am I not even close to becoming furious. If anything, the editing makes for a blessing and a curse. It keeps the movie from being boring, but the film is also so quick that it makes me wonder if I missed something important. Ah well, I plan to watch this a second time regardless.

Another favorite thing about this film is something I cannot see… The music. The Tune-Yards composed an original score for this film, and boy does it score. They previously scored another Boots Riley title, “Sorry to Bother You,” so it is clear he likes their approach, and I can see why, because much like some of John Williams’ memorable tracks, the score is almost its own character. The year is still young, but I could see this being my favorite score of 2026 by the end of it. I listened to this film’s theme several times since my screening. When I look at the screen and I see characters played by Keke Palmer, Naomi Ackie, and Taylour Paige, lingering in the background is a supporting role that can best be described as a sick beat.

While not exactly as good, I find “I Love Boosters” to be this year’s “Everything Everywhere All at Once.” It is a film that runs at one of the most breakneck paces imaginable. It is all killer, no filler. There is a perfect blend of comedy and drama. In fact, speaking of that, it is tough to really put this film in a box and give it a specific genre. It is not that the film does not know what it wants to be. It is that it wants to be something so unique, so fresh, something that even as a jaded moviegoer, I cannot recall ever seeing in my life. At the same time though, that probably makes this film slightly harder to recommend to certain people. I feel like Marty McFly in “Back to the Future,” part of me is ready to say to a collective audience that they might “not be ready for that yet.”

But if I were to recommend “I Love Boosters” to somebody, it would probably have to be someone who likes stories about people rising up against the bigger man. Perhaps someone who does not really feel the need to take everything so seriously. There is quite a bit of absurdity in this film. Yet in the context of its universe, characters, and vibes, all of the absurdity is seamless and makes the movie an animal of its own. As for myself, I cannot wait to watch this movie again. Not just because I had a blast watching it, but as I suggested before, this film flies by. I have a feeling I missed something cool the first time around. There are probably one or two memorable lines or moments that flew over my head that are probably going to land better the second, third, maybe fourth time I watch this.

In the end, it is almost impossible to describe “I Love Boosters” without using terms like wild or zany or nonstop. This is an experience. Sadly, with this film opening up against “Star Wars,” it kind of hurt its box office potential from the start. Then again, if somebody pitched this movie to me and I happened to be an executive, I think it would be a hard sell no matter what. It is debatable as to whether the characters are actually “heroes.” Then again, it is possibly true that everyone sees themselves as the hero of their own story. The concept of this film is so unique that it is difficult, at least to me, to compare this film to many others. But the fact is that this film is worth watching at least once. It has a fantastic cast lead by the always charismatic Keke Palmer. Its look is going to make for a fantastic demo down the line if I end up buying a new television or projector. And boy, is that theme song still stuck in my head. I am going to give “I Love Boosters” a 7/10.

“I Love Boosters” is now playing in theaters everywhere. Tickets are available now.

Thanks for reading this review! This is a bit of a short-notice announcement, but on SATURDAY, JUNE 20TH, I will be dropping the next episode of Movie Requests! This one is going to feature “The Wall” and “Talking Dead” host Chris Hardwick. You can hear his suggestion by clicking the video above! What do you think it is? If you want to find out what film he asked me to review, as well as my thoughts on it, you can watch the review right here on Flicknerd.com, or you can subscribe to my YouTube channel!

My next review is going to be for “Backrooms.” Stay tuned! Also coming soon, I will be sharing my thoughts on “Masters of the Universe,” “Another World,” “The Breadwinner,” “Disclosure Day,” and “Toy Story 5!” 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 “I Love Boosters?” What did you think about it? Or, what is one of the wildest films you recall watching recently? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

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

Posted on by Jack Drees

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

EPiC: Elvis Presley in Concert (2025): Baz Luhrmann’s Big, Loud, and Ambitious Showcase of the King of Rock and Roll

Posted on by Jack Drees

“EPiC: Elvis Presley in Conert” is directed by Baz Luhrmann and is a documentary about the titular musician, following portions of his life through pre-existing footage, a good chunk of which had not yet been witnessed by the public.

Back in 2022, I reviewed the “Elvis” biopic. I waited a bit after its premiere to check it out. Not because it was off my radar. I just had other people in my life who also had interest in checking it out so I figured I’d wait so I could watch it with them. Safe to say, it was not worth the wait. While there are worse movies I saw in 2022 like “Morbius,” I do not know if there is a movie that left me with a headache like the one “Elvis” did. And it is not that I do not like Elvis’ music. After seeing the film, I think I can come to the conclusion that Baz Luhrmann’s filmmaking style is not my tempo. I have vivid memories of watching “Romeo + Juliet” in middle school, and immediately getting the sense that the movie stole my soul. Since watching “Elvis,” I have since checked out Luhrmann’s “Moulin Rouge!,” which felt like a case of style over substance.

So far, Luhrmann’s filmography has left me all but impressed, which is why I was somewhat nervous going into “Elvis Presley in Concert.” That said, this is a documentary and not a fictional narrative. Perhaps this could allow me to see a different side of Baz Luhrmann. Much like Luhrmann’s past films, “Elvis Presley in Concert” comes with a distinct, clear style. Although unlike “Elvis,” I occasionally found myself having a good time with this film.

“Elvis Presley in Concert” gives you what you came for and more. I say “more” both as a positive and a negative. The movie is part documentary, part dive into Elvis’s career, and part concert showcase. Not all of it is perfect, but let’s start with the good.

If you came for a concert film, this absolutely delivers. If you are a die-hard Elvis fan, this is automatically going to leave you impressed. This is probably the closest one can get to experiencing Elvis in concert today. I had the privilege of watching “Elvis Presley in Concert” on a true IMAX screen via its 4K laser projection system. While the film is not quite “full IMAX,” it comes very close at times. In fact, at my screening, I noticed the way the film was formatted and essentially all of the framing was off center. All the scenes that were in scope widescreen had a taller black bar on the top than the bottom. There are scenes that are a bit taller-looking that essentially have no black bar on the bottom of the screen, but a black bar on the top. It is an odd choice, but I had the sense Luhrmann wanted to make the audience believe certain people in the film were standing on my auditorium’s ground. You see a lot of movies nowadays that advertise themselves as “Filmed for IMAX.” While the footage that makes up “Elvis Presley in Concert” was filmed long before IMAX was associated with Hollywood fare, this is a film that feels like it was designed for IMAX first. This may as well sound like a negative… I feel that watching this film in IMAX almost ruins every other possible way I could see it.

That said, while the formatting of this film is perhaps best experienced in an IMAX theater, the sound mix is probably going to translate well across various formats, whether you are watching it in the cinema or at home. From the very beginning, this film is booming. The first couple of minutes unleash a sense of electricity beyond comprehension. Certain performance sequences like those for “Burning Love” or “Suspicious Minds” gave me the sense that I was part of the audience in Vegas, some of whom happened to be women screaming their lungs out. I could really tell some of the audience enjoyed the film too, because during my screening, some people were clapping to a performance here or there. Granted, this movie did not garner the same attention that the “Taylor Swift: The Eras Tour” documentary did a couple years back. There were no screaming youngsters in my audience, which, frankly, despite being in my 20s, I am okay with. I do not mind loud movies, but my sensitive ears can only take so much.

Another monumental technical achievement this film boasts is its clean editing. This is some of the craziest film editing I have seen in recent memory. Not only does the edit blend tons of archival clips together beautifully, along with one engaging soundbite after another, but all of the pre-existing material makes for a fascinating story about Elvis himself, all the while saving room for the concert experience that many people likely came to see. It is amazing how much this film was able to tell in just a short amount of time. That said, much like Luhrmann’s “Elvis” biopic, the film is almost too fast. The film tells a lot of information in a short amount of time. In fact, I was somewhat surprised to find out that the film was only an hour and 36 minutes. As the movie ended, I asked myself, “That’s it?” But apparently it was. This movie’s supersonic pace, which sometimes works, made it somewhat difficult to digest every little detail. Maybe upon a second watch I will appreciate certain parts more, but there are a handful of bits highlighting Elvis’s career and personal life that had me less entertained compared to other scenes.

The pacing issues were especially noticeable towards the beginning, which does not start off bad. In fact, the first moment of the movie features Presley walking onstage and introducing himself to the crowd. What follows is a lot less concert material than I anticipated and a lot more backstory material. I get that this film is a documentary, but given how the film has “concert” in the title, I found it to take a bit of an odd turn early on in the runtime. It’s around the first twenty minutes or so, and perhaps another point or two, that the movie spends so much time being one thing that it nearly forgets to be something else.

Do not get me wrong, I was entertained. I like the movie as a whole, but at times, it feels like it has ADHD. It is too fast and almost unfocused. Technically speaking, it is astounding at times. But I am not sure if this film is going to have much replay value for me down the line, even in the cinema again despite how immersed I happened to be.

In the end, “EPiC: Elvis Presley in Concert” is undoubtedly a good time, even with its flaws, which do not take much away from an overall entertaining hour and a half. I wonder how well this film is going to play with people who are not Elvis fans. Granted, I am not a hardcore Elvis fanatic myself, though I do like some of his songs. I think even if you are not an Elvis fan, there is something to be said about how well put together this movie is. The concert scenes are a lot of fun. The footage feels seamless at times. The pacing is a bit iffy, but forgivable. That said, I think if you are an Elvis Presley lover, this will be your jam. If you are an Elvis Presley casual, I think there is something to appreciate here. I liked this film more than the “Elvis” biopic, so if anything, I consider that win, especially considering both projects were helmed by the same filmmaker. I am going to give “EPiC: Elvis Presley in Concert” a 7/10.

“EPiC: Elvis Presley in Concert” is now playing in theaters. Tickets are available now.

Photo by 20th Century Studios/20TH CENTURY STUDIOS – © 2025 20th Century Studios. All Rights Reserved.

Thanks for reading this review! My next review is going to be for “Send Help.” I know I am a bit late to the party on this film. I was going to go see it during an early access screening, but I ended up skipping it as I felt somewhat sick beforehand. Cut to the weekend the film came out… I was in New York. Then things did not end there as I could not make time within the next couple of weeks. Blog projects got in the way, weather got in the way, other movies got in the way, but no longer! Stay tuned for that review, which will be dropping soon! Also, coming soon, I will be sharing my thoughts on “The Bride!” and “Hoppers.”

And I will once again remind everyone, if you have not checked it out yet, please watch the first ever episode of “Movie Requests,” it is a brand new review series where I talk about movies requested by some familiar faces. I just talked about “The Idiots,” which was requested by Bryce Dallas Howard. You can watch the video above to hear my thoughts on the film. Also, if you enjoy the video, please leave a like and subscribe to my YouTube channel!

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 “EPiC: Elvis Presley in Concert?” What did you think about it? Or, since the topic is relevant, have you seen the “Elvis” biopic? Am I a monumental moron for disliking it? Leave your thoughts down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

Song Sung Blue (2025): Pack Up the Babies and Grab the Old Ladies, and Everyone Else For That Matter

Posted on by Jack Drees

“Song Sung Blue” is directed by Craig Brewer (Dolemite Is My Name, Coming 2 America) and stars Hugh Jackman (X-Men, Real Steel), Kate Hudson (You, Me, and Dupree, Glass Onion: A Knives Out Mystery), Michael Imperioli (The Sopranos, Oh Canada), Ella Anderson (The Glass Castle, Henry Danger), Mustafa Shakir (Brawl in Cell Block 99, Love Hurts), Fisher Stevens (Succession, Key West), and Jim Belushi (According to Jim, Saturday Night Live). Inspired by true events as well as a documentary of the same name, this film is about Lightning and Thunder, a husband and wife Neil Diamond tribute act. The story explores the couple’s relationship and adventures in performing.

Courtesy of Focus Features. ©  – © 2025 Focus Features, LLC. All Rights Reserved.

I was first alerted to “Song Sung Blue” by my mom, back when she told me she wanted to see what she referred to as “the Neil Diamond movie.” Color me shocked and surprised, I figured if there were a Neil Diamond movie, I would have known about it. Not that I am huge Neil Diamond fan or anything, but I figured I would have seen a trailer or even read an article about it through Variety or some other outlet. While I was not surprised to find out there was no Neil Diamond biopic coming soon, I was surprised, however, to see that we were getting the movie that we would come to know as “Song Sung Blue.” I thought the concept for this was somewhat refreshing.

We live in a world where we frequently get some variation of a musician biopic like “Bohemian Rhapsody” or “Elvis” or “Back to Black.” While it is fun to see how select big name musicians rose to fame, there was a novelty to the concept of “Song Sung Blue,” because it is not about Neil Diamond and rather two people paying tribute to him. On the surface, this film felt like a small wonder. Granted, it also has two big name leads, so there is that. Then came my screening of “Jay Kelly,” where I saw the trailer for the first time. While I did not think the movie would reinvent the wheel, the trailer made the movie come off like it would be loads of fun. I was planning to see it when it came out on Christmas, but my aspirations did not quite work out, hence the late review. That said, there is a saying that good things come to those who wait. Not to say that I had low expectations for “Song Sung Blue,” but it is still amazingly better than I thought it would be. This film is a rollercoaster in every sense of the word. I was fully engaged for its two-plus hour runtime and it is simply one of the best experiences I had watching a film revolving around music.

When it comes to music-based films, “Song Sung Blue” may not go down in history for being as masterful as “Whiplash,” but its script allows for loads of fun while also allowing time to put the audience’s emotions through the ringer. I went to see this film at an 11:15 am screening, where I was more than likely the only person there under 30. That said, this movie knows no age. I mean… Who doesn’t like Neil Diamond? Or, even if you do not like Neil Diamond, I would even argue this movie is ball, because it revolves around two completely likable, sometimes quirky characters. After all, name me an artist who is not quirky.

I am not going to pretend all of the dialogue is Oscar-winning, granted, a lot of it is really good, but there is a cheesy line here and there. If anything, the script contains dialogue that made me believe that these characters themselves were real. It is dialogue that made me think that this is exactly how these characters would talk. Maybe they differ slightly from their real life counterparts, but even if they did, they allowed me to believe that they could exist. The sometimes exaggerated dialogue is part of these characters’ charm. It is part of who they are as storytellers, artists who are trying to give joy to those around them. It reminds me of myself as an artist sometimes.

© 2025 Focus Features, LLC. All Rights Reserved.

The screenplay, by itself, is a compelling idea. Although its execution is just as good, if not better. One thing that separates this film from those aforementioned musician biopics is that if you look at those films, we see certain artists showcase their talent and find great success and riches out of it. “Song Sung Blue” focuses on two people who are simply trying to get by. They do not have loads of money. They do not have a nice house. Seeing their constant struggles to make ends meet only made both of these people more relatable and likable. Sure, they were chasing after fame and fortune, but they came off as people who found joy in each little moment they had, even if they were not Hollywood hotshots.

While I really enjoyed this film, I also realize some creative liberties were taken for the sake of telling a particular narrative. I had not seen the documentary prior to checking this movie out, nor did I know much about this couple in advance. That said, I do not have that much of a problem with this movie and the way it tells its story. For the record, given how much I enjoyed the movie and the story behind it, I ended up checking out the documentary of the same name the day after I saw the feature film. First off, I fully endorse the documentary. Check it out if you get a chance. The film does a good job at presenting a fascinating slice of the main couple’s lives. Second, having watched both the feature film and documentary, I recognize that the feature film takes some creative liberties. For example, the documentary features a story about its subjects’ relationship to smoking. “Song Sung Blue” is PG-13, therefore it should not be a huge surprise that smoking does not play as significant of a part in the film’s story. Alcoholism does play a notable role in Mike’s journey, however, and I thought the film does a good job with that particular aspect. The film sees Mike attending AA meetings as well as celebrating “sober birthdays,” or anniversaries celebrating the end of his alcohol consumption.

“Song Sung Blue” may have my favorite concert scene in film since “Belle.” I will not spoil the movie, partially because you should see it, but not only is the scene itself immersive when it comes to the sound mixing that perfectly blends the music and the audience reactions together, but there is so much going on in this scene in terms of conflict. Something happens to Mike, also known as Lightning, prior to the concert and it makes what should be an incredibly fun scene, also arguably the scariest thing ever. I was so nervous as to what was about to go down.

With this film being about lesser known artists, it does feel somewhat ironic that Hugh Jackman and Kate Hudson were cast to play their characters. That said, I have no problem with it. Both actors by themselves are talented. As for their work in this film, both are on their A-game, and their chemistry as a couple is terrific. Kate Hudson in particular gives my favorite performance in the movie, because her character, Claire, also known as Thunder, is going through so much more than her artistic struggles. The film gives Hudson some compelling material to work with around the halfway point based on a significant injury. I am not saying any other actor would have been incapable of playing these characters, but these two stars give some of the best possible performances that a story like this could allow. Both Jackman and Hudson are equally adorable and even make the film’s cheesier moments feel earned.

Depending on which part of the movie we are talking about, watching “Song Sung Blue” is like watching a really good “Spider-Man” movie. In addition to the story being a whole lot of fun, the musicians it chooses to center around are some of the most relatable that I can recall seeing in a film. The script sometimes feels goofy, but in a charming way. In fact, the movie starts with Mike, showing off his jacket with a lightning bolt on the back. When he puts that jacket on, he sort of feels like a superhero. In fact, doesn’t the name Lightning and Thunder sound like a heroic duo? Also, like some of my favorite “Spider-Man” movies, like “Spider-Man 2” or “Spider-Man: No Way Home,” the film is perfectly paced and is capable of delivering on the emotions. When I look back at “Song Sung Blue,” I will remember it for being one of the most gleeful cinematic experiences I had in 2025. But I am not going to pretend that the movie is a happy watch from beginning to end. Towards the film’s final moments, there was some noticeable sniffling in the audience. If you cry easily, make sure you have tissues. You’ll thank me later.

© Focus Features

In the end, “Song Sung Blue” is a film that has surprised me with each passing moment. When I first heard about the concept, I thought, “Okay…” When I saw who was in the movie, I dug it a bit more. Then I saw the trailer, and I was onboard, even if it looked a little cheesy and cliché. Then I saw the movie, and while I was not wrong about parts of the film feeling cheesy and cliché, I found myself wishing I had been able to check it out sooner. This is one of my favorite films of 2025, and I did not think I would come to that conclusion a month ago. All of the characters are likable, it delivers a rollercoaster of emotions and vibes, and I contend that even if you are not that big of a Neil Diamond fan, I still think you might be able to appreciate this film as a story. The highest highs of the film make for some smile-inducing moments to remember while the lowest lows are haunting as can be. “Song Sung Blue” is in fact, “so good, so good, so good,” and I am going to give it a 8/10.

Also, one last note, this film opened the same day as “Marty Supreme,” which is also a really good film. While the movies vary in terms of tone, style, execution, and the state of their protagonists, they are both really solid flicks about dreamers. If you want a really good double feature, check if your theater is playing both of these movies right now. If they are, take advantage of the opportunity and check out both in the same day. Both flicks are great in their own way.

“Song Sung Blue” is now playing in theaters and is also available to rent or buy on VOD.

Thanks for reading this review! My next reviews are going to be for “Mercy” and “Send Help.” Stay tuned!

In the spirit of dreams, I want to thank 10 people for making my dream come true, and those are my guests in the upcoming series Celebrity Movie Requests! I just dropped a teaser trailer showcasing hints about each special guest. Their actual names will be revealed sometime soon. Be on the lookout. The link for the video is above, which I posted on YouTube. Be sure to give it a like and subscribe to my channel so you can know more about the series and watch it when it drops!

And on Sunday, January 25th, be on the lookout for the nominations of the 8th Annual Jack Awards. The show that celebrates the best of 2025 in film! It is yet another edition of arguably the most over the top awards ceremony in movie blogging history. If you want to see all of these upcoming posts and more from Scene Before, follow the blog either with an email or WordPress account! Also, check out the official Facebook page! I want to know, did you see “Song Sung Blue?” What did you think about it? Did you know about Lightning and Thunder before this movie came out? If so, tell me what you think about them, and if you got to see them perform, what was that experience like? Also, have you seen the documentary “Song Sung Blue?” If not, go check it out. It is free on YouTube. Tell them in the comments section that Jack Drees sent you! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

Hamnet (2025): Chloe Zhao’s Latest Vision Breaks Your Heart and Puts it Back Together

Posted on by Jack Drees

“Hamnet” is directed by Chloé Zhao (Eternals, Nomadland) and stars Jessie Buckley (Wild Rose, Men), Paul Mescal (Gladiator II, All of Us Strangers), Emily Watson (Hilary and Jackie, Chernobyl), and Joe Alwyn (The Brutalist, Kinds of Kindness). This film showcases what happens as Agnes and William Shakespeare deal with the loss of their son, inspiring the latter’s play, “Hamlet.”

I was not aware that Chloé Zhao was working on a movie this year, but after seeing “Nomadland” and “Eternals” earlier this decade, I found her directorial efforts to be delivered with a sense of grace. There is something wholesome and calming with how her work is executed. Maybe it is because of the stories she chooses to tell. “Nomadland” is in a sense an inviting tale about real people. “Eternals” may be a Marvel movie with tons of CGI and fast-paced action, but it has a set of likable characters. I found Sprite’s arc in particular to be quite compelling. When I saw the marketing for “Hamnet,” I was less interested in the concept of the story as opposed to who was telling it. When I saw Chloé Zhao’s name pop up in the trailer, I was onboard. Is this film worth the hype? I would say so.

“Hamnet” is not my favorite film of the year. Though I have fiddled with at the least, making it an honorable mention on my best list this year. Spoiler alert, it is probably not going to make the list. I think select scenes throughout the film lack memorability compared to others. A number of factors play into this claim, because I found the atmosphere to be inviting. I thought the story, while it may not be the most thrilling, to be moving. But most of all, this film may have, collectively, the best acting I have seen in a film this year. The cast may not be the most recognizable, but every performer here is on their A-game. The chemistry between Jessie Buckley and Paul Mescal as Agnes and William Shakespeare is unbelievable, and the drama that is hankered in from their families also make for some compelling scenes.

The child actors were also incredible, and not just by the standards of “child actors.” They are so good that they honestly rival the grown-ups. In fact, as I watched this movie, I got the sense that just about every scene was presented in somewhat of a child-like spirit. It is a weird way to describe this movie, but every scene feels energetic. Even ones that are clearly drawn out. If a scene goes on for a while, it is supplemented by a satisfying dramatic effect. Part of this spirit is likely enhanced by the film’s location choices. Every place on camera looks gorgeous and I would not mind escaping into each one if I had the chance. Speaking of child-like spirit, I really enjoyed getting to see specific scenes from Hamnet’s youth. Seeing him swordfight with his dad emitted oodles of joy.

Before going to see “Hamnet,” I was told by friends who had already seen it that Jessie Buckley gave what may have been the best performance of the year. This set the bar really high for me. But even I was not prepared for the acting chops Buckley was bound to unleash. She is given so much to do in this film. You see her character, Agnes Shakespeare (left) through multiple portions of her life. You see her when she finds love, becomes a parent, deals with tragedy. Of course, she is no ordinary woman, as the film reveals she is a healer. Yes, there is quite a fantastical element to this story. After all, it is based on a fictional book. This is not my first film featuring Buckley that I have seen, but much like my previous review, “The Secret Agent,” this film does for Buckley what “The Secret Agent” did for Wagner Moura. It took someone I have seen in other movies and liked in other movies, but now that I have seen them in this one, it essentially put their name on the map for me. Buckley previously starred in Alex Garland’s “Men.” I barely remember that movie but I do remember Buckley giving her all in each scene. “Hamnet,” however, is a different animal entirely. I think this performance will be studied for quite a long time.

Of course, this is also a film about William Shakespeare (right), played brilliantly by Paul Mescal, and his portion of the story is not only compelling, but it sometimes paints him as a loving, but also imperfect father. I would not go as far as to say Shakespeare is a jerk. In fact, I often get a calming vibe from his character. But there is a fantastic scene between Agnes and William where the two argue and Agnes reminds her husband that he misses important life moments. The scene plays out in a way where I feel bad for both people.

There are many great films in recent years that do a good job at not just telling a marvelous story, but honoring storytellers while doing so. A lot of these have noticeably been about movies themselves, as seen in projects like “Babylon” and “The Fabelmans.” But “Hamnet” proves that there is room to pay tribute to the stage. The film sort of takes elements from “The Disaster Artist,” where a sequence of events happen, granted such events that happen in this story follow a significantly different structure. Then, instead of showing a movie at the end, “Hamnet” has a scene where a large crowd gathers to watch a play. The film reinforces a motto that I hear a lot when it comes to storytelling, specifically to write about and tell the stories you know. Seeing William Shakespeare tell the story of “Hamlet” really hits emotionally given the background the film offers through every moment leading up to said scene. In fact, there are multiple moments, especially towards the end, where the film plays out as if it was trying to make one tear up.

There is one music choice I was not expecting at the end of the film, but as soon as I recognized the song, it only made the scene hit that much harder. I am not saying the scene would not have hit without it, because that part of the movie by itself is as heavy as it is fulfilling, but the music choice was a bonus. If you know the name of this film’s composer, Max Richter, and one particular piece he crafted, you are in for a treat.

In the end, “Hamnet” is a beautifully done movie. Upon walking out, I debated as to whether this was my favorite Chloé Zhao film. Given time to marinate, I would probably give “Eternals” the edge at this point. But that does not mean I cannot appreciate her efforts here. The acting is some of the best I have ever seen, and I would not be surprised if this film dominates the SAG Awards. The film has brilliant cinematography, it is decently paced, and also finds time to both break your heart, then suddenly put it back in one piece. The film is definitely not for everyone, but I think if you are in the right mood, this movie could hit you where you live. I am going to give “Hamnet” a 7/10.

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

Photo by 20th Century Studios/20TH CENTURY STUDIOS – © 2025 20th Century Studios. All Rights Reserved.

Thanks for reading this review! My next review is going to be for “Avatar: Fire and Ash!” Stay tuned! Also coming soon, stay tuned for my thoughts on “Is This Thing On?” and “Marty Supreme.” 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 “Hamnet?” What did you think about it? Or, have you ever read the “Hamnet” book? What did you think about that? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

Bugonia (2025): Bu-Go See Something Else

Posted on by Jack Drees

Courtesy of Focus Features – © Focus Features

“Bugonia” is directed by Yorgos Lanthimos (Poor Things, Kinds of Kindness) and stars Emma Stone (The Favourite, The Amazing Spider-Man) Jesse Plemons (Civil War, Game Night), Aidan Delbis, Stavros Halkias (Let’s Start a Cult, Tires), and Alicia Silverstone (Clueless, Batman & Robin). This film is based on the 2003 South Korean feature “Save the Green Planet!”, and it is about two cousins who capture a pharmaceutical company CEO and keep her in their home. One of the cousins, Teddy, is convinced the captive is secretly an alien who is killing earth’s honeybees.

Yorgos Lanthimos… We meet again.

On Scene Before, I make an effort to talk about the things I love. Unfortunately, sometimes this blog feels like work, and Lanthimos is a reason for that. So far, Lanthimos is one for three through the films of his I have seen. In 2018, I watched “The Favourite,” which despite its stunning presentation and solid performances, I found to be incredibly boring. Then his next feature, “Poor Things” shocked me beyond belief. I not only genuinely liked the film, I found it to be one of the funnier watches of 2023. Then came his 2024 movie, “Kinds of Kindness,” which I found kind of forgettable, kind of overly disturbing, and ultimately, kind of a chore to get through. While there are other films I have not seen from the director, my experience with him showcases why I have avoided “Bugonia” for as long as I did. I know people who went to see it as soon as the film came out, but I waited a little more than a month. The marketing came off as quirky, and so did the concept. I do not mind a quirkfest, as long as it is good. Sadly, “Bugonia” not only fails to be good, it nearly left me with a headache.

As I write this, I recognize that my review is going to come off as something in the neighborhood of a CBR opinion piece that challenges people to reconsider one of their all time favorite films. But I am nothing if not honest. And as much as it pains me to tell the truth, “Bugonia” may be my least favorite film I have seen from Yorgos Lanthimos so far. And if it were not for select redeeming qualities that I had time to think about post-viewing, I would have been so close to calling “Bugonia” the worst picture of the year.

Look… “The Favourite” was a bore. “Poor Things” surprisingly scored. “Kinds of Kindness” is a chore. But “Bugonia…” broke me to the core! This movie is deplorable! Is the movie made by people who are clearly trying hard? Trying their best? You can say that. The film is by no means incompetent. In fact, like one of this year’s most prominent talking points amongst cinephiles, “One Battle After Another,” it is shot in VistaVision. Therefore, the color palette sometimes feels fairly diverse. Although unlike “One Battle After Another,” never once does the movie feel as grand. Maybe that is unfair of me to say since I saw “One Battle After Another” in IMAX 70mm whereas I saw “Bugonia” on AMC’s laser system. Although for a movie that uses a high quality format, it feels surprisingly intimate. While there are several shots that feel like they come from the same crew that did “Poor Things,” I think the on screen results are a bit more picturesque and satisfying in “Poor Things.”

On top of the VistaVision, another Lanthimosianism makes a return, particularly Emma Stone. This is their fourth film in a row together, and I can see why. The two clearly work well as a team, and the results sometimes show on screen. I would even go as far as to say that Emma Stone’s lead performance in “Poor Things” may be the best display of acting I have seen so far this decade. Not surprisingly, Stone plays her part well. A lot of it has to do with her given dialogue and the specific direction Lanthimos gives her. A large chunk of the movie is set amongst three people, Stone’s character included. Although the characterization is something I find to be one of the film’s weak points.

Much of the movie involves the two male leads, Teddy Gatz (Plemons) and his autistic cousin Don (Delbis), as they keep Michelle Fuller (Stone) captive inside their home. Teddy appears to be heavily invested in conspiracy theories to the point where it is nearly impossible for him to escape his echo chamber. Don appears to be somewhat easily influenced by Teddy, even when he questions some of the choices he makes. While both pairs have their distinctions, the relationship between Teddy and Don kind of reminded me of George and Lennie from “Of Mice and Men.” Only in the case of George and Lennie, I found that pair through their respective story, whether it was told on the page or the screen, to be more likable and compelling, whereas I found “Bugonia’s” main pair to peeve me on a regular basis. Granted, as I say that, I more than likely reserve most of my despise towards Teddy, who is practically the captain of their respective duo. Don often seems to follow Teddy’s lead. Given their characteristics and quirks, it makes sense. I buy into their mannerisms, I just wish both characters were executed better. Teddy is not that compelling of a lead to me. In fact, at times, I think he is kind of a psychopath. Perhaps that is the point of such a character and maybe that is what Lanthimos is going for, but this movie genuinely made me uncomfortable. Everyone is the hero of their own story, but if that hero is downright insufferable, then their story is probably not worth my time. If I were not reviewing this movie, and I were strictly watching this for entertainment, I would probably have walked out of the theater because some of the things Teddy does on screen deeply turned me off.

With the VistaVision filmmaking, distinct colors, and prominent use of actress Emma Stone, this film is about as Lanthimosian as it gets. As for that last part, I will not deny that Stone gives a good performance. There is a sense of mystery to her character, particularly as to whether or not she is an alien. Without spoiling too much, I thought Stone’s specific tendencies matched that mysteriousness. This is not the best performance of her career, but I thought she handled the role well, and props to her for shaving her head.

“Bugonia” is not short on commentary. In addition to perhaps having something to say on humanity’s place on earth, this film is essentially a satire on echo chambers, conspiracy theories, and extremes. As a result, it also satirizes those who follow such things. But just because the film supposedly spends a couple of hours mocking its subject matter, does not make the end result comedic, entertaining, or satisfying. The lead character is either so deep in his echo chamber to the point where it is difficult for me to root for, care about, relate to, or even sit back and admire him. I like complicated characters, but there is a flavor to Teddy that feels too rotten for yours truly. He reminds me of Ernest Buckheart from “Killers of the Flower Moon,” there are very few, if any, qualities that appealed to me about this character. Both characters, deep down, come off as jerks. Sure, there are people these characters care about, but if I ran into both characters at the mall I would immediately speedwalk past them as I try to get as far away from them as I can.

I think I have come to the conclusion that Lanthimos and I have completely different personalities and artistic preferences. I often say on this blog and in life that art is subjective. Not everyone is going to think the same way, therefore not everyone is going to like the same things. But I did not think I could become less excited for whatever else Yorgos Lanthimos has up his sleeve. Sometimes being wrong just plain sucks.

In the end, “Bugonia” broke me. I must reiterate, my opinion of this film is obscenely unusual. Chances are it might work for you. Heck, as of writing this, the movie has Best Picture nominations from the Critics Choice, Golden Globes, and to my complete and utter amazement, it is one of AFI’s top movies of the year. I highly question and nearly gag at all of these accolades but that is just how the cookie crumbles sometimes. As far as I am concerned, “Bugonia” is not one of the top movies of the year, but rather a movie released this year. Are there good things about it? With some time to marinate on the film, I can conclude that there are. The film has a nice color palette. While I do not think the commentary works 100% of the time, I do appreciate the film for getting me to think about humanity’s place on this planet. Even though I am not a fan of Lanthimos’ style, I do think he did a fine job with the direction, particularly with getting effective performances out of the actors, most especially Emma Stone. I will also give some credit for the casting of Aidan Delbis. The actor, who has autism in real life, plays a character in this film who is also on the spectrum. I will give some points for authenticity and it shows in his performance. This is also Delbis’ feature film debut, so I hope this leads to him finding more work. Maybe if I watch the film a second time with a different mindset, chances are I could appreciate it more. But this first viewing, which nearly left me with a headache, gave me the sense that I would probably would not have any desire to put on this film for a second viewing anytime soon. I am going to give “Bugonia” a 3/10.

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

Courtesy of Neon – © Neon

Thanks for reading this review! My next review is going to be for “No Other Choice!” 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 “Bugonia?” What did you think about it? Or, what is a film released this year that everyone seems to love except for you? Let me know down below! 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!

Him (2025): Prepare to Sacrifice Your Brain Cells While Watching This Football Horror Story

Posted on by Jack Drees

“Him” is directed by Justin Tipping and stars Marlon Wayans (Scary Movie, A Haunted House), Tyriq Withers (Don’t Tell Mom the Babysitter’s Dead, I Know What You Did Last Summer), Julia Fox (Uncut Gems, Presence), and Tim Heidecker (Tim and Eric’s Billion Dollar Movie, Us). This film is about an up-and-coming football player who trains under the wing of an eccentric quarterback in an isolated location.

When I look back at movies like “Bob Marley: One Love” and “Argylle,” my most prominent memory of those movies is not so much the movies themselves, but rather the fact that every other time I went to the cinema before those films came out, one of their respective trailers would play during the preshow. “Him,” while not as frequent as say “Bob Marley: One Love,” had a strong chance of meeting the same fate because the “Him” trailers have been attached to many preshows I’ve witnessed this summer. And, sadly, the trailers did not really do anything for me.

The marketing for “Him” lacked an oomph that made me go, “I need to see this now!” This film is produced by Jordan Peele. Again, read that closely. Produced. He did not direct it. As for the films he did direct, he aced all of them. I would be more excited about Peele’s Monkeypaw Productions being attached if it were not for the release of “Monkey Man” in 2024. That movie was not a complete disaster, but it was very much a case of style over substance and I wish it were better. Speaking of things I wish were better, “Him” is a dull waste of an hour and a half.

There are some positives regarding “Him.” The movie was made for $27 million, and there are select moments where the film maintains a polish that lives up to its budget. Everything from the lavish costuming to select characters’ detailed makeup to the otherworldly production design. It is tough to call “Him” the biggest technical standout of the year, but it nails its aesthetics for the entire runtime.

“Him” is basically a mishmash of “Whiplash” and “Ex Machina.” It combines several elements of these two movies, including themes revolving around ambition, sacrifice, and well being. The film is also set mostly at one isolated location and revolves around a connection between two somewhat similarly-minded gentlemen. But unlike “Whiplash” and “Ex Machina,” “Him” differentiates itself from the fact that it is nowhere near as compelling as those two films.

Also, instead of centering around music or technology, the movie primarily focuses on football. That is… When it chooses to focus on football. Honestly, if you are looking for football in “Him,” you are not going to get that much of it. Most of the football played in the movie is done during training sessions. So if you are watching this movie and expecting a big game on a field, look elsewhere.

That said, I do dig the filmmakers trying to give football a horror angle. Over the years, I have come to realize how dangerous of a sport football is. There’s constant tackles, incessant contact between players, and an alarming number of concussions. It is truly a scary sport.

To call “Him” a football movie is a bit of an exaggeration. Yes, the sport exists within the context of the film and plays a heavy role in it, but the film is not “about” the sport per se. In the case of “Him,” it is more about how football, or perhaps more accurately, one person’s passion for football, or anything else for that matter, affects behavior and ego. The film quickly establishes its protagonist’s dedication to the sport. The film has a solid opening scene where a young Cameron Cade is instilled with the idea that one person’s sacrifice makes them a man. He learns this from his father while they are watching football on TV together. The film seems to tap into themes regarding toxic masculinity, suggesting that real men need to toughen up even when they face their greatest pain.

While I am glad to point out Jordan Peele did not deliver his first directorial stinker, I unfortunately have to say I wish Justin Tipping stuck the landing a bit more. That said, this film does have a Jordan Peele-esque DNA in it. For all I know, Tipping could follow in Peele’s footsteps and deliver his “Get Out.” This is not that movie. The film feels like a “Twilight Zone” episode, and at times it works, but in others, it lacks engagement.

The film also has some parallels to religion. That seems to be the case in more ways than one. The film does not establish exactly what belief system Cade follows, but much like how Christians for example look up to their God, we see how much Cade looks up to his athletic idol, Isaiah White. Our protagonist is at one point told to avoid some of life’s greatest pleasures, like pornography or dating. There are more connections in the film, but they could be considered spoiler territory.

Speaking of Marlon Wayans, he was easily the highlight of the movie for me. Isaiah Thomas (left), while not perfect, has the DNA of a beautifully complicated character. Thomas is one of those characters who you really do not know if you can trust. Wayans somehow convincingly manages to shift from pure rage to genuine friendliness in as little time as possible. He gives the performance his all, but I wish the script, which director Tipping is partially credited in writing, did him favors.

Am I going to forget “Him?” To a certain degree, one can argue that I probably will. The film is not fantastic, but I also would not go as far as to say it is the year’s absolute worst picture. As a story, it had more to say than some other stinkers this year like “A Minecraft Movie” or “Jurassic World: Rebirth.” Although I wish it communicated its messages more effectively. The film has a terrific performance from Marlon Wayans, it looks top notch, and even if I did not enjoy every scene, I got the sense that everyone working on said scenes happened to be trying their best.

In the end, “Him” is no good. That said, it is not a total fumble. It has glimmers of good ideas, but there is nothing in this film that I can say was executed to their full potential. Marlon Wayans gives a killer performance. If there is a character that has been on my mind more than any other since watching this film for the first time, it is his. The film starts off somewhat promising, but quickly runs out of steam. I think Justin Tipping has a future in the movie business, but this film is not quite cutting it. I am going to give “Him” a 3/10.

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

© Sony Pictures Classics

Thanks for reading this review! My next review is going to be for “Eleanor the Great!” Stay tuned! Also coming soon, look forward to my thoughts on “The Lost Bus,” “One Battle After Another,” “If I Had Legs I’d Kick You,” “Tron: Ares,” and “Bone Lake.” 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 “Him?” What did you think about it? Or, on the topic of “Ex Machina” and “Whiplash,” have you seen those movies? What do you think of those? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!