Drama

Another World (2025): A Stunning Animation with One of the Year’s Most Action-Packed Climaxes

Posted on by Jack Drees

“Another World” is directed by Tommy Kai Chung Ng (Shi Wai, Tale of Rebellious Stone) and stars Suet-Ying Chung (The Lyricist Wannabe, Time), Hiu-Tung Choi (Say I Do to Me, Left on Read), Louis Cheung (Keeper of Darkness, Narrow Road), Kay Tse (Band Four, Legal Affair), Will Or (A Foggy Tale, Drifting), and Thaimay in a film about the journey between a spirit guide and a young girl whose anger threatens to turn her into a monster.

“Another World” was barely on my radar prior to seeing it. I did not see any major trailers or posters, but I came across some ads for it on social media, and found out it was playing at a local theater in Boston. There were barely any showtimes available, which served as a challenge for actually being able to see it, but it also became an incentive. Maybe this film could be one of those hidden gems. Plus, GKIDS has a decent track record when it comes to their slate of international animated flicks they choose to distribute for the US audience.

“Another World” seems to ask the same question that a lot of other great pieces of cinema tend to ask, “What does it mean to be human?” When it comes to its analysis of the human condition, there is something there. Much of the film is centered around the relationship of Yuri and Gudo, the latter of whom is a soulkeeper constantly learning about Yuri’s human traits. He finds out about the concepts of being tired, hungry, what it means to long. Having these two polar opposites work together made for a fascinating relationship that ties everything together.

The film itself feels somewhat jarring when it starts. It is not exactly clear who or what this movie is about. In fact it is so jarring at a certain point that I nearly tuned out. Thankfully, the film does become a bit clearer by the second half. That said, it is kind of heady. Not “Tenet”-heady, but heady nonetheless. The climax of the film, while definitely entertaining and watchable, does feel somewhat convoluted. It is not convoluted enough to the point where it falls like a house of cards, but if you are going to watch this movie, go in making sure you are ready to use your head once or twice.

Granted, this is an animated film, so it is not like suspending disbelief is an impossibility. Sticking with the climax, this is arguably when the film is at its best. This is a 2D animated film, which nowadays is always a treat to see in a world where it feels like every major release is 3D animated, even if there is some kind of hybrid style implemented into the project. But there is a particular action sequence in the final ten minutes that has so many flashy cuts that I was under the illusion that I was flipping through pages of a comic book or playing a fantasy video game. In fact, the pace at the end feels like a reward for sitting through everything that comes before. It is not that this film is boring, but rather an occasional slow burn. It takes its time. The climax offers maximum exhilaration and a unique sense of immersion. The final twenty or so minutes of the movie are debatably worthy of a tech demo between the crisp sound mixing, stunning framing, and immaculate cuts that made my eyes nearly fly out of their sockets.

If you read my reviews for “I Love Boosters” and “The Mandalorian and Grogu,” you would know that I look at both films on opposite sides of the color spectrum. The former is as bright and lively as can be, while the latter is about as gray as an office with endless cubicles. I bring those two movies up as “Another World” feels like what happen if those two projects came together and had a lovechild. I thought the use of color in “Another World” was perfect and effectively differentiated the afterlife from the real world. The afterlife often has, no pun intended, a lot more life put into it. Whenever this movie takes place in the real world, the color palette is sometimes a bit darker. A bit less pleasing to the eye. While the latter may sound like a negative, it matches some of the more unfortunate events that happen through the story in said environment. It also seems to play into the general idea that life itself, as beautiful as it can be, is a struggle. This is not to say that all struggles are eliminated in this film’s afterlife, but when it comes to the afterlife scenes, the color palette feels like they belong in a Nintendo game. Yet for whatever reason, it finds itself intertwined with a story that refuses to hold back on its serious nature. Overall, the film looks fantastic and shows off some gorgeous animation.

Was this film worth the semi-short drive to Boston? Perhaps. Is it going to be my favorite animated film of the year? Probably not. “Hoppers” was pretty, and I apologize for the pun, dam good, so that is going to be hard to top. Is this film a must see? I would not say that is the case when there is so much else out right now. Granted, if you reading this review the day it is published, good luck finding a showtime for this film. I highly doubt you’ll find it in a theater near you. It took me a month to finally get this review out. Better late than never. When it comes to that age old question, “What does it mean to be human?”, I would argue this film effectively taps into that idea, but there are so many other movies that handle this topic better, and by extension, offer a superior viewing experience. This is not a bad movie, but I have no idea how much exactly I am going to remember from it by the end of the year. Maybe that would make for an interesting second viewing down the line, and frankly, while I am in no rush to watch this film a second time, I would not say I am against the idea.

In the end, “Another World” is a beautiful film. It is not a picture that I would instantly tell you to rush out and see, but I would recommend it to people looking for some grit in their animations. In North America, much of the animated material that is popular around here is aimed towards families and children. Tell the kids to skip this film. It is not officially rated by the MPA, but I would probably put it somewhere around the PG-13 mark given the violence. That said, should you watch “Another World,” look forward to same top-notch voice acting, stunning scenes, and an intriguing story despite some occasional convolution. I am going to give “Another World” a 7/10.

Based on recent Internet searches, “Another World” is neither playing in theaters or available to watch at home as of this review.

Thanks for reading this review! Before we go any further, I would like to apologize as it took me some time to get this review out. Life has been busy, but fun. I cannot complain. I have also been watching a lot of movies recently to the point where I have had little time to talk about them. That, and I am also hard at work on updating Scene Before’s original series Movie Requests, whose next guest is… Sandi Harding!

If you do not know the name Sandi Harding, you may nevertheless be familiar with her business. Harding owns the last Blockbuster Video still standing, located in Bend, Oregon. What movie do you think she recommended? Find out TUESDAY JULY 14TH on Flicknerd.com and YouTube! If you have not done so already, subscribe to my channel, that way you are able to watch the new episode as fast as possible! Also, if you are not busy, check out my last episode featuring Chris Hardwick, who suggested I should watch the 1985 comedy “Real Genius!”

My next review is going to be for “The Breadwinner.” Stay tuned! Also coming soon, I will be sharing my thoughts on “Disclosure Day,” “Toy Story 5,” “Supergirl,” “Jackass: Best and Last,” “Obsession,” and “Maddie’s Secret.” 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 “Another World?” What did you think about it? Or, what is your favorite animation released so far this year? 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!

In the Grey (2026): A Surprising Snooze from Guy Ritchie

Posted on by Jack Drees

“In the Grey” is written and directed by Guy Ritchie (The Gentlemen, Snatch) and stars Henry Cavill (Man of Steel, Mission: Impossible – Fallout), Jake Gyllenhaal (Stronger, Spider-Man: Far from Home), Eiza González (Baby Driver, Ambulance), Kristofer Hivju (Force Majeure, Game of Thrones), Fisher Stevens (Hackers, Short Circuit), and Rosamund Pike (Gone Girl, Saltburn). This film is about a group of operatives who try to recover a billion dollar debt from a criminal organization.

My relationship with Guy Ritichie is iffy. I like some of his movies, that is of the ones I have seen. In fact, while it may have the DNA of a typical Jason Statham flick, I still remember really enjoying “Wrath of Man.” I thought it was well shot, had great action, and contained likable characters.

While “In the Grey” may not have Jason Statham, it does come packed with a ton of other stars including Henry Cavill, Jake Gyllenhaal, and Eiza González just to name a few. It is always nice when a movie is able to have notable, talented names in front of and behind the camera. So, my question is… Why did everyone waste their talent on this absolute chore of a movie?

This was BORING. And it is really weird to say that, because I could tell that this movie felt like it came from a singular vision. It is definitely Guy Ritchie’s film through and through based on the creative editing choices, the fast pacing, and unique layout of the screenplay. Also, note the use of the word “fast.” If your movie is fast, but also boring, then that is a different kind of special.

I am not going to pretend that “In the Grey” does not have anything good in it. I just wish that this talented, A-List cast who I enjoyed in other projects could have delivered something just as solid as some of their previous work. This movie feels like a step down for them, and I would not go as far as to blame the talent specifically.

That said, there are positives. A lot of the camerawork was eye-popping. Granted, I thought the movie’s color palette was quite underwhelming and looked more like something that belonged on Netflix. But there were quite a few shots I liked, including one at the beginning where we see Maggie Q’s character falling to the side. It reminded me of a similar shot of the same thing happening in “Ready or Not 2: Here I Come” earlier this year. The locations and production design are also neat. The set up of the movie does a halfway decent job at giving a sense of the tone, but what followed did not quite live up to what was given in the beginning.

The more I try to think of redeeming qualities, the more I wish I were talking about better movies released just a short time before this one like “Mortal Kombat II” or “Lorne.” While those are not the best movies I have seen in recent memory, I found something in those movies that this one tends to lack. Personality. Perhaps it is unfair of me to say that considering I already said that this film feels like a singular vision from Guy Ritchie. After all, it technically is. He wrote the movie itself in addition to directing it. If anything, this film reminds me a lot of “The Gentlemen.” Like this movie, that one contains a stacked cast, moves at a breakneck pace, and has a fair amount of action. I think I had more fun with “The Gentlemen” than I did watching this film, partially because I got to watch a rather unhinged Matthew McConaughey.

While I could tell that the actors were doing their best with the characters, they did not stand out in any significant way. Perhaps “In the Grey” does have personality, but said personality is not sitting well with me. You know that saying “Don’t judge a book by it’s cover?” My apologies, I think that saying lacks merit when “In the Grey” sometimes emits a sense of so-called personality that could best be described as grey.

Sometimes the characters will have a good line or two, and other times they won’t. No, seriously. For all I know, maybe the dialogue reads well, but as I watched certain scenes in this movie, the dialogue came off as something one would find in a “Saturday Night Live” parody of a generic action film. It is sometimes overemphasized, uninspired, and somewhat cliche. The movie itself does not entirely feel cliche. Getting from point A to point B is not exactly done in the most usual of manners, but the specific manners did not sit well with me.

In today’s world where second-screen viewing is a common occurrence for some people, “In the Grey” seems to challenge that concept with its constant need to put captions for certain things that may matter throughout the movie. I am not saying that this movie feels like it was designed to cater to the second-screen viewer. In fact, if you partake in second-screen viewing for everything you watch now, good luck with this movie, because the dialogue is some of the least digestible I remember hearing. I wish I could quote some of the characters for you off the top of my head, but I cannot, because every line is given as quickly as the other. The way the dialogue is laid out during the entire movie reminds me of an extended YouTube vlog where there happens to be a jumpcut every five seconds. I am not saying this movie has noticeable jumpcuts, but if you like nonstop talking, this movie is probably going to be Heaven for you.

I like my auteur directors. Christopher Nolan, Quentin Tarantino, and Denis Villeneuve are a few that come to mind. I have come to this conclusion previously, but if anything, “In the Grey” reminds me that maybe Guy Ritchie’s style is not exactly my jam. He is quick, and I do not mind quick. But there is no room to breathe. I would hate to see him do a “Run Lola Run” remake. Also, I do not care what you all think. That movie sucks.

In the end, “In the Grey” is a completely fitting title for what is ultimately one of the dullest flicks of the year so far. After seeing this movie, I am starting to question whether my artistic tastes line up with Guy Ritchie’s. I am sure he is a friendly human being and could be interesting to work with. But this movie is not quite doing it for me. On top of the well-known director, the movie comes with an A-list cast who deserve a script that is much more in line with their talents. I am probably not going to remember “In the Grey” for any reason other than the fact that it nearly put me to sleep. I am going to give “In the Grey” a 3/10.

“In the Grey” is now available to rent or by on VOD.

Thanks for reading this review! If you have not done so already, be sure to check out my latest episode of Movie Requests, featuring “Clerks” actor Brian O’Halloran! In this video I review his recommendation, the 1970 war film “Patton.” To hear my thoughts, click the video above! Be sure to like the video if you enjoyed it and subscribe to my YouTube channel if you want to see more new episodes as soon as they drop! They will also be posted here on Flicknerd.com, but if you want the fastest way to view the episode, subscribing to my channel will do the trick.

My next review is going to be for “Star Wars: The Mandalorian and Grogu.” Stay tuned! Also coming soon, I will be sharing my thoughts on “I Love Boosters,” “Backrooms,” “Masters of the Universe,” “Another World,” and “The Breadwinner.” 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 “In the Grey?” What did you think about it? Or, what are some Guy Ritchie movies that you enjoy? I liked one of his more recent features, “Operation Fortune: Ruse de Guerre.” It was a lot of fun. I did not have a chance to review it a few years ago, but if I saw it early enough to do so, I would have given the film a positive score. Let me know your favorites down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

Animal Farm (2025): Four Legs Good, This Movie Bad.

Posted on by Jack Drees

“Animal Farm” is directed by Andy Serkis (The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring, Star Wars: The Force Awakens). He also stars in the film as a rooster named Randolph and has an uncredited role as Farmer Jones. Joining him in the cast is Seth Rogen (Sausage Party, Knocked Up), Gaten Matarazzo (Stranger Things, Honor Society), Steve Buscemi (Miracle Workers, Fargo), Glenn Close (The Wife, 101 Dalmatians), Laverne Cox (Doubt, Orange is the New Black), Kieran Culkin (A Real Pain, Scott Pilgrim vs. the World), Woody Harrelson (The Edge of Seventeen, The Glass Castle), Jim Parsons (The Big Bang Theory, Hidden Figures), Kathleen Turner (Romancing the Stone, The Virgin Suicides), and Iman Vellani (The Marvels, Ms. Marvel). This film is based on George Orwell’s book of the same name and is about a group of animals whose farm-based revolution results in a pig-led dictatorship.

There are a few major texts I was assigned to read in my English class during my freshman year of high school. One of those includes Homer’s “The Odyssey,” which is being adapted into a film coming out this summer. Another one happens to be George Orwell’s “Animal Farm,” which is now an animated film directed by Andy Serkis. What’s next? Is “Of Mice and Men” getting another film adaptation?

Regardless, “Animal Farm,” through its book and interesting to say the least adaptations, left an impression on me. When the book was a major studying point in school, the class often focused on Orwell’s material linking to the U.S.S.R.. The book presents a fascinating allegory on the dangers of leaders becoming power hungry and bending the rules to their benefit.

The idea of someone like Andy Serkis taking on “Animal Farm” left me intrigued. He has shown his talents in the VFX and directing spaces, and I thought “Animal Farm” would be a fine fit for his skill set.

Then I saw the trailer…

While I thought the trailer overall made the film look cheap, it did end with one note that left me interested, which is that it was recommended for ages 11 and up. While the MPA gave this film a PG rating, which can be seen as okay for many younger audiences, the marketers essentially sent a message saying this might not be for the youngest crowds. Having read “Animal Farm,” that makes sense.

Frankly, after seeing this movie, I have no idea who exactly this is for. It is definitely not for “Animal Farm” purists, as there are some major changes made to the material. For instance, Old Major is not in the movie. There are some characters who are not in the book. No, unlike the 1999 adaptation, the main character is not a dog this time around.

Despite the movie being recommended for ages 11 and up as the trailer suggests, the film has plenty of jokes that feel like they were designed for the under five crowd. I do not know what George Orwell would think of this movie, seeing as he is no longer with us. But I think he and I would agree that toilet humor and “Animal Farm” do not mix. Maybe the conversation would be different if the trailer said the movie was recommended for “all ages,” However, that’s not the case. I would let it slide if this movie resorted to one fart joke, but I remember counting at least five or six instances of jokes related to bodily functions. It would also be forgiven if those jokes made me laugh. But they failed to do so.

This is not to say that I do not think younger viewers should not be exposed to a story like “Animal Farm.” I think it is an important tale, and the more that we experience corruption in power the more it is going to matter. In the case of “Animal Farm” 2026, this is a more modern telling of the tale compared to its mid-20th century source material, as it focuses on capitalism as the big bad. Despite happily living in the U.S. all my life, I think this idea has potential to work. One of the core antagonists of the film is a boss lady who essentially owns all the land in her sight, but she is not satisfied, as she wants to add Animal Farm to her collection.

In this film, Napoleon is played by Seth Rogen. …Okay? What is it with Seth Rogen’s voiceover roles lately? I always thought he was a weird choice for Donkey Kong, but this is another level. And much like Donkey Kong, Seth Rogen often sounds like he is playing himself when sounding off every other line. In fact, one could argue the performance is kind of meta, as there is a scene where Napoleon does the infamous Seth Rogen laugh, and he follows that up with “please do not make fun of my laugh.” Is it just me, or is Seth Rogen’s laugh one of the most recognizable laughs of all time? If I had to make a top 5 list in that regard, Rogen would be up there with Jimmy Carr, SpongeBob SquarePants, Peter Griffin, and J. Jonah Jameson during that one scene from “Spider-Man 2” where Peter asks him if he can get paid in advance.

That said, there is something there with Seth Rogen’s material. As immature as the writing often sounds, there is one scene between his character and a gender-swapped Snowball (Laverne Cox) where the latter is explaining her plan concerning the farm that stood out to me. Every other second, Napoleon, who is not afraid to showcase his opposition to the plan, is constantly mocking Snowball, sometimes calling her boring while they are in front of a large crowd. Again, the material itself comes off as borderline cringeworthy, but the more I think about it, the more it reminds me of the current state of politics in the U.S.. I try to keep my mouth shut in regards to that topic on here, but Napoleon is essentially Donald Trump. He is loud and quite limited in his vocabulary. He calls others names to their faces. And as we have seen in the 2016 and 2024 elections, his biggest rivals tend to be, whether you agree with their policies or not, well-meaning women.

Although there is one woman that Napoleon tends to get along with, and that is the recently mentioned “boss lady,” Frieda Pilkington (Glenn Close). A billionaire who essentially wants everything and will stop at nothing to get it. She owns a giant company that I would perhaps sum up as this universe’s equivalent to Amazon, as it seems to have their fingertips in just about every industry. Her character is by no means broken, but her one-dimensionality definitely stands out.

In fact, this movie is chock-full of big stars. From Jim Parsons to Kieran Culkin to Steve Buscemi. One rising star who I am glad to see in this film is Iman Vellani, who I adore as Ms. Marvel in the MCU. Her roles, and yes, she has more than one, does not give her as much to work with compared to Marvel, but I am glad to see she is getting more work.

Another standout in this film is Woody Harrelson as Boxer. While the film does have its many differences from the source material, the way Boxer was written and executed feels similar to how I would have imagined reading the book as a teenager. Harrelson is a good pick for the role. It is hard to say that “Animal Farm” is one of the most heartfelt films ever made, but I would not deny that Boxer is perhaps the emotional core of the story, even if he is a supporting character.

While this is based on a famous text, “Animal Farm” is not the best when it comes to screenwriting. By the way, it is written by Nicholas Stoller, whose “Muppets” films I did enjoy, but I will also acknowledge his resume also contains duds like “Sex Tape,” “Dora and the Lost City of Gold,” and “Zoolander 2.” Despite Stoller’s best efforts, the jokes do not work. I do not mind “Animal Farm” having jokes, as long as they stick the landing. They did not. Some of the jokes play a part in the film’s clashing tones. At times this film tries to be ridiculous and go for a laugh, and at others it tries to pull the heartstrings or make you shed a tear. Pixar has proven that their films can both be funny and emotional. “Animal Farm,” which is a collaboration between Aniventure and The Imaginarium, tends to fall flat in both categories. The end of the film feels kind of like a Marvel movie, almost as if the climax is aiming too high.

I have nothing against people making changes to source material. I think “Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory” is one of the greatest movies of all time, even if it made some significant alterations from Roald Dahl’s classic tale. This adaptation of “Animal Farm,” like the others that have been brought to the screen, has its differences from the book. Although I went back to watch the other two adaptations and those tended to maintain the tone and spirit that the book was going for. Neither one was particularly groundbreaking or IMDb top 250-worthy, but they did their job in more ways than one. This movie does not feel like “Animal Farm” in the most accurate sense. That would be fine if I liked the movie, but between the bad comedy, several characters lacking dimension, weird editing choices, and some scenes feeling rushed, “Animal Farm” reminded me that not all movies are equal. Some are just plain bad.

In the end, “Animal Farm” is not as bad as I hear other people claim it to be, but to call it good is definitely a stretch. There are parts of the movie that exceeded my expectations, and I am probably being generous with that statement. While I definitely found Rogen’s interpretation of Napoleon to be rather annoying, I do think the way he was written worked in terms of matching the current political climate. He is not the smartest, nor the most calculated leader. But if you ask certain people today what they think about the current U.S. President, they would probably say the same thing. The animation was passable, but not exactly revolutionary. The soundtrack of this film is also kind of weird. Including a rap version of “Old McDonald Had a Farm” is most certainly a choice. The book is definitely more serious than this movie, and I thought when this film tried to be funny, it did not always work. Although there was one gag involving E=mc² that did make me chuckle. This is probably not going to be my least favorite movie of the year as there are glimmers of positivity to be found, but I hope to see a superior version of this tale brought to the big screen one day. I am going to give “Animal Farm” a 4/10.

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

Thanks for reading this review! I am happy to announce that the next guest in my ongoing web series, Movie Requests is none other than Brian O’Halloran! You may know him from several of Kevin Smith’s films, including the “Clerks” trilogy! By the way, he is not the first guy from said trilogy I featured in the series, as a couple months ago I took a request from Jason Mewes, AKA Jay of the Jay and Silent Bob duo. As for Brian’s request, that review will be available on Sunday June 7th! You can check it out here on Flicknerd.com, but if you want the fastest method of watching the review, do yourself and I favor by subscribing to my YouTube channel!

My next review is going to be for “Mortal Kombat II!” Stay tuned! Also coming soon, I will be sharing my thoughts on “The Sheep Detectives,” “In the Grey, “Star Wars: The Mandalorian and Grogu,” “I Love Boosters,” and “Backrooms.” If you want to see these review and more from Scene Before, follow the blog either with an email or WordPress account! Also, check out the official Facebook page! I want to know, did you see “Animal Farm?” What did you think about it? Or, did you read the “Animal Farm” book? What are your thoughts on it? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

Deep Water (2026): Plane Crashes and Sharks. What Could Go Wrong?

Posted on by Jack Drees

“Deep Water” is directed by Renny Harlin (Cutthroat Island, Deep Blue Sea) and stars Aaron Eckhart (The Dark Knight, Midway), Angus Sampson (Insidious, Mad Max: Fury Road), Ben Kingsley (Iron Man 3, Hugo), Lucy Barrett (Skincare, Charmed), and Molly Belle Wright (Omaha, The Best Christmas Pageant Ever). This film is about a group of people who are on a plane flying from Los Angeles to Shanghai, whose flight happens to go by the wayside as they crash in the middle of the ocean. As if things could not get any worse, the group is surrounded by sharks and must do what they can to survive.

It is now time to talk about “Deep Water,” not to be confused with the movie of the same name starring Ben Affleck and Ana de Armas, which is entirely different in premise and execution. Unlike that straight to streaming flick, this is a theatrically released thrill ride that involves a very simple, but intriguing premise.

Last year was the 50th anniversary of “Jaws,” which to this day, remains the best shark movie ever made by a clear mile. But just because “Jaws” is so great, does not mean that other shark movies do not have the potential to work. “Deep Water” is not quite a shark movie, but when the marketing showed sharks, I was sold. This looked eerie, intense, and entertaining. It is definitely a popcorn flick. Though I skipped the popcorn on this movie.

“Deep Water” does not reinvent the wheel when it comes to filmmaking or storytelling, but the film nevertheless delivers a satisfying package. Is it perfect? Absolutely not. But it does not change the fact that the film is worth watching at least once.

When it comes to the overall premise of the film, it keeps things simple. A bunch of people are on a flight from Los Angeles to Shanghai, then next things next, they make an emergency landing in the middle of the ocean. It is at this point where everyone must work together to survive. Although, getting everyone on the same page is not the easiest task.

This film contains a fairly sizable cast of characters, some of whom are played by well-known names. I am quite shocked that some of the names accepted their roles. Their paychecks must have been enormous. Although upon learning that this film had a $40 million budget, maybe not. Plus, this film is directed by Renny Harlin, who has helmed some well known films including “Cliffhanger” and “Die Hard 2.” Then again, he also directed “The Legend of Hercules,” a film so bad that I think it might as well have been better off staying a legend.

That said, while I remember some of the faces in this movie like Ben Kingsley, it is not as easy to remember the characters. Part of it is due to having so many of them, so the movie does what it can to allow everyone to have their moment, but only a particular few stand out. If you were to ask me if I am going to remember these characters in a year from now, I would probably guess not. Heck, I am having trouble recalling some of them even less than a month after seeing the movie. Do I have my favorite characters from the project? Sure.

Is this movie predictable? Perhaps. But I do not mind it being that way, because what it offers is undoubtedly entertaining. We get to know a bunch of people who are on a plane. Everyone from the crew to some of the core passengers, the plane makes an emergency landing in the ocean, and all of the characters who we got to know on the plane have some ongoing effect towards the story from here on out. Sharks appear every now and then, causing all kinds of trouble for the survivors, who realize their journey has only begun. Having said that now, it makes me appreciate this premise more. The only way this movie could have been crazier is if it went full “Snakes on a Plane” and decided to put the sharks on the plane as it was in the air. But as someone who likes logic, I am glad they did not go in that direction. It would just spawn bad memories of torturing myself while watching the “Sharknado” movies.

This movie combines two of my biggest apprehensions. Planes and sharks. For the record, I like planes. I really do. I find air travel fascinating, even if the modern air travel market is an overpriced scam. I do not fly super often, but I do take a plane one to a few times per year, and in the back of my mind I am always nervous about crashing. This movie reminds me of that fear. I always fly out of Boston, whose airport is right next to the Atlantic, a place that has sharks! Of course! Thanks, movie!

This film reminded me of another thing to be afraid of, and that happens to be lithium-ion batteries. They are everywhere. Like planes, I do not outright hate the concept of lithium-ion batteries. I understand their purpose, but the movie essentially kicks into gear because of something that happens to a lithium-ion battery. If you have ever seen a news story involving some kind of a device that contains a lithium-ion battery, I think you can imagine what that incident is. I am a little frightened as I write this review on my laptop, which I will remind you, has a lithium-ion battery inside of it that could blow up if I make one wrong move. There is a reason why people working at airports ask if you have anything with lithium-ion batteries on you before your flight!

Movies are experiences, and to say I experienced fear in “Deep Water” is an understatement. Is this the best movie of the year? No. The characters could be a little deeper (not literally), but it is never boring. It gives the bones of the characters and makes them likable enough. The shark action is sometimes fun to watch. It is not the best I have ever seen. It is not like I am watching “The Shallows” starring Blake Lively, which I still fondly remember about a decade after its release. That said, this film is not 100% camp. It has campy moments, but the plane crash, which goes on for more time than I was anticipating, felt rather dramatic. There happened to be a sense of stakes as the plane was falling down. You could feel the emotions and the nerves running through the characters, and those emotions and nerves stuck around as the sharks came out to play. This movie is thrilling, well-paced, and engaging.

© Arclight Films

In the end, “Deep Water” is a solid plane crash movie, on top of being a solid shark movie. It takes two disastrously bone-chilling scenarios and neatly combines them into one premise. This is not Shakespeare, but it is also not something that deserves to be tossed aside either. It is a decent movie that allows you to munch popcorn while watching tons of people figure out how not to die. Is this film the next “Jaws?” No. But it is a good watch. I am going to give “Deep Water” a 7/10.

“Deep Water” is now playing in select theaters. Tickets are available now!

Thanks for reading this review! I would like to take a moment to remind everyone that my next episode of Movie Requests is going to feature “Clerks” actor Brian O’Halloran! He has appeared in all three installments of Kevin Smith’s retail-based trilogy, and in the next couple of weeks, I will be reviewing his film of choice. That review is SUPPOSED TO BE HERE on Sunday June, 7th. If you have not done so already, please check out my review for “High Noon,” requested by “Battlestar Galactica” star Katee Sackhoff! If you want to see more reviews throughout the series as soon as they are uploaded, please consider subscribing to my YouTube channel! I will also share them here, but subscribing to my channel is the fastest way you can check them out. Life is short, you know. Might as well spend your time wisely.

I have a buttload of written reviews coming soon! My next reviews are going to be for “Animal Farm,” “Mortal Kombat II,” “The Sheep Detectives,” “In the Grey, “Star Wars: The Mandalorian and Grogu,” and “I Love Boosters.” 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 “Deep Water?” What did you think about it? Or, what is a movie that reminds you of some of your personal fears? 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!

The Drama (2026): Zendaya and Robert Pattinson Kill it as a Couple Caught in Personal Chaos

Posted on by Jack Drees

“The Drama” is written and directed by Kristoffer Borgli (Dream Scenario, Sick of Myself) and stars Zendaya (Spider-Man: Homecoming, The Greatest Showman) and Robert Pattinson (The Batman, Tenet) as a couple who are preparing for their wedding. While the two get ready for their big day, they have a conversation with some friends that ends up becoming much bigger than any of them could have anticipated. When Emma reveals a key part of her past, it changes the way everyone sees her, including her future spouse, Charlie (Pattinson).

“The Drama” has one of the best trailers I have seen in recent memory due to its quick pace and effective messaging of the film’s main idea. Add a pinch of star power, and you have a recipe for hype. Zendaya and Robert Pattinson not only have busy years ahead of them, but they are in a few films together, including this one. Naturally, I was excited for this movie.

I am not saying skip the trailer before you see the movie, because, again, it is a great piece of marketing. It got me in the door. But if you want my two cents, the trailer does not even do this movie justice. It does a great job giving a spec of the main idea, and what unfolds from said main idea is completely bonkers. This is a film that is likely to inspire conversations, make people think, and whether for good or bad, could potentially ruin a relationship.

I am a believer that nobody, including myself, is perfect. Everyone does something stupid at some point in their life. This movie does a great job at showcasing the dangers of having your past come back to haunt you in the worst possible way. This is done through a simple conversation where two couples talk to each other discussing the worst things they have ever done. It is an innocent game where harsh truths come to light, but everyone seems to take the information and brush it aside. That is until Zendaya’s character, Emma Harwood, reveals something she has not even told her partner. I am not going to say what she did, as I had no idea what it was prior to watching the movie, but this ruins her friendship with the couple across from her, and puts a bad taste in her partner’s mouth.

Harwood’s revelation sets the tone for what’s next, and could not come at a worse possible time. Throughout the film we see her and Charlie Thompson (Pattinson) get ready for their wedding. Planning for a wedding, as exciting as it can be, is already stressful enough between getting people together, choosing and setting up the venue, making sure everyone assumes their role, and now it has become ten times harder.

Throughout the film, we see Thompson writing his wedding vows. We see him tinker with the document where he has them stored. It is not just a matter of giving a speech from the heart. It is a matter of knowing his partner. The revelation essentially turned things upside down for Thompson. He does not feel like he knows her the way he did before. He sees an entirely new side to her. The longer the film goes on, the more we find Thompson in a sense of personal debate. Does he know his partner? Or is she a complete enigma? What else does he not know?

This movie kind of makes me glad I am single. What if I end up doing something stupid that I will have to bring up to my partner one day? Will they accept it? Or perhaps vice versa? What if I am dating someone and I find out they killed a guy? I find myself to be quite an accepting person, but if I find out my partner killed a guy, I think it would be an understatement to suggest that idea gives off a bad vibe.

I also dig the start of the movie. The movie begins with our main couple meeting each other in a cafe, where Thompson notices Harwood reading a book and tries to win her over by saying he loves said book. We find out early on that Harwood is deaf in one ear. The way the movie establishes this point is rather cute.

Perhaps the biggest strength, arguably to no one’s surprise, is the on-screen talent. Of course, Robert Pattinson and Zendaya lead this film, both of whom are great actors on their own. But this film does them favors by putting them together. I buy that these two are a couple from, as mentioned recently, the moment they meet in a cafe, to their eventual decline. As good as they are together, the two are not alone when it comes to showcasing tour de performances.

While Zendaya and Robert Pattinson are naturally going to be the first two people that come to mind when I think of this movie, trailing ever so slightly behind them is Alana Haim, who plays Rachel, Emma’s maid of honor. The movie easily allows her to shine due to the already excellent material she is given, but it also helps that Haim takes said material and goes to town with it. Everything from finding out about her personal revelation, which as much as the other characters seem to let it slide, made me gulp in my throat a bit, to what she ends up doing as the film gets to the big wedding itself. This film is called “The Drama” for a reason, and as it progresses, Rachel often accentuates it.

While there is a somewhat grounded feel to this movie, if there is any character that most resembles a cartoon, Rachel would probably be the closest candidate. This is not meant to come off as a dig. If anything, her exaggerated tendencies seem to stand out. As much as I did not like “Licorice Pizza,” one thing is for sure, it put Alana Haim on the map for me. She did a terrific job in that movie. Not only does she do just as swell of a job in “The Drama,” but it also helps that the movie itself is just as riveting.

In the end, “The Drama” is one of those films that you kind of have to see to believe. Just about everything in this film stands out in some way. The acting. The location choices. The dialogue. The direction. Everything in this movie works. I do not think “The Drama” is going to end up being the best movie of the year. In fact, part of me thinks it could have been slightly shorter. But it does not change the fact that “The Drama” lives up to its name. It is a film that for better or worse, is going to make you think. I am going to give “The Drama” an 8/10.

Also, I would like a personal note. Between this movie and “Dream Scenario,” both of which are helmed by Kristoffer Borgli, the filmmaker seems to have an attachment to setting his work in Massachusetts. It seems like a minute point, but I am glad Borgli is not only making good movies, but manages to do so while shining a spotlight on my home state. If Borgli is ever in the Boston area again, let me know if you’re up for some candlepin bowling.

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

Thanks for reading this review! I have an update regarding my ongoing video series Movie Requests, where I take film suggestions from other people and talk about them. I am pleased to announce that the fourth episode is coming soon and it is going to feature none other than “The Mandalorian” star Katee Sackhoff! She suggested a movie for me to review last November, and I am finally going to talk about it on May the 4th, otherwise known as “Star Wars Day.” How appropriate. What movie do you think she requested? Leave your comments! You can catch the video as soon as it drops on Flicknerd.com or my YouTube channel, which you should absolutely and positively subscribe to. You’ll get it faster that way.

And if you have not done so by now, please check out my last episode of Movie Requests, featuring “Avatar” actor Joel David Moore! He requested I should watch “Force Majeure.” What did I think about it? Click the video and find out for yourself!

My next review is going to be for “Exit 8.” Stay tuned! Also coming soon, I will be sharing my thoughts on “Normal,” “Lorne,” and “Michael.” 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 Drama?” What did you think about it? Or, what is your favorite movie about a couple who happen to be in a not so perfect relationship? If you want my two cents, please go check out “Marriage Story” if you have not done so already. It is on Netflix, but if you prefer your physical media, like me, it is available on the Criterion Collection. Give it a shot. Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

Dune: Part Three Sells Out Limited IMAX 70mm Screenings Months Before Release – The Eventification of Moviegoing

Posted on by Jack Drees

Hey everyone, Jack Drees here! My most anticipated movie of 2026 is Christopher Nolan’s “The Odyssey,” based on Homer’s epic poem of the same name. You may remember nearly 9 months ago, tickets went on sale for some of the movie’s IMAX 70mm screenings. And by sheer luck, I managed to grab a ticket for the first show in Fort Lauderdale, Florida when the movie opens this July.

Naturally, Warner Brothers must have seen this and decided to follow suit with another film I am looking forward to… “Dune: Part Three.” Around noon on the east coast, which is where I live, a list of theaters were selling tickets for the movie. I had very little notice to buy tickets, but I was scrolling on Instagram and saw a couple posts suggesting that tickets were going to go on sale in a half hour. Not next week, not the next day, but literally the next half hour. So, I go through the list of theaters and make a game plan… Opening multiple tabs, having different devices out… I was ready. After checking a couple websites, I go to IMAX’s official site and click on a link that brings me to the AMC Lincoln Square 13 in New York, New York… And lone behold… Tickets went on sale minutes before their scheduled time at 12 p.m.. So, I click on the 7 p.m. show for Friday, December 18th.

For the first time in my life, I had to go through multiple seat selections just to get something that will take me to the landing page. It took me three tries, and knowing how many seats were sold already, I am shocked the count was not higher. And if someone can get Hans Zimmer on the phone to play some victory music, that would be amazing! Why? Because I got my tickets! …And so did everyone else in the world, apparently. Less than a half hour after I buy the tickets, I check the “view” tab on my screening, and it says the show sold out. And so did other showtimes! Keep in mind, I bought tickets for Friday. There was also a show being held the day before that I had no idea about. When I checked AMC’s site originally, I did not see a listing for it. Not that I am complaining. Friday is still quite early in the release schedule and I am sure the crowd going to see it Friday will be just as enthusiastic as the crowd going the night before.

My theater is not alone. For this push, 19 IMAX theaters were selling tickets. Only two are located outside of North America. More than seven hours after tickets went on sale, most of these theaters say they “sold out” on IMAX’s website. All of these theaters were selling one show per day from opening Thursday to the following Sunday. Since buying my tickets, more showtimes have been added, and those are already selling too.

Though my ticket-buying experience makes me wonder if we are seeing a shift in how movie tickets are sold. Between “Dune: Part Three” and “The Odyssey,” buying movie tickets, in certain regards anyway, is starting to feel like buying concert tickets. The concept may not be resemblant to every concert, but these past couple of instances of buying tickets felt like the cinephile’s equivalent to scoring seats for Taylor Swift’s The Eras Tour a few years back. Between how early the tickets are going on sale, the specific venues that are allowing tickets to sell immediately, the fact that people like me are fighting to get the seat they want, as well as the price… These are not only hottest tickets in town, but buying one almost guarantees jealousy from others who did not acquire theirs in time. That is, if you choose to keep the ticket. There are already some users online selling them for several times their original price. Morons.

I bought two tickets for my screening at the AMC Lincoln Square 13. Each ticket cost me $30.49. It would have cost me more if my AMC Stubs memberships did not cover my convenience fees. Sadly, this film is excluded from my A-List reservations, but in actuality, I do not mind it that much. If anything, it saves me the trouble from having one less slot I can use for the next 8 months. For the record, the price is not that much different from what I would pay now for an IMAX movie at the same location. Not to give AMC any ideas, but I am a tad surprised the cost is not higher.

The reason why I say that is because not only is Lincoln Square home to one of the biggest IMAX screens in the country, but due to it being in New York City, I would expect the price to be more than some of the other markets selling tickets early. Yet to my surprise, there are a few less populated areas that are selling the same experience, but charging more money for it.

I was going through X, and found a couple of people posting about the prices some of these theaters were charging…

Including one in Nashville, Tennessee…

As well as another located about 35 miles away from Atlanta, Georgia…

I should also note, both of these are Regal locations. I am noticing a trend here…

In fact, since the theaters have added more showtimes, it has only given me a smidge more material to work with for this post. I checked a 10:45 p.m. showtime for the Regal in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania. This theater probably would have been my backup if I could not get into Lincoln Square as the distance is somewhat drivable from home, and the fact that I have always wanted to check out the King of Prussia Mall. Though I likely saved myself a hassle, as tickets are $50 a pop.

Meanwhile, a Cinemark that is somewhat drivable from home, located in Rochester, NY, is also listing early showtimes. Having checked an 11 p.m. show on opening Thursday, they do not seem to be showcasing the same level of greed as Regal, considering how tickets are half the price at $25.

The pricing for this event does appear to be a bit out of control, especially when you consider that a ticket for an evening IMAX show set around the same timeframe for both Nashville and the Mall of Georgia is typically around $30 for adults. If I were to go see “The Super Mario Galaxy Movie” this week during the evening, that is how much I would pay just for a single ticket prior to fees. As much as I do not mind the trend of premium screenings selling tickets early, I do think there is a limit on how high one of these screenings should be priced. $40 for a movie ticket in 2026 feels like overkill. $50 is just outrageous.

I have paid 50 bucks for a movie ticket before, but I felt that price was somewhat justified as the director of said movie showed up to introduce the screening and stay after to do a Q&A. By the way, the screening was for the 25th anniversary of “Dogma,” and getting to see Kevin Smith before and after was a complete blast. This was a standard 2D screening, but it had a unique luxury on top of it.

I have a feeling that should we continue to do events like these, theaters could end up taking advantage of their customers and make them spend more money than perhaps one realistically should on something as simple as a movie. And that is important to note. I have no problem spending a good chunk of money to see a comedy show or a baseball game, because you are witnessing the event live. Movies are on a screen, therefore you are not watching real people. It does not make as much sense to charge $10 more than what a typical ticket would cost around an identical timeframe in the same auditorium, even if the detail on the screen is going to be incredibly lifelike.

Interesting enough, if I were to see “The Super Mario Galaxy Movie” this week during the evening at Lincoln Square’s IMAX, where fate decided I should have a “Dune: Part Three” ticket waiting for me, I would be paying $30.49 for the adult tier. That is the same price as a single ticket for “Dune: Part Three.” It gives me the sense that Regal is jacking up the price on purpose… Again, going back to the eventification of moviegoing, this shows that even if a movie theater charges a higher price, someone will pay it just to be in the building. In fact, my backup option if Lincoln Square sold out was to buy a ticket at the Regal in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania. But knowing myself as an IMAX fanboy, there is a good chance I would have paid whatever the ticket cost just to get my hands on it.

The $30.49 ticket price packs quite a bit into it. In addition to being part of one of the first audiences to experience “Dune: Part Three,” we are watching it in IMAX 70mm, one of clearest formats of all time. Any instance in which I can see something on one of the clearest formats of all time, I will most definitely take. There are very few theaters in the world with capable, working equipment to make this possible. The film is also shot on IMAX technology, including IMAX film. The screen is one of the largest in the country. There will be no trailers before the movie starts, which for AMC is almost unheard of. For my commitment, the theater is giving me a collectible filmstrip. The theater is giving a lot for 30 bucks. I would not pay that much for a movie each and every day, but I would for something like this.

Going back to what I said earlier about the “Dogma” screening and how cool it was to see Kevin Smith there, if we really want to eventize these screenings even further, here is an idea… Have the stars show up. Granted, these are 19 locations in different parts of the world, so it may not be possible for this to happen. But in theory, it would be cool to be welcomed to “Dune: Part Three” on opening weekend by Zendaya or Denis Villeneuve or Robert Pattinson. It is almost like a reward for buying tickets early.

Between “The Odyssey” and “Dune: Part Three,” movies are truly becoming much bigger events for yours truly then they have ever been. Granted, I have gone to press screenings and premieres in my area. I have been to screenings where celebrities show up. But these two movies have gotten me to consider crossing state lines just to watch them. I am flying to Florida in July. FLORIDA. IN JULY. Just to watch a movie. I think air conditioning is going to be my best friend when that time arrives. These are more than adventures to catch flicks. These are practically turning into vacations. Heck, since I am seeing “Dune: Part Three” a week before Christmas, I am already debating on what time would be best to visit Rockefeller Center to check out the big Christmas tree.

Could I watch these movies closer to home? Perhaps. In fact, I live 10 minutes away from the largest IMAX in New England, located at Jordan’s Furniture in Reading, Massachusetts, which is an amazing place to see a movie. …But it is not currently 70mm capable. If I waited months to buy tickets there, I would not be mad at myself. In fact, I would be excited. That theater is amazing and it would be fun to see something as hotly anticipated as “Dune: Part Three” there. But this screening is getting me more excited by the minute. It feels electric just knowing that I am going to be in a room with a group of people who are likely just as committed to seeing this film as me.

To add even further excitement… Unless Disney decides to change their mind, “Avengers: Doomsday,” which could end up making $2 billion at the box office, even without IMAX screens, releases the exact same day as “Dune: Part Three,” thus inspiring the term “Dunesday.” If both Warner Brothers and Disney are committed to this event, it is possible that we could witness the biggest moviegoing weekend in history. Now that I have my ticket for “Dune: Part Three” it makes me wonder when exactly I should plan to buy a ticket for “Avengers: Doomsday.” Should I do a screening the same day hours before? Should I do it the day before? It would let me easily avoid spoilers. Should I watch that film closer to home? I still have not figured out how I am getting to New York, so we shall see what happens. Part of me thinks deep down that “Dunesday” could end up hurting both “Dune” and “Avengers.” But after seeing the response “Dune: Part Three” is getting months before release with these ticket sales and the first trailer, I think this less diverse edition of “Barbenheimer” could pay off for both parties.

“Dune” and “Dune: Part Two” are movies that have given me some fond memories upon watching them, so it is no surprise that I am looking forward to “Dune: Part Three,” no matter how I see it. That said, I am thrilled to experience the film the way the director intended. Judging from what has been shown so far and the track record of the previous installments, I would not be surprised if this ends up being a Best Picture nominee at the next Academy Awards. Until then, if anybody else already has their “Dune: Part Three” tickets, congratulations! Maybe I will see you at Lincoln Square. Much like Paul Atreides’ promise at the end of “Dune: Part Two,” I am sure that IMAX and Warner Brothers are going to lead me to paradise this December. I cannot wait.

Thanks for reading this post! As a reminder, be sure to check out my latest episode of Movie Requests! This is a brand new series where I take movie suggestions from celebrities and talk about them. The latest episode features “Clerks” actor Jason Mewes. Check it out, give it a like, and if you want to see more videos in the series, consider subscribing to my YouTube channel!

My next review is coming later this week, and it is going to be for “Ready or Not 2: Here I Come.” I love the first “Ready or Not” to death, so it should not be a surprise that I eagerly awaited the sequel. I will share my thoughts on it soon. 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 get tickets for “Dune: Part Three?” Where and when are you seeing it? And how much did you have to pay? Also, if you are a scalper, please find something better to do with your time. Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

The Bride! (2026): Buckley and Bale Do Their Best with This Unexciting Cinematic Enigma

Posted on by Jack Drees

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

“The Bride!” is written and directed by Maggie Gyllenhaal (The Dark Knight, White House Down) and stars Jessie Buckley (Hamnet, Women Talking), Christian Bale (Batman Begins, Thor: Love and Thunder), Peter Saarsgard (Shattered Glass, The Batman), Annette Bening (American Beauty, Nyad), Jake Gyllenhaal (Stronger, Spider-Man: Far from Home), and Penélope Cruz (Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides). This film is set in 1930s Chicago, at which point Frankenstein’s monster, or Frank, asks Dr. Euphronius to create a companion. Once the companion is brought to life, the film follows both creatures as they go on a wild journey together in which they become romantically involved.

“The Bride!” was on my radar ever since I saw the trailer back in October in the best possible way… On a giant IMAX screen. Any movie that is shot in the coveted 1.43:1 format, even if it is digital, has my attention. Of course, having looked at the many shots the trailer had to offer, the film definitely would dazzle in scope widescreen if I were to see it that way too. The film had a dirty, rugged, sometimes sexy feel to it that felt unlike anything I would not recall witnessing before. Sure, in terms of vibe, this film did remind me a bit of “Joker” and its severely insulting sequel, especially considering some of the crew members on those films also work on this one. Some of the names attached to this film include cinematographer Lawrence Sher and composer Hildur Guðnadóttir. But “The Bride!” appeared to have its slight differences from “Joker.” “The Bride!” seemed to lean more towards the horror route rather than a pure drama route, though “Joker” did manage to insert an eerie moment or two.

Speaking of the “Joker” movies, if you are aware of how I scored them, you would know I did so on opposite sides of the spectrum. The first was pretty positive, while the second was highly negative. “The Bride!” falls somewhere between these two projects. Frankly, this movie is kind of a hot mess. If I had to compare “The Bride!” to any other film experience in my life, the “Joker” movies are an easy target because they do have similar tones and concepts. The movie takes familiar characters and puts an odd spin on them. As much as I do not mind odd movies, this experience felt too odd at times. It was odd to the point where I did not really feel any emotion in certain scenes. Overall, Maggie Gyllenhaal puts something together that is pleasing to the eye, but at times, it strikes a vibe that feels like “Dollar Tree Tim Burton.” That is almost unfair to say because this movie was by no means cheap. Variety reports the budget is a hefty $90 million. While the film looks nice, it does not really feel nice. It reminded me of “Jupiter Ascending,” which is one of the most beautiful looking pieces of crap that someone has the audacity to call a film. One moment after another, the movie sounded like it was trying to welcome me into its environment, but as a viewer, I was consistently hesitating on the film’s invitations.

The film is not all bad. It has a decent cast, and its two leads do a fantastic job despite the average at best material given to them.

Jessie Buckley is on a roll lately. Right alongside Timothee Chalemet in “Marty Supreme,” I think she gave the best performance captured on film in 2025 through her lead outing in “Hamnet.” While her lead role in “The Bride” is not as compelling, Buckley nevertheless manages to bring a performance that makes me think I am getting a five-star meal despite slumming it in the middle of a Buffalo Wild Wings. Buckley is diabolical as the titular character. I almost cannot imagine anyone else in her shoes.

Alongside her is Christian Bale as Frankenstein’s monster. Technically his character is credited as Frankenstein, even though he is not the scientist… Anyway… The timing of this film is interesting, as it was made around the same time as Guillermo del Toro’s “Frankenstein,” which I thought was pretty good. Much like Jacob Elordi, who played the Creature in that movie, Bale is excellent here. Is he as strong as Elordi? Perhaps not. But I also feel that part of it is more the fault of the material given to Bale rather than his performance. Much like Buckley, Bale makes the most of what is given to him. This is not to say everything about his presence is bad. In fact, I really liked getting to see the two leads when they’re close as a couple. It brought out both of their wild sides and showed they have chemistry. That said, Bale’s performance did feel rather familiar. It almost reminded me of his portrayal of Gorr the God Butcher from “Thor: Love and Thunder.” It is a character who is mildly scary, odd-looking, but complicated beneath their wretched surface.

Technically speaking, this film is rather impressive. The cinematography is beautiful. The makeup work is stunning. The production design is off the charts. I bought into every location and set. When it comes to immersion, “The Bride!” really tries. Though I cannot say it always succeeds.

The color palette feels weirdly mute. Note my use of the word “weirdly.” I was convinced by the marketing that this film was going to be big and exciting. While it was definitely the former, I cannot say the same for the latter. The film looked oddly dry for something that simultaneously was trying to deliver something of utter extravagance. It is an enigma.

I am sure many people are familiar with the phrase “do not judge a book by its cover.” Bear with me as I go against this philosophy for a moment. If you look closely at the title for “The Bride!”, you would notice that it has an exclamation mark. “The Bride!” is not the first project to contain such a thing. You would notice this if you ever get a good look at the game show “Jeopardy!”, or the animated series “American Dad!”, or the movie “Airplane!”. In terms of punctuation, an exclamation mark is meant to signify an extreme. “Jeopardy!” is extremely fast-paced. “American Dad!” is extremely action-packed. “Airplane!” is extremely funny. Meanwhile, I find it difficult to come up with an extreme for “The Bride,” that is unless I were to resort to negatives. I could say the movie is extremely bland. I could say it is extremely wasted. On paper, “The Bride!” sounds like a project that should be a big ball of energy. But at times I am watching it and find myself surprised that I barely happen to be awake.

Chances are I am not going to remember much about “The Bride” by the end of the year. Part of it is because other than the visuals and the unique way of telling the story, there was nothing to write home about. Sure, the two leads are great, but never once did I feel captivated by anything the story had to offer. If I were presented the story in a pitch meeting, I think it would sell. If I saw the full picture, like what we got in this film, that is a different scenario. If anything, “The Bride!” does feel like a film that comes from a singular mind. I would have never have been able to come up with the vision that Maggie Gyllenhaal had intended. While I have one or two gripes about Warner Bros. Discovery since their merger three years ago, I will credit them for hiring filmmakers with unique visions, with Gyllenhaal being the latest example. I would love to see what other projects she has in mind, and sincerely hope they are better than what this one had to offer.

In the end, “The Bride!” is by no means the worst movie ever. In fact, part of me is glad I saw it because it has some great acting and setpieces. But from one moment to the next, I thought there was something missing. There was barely a sense of a wow factor. It is really sad I did not like this more. I was genuinely looking forward to “The Bride!”. I do not think Gyllenhaal should give up on her work behind the camera. I can see her knocking another project out of the park, but she struck out on this one. I am going to give “The Bride!” a 4/10.

“The Bride!” is now playing in theaters. Tickets are available now.

Thanks for reading this review! My next review is going to be for “Hoppers.” Stay tuned! Also coming soon, I will be sharing my thoughts on “Project Hail Mary” and “Ready or Not 2: Here I Come.”

Also, feel free to check out the new promo for the second episode of Movie Requests! The next guest on my list is actor Jason Mewes, who requested a movie he has watched in the past with his collaborator Kevin Smith. Make your guesses! The movie will be revealed this Saturday, March 28th! If you want to see me review whatever movie Jason Mewes asked me to talk about, subscribe to my YouTube channel and hit the notification bell that way you know exactly when the video drops! If you want to see more from Scene Before, follow the blog either with an email or WordPress account! Also, check out the official Facebook page! I want to know, did you see “The Bride!”? What did you think about it? Or, what is the most disappointing movie you have seen recently? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

Train Dreams (2025): One of 2025’s Most Atmospheric Films

Posted on by Jack Drees

Just a note before we begin this post…

For those who missed it, I finally announced the guests that are going to be featured in my upcoming video-based film review series, Movie Requests. In honor of Scene Before’s tenth anniversary, I asked ten people if they wanted to be in a ten second or so video where they request a movie for me to review. The ten guests you see here agreed and gave me their unique suggestions.

The guests are…

  • Rosario Dawson
  • Sandi Harding
  • Chris Hardwick
  • Bryce Dallas Howard
  • Jason Mewes
  • Joel David Moore
  • Brian O’Halloran
  • Michael Rooker
  • Katee Sackhoff
  • Amy Sedaris

I want to thank each and every one of these guests for participating in this series, it means the world. I cannot to watch all of your movies. I am also pleased to announce that this series starts Saturday February 28th and will feature Bryce Dallas Howard, as well as a review of the movie she requested! The video will be shared here on Flicknerd.com, but if you would like to see it as soon as it comes out, then please subscribe to my YouTube channel! I also recently put out a trailer for the series. If you would like to check it out, click the link here and give it a watch. I hope you are looking forward to the series, and now onto your regularly scheduled programming!

© 2025 Netflix, Inc.

“Train Dreams” is directed by Clint Bentley (Jockey, Sing Sing) and stars Joel Edgerton (The Gift, The Great Gatsby), Felicity Jones (Rogue One: A Star Wars Story, The Brutalist), Nathaniel Arcand (FBI: Most Wanted, The Birds Who Fear Death), Clifton Collins Jr. (Jockey, Triple 9), John Diehl (The Shield, Miami Vice), Paul Schneider (George Washington, The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford), Kerry Condon (The Banshees of Inisherin, Night Swim), and William H. Macy (Everyone’s Hero, Fargo). Based on Denis Johnson’s novella of the same name, this film is about Robert Grainier, a logger and railroad worker. Throughout the film we get to see the journey of his life, as well as his perspective of the world as it changes around him throughout the early 20th century.

This review is coming to you about a month before the 98th Academy Awards, which, per usual, will recognize 10 Best Picture nominees. Each and every year, I try to catch all the nominees before the show. My degree of success for such a task tends to vary from one year to the next. As soon as this year’s nominations dropped, “Train Dreams” was the one Best Picture nominee I needed to see. Flash forward to a little more than a week later, I am sitting in a theater to check out the film, presented on a 35mm print. I could have checked this movie out in 2025, but “Train Dreams,” for whatever reason, was never on my radar. If I had to guess a reason, it is partially because Netflix is not that good at marketing their content, unless said content is called “Stranger Things” or “Squid Game.” While I do not recall seeing any trailers or ads for the film, “Train Dreams” is one of those movies whose word of mouth from audiences would find its way into my social media feeds, all of which seemed to be positive. Plus, when it comes to streaming services, Netflix is not usually my goto, so there is that.

That said, “Train Dreams” is quite good. There is a lot to like about this movie. First off, the cast is amazing. Everyone is well placed in their role and plays their part well. Unfortunately, I do not think anyone from “Train Dreams” is going to win an Oscar following their performance. Although everyone here deserves their flowers. Joel Edgerton and Felicity Jones in particular are standouts. Not just because they have arguably the most name recognition of everyone in the cast, but because they feel at home in their respective roles. As a couple, the two have great chemistry and I really enjoyed any scene where the two happened to be together. For the record, before seeing this movie, I did not look up a whole ton about it. If I did see the cast, I barely skimmed it. I have seen Joel Edgerton in other movies like “Red Sparrow,” and having seen him in projects like that, I felt a sense of shock based on my experience of watching “Train Dreams.” I could not believe this whole time I was watching him. One of the grandest compliments I can give an actor is to say that their performance is a transformation. I did not see Edgerton in Robert Grainier’s shoes. I just saw Robert Grainier.

Another thing I love about this movie is the general progression of the story. At times, this is not so much a movie as much as it feels like an extended journal. For whatever reason, it almost comes off like a documentary rather than a feature narrative with actors. It dives into several chapters of one’s life, with each chapter delivering something interesting in its own way. If anything, this film made me think about the beauty of life, and the magic of seeing the world change right before your eyes. Whether that change is good or bad is another conversation for another time. But this film takes me back to when I was 9, 10, 11, 12 years old and I would think about my future. I am pretty sure many kids within the last 50, 60 years have asked themselves when things like flying cars would exist. At times, seeing Grainier working in railroad construction had a vibe that basically screamed something along the lines of “the future is now,” even if this movie was set many years ago.

I have been a student of film going back to my teen years. In high school, one of the classes I had been blessed with taking for four years straight was TV production. One of the first things the teacher taught us in that class is about the rule of thirds. This is a traditional method used for framing subjects. A good example is when you see two people having a face-to-face conversation. In cases like these, you often see the main person in a shot on one side of the frame, with their head often nearing the top depending on how close the angle is. When the other person is on screen, this is also the case, but mirrored. This film manages to break that rule on a frequent basis. Several shots are set to the point where the subject is on the lower portion of the frame, allowing for images that focus more on the film’s natural beauty towards the top. Could this film have been done as well with a greater use of the more traditional rule of thirds? Perhaps. That said, I have no problem with the way this movie is shot. Every frame looks gorgeous and the way the shots are pulled off allows me to focus more on each scene’s environment. It kind of reminded me of seeing a movie shot on IMAX film like “Sinners,” which has a series of eye-popping shots that reveal more of the movie’s neat locations and sets.

In fact, the film’s aspect ratio also falls into the rulebreak territory. The film is presented in 1.5:1, which is not quite widescreen, but it is also wider than the old school 4:3. Perhaps that is why the film reminded me of a true IMAX experience, because it is formatted fairly close to the ratio for IMAX film, which is 1.43:1.

“Train Dreams” does not exactly fall within the stereotype of what I consider to be a “Netflix movie.” This is not to say that Netflix cannot churn out an artsy title like “Roma,” but “Train Dreams” feels much less manufactured and reliant on star power than say “Red Notice,” which I do not understand why it is still popular today. Though I did recognize Felicity Jones as soon as she appeared. Also, the film has narration, which one could argue may serve as an aid to second screen viewers, or to the people who use the movie as background noise. That said, if I were a Netflix executive, and I were to think about this movie as a product of its streaming service, I would say one of the main reasons people would wind up watching the movie is due to its sense of atmosphere. It is a film in every other frame, sucks you in to the point where you end up being part of its world. The film, despite being eventful and sometimes packing a punch with its sound mix, feels like it is on the quieter side. It is a film that if it were late at night, that I could see myself putting on to help me fall asleep. I am not saying this in the sense that the movie is boring, but rather that it is soothing. I never use anything like the Calm app to put me to sleep at night, but “Train Dreams” sounds like a nice alternative as a sleeping aid. Heck, it literally has “Dreams” in the title! I guess you actually can judge a book by its cover!

In the end, “Train Dreams” is a superb movie. I have very few, if any complaints about it. There may be a scene or two that did not connect with me as much as certain others. Maybe some of the supporting characters are forgettable. Perhaps I would be able to appreciate those things more during a rewatch. Then again, this movie reminded me of life itself, and I admit, there are likely people in my life who may have stood out 10, 15 years ago whose names I would not be able to tell you now. The film, just like life itself, moves fast. There is not a moment in the movie’s runtime that feels like filler. The film is beautifully shot, terrifically acted, and Clint Bentley brought a killer vision to life. Not only did he do a good job directing the film, but he did just as good of a job writing it. I should not be surprised, as this is his latest screenplay collaboration with Greg Kwedar. Prior to this film, both of them penned the brilliant and emotional “Sing Sing.” While I am not sure that “Train Dreams” is going to have as big of an impact on me as “Sing Sing” did, I think this is yet another exciting addition to both writers’ resumes. If you have Netflix, or if this is playing somewhere near you, go check out “Train Dreams.” I recommend it. I am going to give the movie an 8/10.

“Train Dreams” is now playing in theaters and is available on Netflix for all subscribers.

Thanks for reading this review! My next reviews are going to be for “Arco” and “Solo Mio.” Stay tuned! Also, I want to thank everyone who read the 8th Annual Jack Awards, and I want especially thank those who read all 11-thousand words of it. You guys have earned yourself a much deserved pat on the back. Thanks for your support and I am honored to continue one of Scene Before’s traditions! If you want to see my upcoming 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 “Train Dreams?” What did you think about it? Or, here is a two part question… What movie do you think will take Best Picture at the Oscars this year? And… What movie do you want to see win Best Picture at the Oscars this year? Personally, I think “One Battle After Another” will take the win. It has a great lead performance, excellent technical aspects, an amazing supporting cast, and it is in some ways a relatable concept. That said, if I had to pick a favorite amongst the nominees, I would say that “Sinners” might be the one. The film has gotten a decent amount of replay value from me since I first saw it in April. Leave your comments down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!