Fantasy

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

Posted on by Jack Drees

© Universal Pictures

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

© Universal Studios. All Rights Reserved.

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

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

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

© Universal Studios. All Rights Reserved.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks for reading this review! My next review is going to be for “Sentimental Value!” Stay tuned! Also coming soon, I will be sharing my thoughts on “Zootopia 2,” “Wake Up Dead Man: A Knives Out Mystery,” “Jay Kelly,” and “Bugonia.” If you want to see these reviews and more from Scene Before, follow the blog either with an email or WordPress account! Also, check out the official Facebook page! I want to know, did you see “Wicked: For Good?” What did you think about it? Or, which of the two “Wicked” movies is superior? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

Eternity (2025): Romance Isn’t Dead in This Clever Take on the Afterlife

Posted on by Jack Drees

“Eternity” is directed by David Freyne (Dating Amber, The Cured) and stars Miles Teller (Whiplash, Top Gun: Maverick), Elizabeth Olsen (Avengers: Age of Ultron, Godzilla), Callum Turner (Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald, The Boys in the Boat), John Early (Search Party, At Home with Amy Sedaris), Olga Merediz (Blockbuster, Orange is the New Black), and Da’Vine Joy Randolph (The Holdovers, People of Earth). This film is set in an afterlife where people are presented with endless realms called eternities, one of which they can choose to remain for as long as they are dead. The story revolves around a love triangle in which a woman named Joan is forced to choose between spending the rest of her afterlife with her first love who died at war, or the man with whom she built the rest of her life.

Prior to watching “Eternity,” I have not seen a single trailer for the film. Anytime I go into a film without having seen a trailer, part of me gets a pep in my step, as blindness can often lead to a great surprise. I ended up checking out “Eternity” about a week before its release. The film had a press screening in Boston, a city from which I live 20 minutes north. I thought I would take advantage since I had a free Thursday night.

I am pleased to say that “Eternity” is quite good. It is not my favorite film of the year, and there are some notable problems I will bring up during the review. But it is a film that keeps a good pace, contains a likable cast, develops its characters nicely, and offers a fun take on what may happen after people die.

“Eternity” is not the first story I have seen brought to the screen that focuses on the afterlife. The film does tend to remind me a bit of other takes on it I have seen. This film reminds me of is the NBC series “The Good Place.” While I have not seen the whole series, the production design feels very similar with lots of bright colors filling the frame. As for both properties’ takes on the afterlife, that is where some of the differences start to come in. For instance, “Eternity” gives people some options on how exactly they spend their afterlife. There is a whole area of tents set up advertising all sorts of places where people can go spend the rest of their afterlives, and the possibilities feel nearly infinite. “Eternity” also establishes that there is not exactly a “Hell” or some equivalent to it where people wind up when they die. Everyone gets a chance to pick their eternity, and if they try to leave, they get chased down and sent to this film’s closest concept to Hell, which is a black void. More on that later… Also, one thing to note about these distinctions… It should not come as a surprise that there is no Hell because some of the eternities are based on seemingly unattainable desires, or bad habits. There is even an eternity dedicated solely to cigarette smoking!

A24 is a distributor whose movies always tends to get a reaction out of me, and “Eternity” is no exception. As I watching “Eternity,” a thought popped in my head that I do not tend to experience that often. Of all the A24 movies I have seen, “Eternity” may have the most franchise potential. Sure, A24 has the “X” trilogy and “The Souvenir” has two parts, but there is some really good world building and lore establishment in this film to the point where if another story in its universe were announced, I would be onboard. This film ends in a way where its main trio might not have much more of a story to tell, but I would not mind seeing another installment featuring new characters. This movie focuses on a love triangle, but it would be interesting to see what it is like for someone who never found love to have a chance to do so once they enter the afterlife. This could even spin off into a TV show. Maybe each new episode could feature the staff dealing with new people who are dying each day. They could probably make a whole season about someone who died if they wanted to go in that direction.

This film does not have a major antagonist. The biggest problem our characters face throughout the movie is that Joan is forced to choose between two men she’s loved at certain points of her life. That is the everlasting dilemma affecting our main trio. Although as mentioned earlier in the review, if someone leaves their eternity, they have to go on the run and avoid getting placed in a black void. Frankly, I think this movie would be better off if it did not have this consequence. It basically shames people for making the wrong choice even if they had the best of intentions while making it. For those who read my review for “Bone Lake,” sorry if this comment sounds familiar, but it works here too. The consequence sounds like something brought up during an episode of YouTube’s “Pitch Meeting” series, where the Executive Guy asks why a particular concept is a thing, to which the Screenwriter Guy responds “So the movie can happen!”

That said, “Eternity” is still pretty funny. In fact, this whole movie feels like an extended “Simpsons” episode. I cannot tell you every single joke or sight gag in this film, but for the most part, the movie seems to be running at a mile a minute. If you like that kind of humor, I think you will dig “Eternity.” This movie might be worth watching a second time to see if there are any jokes I missed.

Overall, this film is quite creative. There is a whole world built around what happens when people die. It gives its characters a week to choose where they would like to spend the rest of their time. I like how the film establishes there being a whole staff that has to acquaint dead people to their new environment. That said, when it comes to being a romcom, that is where things become a little more familiar. When it comes to the breakdown of how Joan navigates her dilemma, I could see certain key points of her journey coming from a mile away. That said, never once did I get the sense that any point in her journey was broken, and I do think said journey was slightly enhanced by both men being in her actual life. She had someone she was getting to know, but lost too soon. Then she had another man with whom she spent more than sixty years. It is a compelling dilemma and makes for a great story. All three of the main characters are layered and give all the exposition the audience needs to know for the rest of the movie to play out exquisitely.

In the end, “Eternity” is not only funny, but it made me think. I am 26 years old and I have never had a partner. If anything, this film made me not only think about what happens after I die, but it makes me wonder what is going to happen throughout the rest of my life. If the afterlife somehow ends up being similar to what this film presents, it makes me think much harder about any crucial life decisions I am going to make. Also, one last note, this film proves that Da’Vine Joy Randolph is a comedic force. I would love to see her as the lead in a comedy one day. I loved her in “The Holdovers.” She is also fantastic in “Eternity.” She is incredible at what she does. I am going to give “Eternity” a 7/10.

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

© Universal Studios. All Rights Reserved.

Thanks for reading this review! My next review is going to be for “Wicked: For Good!” Stay tuned! Also coming soon, I will be sharing my thoughts on “Sentimental Value,” “Zootopia 2,” and “Wake Up Dead Man: A Knives Out Mystery.” If you want to see these reviews and more from Scene Before, follow the blog either with an email or WordPress account! Also, check out the official Facebook page! I want to know, did you see “Eternity?” What did you think about it? Or, if you could choose to spend the afterlife in one place, real or imaginary, where would it be and why? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

Good Fortune (2025): Comedy Gets its Wings

Posted on by Jack Drees

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Posted on by Jack Drees

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks for reading this review! My next review is going to be for “Good Fortune!” Stay tuned! Also coming soon, I will be sharing my thoughts on “The Running Man,” “Eternity,” “Wicked: For Good,” and “Sentimental Value.” If you want to see these reviews and more from Scene Before, follow the blog either with an email or WordPress account! Also, check out the official Facebook page! I want to know, did you see Guillermo del Toro’s “Frankenstein?” What did you think about it? Or, what is your favorite “Frankenstein” story? It does not have to be a movie. It can be anything. Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

A Big Bold Beautiful Journey (2025): Colin Farrell and Margot Robbie Deal with the World’s Strangest GPS

Posted on by Jack Drees

© Sony Pictures

“A Big Bold Beautiful Journey” is directed by Kogonada (Pachinko, After Yang) and stars Margot Robbie (The Wolf of Wall Street, Suicide Squad), Colin Farrell (The Banshees of Inisherin, Total Recall), Kevin Kline (Cyrano de Bergerac, Bob’s Burgers), and Phoebe Waller-Bridge (Fleabag, Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade). This film is about two people who meet at a wedding and eventually go on a journey that leads both of them to revisiting their pasts.

The trailers for “A Big Bold Beautiful Journey” did very little to excite me. I had the feeling the flick was going to either be too corny, overly sappy, or uneventful. In some ways, the final product falls in line with those expectations, but not exactly in the way that I thought they would. I am here to tell you that this movie is much better than I could have imagined, even if it is not perfect.

“A Big Bold Beautiful Journey” is not my kind of movie. When it comes to the many genres moviegoing has to offer, romantic dramas, in fact, even romantic comedies, are typically at the bottom of the list for me. I have nothing against the concept of romance, but as stereotypical of a guy thing as it is to say, I like my action. If I were not as open-minded about movies, chances are I would probably buy a ticket to “A Big Bold Beautiful Journey” solely to impress a date. That said, I do not live in that reality, and I took my single behind and put it in a Dolby Cinema chair. Because who needs a date when you have shaking recliners?

© Sony Pictures

Few things are as pleasing as a tremendous surprise, and “A Big Bold Beautiful Journey” was in fact, a surprise. This film immersed me from the very beginning and refused to let me leave. They say not to judge a book by its cover, but this film proves that it is not about the destination, it is, in fact, about the big bold beautiful journey.

The film finds itself in this peculiarly fulfilling middle ground where it does not quite feel real, but there is a certain level of belief that I am willing to suspend in what is ultimately a grounded world. Yes, much of the film features a self-aware GPS that takes its characters to places that make them think about their lives. But the film is ultimately about the human condition. The experiences that shape us. The places that make us. The people that define us. It is about the unpredictable mess that is life. Judging by everything I am telling you, it sounds like I am hyping this up to be the movie of the year. That would be a bit of an overexaggeration, but I do appreciate how much the movie made me think.

© Sony Pictures

I buy both of the leads in their respective roles. You have Colin Farrell as David… A reserved, hopeless romantic, trying to make it from one day to the next. Then there is Margot Robbie as Sarah, who has a bit more experience when it comes to the dating scene. Together you have a star-studded pair in a film that sounds too crazy to work, but somehow it does.

I am not going to pretend that everything works. One can make the argument that the film is too convenient. It is a film that relies heavily on something happening at the right place at the right time, or at the wrong place at the wrong time. I mentioned I am able to suspend my disbelief to a certain degree, but I think that is something I think not every viewer is going to do. The movie often feels fantastical and I see how select viewers would find that to be a turnoff. In fact, one thing that turned me off at times were the moments we spend at a rental car facility. That’s when we see a cashier and a mechanic played by Phoebe Waller-Bridge and Kevin Kline, who are honestly not as whimsical and charming as this movie wants me to think they are. Also, this film maybe has one of the most obvious product placements of any film I’ve seen in 2025, with its inclusion of Burger King.

Yes, I know “War of the Worlds” is a big Amazon commercial, but would you really call that a movie?

The restaurant ends up playing a somewhat substantial role in the plot as both lead characters go there, bond, share what they have in common, and once the leads are done there, that’s where the real fun begins for them. Nothing ignites romance like Whoppers!

Years ago, I reviewed a movie, if you want to call it that, by the name of “Superintelligence,” and this film reminds me of that one, as the protagonist’s journey is heavily guided by a computer, but there is a key point that this film gets right that “Superintelligence” does not. As I watched the film’s protagonist, David, I got the sense that he was often hesitant or second-guessing himself at each point of his journey. Despite some of his actions being determined by a computer, it often feels like he is presented with constantly engaging dilemmas. Should he go where the computer is taking him or should he go elsewhere? Should he perhaps go home?… As I watched the film, I wanted to know how these dilemmas were resolved.

You may be under the impression that the film’s biggest selling point would be one of it’s stars, like Colin Farrell. He is a great actor, but no. You might think it is Margot Robbie. Despite being a straight white male, she did not sell me either. Instead, what got me in the door was this film’s composer, Joe Hisaishi.

Some of you might be wondering who the heck I am talking about. And I would understand that reaction because this is Hisaishi’s first Hollywood feature he’s ever composed. That said, if you have watched Japanese film, or every film from anime director Hayao Miyazaki, you have heard his music, and each piece is often as inviting as his last. His compositions in this film are not exactly the most booming or epic pieces, nor do they need to be. Just about each one comes with a cozy vibe. Hisaishi delivers the goods here with several soothing tunes.

One last note, the GPS in this film is voiced by Jodie Turner-Smith. The role does not require a lot of pizazz or physical work. It is ultimately just a voiceover, but Turner-Smith gives it her all. The two most prominent characters are those of David and Sarah, but if this film had one character just below them in terms of importance, it would probably be the GPS, and Jodie Turner-Smith does her best to allow the character to ooze personality. It puts the film in the right direction.

…

I said, it puts the film in the right dire–(some dude tackles me to the ground and slaps me in the face)

© Sony Pictures

In the end, “A Big Bold Beautiful Journey” is surprisingly solid. Margot Robbie and Colin Farrell have enough star power to keep an entire solar system running by themselves, but together, they have solid chemistry. I buy these two as they revisit various points of their lives. I thought they were cute together. Is this a film I plan to watch again anytime soon? Not immediately, but this is not a bad flick by any means. It is also a decent pick for a date movie. I am going to give “A Big Bold Beautiful Journey” a 7/10.

“A Big Bold Beautiful Journey” is available to rent or buy on VOD.

Photo by Universal Pictures – © 2025 Universal Studios

Thanks for reading this review! My next review is going to be for “Him!” Stay tuned! Also coming soon, look forward to my thoughts on “Eleanor the Great,” “The Lost Bus,” “One Battle After Another,” “If I Had Legs I’d Kick You,” “Tron: Ares,” and “Bone Lake.” If you want to see these reviews and more from Scene Before, follow the blog either with an email or WordPress account! Also, check out the official Facebook page! I want to know, did you see “A Big Bold Beautiful Journey?” What did you think about it? Or, what two actors would you like to see play a couple on screen together? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

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

Posted on by Jack Drees

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Elio (2025): One of Pixar’s Zaniest, Poppiest Films Yet

Posted on by Jack Drees

Photo by Pixar/PIXAR – © 2025 Disney/Pixar. All Rights Reserved.

“Elio” is directed by Madeline Sharafian (We Bare Bears, Burrow), Domee Shi (Turning Red, Bao), and Adrian Molina (Coco, Monsters University). This film stars Yonas Kibreab (Sweet Tooth, Obi-Wan Kenobi), Zoe Saldaña (Guardians of the Galaxy, Avatar), Remy Edgerly (Pretzel and the Puppies, T.O.T.S.), Brandon Moon, Brad Garrett (Everybody Loves Raymond, Ratatouille), and Jameela Jamil (The Good Place, She-Hulk). This film is about a young boy who gets abducted by aliens and must survive against a warlord while befriending and helping those he meets along the way.

Photo by Pixar/PIXAR – © 2025 Disney/Pixar. All Rights Reserved.

I have a love/hate relationship with the Disney brand. They own a lot of properties I enjoy and are responsible for some killer titles. Not a day goes by where I do not think about “The Lion King.” But I will also call them out for their greedy business practices as well as their lack of originality in recent years. However, one part of Disney that has failed to let me down for the most part is Pixar. The studio has a strong blend of exceptional originals and solid sequels. While their more recent fare has not been as great as “Toy Story” or as satisfying as “Ratatouille” or as incredible as… Well, “The Incredibles,” Pixar still has a special place in my heart and I will continue to support them. To this day, the only film of theirs I disliked is “Elemental.” That said, everyone makes mistakes.

Even with my love for Pixar, I was nervous going into “Elio.” The biggest culprit for me is that the marketing has been middle of the road at best. I have most certainly been exposed to the campaign considering it has been going on for multiple years. But none of the trailers have wowed me. At the same time, this is not the first instance for me where a Pixar film’s marketing campaign underwhelmed me. Even films I enjoyed like “Inside Out” or “Finding Dory” had trailers that made their respective films look average at best. Maybe “Elio” would end up like them and pull off a pleasant surprise. Thankfully, it did.

“Elio” is one of Pixar’s weaker films. But as I continue to say, bad Pixar is still better than a lot of movies. And there are some fantastic elements that make “Elio” worth watching, especially in a movie theater. I had the privilege of checking out “Elio” in one of AMC’s Dolby Cinema auditoriums, which allowed the film’s technical strengths to stand out. Rob Simonsen’s score is bonkers and is packed with the spirit of adventure. The color palette, particularly when the film spends time in space, is awe-inspiring. There is a pod sequence towards the climax that had me on the edge of my seat at times. Like some of Pixar’s other films, the sound design is larger than life and incredibly immersive. I did not see the film in 3D. And as someone who wears glasses, I try to avoid 3D in most cases, but I do think “Elio” is a film that could justify a 3D upcharge. It looks beautiful, poppy, and dynamic.

But of course, some would argue that characters are more important of an aspect when it comes to judging a film. When it comes to judging Elio as a character, he is kind of an enigma. 

Photo by Pixar/PIXAR – © 2024 Disney/Pixar. All Rights Reserved.

For the record, I like Elio as a character. But I wonder what kind of impression he would leave on younger viewers. Elio is kind of a weirdo, a bit of an outcast. There is nothing wrong with that per se. If anything, he reminds me of myself when I was an adolescent. He is hyper-obsessed with space to the point where he literally wants to be abducted by aliens. That said, there are some moments where Elio’s uniqueness is so out there that it makes me wonder if a parent could ultimately regret introducing their child to this film at a certain point of their life. Kids emulate what they see on screen. Literally as I finished this film and headed towards the restroom I heard a young boy shouting “Chicken jockey,” in reference to “A Minecraft Movie.” I get that the ideas of space travel and aliens are exciting, but I would be a smidge concerned if some children hope to be abducted after seeing this film.

The film never mentions it outright, but based on Elio’s mannerisms, I would not be surprised if he has autism. If that is the case, I like the film’s interpretation. One sign of this happens to be Elio’s unusual fascination for space, which yes, that could be considered normal. But his obsession in particular feels rather extreme. On top of that, he is also interested in ham radios. How many children in the 2020s can say they know what a ham radio is? The film does not outright mock this particular interest, even though it shines a bright light on said interest at times. In fact, the way the film ends up utilizing it is kind of clever.

Photo by Pixar/PIXAR – © 2025 Disney/Pixar. All Rights Reserved.

Going back to how Elio does not have many friends on Earth, it is partially because he is what his peers would deem to be “the weird kid.” Therefore it almost feels appropriate that he ends up befriending space aliens. If anything, the movie suggests to its audience that there is nothing wrong with being weird, and if anything, it should be embraced. In fact, if you think you are a bit weird yourself, there may be someone out there waiting to weird out alongside you.

I can also see this film serving as a positive influence in terms of helping young people follow their dreams. I could see it inspiring younger people to want to go to space or at the very least, pursue some kind of career having to with space or astronomy, perhaps even other branches of STEM.

I am not saying the character of Elio is a terrible influence. If anything he is simply imperfect. In fact, the movie does its best to show why people should avoid being too “normal,” which I thought was clever. The movie presents a case as to why Elio wants to be abducted, and in some ways it does make sense. He lost his parents, he does not have a ton of friends, and he has trouble communicating with or relating to others. While the concept itself is a bit out there, it is clever. And despite Elio being an iffy influence, his motivation is cleaner for a family-friendly feature than say turning to suicide or drugs or alcohol. Although I will say at one point Elio does try a drink in space that looks like something you’d get poolside at a galactic resort, plus it was handed to him by someone he barely knows. Whatever, sometimes you have to live a little.

The film also has a lesson that I think is great for both children as well as parents and guardians. The lesson specifically regards traditions, and how someone’s life is not written in the eyes of their guardian. One can argue that this feels familiar given how it was a lesson that was highlighted in “Elemental” a couple years back. But if you know my thoughts about that film, you might imagine I think this idea was executed better in “Elio.” If so, you would be correct.

I also thought the ending was a bit odd. The film itself ends on a satisfying note. But there is a soundbite that plays in the movie’s final minute that feels well-intentioned, but I honestly think it could have been left on the cutting room floor. I think the movie would have made a greater impact by ending with a lack of dialogue and simply letting the music, sound, and visuals do the talking. Also, Elio’s “ultimate choice” in the film so to speak feels a bit forced. One could argue it plays into his character development and the film’s overall lesson, but I do not buy him making that choice by the time the film ends based on everything we know about him.

One more standout about the film that I would be ticked with myself for missing, Brad Garrett as Lord Grigon. I think Brad Garrett can do no wrong no matter the role he takes. His one of a kind voice and charisma makes him a standout in whatever he does. The same can be said here, although unlike his previous work as the saintly Gusteau in “Ratatouille,” he is a bit of a psychopath who essentially wants to conquer other beings. I had so much fun watching Brad Garrett flex his muscles here. I am not the biggest fan of “insert celebrity here” playing voiceover roles to get people in the doors, but Garrett gives a performance that has me failing to imagine anyone else in his character’s shoes. Garrett has such an expressive presence and he gives it his all. While Lord Grigon may not be my favorite Pixar antagonist, he is well written, especially when it comes to scenes regarding him and his son. Honestly, the entire cast in this movie works. There is not a bad voice on the lineup. Though Brad Garrett to me is the standout.

In the end, “Elio” is far from the best Pixar movie, but if you were to check it out sometime this summer, I think you will end up having a blast. It is the classic Pixar formula. Make a film that both kids and adults can enjoy, and that is the case here. All the story elements are well-realized. The characters are likable, even if I wonder what kind of impact some of them will have on younger audiences. Keep in mind, the film is PG, not G. Make sure to guide your children! The animation, per usual, is breathtaking. The score is flipping fantastic and makes me want to go on an adventure. Also, having seen this in Dolby, I think parts of the film can be incorporated into a fun ride at Disney World or something. The film is a lot of fun. It is not quite the galactic masterpiece that “Wall-E” turned out to be, but it is a great ride. I am going to give “Elio” a 7/10.

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

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

Thanks for reading this review! My next review is going to be for the brand new blockbuster “Jurassic World: Rebirth.” Stay tuned! Also, look forward to my reviews for “M3GAN 2.0” and “F1: The Movie.” 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 “Elio?” What did you think about it? Or, what is your favorite Pixar movie? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

The Life of Chuck (2024): The Best Fictional Narrative of 2025 Thus Far

Posted on by Jack Drees

“The Life of Chuck” is directed by Mike Flanagan (Doctor Sleep, Ouija: Origin of Evil) and stars Tom Hiddleston (Loki, Kong: Skull Island), Chiwetel Ejiofor (The Lion King, Doctor Strange), Karen Gillan (Guardians of the Galaxy, Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle), Mia Sara (Ferris Bueller’s Day Off, Timecop), Carl Lumbly (M.A.N.T.I.S., Supergirl), Benjamin Pajak (Where It’s Beautiful When it Rhymes, Camp Haedus), Jacob Tremblay (Room, Wonder) and Mark Hamill (Star Wars, The Wild Robot). This film mostly follows its titular character as he navigates multiple chapters of his life.

“The Life of Chuck” is the third film directed by Mike Flanagan based on a Stephen King work. I have not seen his other films, “Doctor Sleep” and “Gerald’s Game,” so I cannot compare this film to those. In fact, as marveled as I was by this film’s awe-inspiring trailer, I ultimately bought a ticket after hearing the many positive reviews this film received from critics and moviegoers alike. Plus I needed a better use of my time than whatever the heck “The Phoenician Scheme” was.

For those keeping track, “Secret Mall Apartment” is my favorite movie of the year so far. For those who have not heard of the film, it is a documentary. However, if I were to name a favorite fictional movie of the year so far, “The Life of Chuck” might be it. This movie has everything in it. Joy. Sadness. Spooks. Nostalgia. Slices of life. You name it. “The Life of Chuck” broke my heart and put it back together. I have not read the short story this film is based on, but I was riveted by what Mike Flanagan and crew have done with their work.

This is a film that in one moment, will shatter you to pieces, and in another, make you want to chase your dreams. Part of this has to do with the film’s structure. Like many stories, the film starts at a bit of a low point. But if you watch a lot of, say, stories structured through the hero’s journey model, you may see people who have nowhere to go but up. The protagonist grows with time. They become someone bigger. This film is the opposite. “The Life of Chuck” essentially starts with the “end times” and goes backwards. The execution of this idea is a stroke of genius. It is almost the film’s way of suggesting that life sucks as you get older. The film starts on a downer note and with each act, each scene, each concept, it delves into something more dream-like. The film still has downer moments in later scenes, but the film starts with what some may call the lowest low and while not everything that happens prior is perfect, it definitely brings more joy than what the film presents at the beginning.

“The Life of Chuck” made me wonder what it could be like to live life backwards. Maybe not in a sense where I, for example, read or write this review in reverse, but I mean this in the sense that we take chunks of our life from day to day and live those out starting later in life. Maybe you start off retired, then have kids, get married, graduate from college, and so on going back to getting that one gift you always wanted as a child. I will be frank, I feel my life has only gotten better as I aged, but I do not know how many people can say the same. People, understandably, as they age, want to be young again. This movie presents a series of moments that make life worth living, but arguably the ones that hit me the hardest are those we see towards the film’s conclusion, when we see our character at their youngest. It reminded me of a certain time in my life and what it felt like to be in that position.

This film made me think and ask tons of questions. I was not expecting to go full “Barbie” and think about dying. I will not go into detail as to why that is. But if you have seen the movie, you will understand what I am getting at here. Judging by what I said, some would argue that “The Life of Chuck” is not the easiest watch. That sentiment has some validity to it, but at the same time, I would still recommend the movie to a lot of people because the heavier material is perfectly balanced with doses of optimism.

That said, the film is not perfect. As much as I praise this film for starting things the way it did, the first act could arguably be trimmed a bit and have little to no effect on the plot. Do not get me wrong, I like the first act. In fact, watching the first act evoked a similar vibe to one of my favorite movies, “Interstellar.” Much like that film, the first act is set on a nearly dead planet earth. The internet is down, TV is down, cars are blocking the streets… The score from John Grush and Taylor Stewart also effectively sets the mood for each scene. The first act does a good job at world building, but it builds something that we barely see and hardly matters to a certain degree. There are a few things that matter in the first act that stand out, but there is plenty of fluff that I thought could be cut. The first act is never bad. I enjoyed what was in front of me. It was just a little long.

One thing that surprisingly worked for me in this film was the narration. When I first heard the narrator’s voice, I was a little hesitant as to how it would benefit the story, but I quickly warmed up to him by act two. He had some good material to work with. By the way, the film is narrated by Nick Offerman, which despite my lack of experience of watching “Parks and Recreation,” even I know he has an objectively soothing voice.

Kind of like “Friendship,” I would be curious to know how “The Life of Chuck” ages for me. I saw this film as a 25 year old and it has gotten me to think about the choices I made while growing up. It also made me reflect on tales and life lessons I learned during that time and it has me wondering how I will evolve. The film seems to tap into the idea of maintaining one’s child-like spirit as they age. As we grow up, the whole world is ahead of us. And while there are many beauties to life that lie ahead, there is a possibility that if we are not careful or go down a certain path, we lose our sense of wonder, our passion for life. There are certain things in life that if we found out about it years in advance, would shake us to the core. Some things are sometimes best kept as a secret. But it is no secret that “The Life of Chuck” left me gobsmacked.

In the end, “The Life of Chuck” is cinema. This is a movie I would honestly recommend to almost anyone. It is not always the happiest film. But it utilizes every emotion in the book to perfection. You will laugh. You will cry. And despite what I just said earlier, I guarantee you will smile too. This is a story that starts off great and maintains my interest throughout. It is one of the best films of 2025. I am going to give “The Life of Chuck” a 9/10.

“The Life of Chuck” is now playing in theaters. Tickets are available now.

Thanks for reading this review! My next review is going to be for the Celine Song’s newest film, “Materialists.” Stay tuned! Also coming soon, I will share my thoughts on “Elio,” “Jurassic World: Rebirth,” and “M3GAN 2.0.” 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 Life of Chuck?” What did you think about it? Or, did you read the short story that inspired this film? Let me know your thoughts on it down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

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

Posted on by Jack Drees

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Photo by Marvel Studios/MARVEL STUDIOS – © MARVEL 2025

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mickey 17 (2025): More Robert Pattinsons Means More Fun in Bong Joon Ho’s Latest Movie

Posted on by Jack Drees

“Mickey 17” is directed by Bong Joon Ho (Parasite, Okja) and stars Robert Pattinson (The Batman, Tenet), Naomi Ackie (Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker, Master of None), Steven Yeun (The Walking Dead, Minari), Toni Collette (Knives Out, Hereditary), and Mark Ruffalo (The Avengers, Dark Waters). This film is set during a group’s mission to colonize a planet and mainly follows the journey of a disposable employee who we see living his 17th life.

I have waited desperately for the day I could watch “Mickey 17.” As a science fiction fanatic, this film looked like my jam. It had a clever concept, intriguing cast, and it was helmed by Bong Joon Ho, whose previous film became the Academy’s first Best Picture recipient not made specifically in the United States. I have a feeling that if this film were in the hands of, say a first time director, it might still sell me, but Bong Joon Ho’s involvement basically put me over the edge.

Is “Mickey 17” likely going to follow in the footsteps of “Parasite” and win Best Picture next year? It is still too early to say, but I would assume that to be a “no.” Although if the Academy Awards were tomorrow, I could see the film at least being nominated. That said, it is not for everyone. The film has heavy commentary, but also happens to cross a line to where it can be silly. If Bong Joon Ho did not direct this movie, I would have been convinced that this was a Taika Waititi film in the style of “Jojo Rabbit,” which seamlessly blends comedy and drama despite the movie sometimes falling into an extreme on one side or the other.

The movie has Robert Pattinson playing a character who we get to see repeatedly die, sometimes in brutal ways. That is something to put on the more comedic side of the spectrum. Yet on the dramatic side, the movie uses this disposable character as a foundation for highlighting the human condition.

Going back to comedy, this movie also has Mark Ruffalo and Toni Collette playing a couple who tend to be more concerned with blood spilling on their carpet as opposed to having someone die on said carpet. At the same time, on the dramatic end, the narrative also shows how people with prominence or power can affect the way people think.

There are multiple adjectives I could use to describe “Mickey 17.” Fun, brisk, grand, ambitious… I was not expecting “horny” to be one of those adjectives. At times, the vibe of this film reminded me of the 2021 flick “Voyagers,” which like this film, is mainly set in a spaceship with a decent amount of characters. The films have their differences, one of them being that “Mickey 17” is much more watchable. Although one similarity the two movies have is that they feature characters or storylines that have something to do with sexuality and urges. The movie features a sizzling connection between Robert Pattinson’s Mickey variants and a security agent named Nasha (Ackie) for example. This movie is about a group’s journey to colonize a new planet, and the individual at the forefront of this mission is politician Kenneth Marshall (Ruffalo) who early on, gives this dramatic speech to an audience encouraging them to “spread their seed” upon their arrival.

This is Bong Joon Ho’s first feature film following the Oscar Best Picture winner “Parasite.” While the film itself is not on the same level as “Parasite,” there are some scenes from “Mickey 17” that made me shake in the same way I did watching the former. “Mickey 17” has a halfway decent amount of unpredictability, but nothing as out of left field as “Parasite.” The structure of the film feels familiar, but it is done in a way where certain moments feel fresh or one of a kind. Much like “Parasite,” “Mickey 17” does a good job at handling commentary. Sometimes it is a little on the nose, but it is still decently delivered. For example, there is a scene early on where we notice a massive sea of supporters for Kenneth Marshall, a politician this movie clearly paints as the antagonist, and a fair amount of those supporters are wearing red hats. Sound familiar? If not, then maybe this movie will have to try harder and make commentary great again.

I can get by the not so subtle commentary because despite it being played up, it does feel reminiscent of current times. In fact, it only feels more on the nose by coincidence considering who was elected President in the U.S. before this film came out. The true test however is to see how the film ages with the world’s political landscapes. That said, society is not perfect. So odds are this film could age decently.

Tonally, “Mickey 17” is an enigma. It is certainly unconventional, but I kind of love it. That said, I could see some people comparing this film to a Saturday morning cartoon at certain points. Aside from that, there is not a ton else that bothers me in the film aside from the fact that some of the effects look fake. The exterior of the spaceship looks like something out of a TV series. That bothered me in the marketing for this movie. When I saw that spaceship for the first time, I thought I was watching an animation. That gripe remains in the final product. Many of the effects in this film look okay, but that spaceship stood out to me. I will not doubt that a lot of work was put into the CGI, but the film’s budget is at least $118 million. It could definitely be more expensive, but for that much money, I sometimes expected something a little more polished.

I am curious to know how this film will do with general audiences. For science fiction nerds like myself, this film is a complete and total blast. I think some casual moviegoers will be riveted by the film’s spectacle, and they will also enjoy seeing Robert Pattinson give it his all in two roles. Bong Joon Ho has had a prominent boost in the past number of years, and “Mickey 17” will likely garner certain people’s attention in my country, the U.S., since the film is in English, unlike his previous outing. But I am not sure if this film is going to have the spark to bring everyone together. Plus, again, I will mention that Mark Ruffalo is essentially playing a Donald Trump wannabe. Should word of that spread around just enough, I can imagine more people wanting to give their hard earned money to something else that will feel more like an escape. Although if I am being honest with you, this film is kind of an escape. The film took me to space, and I found it to be a fine journey. I give the movie a recommendation.

In the end, “Mickey 17” is an experience that is going to stick with me for a long time. This movie is grounded yet wonderfully odd. It is full of tiny, admirable quirks. The performances are to die for. Everyone is great in this film. Mark Ruffalo, Robert Pattinson of course. But if I had to name a favorite, I would have to say Toni Collette takes the cake. By the end of the film, I loved her simply because of how fiendish this film makes her out to be. She is very well directed. “Mickey 17” is another win for Bong Joon Ho and I am going to give it a 7/10.

“Mickey 17” is now playing in theaters and is available to rent or buy on VOD.

Thanks for reading this review! I keep beating a dead horse, but I apologize if I am behind on my reviews. The truth is, I am most definitely behind. I have been busy. I am still catching up on posting about the movies I watched while making the 7th Annual Jack Awards. A ceremony which by the way, you should totally check out. Here are some of the reviews you can expect going forward, and I have seen all these movies by the way. Coming soon, you can read my thoughts on “Locked,” “Hans Zimmer & Friends: Diamond in the Desert,” “The Luckiest Man in America,” “The Penguin Lessons,” “Novocaine,” “The Ballad of Wallis Island,” “Secret Mall Apartment,” and “A Minecraft Movie.”

I cannot wait for you to see my reviews on all these movies. No, seriously. I have been putting these off for quite some time so I cannot wait any longer. And you can be notified about these reviews as soon as they drop. Please follow Scene Before either with an email or WordPress account, and be sure to check out the official Facebook page! I want to know, did you see “Mickey 17?” What did you think about it? Or, what is your favorite Bong Joon Ho film? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!