Comedy

Good Fortune (2025): Comedy Gets its Wings

Posted on by Jack Drees

“Good Fortune” is written and directed by Aziz Ansari (Parks and Recreation, Master of None), who also stars in the film as Arj. Joining him is a cast including Seth Rogen (Neighbors, Sausage Party), Keke Palmer (Nope, Password), Sandra Oh (Killing Eve, Grey’s Anatomy), and Keanu Reeves (John Wick, The Matrix). This film showcases what happens when an angel switches the life of a man struggling to get by with that of his wealthy employer.

“Good Fortune” is a movie that I have looked forward to since I watched the first trailer several months ago. Every time I saw the trailer at the theater, it felt like a dose of joy. This looked like a film that refuses to take itself seriously. At least in part, because it also features characters dealing with serious problems. Sure, many movies have characters dealing with problems, but we are talking about a protagonist who lives in their car. And not a camper, this is a typical, everyday car!

I am proud to say that “Good Fortune” met, and in some ways, exceeded my expectations. It definitely met my expectations when it comes to humor. The film is consistently funny. But I was not expecting this film to have such fantastic commentary on societal issues. The film sort of feels like a live-action “Family Guy” episode. In this case, this would be an extended commentary on the gig economy and the divide between the rich and the poor.

There is not a single character in this film I dislike. Even Seth Rogen, who plays a lazy, rich snob, is charming in his own way. That said, if I have one negative about Rogen’s role of Jeff, despite him doing a good job, part of me would have liked to see someone else in his shoes. After all, Rogen played a very similar character just a couple years ago in the super funny “Dumb Money.” Is he good at playing a pretentious bro? Sure. But the more I think about Rogen in “Good Fortune,” the more I link it to his previous performance in “Dumb Money.” There are some differences between the two characters, however. In this film, Jeff appears to be happily single, which I thought was perfect because on the polar opposite, Arj spends much of the movie trying to impress a woman. This movie reminds me of that debate of whether it is more fulfilling to have love or money. We know Jeff was able to find money, or perhaps more accurately, be born into it. But for Arj, finding both money and love is like finding a needle in a haystack.

I also like how the movie seems to hint that Jeff equates proving one’s self in a relationship to how much you are willing to spend on a person. When Arj tells Jeff he is taking his date out for tacos, Jeff thinks Arj needs to step up his game,  so he recommends an upper class restaurant whose meals cost an arm and a leg. But with Jeff not seeing money as that much of an issue, he claims the place is affordable. Jeff seems to mean well with his recommendation, but it was most definitely not a good match for someone of Arj’s budget. While I saw where this joke was going from a mile away, the execution of the restaurant scene as it was happening was rather funny.

For me, Keanu Reeves is an instantaneous selling point when it comes to marketing your movie. Reeves may not always be in the best films. Just read my review for “Replicas.” But as soon as this movie pitched me the concept of Keanu Reeves as an angel, I wanted to know more. I am proud to say that Reeves is fantastic in this film. He has perfect chemistry with everyone around him, most especially Aziz Ansari and Seth Rogen, but he has a knack for comedy. That said, he is not wholly responsible for his excellent performance, some credit has to go to the writing. Hearing Keanu Reeves say the words “chicken nuggies” alone is a guaranteed laugh.

That said, like a lot of comedies, I can see viewing experiences varying significantly based on whether you have seen the trailers. I found a good amount of the movie’s funniest bits to be in the trailers. Although there are some surprises to be found.

“Good Fortune” feels like this year’s “Thelma.” Conceptually, the two films are worlds apart, but in terms of what they are going for, the two follow and accomplish similar objectives. “Good Fortune” is one of the year’s biggest gooffests. There’s a lot of funny lines, lighthearted moments, and a ridiculous plot. But for some reason, everything works.

The other thing “Good Fortune” has in common with “Thelma” is that it made me think. The film taps into one of life’s growing problems. It deals with the near impossibility to live comfortably or be happy, no matter how hard one tries to make it. This is something we see with Aziz Ansari’s character, Arj, who despite working multiple jobs still has trouble affording basic necessities and lives in his car.

I was also pleased with how the movie was able to attribute this commentary to Keanu Reeves’ Gabriel as well. At the beginning of the film, we learn that Gabriel is one of several angels given a beat to oversee. In Gabriel’s case, he’s at a low point on the corporate ladder considering his duty is to stop people from texting and driving. We find out he runs into the opportunity to heal a lost soul, which is another angel’s job. Gabriel takes advantage of this opportunity, which is not only problematic because he tries to do someone else’s job that he has no experience doing, but it also causes him to forget about his primary duties, ultimately causing chaos. That said, despite Gabriel not having experience, I understand why he did what he did. He wanted to prove that he could do something above the bare minimum.

Thankfully, Gabriel’s mishaps lead to an excellent story that I can honestly buy into. There are certain things that I am willing to cheap out on in life, but I think some of us have had that experience where we spend a little more money on something and think we’re never going back to the cheap route ever again. I just bought a Sony OLED television over the summer and while I have had previous televisions I enjoyed, the picture quality on this bad boy is night and day compared to the other ones I owned. I still go to the cinema regularly, but the colors and black levels on my TV honestly rival some movie theaters I have been to in recent years. There is a moment in the film where Gabriel says that despite his best efforts, it seems that money, and by extension, the luxuries that come with it, has solved most of Arj’s problems. Once we get a little taste of the good life it is hard to return to what preceded it. While the good life can bring happiness, it can also trigger insatiability. The movie does a great job at capturing that.

In the end, “Good Fortune” is a fun little movie. It feels rare to find a genuine comedy in cinemas these days, but to have it be this good is just a bonus. That said, if you have not seen the trailers for this film, I would maybe recommend avoiding them because as funny as “Good Fortune” is, one could argue that it would be even funnier if you went into it blind. I watched the trailers multiple times before seeing the film, and I still laughed like a hooligan, so maybe that recommendation would not matter that much. But I do think a lot of the film’s best jokes are in the trailers, so proceed with caution. Aziz Ansari gives this film his all by crafting a hilarious screenplay, delivering a good performance on his own, as well as executing the best possible portrayals out of his fellow actors. Keanu Reeves is more well known as an action star than a comedic talent, but this film showcases his chops for humor. I hope to see him in more comedies. I am going to give “Good Fortune” a 7/10.

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

Thanks for reading this review! My next review is going to be for “The Running Man!” Stay tuned! Also coming soon, I will be sharing my thoughts on “Eternity,” “Wicked: For Good,” “Sentimental Value,” and “Zootopia 2.” If you want to see these reviews and more from Scene Before, follow the blog either with an email or WordPress account! Also, check out the official Facebook page! I want to know, did you see “Good Fortune?” What did you think about it? Or, what is your favorite Aziz Ansari project? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

If I Had Legs I’d Kick You (2025): Rose Byrne Expertly Conveys the Chaos of Motherhood in This Anxiety Trip of a Film

Posted on by Jack Drees

Courtesy of A24 – © A24

“If I Had Legs I’d Kick You” is directed by Mary Bronstein (Round Town Girls, Yeast) and stars Rose Byrne (Neighbors, Bridesmaids), Conan O’Brien (Late Night with Conan O’Brien, Conan), Danielle Macdonald (Unbelievable, The Tourist), Christian Slater (Mr. Robot, The Wife), and A$AP Rocky (Zoolander 2, Monster). This film is about a woman named Linda whose life and sanity hangs on by a thread as she has to deal with her child’s illness, her job, her husband, and a missing person.

I saw the trailer for “If I Had Legs I’d Kick You” during my screening for “Eleanor the Great,” and I was quite impressed with how much drama and stakes that piece of marketing was able to show off in just a couple of minutes. It gave a good tease to the movie’s tone, particularly endless anxiety. That may sound a little overdramatic. The world is not ending in this film. No evil force is trying to take over the universe. But that does not mean the film is incapable of showcasing the constant struggle that stands in the protagonist’s path.

I also noticed in the trailer, not to mention the poster, that this movie stars Conan O’Brien. Odd choice for a dramatic role, but it is cool to see him getting work. We’ll get back to him later.

As for the movie itself, this is one of the best of the year. “If I Had Legs I’d Kick You” is basically 2025’s “Uncut Gems.” The story is not exactly the same, but a lot of the visuals, shots, and edits feel like they come out of that 2019 thriller. It should not be a surprise, considering this film is also being distributed by A24, and Josh Safdie just so happens to be a producer. The two movies feel like they have similar DNA. There was one visually trippy sequence about 5 to 10 minutes in containing voiceovers that kind of reminded me of the scene from the beginning of “Uncut Gems” where we are flying through the gem. Even in scenes where the dialogue is a bit slowed down, there is often a breakneck pace. Part of this is because of everything Rose Byrne’s character, Linda, has to deal with.

I am not a parent. I do not know if I will ever be a parent. We shall see. But this film does a great job showcasing the constant stress of being a parent. Granted, Linda’s situation is a bit more extreme considering her child is ill. At the same time, her husband’s basically out of the picture, and her home is falling apart. As a result of the latter, she has to find a place to stay until things get better. Even as someone who does not have kids, I have massive respect for parents and everything they do for their children. This film in particular reinforces my appreciation for them, especially moms. Every mom’s journey is different, but for Linda, several curveballs are being thrown into her path at once. It is almost impossible for her to catch them all.

“If I Had Legs I’d Kick You” may star Rose Byrne, but she is not the one who sold me on this movie. That would be Conan O’Brien.

Yes, that one. Which one would I be referring to? How many Conans do you know personally?

I may be letting some personal fanaticism get in the way, but if I see Conan O’Brien’s name on something, I instantly become more curious about it. Even for a project like this, which was probably one of the last things I would expect him to take on. O’Brien is naturally funny and kinetic. But in the case of “If I Had Legs I’d Kick You,” the late night host-turned podcaster seems to be taking a page from say Jordan Peele, who went on to make horror movies like “Get Out.” After all, both are known for their comedic talents, and if there is one thing many comedians know about, it’s timing. I laugh super hard at Conan O’Brien’s work not only because of the things he does, but when he does those things. This is also true for his role in this film. Despite the story being serious, the movie managed to get laughs out of me. One big laugh was courtesy of O’Brien himself. There is a scene where his and Byrne’s characters are sitting in a room together at a therapy office. Byrne’s getting something off her chest and O’Brien slowly takes in Byrne’s rant, then says… “Okay…” There are very few instances where the use of the word “okay” as a full statement has ever been funnier. The film definitely feels more dramatic than comedic, but Conan O’Brien’s character, much like his real life persona, is naturally hilarious through his presence and choice of words.

Heck, this film also has A$AP Rocky in it, whose acting experience appears to be rather limited. I still need time to think about what my favorite cast in a 2025 film happens to be. But I will verify that “If I Had Legs I’d Kick You” is certainly one of the most unique casts I’ve come across in a film released this year. Despite some unexpected names on the lineup, there is not a single bad performance in this film.

“If I Had Legs I’d Kick You” is a couple hours of complete and total chaos. It only offers a few moments to breathe, and if it were not for its talented cast led by Rose Byrne, it probably would not work as well as it did. Major credit also has to go to the work done behind the scenes. Lucian Johnston’s edits are as smooth as butter, despite them belonging in a film as dramatic as this. The shots brought to life by cinematographer Christopher Messina are meticulously framed. I also have to give kudos to Mary Bronstein, who not only wrote the film, but also directed it.

This feels like a singular vision. I could have never come up with a movie like this myself. And the movie is all the better because someone like me was not in charge of it. If this movie were written or directed by a man, I can guarantee it probably would not be as good as it is. This movie comes off as if it was written by a mother, most likely for mothers. I am not saying this movie is exclusively to be enjoyed by mothers. But I think a lot of mothers will appreciate this film in one way or another. That said, Bronstein is a mother herself. To top things off, while not entirely based on true events, the film is in fact inspired by Bronstein’s time caring for a sick child. This film is written from the heart and just so happens to be powerful enough to send chills down my spine. I have no idea how much money this film is going to make, but I highly encourage anyone reading this to give this movie a chance. It is a raw, thrilling story that may not be every mother’s personal experience, but is likely something close to every mother’s worst nightmare.

In the end, “If I Had Legs I’d Kick You” is more than just one of the best movie titles of 2025. It just so happens to be one of the best movies of 2025. As an experience, this film is incredible. Despite its unique cast, it offers some of the year’s best performances. Mary Bronstein offers a vision that only a mother like her could give. And the movie maintains a neverending level of anxiety liken unto “Uncut Gems.” I am going to give “If I Had Legs I’d Kick You” a 9/10.

“If I Had Legs I’d Kick You” is now playing in theaters everywhere. Tickets are available now.

Thanks for reading this review! My next review is going to be for “Tron: Ares.” Stay tuned! Also coming soon, I will be sharing my thoughts on “Bone Lake,” “A House of Dynamite,” “The Smashing Machine,” “Shelby Oaks,” and Guillermo del Toro’s “Frankenstein.” If you want to see these reviews and more from Scene Before, follow the blog either with an email or WordPress account! Also, check out the official Facebook page! I want to know, did you see “If I Had Legs I’d Kick You?” What did you think about it? Or, what is a movie you really enjoyed about parenting? On that note, if you guys have not seen last year’s brilliant animated film “The Wild Robot,” please give it a chance whenever you can. Although some of you reading this probably have seen it because it did win Best Picture at the 7th Jack Awards. If you have not seen it, listen to those people who voted and give the movie a shot! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

Splitsville (2025): Non-Monogamous Magnificence

Posted on by Jack Drees

“Splitsville” is directed by Michael Angelo Covino (The Climb, The Self Tape), who also has a writing credit and stars in the film as Paul. Joining him in the cast are actors including Dakota Johnson (Fifty Shades of Grey, Madame Web), Adria Arjona (Morbius, Andor), and Kyle Marvin (WeCrashed, The Climb), the latter of whom also wrote the film. This movie showcases the chaos that ensues after Carey is asked by his wife, Ashley, for a divorce. Following the bombshell, Carey runs into his friends, who he finds out are in an open marriage.

Remember how in August “The Naked Gun” was supposed to be a wakeup call to audiences that supporting movies of its nature would allow for more comedies to play in movie theaters? Well, guess what? I missed it when it came out. It is not that I did not think it would be funny, but I would rather watch the previous “Naked Gun” movies first. Plus, there are plenty of other standalone comedies like this one that I thought were a higher priority. “Splitsville” not only looked funny, but also kind of sexy. The concept lends itself to both adjectives being met. I can safely say “Splitsville” is consistently hysterical and often delivers a pinch of sensuality.

Despite this film heavily involving sex and partners, never once does it feel overly pornographic. There are various examples of nudity throughout the film, but each time nudity is shown on screen, it serves a purpose, and never flaunts any private parts. Well, except for one scene in the beginning, but it is more for a laugh than anything else. While characters do have sex in the film, never once does the film feel the need to showcase a graphic scene of said activity. Everything in this film, including the nudity, serves a purpose.

The screenplay for “Splitsville” is well done. Overall, I found it to be layered, unpredictable, and robustly structured. Other than the film at a certain point introducing so many elements at once that it is sometimes difficult to keep up, I cannot name any other glaring issues at the top of my head. I like all the characters, there is plenty of decent comedy, and each element of this film feels necessary. The moment one thing is introduced, even if it is something really small, it ends up playing an integral role that enhances the final product. 

Dakota Johnson is one of the most “interesting” actresses working today. I am not going to pretend I am the biggest fan of hers. Is she capable of giving a good performance? Sure. When given the right script and proper direction, she can deliver a “Daddio,” but sometimes she will give something as flat as “Materialists.” Thankfully, “Splitsville” does her favors, Johnson is quite good in this film as Julie. Unlike her experience of making “Madame Web,” I could tell Johnson, like everyone else in the cast, was having a lot of fun on set. Johnson plays an inviting, sometimes sensual, complicated character. To my pleasant surprise, I thoroughly enjoyed getting to know about Julie’s past. Johnson sings in her role.

And she is not alone when it comes to giving a good performance. Frankly, I do not have a problem with a single person in the entire cast. The film does not have many big names. Sure, Adria Arjona is growing in popularity with the success of “Andor,” but the film is quite low in terms of star power. But what this film lacks in name recognition, it makes up for in talent.

Despite being exposed to their previous work, Michael Angelo Covino and Kyle Marvin are names I did not know much about before this project. That said, watching these two do what they do on and off camera makes me pumped up to see whatever it is they do next. Michael Angelo Covino writes, directs, produces, and stars in this film as Paul. It is clear that his passion for this project is shining through in each frame. His character also has palatable chemistry with Dakota Johnson’s Julie. The two play off each other well.

Kyle Marvin plays this film’s protagonist, Carey. Kyle Marvin is a name that I have heard before, but completely forgot about before writing this review. Marvin previously directed “80 for Brady,” which ended up on my 2023 worst movies of the year list. “Splitsville” seems to showcase much more of Marvin’s abilities as a comedic force. Marvin does a great job at not only bringing humor into each scene but also occasionally balancing his performance when the film gets into some heavier moments.

Also, major shoutout to the young and talented Simon Webster, who gives an outstanding performance as Russ. Webster is given plenty to do, and he delivers in each scene. He is also connected to one of my favorite gags in the film, particularly one involving jet skis. I will not say more for those who have yet to watch the movie, but you will know what I am talking about once you see it.

“Splitsville,” to a degree, lives up to its name. While I cannot confirm that my sides split from laughing so hard, I think the film is still incredibly funny. Almost every joke feels naturally placed. There are only one or two jokes in the film that I thought lacked some sense of realism. Well, as much realism one can have in a comedy that is… These are jokes that may as well have been inserted solely keep a gag going, but even those got a laugh out of me. The movie delivers a surprising amount of tiny chuckles, especially in the first act. That may sound like a bad thing for a comedy film, but said chuckles are consistent, so in actuality, it works. The film also gave me quite a few bigger laughs to balance things out. “Splitsville” is not the funniest film I have seen this year, “Friendship” still takes the cake, but if you are looking for laughs, “Splitsville” has plenty.

A lot of the laughs come from what I would describe as authentic interactions between multiple characters. The film however does resort to extremes at times, and this includes one moment where Carey and Paul get into a fight. Not only do I buy this fight, but to my surprise, I think it is one of the best directed action sequences of the year. Every shot is as fluid as the next. I have seen action movies where the editor ends up cutting a new shot every microsecond and it sometimes looks shoddy. “Splitsville” is not an action movie, but its signature action scene is well shot, well constructed, and to top it off, it made me laugh. There is an incredibly funny gag involving fish and a bathtub. And that is just scratching the surface of this hilarious one-on-one.

In the end, “Splitsville” is fun, unique, and comes with a phenomenal cast. I cannot name a single person involved with this film who does not put in 110 percent. “Splitsville” is not the funniest comedy of the year, but if you are looking for a good laugh, this film will be there to fulfill that need. The past few months have been a solid run for Neon so far, with the release of this film, “Together,” and one of the year’s highlights for me, “The Life of Chuck.” This distributor is on fire right now. I am going to give “Splitsville” a 7/10.

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

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

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

Posted on by Jack Drees

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Courtesy of Focus Features – © Focus Features

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

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

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

Thanks for reading this review! My next review is going to be for “Eden.” Stay tuned! Also coming soon, I will be sharing my thoughts on “Splitsville,” “The Long Walk,” “A Big Bold Beautiful Journey,” and “Him.” If you want to see these reviews and more from Scene Before, follow the blog either with an email or WordPress account! Also, check out the official Facebook page! I want to know, did you see “Honey Don’t!”? What did you think about it? Or, which film do you prefer? “Honey Don’t!” or “Drive-Away Dolls?” Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

Nobody 2 (2025): Hitman: Far from Home

Posted on by Jack Drees

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Courtesy of Focus Features – © Focus Features

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

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

Posted on by Jack Drees

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Oh, Hi! (2025): A Surprisingly Relatable Romcom That Features Multiple Relationship Extremes

Posted on by Jack Drees

“Oh, Hi!” is directed by Sophie Brooks and stars Molly Gordon (The Bear, Animal Kingdom), Logan Lerman (Fury, The Hunters), Geraldine Viswanathan (Thunderbolts*, Blockers), and John Reynolds (Search Party, Stranger Things). This film is about a couple who go on their first romantic getaway, only for it to go awry in an unexpected way.

I saw “Oh, Hi!” as part of a double feature. I do not usually partake in double features. In fact, when many people were participating in the infamous “Barbie” and “Oppenheimer” trend back in 2023, I saw “Oppenheimer” opening weekend, but waited on “Barbie” for a couple weeks. That said, because of my schedule over one particular weekend, I saw “Oh, Hi!” just minutes after finishing Micahel Shanks’ solid directorial debut “Together.” As I was waiting to watch both movies, I was thinking “Oh, Hi!” could be a nice palette cleanser after some body horror shenanigans, kind of like “Barbie” would have been had I watched it right after “Oppenheimer…” Boy was I wrong.

I often watch movies with my grandma, and this is one I am kind of glad we did not watch together. For the record, the film is quite good. But keep in mind, it is a dark comedy that is probably best watched with, or without, certain people.

I skipped most of the marketing for “Oh, Hi!”, other than catching a random spot on social media every once in a while, so when this film got to the core of the story, I was rather surprised by where it was going. Conceptually, this is a great idea for a movie. The thought of trapping someone to a bed to test romantic compatibility is undoubtedly dark, but the movie handles this narrative with excellence.

This sounds unbelievably stereotypical as a straight white male, but romcoms are not my first choice when it comes to movies. It does not mean they are impossible to enjoy, because “Oh, Hi!” is a blast. It is a romcom worthy of its title. The film is romantic and comedic. I very much felt the spark between its two leads while also having plenty of laughs. This is neither the most romantic or funny movie I have seen, but when it comes to both of those adjectives, I would be lying to say they do not apply to this film. The movie does not hold back on its story either. It is a story that is not only relatable, but does everything to keep you engaged. As the film reached its final ten, fifteen minutes, I was on the edge of my seat.

Much of what makes “Oh, Hi!” work so well is the cast. At the top you have Molly Gordon and Logan Lerman as Iris and Isaac, a completely admirable couple, if you want to call them that. Right below them is Geraldine Viswanathan and John Reynolds as Max (right) and Kenny (left). I was pleasantly surprised to find David Cross make an appearance in the film. He does not play a significant role in the story, but he is charming and funny. In fact, everyone in the film is charming and funny. They all play off each other perfectly. Props to casting, each actor feels well placed in their role.

There is a saying that every story is only as good as its villain. The antagonist of “Oh, Hi!” is by no means evil. There are no world-ending matters in a movie like this.

In fact, while Isaac (left) is most likely “the” antagonist of this film, it does not suggest that Iris (right) is a perfect individual herself. She ends up making some nearly indefensible, dark decisions despite her best intentions. That said, it does not change the fact that both characters are likable.

What makes Isaac in particular likable is his relatability. The film seems to address a common issue that people have in relationships, particularly commitment. The idea of committing to being with someone else for the rest of your life is one of the most daunting decisions you can make. The idea of taking steps in a relationship is scary. The idea of getting married is scary. The idea of being with someone else every day is scary. Nobody knows what the future has in store.

That said, having seen “Oh, Hi!”, I recognize that Isaac is kind of a fool. The way he addresses that he is not looking to be in relationship is so out of the blue to the point where he comes off as a jerk. And if he is not a jerk, he is most certainly stupid. While Isaac is relatable, it is no surprise the script does not always take his side. That said, it is also easy to root for him, especially considering he is tied to a bed for much of the runtime. The movie even points out despite Iris’ best intentions, she is technically kidnapping Isaac. His character is a solid representation of someone who would prefer to keep things casual, and is possibly afraid of taking things to the next level.

Overall, the relationship between Iris and Isaac is beautifully complex. The two seem to like each other and happen to be cute together. But they seem to have different goals in mind. One is in it for the romance, the other seems to be enjoying a short-lived fling. The film may as well be hinting that Isaac cares more about sex than anything else. The two seem to have failed to communicate their wants and needs before taking things further, therefore leading to the movie’s main incident. Either that, or it is possible that Isaac did what he could to impress Iris just to get into bed with her. The movie leaves a little room for interpretation and I appreciate that. If anything that matches the real-life complication of relationships.

Again, the end of this film is fantastic. I think a number of you could predict what happens towards the conclusion as the movie goes along, but it feels earned. The moments leading up to it are sometimes goofy, even for a romantic comedy like this one. But I can forgive it somewhat. If you are looking for a super funny film to watch with a great lead couple, then give “Oh, Hi!” a chance. It deserves some love.

In the end, “Oh, Hi!” came out of nowhere for me, but I ended up loving it. It is a romcom that is by no means disposable. It is a film that made me laugh, and then think. “Oh, Hi!” features an incredible cast of characters, well-written dialogue, and an ending that is truly satisfying. Romcoms are not my genre, but this one in particular stands out to me. I am going to give “Oh, Hi!” an 8/10.

“Oh, Hi!” is now playing in theaters and is also available to rent or buy on VOD.

Thanks for reading this review! My next review is going to be for “Weapons.” Stay tuned! Also coming soon, I will be sharing my thoughts on “Freakier Friday,” “Nobody 2,” and “Honey Don’t!”. 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 “Oh, Hi!”? What did you think about it? Or, what is a movie you really enjoyed from a genre you typically could not give two craps about? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

Smurfs (2025): One of the Smurfing Worst Animated Movies Ever Made

Posted on by Jack Drees

“Smurfs” is directed by Chris Miller (Madagascar, Shrek the Third) and stars Rihanna (Home, Ocean’s 8), James Corden (The Emoji Movie, Cats), Nick Offerman (Parks and Recreation, The Founder), JP Karliak (X-Men ’97, New Looney Tunes), Daniel Levy (Schitt’s Creek, Happiest Season), Amy Sedaris (The Mandalorian, Clerks III), Natasha Lyonne (American Pie, Poker Face), Sandra Oh (Killing Eve, Grey’s Anatomy), Jimmy Kimmel (Jimmy Kimmel Live!, Win Ben Stein’s Money), Octavia Spencer (Hidden Figures, Gifted), Nick Kroll (Big Mouth, Sausage Party), Hannah Waddingham (The Garfield Movie, Ted Lasso), Alex Winter (Bill & Ted’s Excellent Adventure, Grand Piano), Maya Erskine (PEN15, Blue Eye Samurai), Kurt Russell (The Thing, Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2), and John Goodman (Revenge of the Nerds, The Big Lebowski). This film centers around its titular blue creatures who go on a mission to save Papa Smurf from evil wizards Razamel and Gargamel.

I hate using the term “kids movie,” mainly because it sounds like an insult towards certain people who watch those kinds of flicks. It is kind of like the term “chick flick,” as if a guy cannot watch films like “Easy A” and have a good time. That film is a blast, and I, a straight white male, fully endorse it. That said, having now seen “Smurfs,” I do not think it is a movie for anybody. Not even children.

This is not to suggest the film is inappropriate for kids. But if you were to ask me to recommend a movie for children, “Smurfs” would be the one I would recommend as a punishment. Forget the time out corner! Forget the extra chores! Forget the soap! Putting on “Smurfs” is the ultimate tool for any disciplinarian!

I saw “Smurfs” in a nearly full theater containing tons of families. Almost nobody uttered a sound during the film. Not the parents, not the children, no one. I actually chuckled once, but being the dark soul that I am, my chuckle was towards the fact that a particular character opted to sacrifice themself. One could argue that part of why I was laughing at this joke was that I wanted the characters to die so the movie could end.

It reminded me of “Borderlands” when Claptrap repeatedly gets shot. Spoiler alert, he ends up surviving! But at the time, that scene gave me a dose of optimism, because it hinted there was a chance that the film’s most annoying character could be left out of the picture.

In the case of “Smurfs,” my singular chuckle was not directed at the film’s most annoying character, but my point stands.

“Smurfs” is chock-full of well-known talent. You have Nick Offerman, John Goodman, Natasha Lyonne, Sandra Oh, even Kurt Russell! These are skilled actors, but there is not much for them to do in this film other than read some of the most predictable, unfunny lines in Hollywood movie history. There are a few lines in this film where I was trying to predict what line would succeed it, what joke would flourish as a result. It goes for the obvious joke time and time and time and time again. It is so annoying and makes for something absolutely uninspired. With these recently mentioned big name actors, you might wonder who has top billing. It is none of these people! Shocking, I know. Instead, that honor goes to Rihanna.

Courtesy of Paramount Pictures – © Paramount Pictures

I am not surprised that Rihanna has top billing. She has an impact on popular culture. That said, her music is not for me. I cannot name a single song of hers that I genuinely love. But this movie is Rihanna’s not just in the sense that she plays one of the core characters, but it is also hers through the music. Several of Rihanna’s hits make it into the soundtrack. If you are a fan of Rihanna, you will probably have more fun listening to these songs by themselves. That said, Rihanna does have an original song featured in the film, particularly during the credits, but at times, it is almost headache-inducing. By the end of this film, I truly wanted Rihanna, to “please, stop the flipping music.”

Paramount Animation/Paramount Animation – © Smurfs™ & © PEYO – 2025 Lic. Lafig B./IMPS © 2025 Par. Pics.

When it comes to finding a main character, it seems to clearly identify James Corden’s No Name Smurf (left) as the protagonist, but again, Rihanna’s Smurfette has such a notable presence to the point where she almost steals the spotlight. You might as well call this movie an 89 minute Rihanna music video featuring the Smurfs. I had trouble figuring out what this movie was trying to be. Is it a musical? Is it a comedy? Is it an adventure? Is it the latest attempt at the multiverse craze? The people behind the movie do not seem to know who exactly they are making it for. “Smurfs” is a family-friendly property, so the crew definitely had children in mind. Although one difference between “Smurfs” and another film from this year I frankly disliked, “A Minecraft Movie,” is that the kids at my screening seemed to be into it, whereas “Smurfs” was a misfire for all audiences, including yours truly.

If I had to pick a movie that “Smurfs” reminds me of, my immediate answer is “The Emoji Movie.” Will kids like this movie? Theoretically. Will adults like this movie? Probably not. Is it colorful and polished? Yes. Does have an everyday “nobody” protagonist? You betcha! Does it have generic sounding songs that have had their time on top 40 radio that get stuck in your head once you leave the theater? Absolutely! If you ever read my expletive-riddled review for “The Emoji Movie,” you may remember me comparing that pile of excrement to films like “The LEGO Movie,” “Wreck-it Ralph,” and “Inside Out,” suggesting that “The Emoji Movie” is a remix of those flicks, but significantly worse. “Smurfs” is basically a reskin of “The Emoji Movie.” Sadly, “The Emoji Movie” lingered so much in my mind that I could not think of any good films to compare “Smurfs” to while I was watching it. At one point, “The LEGO Movie” came to mind because No Name Smurf kind of reminded me of Emmet, whose standout quality is being incredibly pedestrian and everyday, but this film, arguably on purpose, felt like a spiritual sequel to “The Emoji Movie.”

Heck, James Corden is in both films! James Corden seems to be at the top of the list called “Actors to hire if you Have no faith in your project.” Between this film, “The Emoji Movie,” “Cats,” “Gulliver’s Travels,” “Superintelligence,” and “Cinderella,” Corden has built quite the resume of films that made me question my position as a movie person.

Did I mention that both movies reference arguably the most famous line from “Casablanca?” Because they do! And I would argue that “Smurfs” somehow trumps “The Emoji Movie” in terms of how poorly executed the delivery of that line was.

Yes, this movie has tons of stars in it. But they are all given a script that feels more akin to something that would go straight to Paramount+. I guarantee, if Rihanna, and perhaps some of these other actors were not in this film, this would be a streaming exclusive.

That said, there is one segment that I admire in this movie. Without spoilers, it involves a multiversal trip. I thought it was kind of creative. Unfortunately, it only lasts for a minute or two, and then the movie goes back to its regularly scheduled so-called programming. I could see this segment being something that one of the film’s animators would be proud to have on their demo reel. It is the greatest spark of creativity in what is ultimately a dumpster fire that lacks any and all imagination. The film is not consistent with its style. One moment it is fully animated. In another it is live-action. And there’s tons of weird blending between the two styles that sometimes make no sense whatsoever.

The film also reminded me of the equally unimaginative 2011 film “The Smurfs.” Not just because the film features the same characters, but the story beats are kind of similar because all the Smurfs end up leaving Smurf Village and end up in the real world. But perhaps more importantly, both films are not funny and absolutely boring! For an 89 minute movie to be boring is a true feat. It is one thing if the movie is two and a half-hours, but this movie flies at a TikTok pace and still manages to make me, and perhaps the children around me, want to fall asleep. The Smurfs in this movie may be blue, but by the time it was over, it had me turning red.

In the end, “Smurfs” is smurfing bad! It sounds like the obvious comment to make at this time, but if anything it is only fitting after watching this predictable 89 minute brain cell eradicator. “Smurfs” is easily the worst film I have seen so far this year. The film’s full of cringeworthy sequences that feel more like they are designed to show off Rihanna’s singing voice rather than tell a compelling narrative. The movie’s script is riddled with jokes that feel dated. And if they are not dated, they likely will be in five years. There is a sibling rivalry subplot between the film’s villains that ends up being a bore. The film surprisingly has enough time to introduce Kurt Russell’s character. By the time we got to his part of the film, my first thought was “Wait, now? Why are we doing this?” I like me some Kurt Russell, but his presence in the film feels out of the blue. No pun intended. If you want a good movie to take your child to, get tickets for “Elio” or if they’re a little older, take them to see “Superman.” I think the film will grab their attention, and possibly stick with them even as they get older. Do not waste your money on “Smurfs.” I am going to give “Smurfs” a 1/10.

You might make an argument that me not liking this film is irrelevant because it caters more towards children than it does adults. I do not know. I think the many silent children in my theater would have something to say to you. And also this brings up another thing, if the children in my theater, or other children who watched this film for that matter, did like it, I wonder what they will think of it in ten years. Will they feel the same way? Again, this is why I always bring up Pixar as animation’s current gold standard, because they are making films that refuse to insult children’s intelligence. Kids like them. Adults like them. Everyone likes them. Heck, I, a 25 year old man, watched “Cars” recently, which I first checked out when I was six years old. It is still worth watching as an adult. The film looks fantastic, features likable characters, and with my older age, I appreciated the film’s commentary on convenience and how that changes society. It did a great job at that by highlighting the unfortunate impact an Interstate had on the small town of Radiator Springs. Sure, “Smurfs” tries to implement a lesson about being yourself, but it feels surface level and is not enough to save the film from being dull and unfunny. Please avoid this movie at all costs, you will thank me later.

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

Courtesy of 1.21 – © 1.21

Thanks for reading this review! My next review is going to be for the brand new horror film, “Together.” Stay tuned! Also, I will eventually be sharing my thoughts on “Oh, Hi!,” “Weapons,” “Freakier Friday,” and “Nobody 2.” If you want to see these reviews and more from Scene Before, follow the blog either with an email or WordPress account! Also, check out the official Facebook page! I want to know, did you see “Smurfs?” What did you think about it? Or, what is the best piece of “Smurfs” media out there? I need to know because these recent movies do not seem to be doing it for me. If anyone has a recommendation, please send it my way. Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

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

Posted on by Jack Drees

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

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

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

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

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

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

© DreamWorks Animation LLC. All Rights Reserved.

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

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

© DreamWorks Animation LLC. All Rights Reserved.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Courtesy of Paramount Pictures – © Paramount Pictures

Thanks for reading this review! My next review is going to be for another animated family film, “Smurfs.” Stay tuned! Also coming soon, look forward to my thoughts on “Together,” “Oh, Hi,” “Weapons,” “Freakier Friday,” and “Nobody 2.” If you want to see these reviews and more from Scene Before, follow the blog either with an email or WordPress account! Also, check out the official Facebook page! I want to know, did you see “The Bad Guys 2?” What did you think about it? Or, which installment of “The Bad Guys” do you prefer? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

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

Posted on by Jack Drees

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks for reading this review! If you enjoyed this review, be sure to look forward to some of my other ones! I have a long list of reviews coming including for “The Fantastic Four: First Steps,” “The Bad Guys 2,” “Smurfs,” “Together,” and “Oh, Hi!” If you want to see these reviews and more from Scene Before, follow the blog either with an email or WordPress account! Also, check out the official Facebook page! I want to know, did you see “Guns Up?” What did you think about it? Or, what is your favorite project featuring Kevin James? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!