Fantasy

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

Posted on by Jack Drees

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Toy Story 5 (2026): An Incredibly Relevant Fifth Entry to Pixar’s Flagship Franchise

Posted on by Jack Drees

Photo by Pixar/Pixar – © 2026 Disney/Pixar. All Rights Reserved.

“Toy Story 5” is directed by Andrew Stanton (Finding Nemo, WALL-E) and stars Tom Hanks (Cast Away, The Polar Express), Tim Allen (Last Man Standing, Home Improvement), Joan Cusack (Saturday Night Live, Toys), Conan O’Brien (Late Night with Conan O’Brien, Conan), Scarlett Spears (Wicked: For Good, General Hospital), Greta Lee (Russian Doll, The Morning Show), Shelby Rabara (Steven Universe, Goliath), Mykal-Michelle Harris (Mixed-ish, Raven’s Home), and Craig Robinson (The Office, Brooklyn Nine-Nine). This film follows an eight-year old Bonnie as her toys watch her become obsessed with a tablet right before their eyes. The sudden shift prompts the toys to wonder about their future, as well as Bonnie’s.

Photo by Pixar/Pixar – © 2026 Disney/Pixar. All Rights Reserved.

I do not know about you, but to me, “Toy Story 5” felt inevitable. This was especially true when “Toy Story 4” came out in 2019, started its box office run with a bang, and ultimately become one of Disney’s several billion-dollar grossers that year. That said, there is something about this franchise that works just about every time. Each story, in some way, tends to justify its existence. Some more than others, but still.

The original “Andy trilogy” remains one of cinema’s most remarkable achievements through its technological feats, great storytelling, likable characters, and balanced presentation that is perfect for all ages. While I found “Toy Story 4” to be much weaker than the original three, I still found the film to be incredibly entertaining. It is also one of the best-looking animated films I have ever seen. There are one or two shots involving a cat that linger in my mind to this day.

When I heard Pixar was doing a “Toy Story 5,” I was onboard. Then I heard what it was about and I knew I was going to get my tickets ASAP. For those who need to know, “Toy Story 5” showcases what happens when modern technology plays an important role in Bonnie’s life, thus prompting her to abandon her toys. I do not have much of a connection to today’s youth, but I come across tons of younger people who, based on an initial impression, seem to be seriously attached to their electronics. Quite often, when I go out to a restaurant, I will find a family nearby whose children are staring at a tablet. I am not going to pretend I was not in the same boat as a child. I would occasionally bring my Game Boy Advance SP or Nintendo DS to a restaurant to kill time before food arrives. Heck, as an adult, I bring my laptop to a restaurant to write material for this blog.

Electronic addiction knows no age.

Overall, I thought “Toy Story 5,” much like “Toy Story 4,” is not quite in the same boat as the original Andy trilogy. But this is by all means a step up from the last movie.

This fifth installment starts off with a bang. There are a couple key moments that introduce major threads. Including one involving an army of Buzz Lightyears designed with a modern twist, and another where we see a ton of abandoned toys warning Bonnie’s toys about the dangers of tech. It was at this point that I was convinced that I was watching a horror flick. Then when we introduce Bonnie… We see this truly heart-shattering moment where she asks her parents why she does not have any friends. She asks such a question after the movie reveals she is still playing with traditional toys, but those around her are relying on LilyPads to entertain themselves. 

Photo by Pixar/Pixar – © 2026 Disney/Pixar. All Rights Reserved.

I do think it is slightly interesting though that only now in the “Toy Story” universe we are seeing technology come to life. We have been through four movies and a ton of other electronics have been featured throughout. These include TVs, game systems, and phones. Now that a tablet has entered the chat, we have our first instance of a pure electronic device as we define it come alive. It is a bit odd as Andy had a gaming console in his room, something specifically designed for play, and we never saw that do the same. Then again, perhaps I am being a bit harsh. After all, it relies on various wired connections, whereas the LilyPad is a wireless tablet that does need charging, but its setup is friendlier for multi-purpose handheld use. So… Does that mean if Andy had a Game Boy growing up, that would come to life too? Would a Nintendo Switch come to life in this universe? That is a portable device to some degree. So many questions.

Though as I say that, the LilyPad, while it definitely behaves a lot like an iPad, has a design that appears to be more of a reference to LeapFrog devices, which are geared towards younger audiences. After all… LilyPad… LeapFrog… The two names are quite similar. Granted, LilyPads come in more colors than green, but still. Maybe the device is supposed to take elements from both LeapFrogs and more traditional, everyday tablets like iPads, as devices like iPads are more likely to be used for social purposes. Also, given Pixar’s connections to Apple, I am surprised they did not implement select Apple sound effects or Easter Eggs like they did at certain points in “WALL-E.”

Photo by Pixar/Pixar – © 2026 Disney/Pixar. All Rights Reserved.

Another thing I should note is that this is Jessie’s story. Not Woody’s. I have no problem with that. After all, when breaking down the “Toy Story” movies, it is not exactly about the toys themselves, but more so their relationship with whoever possesses them. With this being a “Toy Story” installment, it should not be a shock that there is some thread in the story having to do with “x toy” feeling apprehensive that “y person” will not play with them anymore. All of Bonnie’s toys, but Jessie most especially, is nervous that LilyPad is going to replace them for good. I like this obstacle. It taps into the fear that children could grow up without an imagination because they are staring at screens all day. In fact, there is a great scene where we see Bonnie, whose face is still as can be, staring at her tablet nonstop. One of my favorite moments involving Bonnie’s attachment to the device is seeing her dad come into her room. When Bonnie is communicating with her dad, she is not looking at him. She is looking at the device and talking at the same time. Bonnie is genuinely hooked.

If you ask me, I think there is a place for tech in younger people’s lives. We live in a world where not everyone has to be in the same room to socialize anymore. Of course, nothing can replace the in-person experience of hanging out, but it is cool to know that people can come together to play games online, chat online, and all other sorts of things. If anything, this film feels more like an anti-peer pressure movie as opposed to an anti-tech movie. The way the story plays out taps into Bonnie’s social life, and how the LilyPad has enhanced it significantly. She has always had the toys, but not anyone who wanted to play with her. It kind of reminded me of when I was a child and I was still playing Nintendo games whereas other people I knew were diving into first-person shooters.

Going back to Woody, while it definitely made for a good marketing push to have Woody and Buzz reunite, I think this movie did not necessarily need Woody in it for it to flow. Sure, Woody plays a bit of an essential role when he comes on screen and he is trying to save abandoned toys. But this is a story that probably could have been done almost as effectively without him. Of course, Tom Hanks does a good job with the role. No surprise there. That said, he has way less to do this time around than the other movies.

That said, I am glad Buzz has stuck around for this movie. This film dives further into an ongoing element of his story that has been touched in previous movies, and I thought they did a great job with it. By the end of the film, I was satisfied with where they took it.

Photo by Pixar/Pixar – © 2026 Disney/Pixar. All Rights Reserved.

Although this movie is not all tech… There is some play, and this film may have some of the coolest play scenes yet. It shows what is going on in the kid’s imagination while playing with the toys. It brings in some cool frames and backgrounds. This also unleashes a clever Easter Egg involving Conan O’Brien’s character, Smarty Pants (middle). As a human character plays with him, we see in their imagination that the character has a hat of reddish-orange hair, much like the actual Conan O’Brien.

Speaking of Smarty Pants, I do not think there is anyone else on earth more qualified to voice this character than Conan O’Brien. I say that not just because I am a fan of him as an entertainer, but during his late night hosting days, I have noticed that O’Brien has a unique ability to take the most terrible or odd bit and spin it in a way where it can be as entertaining as possible. In actuality, that is just a nice way of saying that I have mixed feelings about the character.

As a 26 year-old, toilet humor has not aged well with yours truly. Not to say it cannot work. In fact, it sometimes does in this movie. But it does feel a bit odd that Pixar decided to use toilet humor. They usually aim a little higher when it comes to attempts at humor. I was surprised to say I never gagged or cringed at any of the jokes from this character, but there are times that I wish I laughed just a little harder. Some of the jokes tend to repeat themselves or come off as some variation of a joke that has been told previously. Maybe it is to reflect the simplistic nature of the character compared to the LilyPad, which is the fancy dancy piece of modern technology, but some of the jokes got old fast.

Even with its flaws, “Toy Story 5” is worth watching. It is beautifully animated, as should be no surprise given how Pixar’s films are usually stunning. The voice cast all play off each other perfectly. The film is kind of sad to think about, because it reveals that technology is so integrated into people’s lives to the point where we cannot live without it. In some cases, we might not even have friends because of it. “Toy Story 5” is not necessarily a movie that begs its viewers to put down the tablet or step away from the computer, but more so reminds people to have a decent balance between technology and real life.

Photo by Pixar/Pixar – © 2026 Disney/Pixar. All Rights Reserved.

In the end, “Toy Story 5” is a fantastic movie. It is a perfect watch for the entire family. Is it the best “Toy Story” installment? No. But it does not mean that you should brush it aside. If anything, the most prominent critiques I have for this film are that some of the jokes are better than others, and as much fun as it is to see Woody and Buzz, much like old times, you could almost take Woody out of the movie and have it feel no different. Keep Buzz though. His presence is essential to the story. This movie showcases the ups and downs of technology in daily life. It serves as a cautionary tale as to what can happen with constant use of technology, but the movie does not suggest that tech should be destroyed in its entirety. Pixar is responsible for the two best animated films this year so far. This movie and “Hoppers.” The studio has been on fire lately. I am going to give “Toy Story 5” an 8/10.

“Toy Story 5” is now playing in theaters. Tickets are available now.

Thanks for reading this review! As a reminder, in honor of Scene Before’s 10th anniversary, I am currently working on an original web series called Movie Requests. It is a video series that sees me reviewing movies suggested by some of your favorite stars. Be sure to check out my latest episode featuring Sandi Harding, the owner of the last Blockbuster Video on the planet, located in Bend, Oregon. In this episode, Harding suggests I should talk about “The Goonies.” To hear my thoughts on the movie, click the video above! If you like the video and want to see more episodes of Movie Requests, hit the like button and subscribe to my YouTube channel! I also share the videos on this blog, but the fastest way to be alerted about them is to subscribe on YouTube!

My next review is going to be for “Supergirl.” Stay tuned! Also coming soon, I will be sharing my thoughts on “Jackass: Best and Last,” “Obsession,” “Maddie’s Secret,” “Gail Daughtry and the Celebrity Sex Pass,” “The Odyssey,” and “Her Private Hell.” 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 “Toy Story 5?” What did you think about it? Or, what is your favorite “Toy Story” movie? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

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

Posted on by Jack Drees

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

My next review is going to be for “The Breadwinner.” Stay tuned! Also coming soon, I will be sharing my thoughts on “Disclosure Day,” “Toy Story 5,” “Supergirl,” “Jackass: Best and Last,” “Obsession,” and “Maddie’s Secret.” If you want to see these reviews and more from Scene Before, follow the blog either with an email or WordPress account! Also, check out the official Facebook page! I want to know, did you see “Another World?” What did you think about it? Or, what is your favorite animation released so far this year? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

Masters of the Universe (2026): Travis Knight Strikes Magic with His Latest Movie Based on Toys

Posted on by Jack Drees

“Masters of the Universe” is directed by Travis Knight (Kubo and the Two Strings, Bumblebee) and stars Nicholas Galitzine (The Sheep Detectives, Purple Hearts), Camila Mendes (Do Revenge, Riverdale), Alison Brie (The Disaster Artist, Together), James Purefoy (The Following, Pennyworth), Morena Baccarin (Greenland, Deadpool), Jóhannes Haukur Jóhannesson (Vikings: Valhalla, The Innocents), Kristen Wiig (Bridesmaids, Sausage Party), Jared Leto (Blade Runner 2049, Suicide Squad), and Idris Elba (Sonic the Hedgehog 2, Pacific Rim). This film is based on the Mattel franchise of the same name and follows Adam who is sent from his home planet of Eternia to Earth at a young age. When he grows up, he is tasked with returning a magical sword back to his home planet, which he must save from the evil Skeletor.

I am a “Masters of the Universe” novice. Partially because I would have no clue where to start. Well, sort of, as I started my relationship with the franchise weeks ago when I checked out Amazon MGM Studios’ “Masters of the Universe” in theaters. Yes, I knew certain characters from the franchise, and sometimes I would talk in Skeletor’s cartoony voice because I thought it sounded cool. But I was born in 1999. I was not watching He-Man when I was a child, I was watching “SpongeBob.”

Despite my lack of knowledge of “Masters of the Universe,” I was mildly impressed with some of the film’s marketing. Note that I said mildly. It looked a little more serious than I imagined the property to be, but I was open to seeing what the crew cooked up behind the scenes. I am glad to say I thought the crew delivered something delicious.

This film feels like a Saturday morning cartoon brought to the big screen. Or, perhaps a more meta version of a Saturday morning cartoon. There are one or two nods to how absurd some of the concepts of the property happen to be. The film is basically this year’s “Thor: Ragnarok.” I do not know if this is going to have the lasting appeal that “Thor: Ragnarok” would for some people, but nevertheless.

Interesting enough, “Masters of the Universe” tends to take a lot of notes from the Marvel playbook. It presents the origin story of Adam, who we later come to know as He-Man. In fact, much like Thor, a particular incident brings him down to earth. Though whereas Thor was brought down as a consequence for his foolishness, Adam was brought down so he could be safe. If anything, his arrival, and therefore extended time, on earth is similar to that of the title character of the “Sonic the Hedgehog” movies.

Nicholas Galitzine continues his hot streak of enjoyable films this year between this and another Amazon MGM project, “The Sheep Detectives.” Galitzine plays Adam, who despite being on earth for several years, has not fully embraced the planet. His connection to his planet’s lore is not exactly helping him in his work life, dating life, social life. It makes him look like a bit of a dork. He spends time looking for a sword, which also does not help. Galitzine serves as a convincing lead and brings a dose of fun to the final product.

Given how little “Masters of the Universe” has grossed so far against its $170-200 million budget, this movie continues the Jared Leto curse. I said this before, I will say it again. Jared Leto is a great actor, and I will stand by that notion until the day I die. Sure, he did not play my favorite Joker, but he commits 110% with just about every role he is given, even as the lead in “Morbius,” a movie so bad that Spider-Man could not swing in time to save it. If you had no idea that Jared Leto was in this film, then there is a chance that you could end up watching it from start to finish failing to realize Leto is in front of you by the end of it. Leto plays Skeletor, and as a result, we never end up seeing his face. Leto is given some of the film’s finest material. There is a moment early on where he is delivering a vicious monologue, and once he raises his fist, he just stands there in awkward silence trying to emphasize that he is done, which prompts Evil-Lyn (Alison Brie) to softly affirm her understanding. I laughed quite a bit.

Speaking of Evil-Lyn, I thought Alison Brie was well cast as the character. This film is essentially a Saturday morning cartoon brought to life, and if you have ever seen Brie in real life, you might notice how large her pupils are. I mean that as a compliment. She is adorable. That said, the large pupils really work in Brie’s favor for this role, as she is not given a ton of lines to work with, but her character does spend a lot of time churning up wacky facial expressions. I thought Brie could have been given a tad more to do, but from a non-verbal perspective, I thought she did a great job with the character.

Daniel Pemberton composed the score for the film, which delights me to no end as he is quickly becoming one of my favorite composers between the “Spider-Verse” films and more recently, “Project Hail Mary.” Nearly every track feels larger than life. The real highlight of the music though is Brian May. Yes, the one from Queen, who dropped in some satisfying guitar solos.

This film is directed by Travis Knight, and overall, I thought he did a decent job at presenting a fun story with a balanced pace, despite a longer runtime. The film is 2 hours and 20 minutes long, but never once does it feel long. It is never boring.

This film is not doing so hot financially. About a month into its release, it has yet to make its budget back. Not a lot of people are checking it out in the theatre. But when it comes to those who did check it out, a majority of the reactions seem to be positive. Granted, overall, they seem to lean into mixed territory, but more people seem to like this movie compared to those who do not. This should not be surprising as Travis Knight seems to have a knack for bringing toy staples to the big screen. In 2018, Knight directed the “Transformers” spinoff “Bumblebee.” I personally think “Masters of the Universe” is a bit of a step down from “Bumblebee.” I think there is a little more humanity and wonder in “Bumblebee.” “Masters of the Universe” most certainly has those two elements, but not quite to the same degree. Even so, Knight does a great job at bringing Eternia to life and bringing things down to Earth precisely when he means to.

Also, if you check this movie out, be sure to stay for the credits. There’s bonus material as soon as the credits roll, in the middle, and at the end. You’re welcome.

In the end, “Masters of the Universe” is not the best movie I have seen this year. But if you are looking for something that could put a smile on your face that delivers on humor and action, this movie gets the job done. One note of caution for families… Even though is based on toys, part of me questions exactly how family-friendly this movie is. Granted, it is PG-13. So, not every child is likely going to be able to watch it right away. That rating is not unusual as the Michael Bay “Transformers” movies were also based on toys for example. Those were all PG-13. I watched those movies as a kid and turned out fine. But there is a running gag about “fisting” that makes me wonder if someone of a younger age could end up watching this movie and say something in public that maybe they should not be saying. Just something to keep in mind. Granted, I laughed myself silly whenever that gag played out. Does this movie make me want to explore more of the “Masters of the Universe” lore? I am not entirely sure. Perhaps if a sequel comes out, I will be there. I had fun with this movie. But if I am bored one day, I definitely have a greater chance of diving down a rabbit hole than I did before. The movie has a solid cast with some big names, a talented director, and despite feeling a bit paint by numbers at times, I found myself quite entertained. I am going to give “Masters of the Universe” a 7/10.

“Masters of the Universe” is now playing in theaters everywhere. Tickets are available now.

Thanks for reading this review! As a reminder, be sure to check out my latest episode of Movie Requests, featuring comedian and television host Chris Hardwick! He requested I should watch “Real Genius,” starring Val Kilmer. To hear my thoughts on the movie, click the video above and check it out! Also, if you want to see new episodes in the fastest way possible, do yourself and I a favor by subscribing to my YouTube channel!

My next review is going to be for “Another World.” Stay tuned! Also coming soon, I will be sharing my thoughts on “The Breadwinner,” “Disclosure Day,” “Toy Story 5,” “Supergirl,” and “Jackass: Best and Last.” 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 “Masters of the Universe?” What did you think about it? Or, since we are on the topics of Travis Knight and movies based on toys, has anyone here seen “Bumblebee?” What are your thoughts on it? And if you have not seen it, please leave this post and go watch it. You will thank me once it is over. Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

Star Wars: The Mandalorian and Grogu (2026): The Most Gimmicky Star Wars Movie Yet

Posted on by Jack Drees

“Star Wars: The Mandalorian and Grogu” is directed by Jon Favreau (Iron Man, The Jungle Book) and stars Pedro Pascal (The Fantastic Four: First Steps, The Last of Us), Jeremy Allen White (The Bear, The Iron Claw), Brendan Wayne (Ahsoka, Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.), Lateef Crowder (Mile 22, Tekken), Jonny Coyne (The Toxic Avenger, The Blacklist), Martin Scorsese (Goodfellas, The Wolf of Wall Street), and Sigourney Weaver (Ghostbusters, Avatar). In this film, the title characters go on a mission to recover Jabba the Hutt’s son, Rotta the Hutt, in exchange for information.

Photo by Lucasfilm Ltd™/LUCASFILM – © 2025 Lucasfilm Ltd™. All Rights Reserved.

To me, “Star Wars” is life. As someone who has been reviewing movies on this site for the past decade, I always try my darndest to separate myself from my predisposed biases. When it comes to the “Star Wars” franchise, I think I did a decent job at that for the most part. The one exception that comes to mind is “The Last Jedi.” I gave that movie a 9/10, but upon rewatching it, I found myself highly questioning my original grade. I found the characters more annoying, certain scenes less interesting, and I was reminded of pacing issues I brushed aside the first time around. There are neat things about the movie, but is it a good movie? Not really.

Since my surprisingly positive review of “The Rise of Skywalker,” and yes, I stand by my original 6/10 grade, “Star Wars” has not had a major motion picture come out. They mainly focused on TV, not all of which I watched, but I enjoyed parts of it. Thankfully, “The Mandalorian” is one of those things I enjoyed. “The Mandalorian” season 1 brought something new to the franchise while maintaining the fun of the property. Season 2 kept up the pace, at least for me. Season 3 is definitely the weak point, but it still had its moments. When I first heard a “Mandalorian” movie was going to happen, my first thought was, “Okay. I don’t hate it.” Frankly, a “Mandalorian” movie is probably the safest film idea that Disney and Lucasfilm could have done. Many hardcore and casual viewers know and enjoy the show. It was a huge sell for Disney+ back when the first season came out. And speaking of selling, Grogu merch continues to sell like hotcakes.

Even with a season 3 that is clearly inferior from the others, I was still onboard to see more adventures with the titular characters.

Having now come out of the first “Star Wars” movie in almost six and a half years, I felt that I wanted more out of my experience.

Photo by Lucasfilm Ltd™/LUCASFILM – © 2025 Lucasfilm Ltd™. All Rights Reserved.

This is a film that checks some boxes. It has action. It has adventure. It has the same feel as the TV show, but one could almost argue that this project feels more TV-like than movie-like. It is weird to say that, because when “The Mandalorian” came out, it felt more film-esque than it did a TV program in some ways. It had a scope aspect ratio. Heck, sometimes the aspect ratio would change to emphasize the feel of certain scenes. The CGI, while not as crisp as some of the movies, was very good. The worlds were oftentimes immersive, even with the Volume’s imperfections.

Now that this is turning into a movie, maybe we’d see the next step in technology to make it look as crisp as say “Rogue One.” In some ways, it is an incredibly immersive film. But sadly, not everyone is going to be able to experience it in the best way possible. My first viewing of this movie was at the AMC Lincoln Square IMAX in New York City. This is one of the largest screens in the entire world. They showed this movie through IMAX’s dual-laser 4K projection system, which is only in a handful of theaters. But everywhere I look, this is the big sell for the movie. Well, maybe aside from being in the “Star Wars” franchise… But I am seeing slogans like “Filmed for IMAX” and “Forged for IMAX” everywhere I go. Trailers, posters, standees, you name it. Do not get me wrong, I am a sucker for IMAX, so I was sold. Should you see this movie in IMAX? If it is still in an IMAX near you, yes. This movie has sequences that are shot for the IMAX format, including the rarely used 1.43:1 aspect ratio. But it is not going to erase the film’s imperfections. Some of the color grading looks abhorrent. There is this one sequence ingrained in my memory perhaps meant to emphasize how green one particular environment is, and it honestly looks like “The Matrix” had a baby with guacamole. It was kind of off-putting. There is no particular scene that wowed me in terms of its looks.

If anything, this movie reminds me a bit of “Star Wars: The Clone Wars.” Specifically, the 2008 movie. Funny enough, without giving much away, there is a callback to that movie that made me chuckle. Much like 2008’s “The Clone Wars,” “The Mandalorian and Grogu” has its moments that are not as cinematic as maybe they should be. This is partially evident in the story. The story does not quite have an identity. What is this movie actually about? Sure, it is about the titular characters, the Mandalorian and Grogu, but what are they doing exactly? What is their purpose? The movie suggests that the team must deal with a hutt, but it sometimes feels unfocused.

Photo by Lucasfilm Ltd™/LUCASFILM – © 2025 Lucasfilm Ltd™. All Rights Reserved.

I have heard from others that this movie comes off as if it were an extended “Mandalorian” episode or multiple “Mandalorian” episodes combined into a two hour movie, and I see where they are coming from. I don’t mind the first comment, because if it were an extended episode, it would likely maintain focus and stick to one main idea. But it doesn’t. The film ends up feeling like a couple different episodes. These either resemble “Mandalorian” episodes that ended up getting rejected, or episodes that perhaps could have made for a small season or a half-season.

Pacing-wise, this film may be the worst I have experienced during a “Star Wars” installment. Again, with this coming off as several episodes in one piece, there are times where the film felt like it did not know when it wanted to end. I am not saying that I hated what happened in this movie. I was quite entertained through a good portion of it. But all of it probably would have been better if it were divided into bits and pieces. This movie, even though it does not span that much time, feels too heavy. I cannot recall a single moment during this film where I wanted to slap myself in the face or punch the screen or force choke myself to death. At the same time, I also cannot recall many instances where I wanted to jump for joy or cheer or go, “This is the way!” There are scenes where I kind of felt nothing, and that is shocking for a franchise whose original movies gave me a range of emotions from excitement to chills… Whose prequel movies sometimes made me cringe, but at other times made me drop my jaw at some of the lightsaber battles… Whose sequel movies had me locked into whatever the characters were going through such as Rey’s personal struggle of figuring out who she is, as well as Kylo Ren trying to live up to his grandfather, while also sometimes showing his humanity by destroying objects with his lightsaber whenever something goes wrong. This movie does not have any moment that made me go, “I’m going to remember that for as long as I live.” Instead, it is filled to the brim with moments that I passively glanced upon.

Photo by Lucasfilm Ltd™/LUCASFILM – © 2025 Lucasfilm Ltd™. All Rights Reserved.

I think if you are a huge fan of “The Mandalorian” on TV, you might enjoy this movie. But even as I say that, I question my comment. While I am a fan of the show, I have to admit this movie did not quite do it for me. Is it horrible? No. It has some redeeming qualities, and one of those redeeming qualities is Ludwig Göransson’s score. …Sort of.

Of course, Goransson’s iconic theme music from the show is here and gets some extra pizazz on occasion. That said, I was not a fan of some of his new themes. There was one theme in particular that sounded like Hans Zimmer’s Electro theme from “The Amazing Spider-Man 2” became blood brothers with Atticus Ross and Trent Reznor’s headache-inducing “Challengers” score. Yes. I cannot stand the “Challengers” score. All film is subjective, and in the spirit of subjectivity, I believe that all the cinephiles that raved about that techno nightmare are entitled to their wrong opinions.

There is a particular piece of techno-style music in this film as well, which was not as headache-inducing as the “Challengers” score, but it felt very out of place with the environment. I questioned why it was even playing to begin with. That said, I did stay for the credits and I heard the theme play one more time. I would not say I warmed up to the piece, but it did sound better the second time around. Maybe it works in the right context, but for whatever reason, it does not work here. It was one of the few times I remember watching anything “Star Wars” and thinking the music doesn’t work. Sure, there are times where the music is forgettable, but even in those cases, they still match their scenes and movies overall. This is a massive and unfortunate exception to that idea.

If you are a newbie to the “Star Wars” franchise, I doubt “The Mandalorian and Grogu” is going to be the best entry point for you. Not necessarily because it piggybacks off of a streaming series. I don’t think you have to watch the “Mandalorian” show to understand every single thing that is going on in this film. However, this is not only one of the weaker films, at least in my opinion, but it also comes with very little substance. We do not really see Mando develop much as a character. He does not go through much noticeable change. He feels about as flat as this movie’s color palette. Now Grogu on the other hand is the most interesting of the titular characters. Since he can barely speak, it allows for more show than tell with his character. I found his challenges much more compelling, and as much as I do not want to judge a book by its cover, his challenges fit the “Mandalorian and Grogu” name. It shows how the two work as a team. At times this movie reminded me of those group projects in school, where one person ends up doing all the work. Grogu is that individual sometimes. There is one particular point in the story about two-thirds of the way through the movie that shows what Grogu is capable of.

Although this movie is rather predictable. Do not go in expecting the next “I am your father.” I have no problem with predictability if the story beats are handled decently. But they are not. They feel way too been there done that, not to mention done better. Say what you want about “The Last Jedi,” which I will remind you, is a film I did not like, but at least the film took risks. It came from the singular mind of Rian Johnson. I did not agree with all of his choices, but it felt like his movie for the most part. “The Mandalorian” feels more committee-esque, and I hate to say that because this film is done by a fabulous director. Jon Favreau has proven he can make great movies. “Iron Man,” “Chef,” “Elf,” and while I am not a huge fan of the Disney live-action remakes, I will defend “The Jungle Book.” That film is a technical marvel. I even liked the one “Mandalorian” episode he helmed. So, what happened here?

Admittedly, when it comes to certain technical choices, I think Favreau does a good job. If anything, it felt kind of video-game esque in the sense that we were closely watching characters behind their back in the third person perspective, or getting their view from a first-person perspective. There is a scene where Grogu is blazing through a city and the camera shows the world from his eyes. It was really cool to see it on a big IMAX screen in 1.43:1.

Photo by Lucasfilm Ltd™/LUCASFILM – © 2025 Lucasfilm Ltd™. All Rights Reserved.

The action scenes are also well done. The opening 10 or 15 minutes are easily the best part of the film because while Mando does not develop much throughout the movie, the movie sets him up as this name that should be feared. Kind of like John Wick. It shows that through and through as he is taking down baddies left and right. While the Mandalorian never takes down a Stormtrooper with a pencil, this movie convinces me he could.

After those opening 10 to 15 minutes, we are introduced to Sigourney Weaver’s character, Ward, who does not really have much to do in the story other than to give Din orders and remind Grogu not to overeat. It is an easy paycheck for her. I do not hate the character, but I wish Weaver, who has built a legendary career in film, had more to do. Weaver’s basically the queen of sci-fi at this point between “Ghostbusters,” “Alien,” “Avatar,” “Galaxy Quest,” and “WALL-E…” Now that she is in “Star Wars,” I wish she had a character that were more memorable than the one we got. Aside from the recently mentioned “WALL-E,” as well as another Pixar feature, “Finding Dory,” the latter of which features Weaver voicing herself, this is probably the easiest money that the actress has made in her entire career.

Speaking of easy money, Martin Scorsese has a voiceover role in this movie as a shopkeep named Hugo. Was the name inspired by Scorsese’s own movie? You decide.

It is honestly hilarious to me that Martin Scorsese is in this movie. Not because I was under the impression that he would never work on a “Star Wars” movie. Weeks before checking out this film I watched an episode of “Light and Magic” on Disney+ and it reminded me of Scorsese’s friendship with George Lucas, but this film nevertheless reminds me of what I would imagine Scorsese thinks of Marvel movies.

“Star Wars: The Mandalorian and Grogu,” and keep in mind, I say this as a fan of the franchise, plays less like a movie and more like a crappy theme park ride. And if anything, the film is using the over the top IMAX plugs in the marketing almost as a way to compensate for its lack of quality in terms of the story. I did say it was cool to see this film in true digital IMAX, but I honestly think that is one of the only reasons this movie should be seen at all, regardless of watching it in a theater and at home. The IMAX enhanced ratio, as incredible as it looks, ultimately feels like a gimmick. I hate saying that, because much like the “Star Wars” franchise, I am also an IMAX fan. I have seen filmmakers like Ryan Coogler, Christopher Nolan, and Jordan Peele play with the coveted aspect ratio and utilize it well in their own productions. This is not Jon Favreau’s first time making something in 1.43:1. 2019’s “The Lion KIng” remake also had 1.43:1 scenes. But I cannot judge those scenes as I missed the film in theaters. The aspect ratio in a way makes up for every other technical aspect that does not work like the lighting, the color grading, as well as the sometimes flat framing.

Look… I am a “Star Wars” fan, so I will plead guilty to watching movies I did not enjoy as much as the others more than once. I have done this with some of the prequels, I have done this with “The Last Jedi.” And like those lesser titles, “The Mandalorian” has redeeming qualities in it. The only “Star Wars” film I have not seen multiple times to this day is “Solo.” If you ever read my review of it, you would know I gave it a 6/10, a barely positive score. At the time I thought it was the most middle of the road “Star Wars” movie ever. I think “Mandalorian and Grogu” gives it a run for its money. I bought tickets to a second screening for reasons beyond simply seeing the movie again, but if I were to buy tickets for this movie one time, and I did not have those tickets, it would be somewhat difficult for me to come up with a valid reason to spend money on this once more.

This is a movie that barely develops its core characters. I think it does a somewhat decent job on Grogu’s arc, but less so on Mando’s. Rotta the Hutt was fascinating at times as he tried to separate himself from his father, Jabba. But there are not many other characters who stood out. Say what you will about that one “Mandalorian” episode with Lizzo and Jack Black, at least it was weird. This movie does not really have a distinct feeling to it, other than blandness. Say what you want about the prequels. At least they had color! Say what you want about “The Rise of Skywalker,” at least it has me quoting “They fly now,” every once in a blue moon.

The more I think about “The Mandalorian and Grogu” the more I am going to think about it the same way others may think about “Star Wars: The Holiday Special.” This is a clear money grab that could best be described as content. It is not clear who this is for. Is this for grown adults who like watching bounty hunters double tap people like they’re pawns in a game of chess? Is it for young children or infants who like watching Grogu get into shenanigans? Is it for fans of the show who just want to see more episodes? As I ask all these questions, I continue to think to myself that maybe this movie is not for me, even if there, admittedly, doses of entertainment.

In the end, “The Mandalorian and Grogu” is by no means the best or worst “Star Wars” movie. It winds up somewhere in the middle. I have seen this movie twice now, and it is admittedly better the second time. The pacing problems still exist, but it did go by a little faster. Probably because I had a clearer concept of what to expect going in. If you enjoy “The Mandalorian” on Disney+, this will likely come off as a comforting return to a long lost home. But is it as good as the first, or even the second season? I don’t think so. I would rather watch all of those episodes again before putting on this movie.

Of all the “Star Wars” films I have seen, I think this one may have the least personality. The action, while good, is not as memorable as some of the other “Star Wars” titles. There are bits of humor, but the comedy does not land quite as well as other installments. The dialogue is not that memorable or quotable. Who knows how this project will age from here? That said, I am having trouble coming up with a reference I would use in a conversation with friends down the line. The movie bridges off of a show that already has three seasons, maintains a look and feel that is somewhat reminiscent of said show, and to my surprise, it sometimes looks cheaper than some of the show’s episodes. I did not hate this movie. It is entertaining, but not to the highest degree. I am going to give “Star Wars: The Mandalorian and Grogu” a 5/10.

“Star Wars: The Mandalorian and Grogu” is now playing in theaters everywhere. Tickets are available now.

Thanks for reading this review! Before we go any further, I would like to remind everyone that Scene Before’s original web series, Movie Requests, is going to feature five additional guests, on top of the 10 that have already been announced! I am not announcing their names at this time. But if you want a hint as to who these guests are, check out the poster above! While you are at it, please be sure to check out the latest episode of the series featuring “Clerks” star Brian O’Halloran. If you want to see more episodes as soon as they drop, you can watch them here on Flicknerd.com, but the fastest way to be notified about the episodes is to subscribe to my YouTube channel and hit the notification bell!

My next review is going to be for “I Love Boosters!” Stay tuned! Also coming soon, I will be sharing my thoughts on “Backrooms,” “Masters of the Universe,” “Another World,” and “The Breadwinner.” If you want to see these reviews and more from Scene Before, follow the blog either with an email or WordPress account! Also, check out the official Facebook page! I want to know, did you see “Star Wars: The Mandalorian and Grogu?” What did you think about it? Or, have you seen “The Mandalorian” TV show? What are your thoughts on it? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

Mortal Kombat II (2026): The Best Mortal Kombat Movie Yet

Posted on by Jack Drees

“Mortal Kombat II” is directed by Simon McQuoid, who also directed the 2021 “Mortal Kombat” movie. This film stars Karl Urban (The Boys, Dredd), Adeline Rudolph (Chilling Adventures of Sabrina, Riverdale), Jessica McNamee (Packed to the Rafters, Home and Away), Josh Lawson (Superstore, House of Lies), Ludi Lin (Power Rangers, Aquaman), Mehcad Brooks (Law & Order, Supergirl), Tati Gabrielle (The 100, Chilling Adventures of Sabrina), Lewis Tan (Deadpool 2, Into the Badlands), Damon Herriman (Once Upon a Time in Hollywood, Mr Inbetween), Chin Han (Ghost in the Shell, American Born Chinese), Tadanobu Asano (Thor, Shōgun), Joe Taslim (Warrior, The Raid), and Hiroyuki Sanada (Shōgun, Bullet Train). This film is the sequel to 2021’s “Mortal Kombat” and this time around, actor Johnny Cage joins the battle as he and other fighters take on the tyrannical Shao Khan.

I have played some of the “Mortal Kombat” games, and I am a fan of those games. I will sometimes hop on a cabinet in the arcade, or maybe put in a game I have at home. I am a casual player, but I am a player nonetheless. The games are a ton of fun. As for the movies, that’s where things become more complicated.

The 1995 “Mortal Kombat” is far from the greatest movie ever made, but there was a period of time where it was considered the gold standard of video game to film adaptations. Not that that is saying much. The film did have its problems and occasionally felt like a product of its time. Though I did have fun watching it, admittedly.

Then in 1997, the universe was introduced to the disgrace on a bloody stick known as “Mortal Kombat: Annihilation.” It is a movie whose subtitle quite literally described what happened to my brain cells while watching it. I have no plans to do a worst movies of all time list, but I think “Mortal Kombat: Annihilation” is a contender for the bottom of the barrel.

Then comes 2021, when another “Mortal Kombat” hits the big screen (and HBO Max), and I thought it was quite good. It is not perfect, but I thought even with some creative liberties, it did a decent job at capturing the spirit of the games. Plus, unlike the previous “Mortal Kombat” movies, this one was a lot bloodier and gorier. So, while not a home run, I was down for another “Mortal Kombat” should one be in the pipeline.

Now, “Mortal Kombat II” has made its presence known, and while it is not quite a flawless victory, the film may be my favorite so far based on the “Mortal Kombat” property. That is, of the theatrically released ones. There are others that have not been to theaters that I have yet to see.

“Mortal Kombat II,” like the previous installment, terrifically captures the vibe of the games. The locations are big, colorful, and while they may not always be realistic, they are nevertheless palatable. If you have never played a “Mortal Kombat” game, or heck, missed out on the last “Mortal Kombat” movie, you may not know that this film should require some suspension of disbelief.

The film, like many sequels, aims higher and goes bigger than its predecessor, with more violence, a longer runtime, and new characters. The standout of the newbies on the roster, by a clear mile, is Johnny Cage (Karl Urban).

Johnny Cage brings the camp to “Mortal Kombat II.” In most cases, when I use “camp” and “movie” in the same sentence, my mind will think of the combination as a negative, but “Mortal Kombat II” is an unusual exception where I find it to be a positive. The campiness of “Mortal Kombat II” works like a charm, and that is mostly due to Karl Urban’s commitment to making the character of Johnny Cage come off as the coolest has-been movie star of all time.

In Earthrealm, we see our protagonists watch a vision that reveals their “chosen one” to defeat evil. That being Johnny Cage. The movie perfectly sets the tone for what’s to come by showing Cage in perhaps the most 90s-esque action schlock of a movie imaginable. AI could not create this magic. Of course, that time is over, and like some other actors who are not doing as much film work, Cage is making money through conventions. The moment we see the first encounter between Cage and the heroes of Earthrealm, he tries to show as much respect as possible, thinking that they are cosplayers, hoping they would screw off. I thought the first scenes featuring Cage were clever and did a good job at revealing how much Cage has evolved from his prime.

While “Mortal Kombat II” is far from Shakespeare, some lines in the film are poetic in their own way. My favorite moment in “Mortal Kombat II” features Johnny Cage fighting against Baraka, the leader of the Tarkatans. The fight itself is massively entertaining. That is if you can even call it a fight. There is a repeated moment in the choreography that is honestly begging to find its way into today’s meme culture. I saw this film alongside my dad, and there have been instances following its conclusion where we jokingly repeated said moves.

What follows after is Baraka’s purely cinematic line, “That is the greatest fighting I have ever f***ing seen!” Collectively, that may have been the biggest laugh amongst my opening Thursday audience. Truth be told, I read this line back as I write this paragraph, and I am trying my hardest not to roll on the floor.

“Mortal Kombat II” is not perfect. I had the privilege of seeing this film in IMAX, which for this film, is fantastic, as some scenes feature an expanded aspect ratio. But while this critique may not matter for every screening, I think the IMAX scenes could have been handled better, because the way that some of these scenes were edited felt inconsistent or jumpy. It reminded me of “Transformers: The Last Knight,” where the aspect ratio changes every second. It is nowhere near as bad, but it is still jumpy. The CGI at times is utterly amazing and a complete feast for the eyes. I was gobsmacked with the worlds the VFX artists were able to create. But that does not mean that they do not look CGI-ish. Again, the movie looks real when it chooses to. Sometimes the heightened reality works. At other times, it could be better.

The story of the film is very simple, but what complicates it is how often this movie jumps from place to place and has to handle a variety of characters. It is hard to say that the characterization of this movie is the strongest. It is kind of like the last “Mario” movie, though I admittedly had more fun with this video game adaptation compared to that one.

Even with its imperfections, “Mortal Kombat II” is a total blast. Shao Khan is a menacing threat. Johnny Cage has personality for days. I liked seeing more of the characters from the last movie like Raiden, Kano, and Liu Kang. Not that I dislike the original, but I think this sequel is an improvement. I walked out of this movie thinking that I cannot wait to watch it a second time. This is a fantastic movie to watch with friends. If you can handle some blood and gore, you are in for a treat.

In the end, “Mortal Kombat II” is a komplete explosion of epicness! This is a visual effects-heavy, balls out killer time that is by no means going to win any major awards. But if you are a sucker for a big, dumb action movie that sometimes pays tribute to the video games of the same name, this movie might be up your alley. Karl Urban is excellent as Johnny Cage and oozes charisma from start to finish. The action is super fun. This movie maintains a modern look to it, but it also has this occasional throwback feel that ties everything together. I cannot wait to watch this movie again, and I have no shame in saying that. I am going to give “Mortal Kombat II” a 7/10.

“Mortal Kombat II” is now playing in theaters. Tickets are available now.

Thanks for reading this review! This Sunday on Flicknerd.com and YouTube, stay tuned for the next episode of Movie Requests! This episode is going to feature a suggestion from Brian O’Halloran, who you may know from the “Clerks” trilogy! I just watched his suggested movie last night. I cannot wait to share what it is and talk about it with you. If you want to watch the review as fast as possible, do yourself and I a favor by subscribing to my YouTube channel!

My next review is going to be for “The Sheep Detectives!” Stay tuned! Also coming soon, I will be sharing my thoughts on “In the Grey,” “Star Wars: The Mandalorian and Grogu,” “I Love Boosters,” and “Backrooms.” 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 “Mortal Kombat II?” What did you think about it? Or, what is your favorite “Mortal Kombat” film that has been released thus far? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

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

Posted on by Jack Drees

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

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

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

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

Then I saw the trailer…

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Arco (2025): Back to the Future – Reimagined for the 2020s

Posted on by Jack Drees

Before we begin this review of “Arco,” I would just like to remind everyone that “Movie Requests” begins this Saturday, February 28th! “Movie Requests” is my upcoming film review series where I ask prominent people to request films for me to talk about, and I give my thoughts on their suggestion. A new promo is out now for the first episode, featuring Bryce Dallas Howard! You can watch it by clicking the video below!

And if you want to see the new episode when it drops, please subscribe to my YouTube channel! Otherwise, if you are following Scene Before with an email or WordPress account, you can be notified shortly after the video is uploaded! Now, on with the review!

“Arco” is directed by Ugo Bienvenu and Gilles Cazaux and stars Swann Arlaud (By the Grace of God, Anatomy of a Fall), Alma Jodorowsky (Blue is the Warmest Colour, Kids in Love), Margot Ringard Oldra (Fortune de France, Along Came Love), Oscar Tresanini (La rebelle, les aventures de la jeune George Sand, Mini-Court), Vincent Macaigne (Diary of a Fleeting Affair, Cicadas), Louis Garrel (Little Women, A Faithful Man), William Lebghil (Soda, Some Like it Veiled), and Oxmo Puccino (In Your Dreams, Athena). This film is set in the future and follows a young girl who sees a boy fall from the sky, only to find out this boy has the ability to travel through time. The two do what they can to help each other, while trying to get the boy back to his own time.

Just an FYI before we get on with the rest of this review. This is a French movie. Nevertheless, I watched the movie in English. I bring this up because when I review movies, I always attempt to watch them in their original language to get the most authentic experience possible. Even so, I watched the film in English as the film did not appear to be playing anywhere near me in French. Just know that I will not have any concrete thoughts on the film’s original cast. That said, the cast of the English version of the film did a good job. I do not really have any complaints. If you watch the film in English, and chances are you will if you live in the U.S. like me, I think you will have a solid experience.

“Arco” is one of those films where I went in nearly as blind as possible. I knew about the film a couple months before its release. Having followed Natalie Portman on Instagram, I was made aware that she was in the English version. I have also been made aware about the film receiving noticeably positive reviews. Having seen the film myself, those positive reviews were justified. This is not my favorite animated film of 2025. But it is a finely crafted remix on a familiar time travel concept.

Some people believe that they do not make movies like they used to. While everyone’s definition of this phrase may vary, “Arco” feels like an answer to that philosophy for those looking for something like they got in the 1980s. “Arco” is essentially “Back to the Future” for a new generation. Not only because the plot heavily involves time travel and someone’s intentions to get back to their specific time following a mishap. But the film also captures a specific kind of wonder that movies like “Back to the Future” can easily evoke. During my earliest viewings of “Back to the Future,” which has now become one of my all time favorite films, I was always marveled by everything that went into the climax of that film between the actors’ line delivery, the sound mix, the lightning effects, and Alan Silvestri’s iconic score. If I watched “Arco” as a child, perhaps even as a teenager, it could have inspired me to pursue filmmaking or animation. It is a film that comes with a concept that not only sounds clever, but plays really well on screen. Even the method of time travel feels like a sibling of “Back to the Future.” If you have seen “Back to the Future,” you may recall Doc saying he turned a Delorean into a time machine to “do it with some style.” Much like that 1985 classic, there is a sense of style brought to the time travel in “Arco,” where we see characters utilize such a fantastical concept through rainbows. I cannot come up with many cooler ways to travel through time more magical than that.

This film is the feature-length debut from Ugo Bienvenu, and I think anyone’s efforts should be commended should they direct a feature film for the first time. Although Bienvenu’s in particular had me perplexed, because throughout the film, I was under the impression I was watching the work of a longtime veteran. The 2D animation style feels very Studio Ghibli-like with some of the film’s occasionally vivid landscapes, strong colors, and cozy locations. If you told me that this film were being directed by Hayao Miyazaki, chances are I could believe you. If this film were live-action, based on all the 1980s movies talk from before, you could have convinced me Steven Spielberg put something like this together. That said, if you want to get technical, Steven Spielberg has done an animated film before, specifically “The Adventures of Tin-Tin,” but these films do not quite feel the same. I enjoyed that movie, but still.

As a story, “Arco” is incredibly tight. Clocking in just short of an hour and a half, “Arco” delivers a simple concept met with brilliant execution. I stared at the screen in awe of the vision that was on display. Unlike some time travel stories, which are set close to the time the story comes out, this film takes place, as of this review’s publication date, entirely in the future. This allows us not only to play around with the idea of people traveling through time, but simultaneously tap into the continued evolution of technology and the earth’s climate. In the case of addressing climate change, I found “Arco” to come off as less obvious in its messaging than “The Wild Robot” and “Flow” did when those two films came out in 2024. Maybe that is just a me thing. I would not be surprised to find out that some viewers feel different when it comes to that matter. That said, the film not only does a good job at entertaining, but also serves as a reminder to take care of the planet.

Much like “Back to the Future,” “Arco” is a film that I can see playing really well with families. In fact, I think some parents may be more comfortable showing “Arco” to their children considering it has significantly less foul language. The film may be animated, which some adults may find to be a turnoff, but “Arco” often feels more Pixar or Studio Ghibli-like rather than something out of the more obnoxious Illumination. The movie is bright and colorful. Heck, any movie heavily involving rainbows should be. But there is a perfect balance that makes the film feel grounded yet imaginative. The film is likely going to entertain younger viewers while also delivering important messages. “Arco” seems to indicate that no matter what time you live in, everyone has their own problems. Nobody’s perfect.

That said, having seen a lot of movies, it is tough to argue that “Arco” is, by definition, original. If anything, the film reminds me a lot of “Colossal,” which puts a completely unique spin on the classic monster movie. In fact, that movie was even described by its own director to be “the cheapest ‘Godzilla’ movie ever.” Despite maintaining a noticeable degree of freshness, “Arco” does a good job at reminding me of some of the great movies I watched in the past that appeal to multiple age groups like “E.T.” or “Spirited Away.” It makes me want to go back and revisit those movies. Yet at the same time, I can see “Arco” having some replay value sometime in the future. It is hard to say that “Arco” is my favorite animated film of 2025, but it is one that gives me great joy the more I think about it.

In the end, “Arco” is a swell time travel flick that brings some originality to the table while also delivering vibes that are familiar from some of the most beloved films of all time. I keep comparing “Arco” to “Back to the Future,” partially because both movies involve time travel, but because they both handle such a concept in a somewhat similar fashion. Not just in terms of structure, but also quality. Is “Arco” as good as “Back to the Future?” Honestly, no. “Arco’s” technical aspects could arguably age better, but as a story, “Back to the Future” is superior. That said, if you are looking for something that delivers on entertainment and commentary, “Arco” is a solid pick. I am going to give “Arco” a 7/10.

“Arco” is now playing in select theaters, and as of this publication, is available to preorder on VOD.

Thanks for reading this review! My next review is going to be for “Solo Mio.” Stay tuned! Also, coming soon, look forward to my thoughts on “GOAT” and “EPIC: Elvis Presley in Concert.” 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! And one last reminder, please subscribe to my YouTube channel to catch my latest videos, including the upcoming series “Movie Requests,” which begins this Saturday, February 28th! I want to know, did you see “Arco?” What did you think about it? Or, what is your favorite animated film of 2025? For me, I would have to go with “Scarlet.” I thought it a was clever, fantastical concept done with excellence! Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

Avatar: Fire and Ash (2025): James Cameron’s Third Smurf Theme Park Ride

Posted on by Jack Drees

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

“Avatar: Fire and Ash” is directed by James Cameron (The Terminator, Titanic) and stars Sam Worthington (Clash of the Titans, Man on a Ledge), Zoe Saldaña (Guardians of the Galaxy, Star Trek), Sigourney Weaver (Alien, Ghostbusters), Stephen Lang (Don’t Breathe, Public Enemies), Oona Chaplin (The Longest Ride, Game of Thrones), and Kate Winslet (Titanic, The Reader). This is the third installment in the “Avatar” franchise and once again follows the Sully family as they deal with grief and cross paths with an unfamiliar Na’Vi tribe, the Ash people.

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

After the 13 year wait between the first two “Avatar” movies, it is clear that the hype for this franchise has not died down. Say what you want about the “Avatar” property, but when you have a first film that ends up being the biggest theatrical release of all time, and a second film that also ends up making a couple billion bucks at the box office, it is a sign that things are not over yet. That is where “Avatar: Fire and Ash” comes in. One big difference going into this film is that the wait for it was much shorter than the wait for “Avatar: The Way of Water.” However, that wait may have played a small part into the shrinkage of hype I had for “Avatar: Fire and Ash.”

Another part that played into my low expectations was the result of the last movie. For those who missed my “Avatar: The Way of Water” review, I found the film to be middle of the road at best. It was a step down from the original “Avatar,” which was not revolutionary in terms of structure or story, but at the time, it was technically impressive. It arguably upped the standard for how 3D should look after the first film blew audiences away back in 2009. The CGI makes fantasy come alive. The color palette is incredibly easy on the eyes. So, it is unfortunate that all of this technical splendor was in the same place as a watered down, formulaic, boring script.

I went into “Avatar: Fire and Ash” with about as open of a mind as I could offer. The film, in some ways, met my expectations. Each frame looks dazzling and packs itself with glamour. The style is, unsurprisingly, pleasing. The substance, to my shock, improved somewhat slightly from the last film. Granted, it does require some significant suspension of one’s disbelief. For example, Quaritch is back. Because it is not “Avatar” without Quaritch for whatever reason. By itself, the idea of bringing Quaritch back peeves me because it lessens the stakes of this franchise. But they already revived in him in the second movie, so it is perhaps only necessary keep up the tradition in the third.

That said, once the movie leaps past this logical barrier with this character, it actually gives him some good material to work with. I liked seeing Quaritch, the big bad in the previous two movies, sort of cater to the savagery of the Ash people by presenting them with weaponry. Of all the Na’Vi that have been introduced throughout the three movies, the Ash people are by far the wildest and most untamed.

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

I never reviewed the first “Avatar,” but if you recall my review for the second, you may know despite my negative opinion regarding the film, I did appreciate it from a technical perspective. The third film is no exception to the rule. Like the past two films, the 3D will dilate your eyes. Like the past two films, the sound editing will energize your ears. It is something that in a sense you have to see and hear to believe. But it would be a lot more exciting if this were not a third installment showcasing tricks we have seen a couple times already.

In fact, “Avatar” is starting to remind me of what has happened in the past decade with Michael Bay’s “Transformers” movies. Like those movies or not, each and every one seems to follow a noticeably similar story and formula. This “Avatar” movie, like the previous ones, introduces a new group of Na’Vi, tries to explain why humans may be monsters, and has big climactic battles with birds flying all over the screen. It is not to say that some of what I described is not enticing, but there is less of a sense of novelty this time around compared to my experiences in 2009 and 2022. Maybe the 13 year gap had something to do with it, but still.

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

One thing that was featured in the second movie that reappears here is the high frame rate. For those who do not know, most movies are shot and presented in 24 frames per second. “Avatar: Fire and Ash” is a rare exception, as it is shot and presented in 48… Some of the time… “Avatar: Fire and Ash” has some scenes, particularly the more action-centric ones, in 48 frames per second, while the slower, more dialogue-driven scenes are in 24. This kind of reminds me of some filmmakers in recent decades shooting their projects in IMAX, where in the final product, the aspect ratio switches in select scenes. Only in most cases when that happens, the switch does not tend to feel as jarring. Maybe I am just used to that technique, which when it does happen, I often find myself marveled by it. Including this year during “Sinners” and “The Fantastic Four: First Steps.”

I found the switch between the two frame rates to be incredibly distracting. I remember when the movie started and we see the opening logos and there is a scene where characters are flying in the air. All of it is in 48 frames per second. So, when the movie decides to suddenly switch to 24, it felt somewhat jolty. For a movie that prides itself for its immersion factor, this is something that immediately took me out of it.

As I watched “Avatar: Fire and Ash” I immediately thought about Martin Scorsese’s comments about Marvel movies, specifically about them being theme park rides. This sentiment is one I would personally give to the “Avatar” movies at this point. It is really weird to say because I think James Cameron can tell a good story. I love the first two “Terminators.” I love “True Lies.” While I find “Titanic” to be overrated, I do like the chemistry between Jack and Rose. These “Avatar” movies, while they do make a lot of money, feel incredibly cookie cutter and predictable by now. Not to mention, its casts do not stand out as much as the ones in Cameron’s other movies. I do not think it is a bad thing for a franchise to have similar movies. It makes it easy to tell you are watching separate things in the same universe. But I also think there is a little room for variety. Sure, instead of introducing Water Na’Vi, this movie is introducing Ash Na’Vi, but the nuts and bolts of the story feel almost entirely identical to what’s been told before.

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

Sigourney Weaver once again makes an appearance in this film, and her character, Kiri, stood out to me for a couple reasons. First off, if you pay close enough attention, the film does have an Easter egg to Ripley from the “Alien” franchise, specifically one of her most iconic lines. Second, like the last film, Weaver herself, who is in her 70s, has a tremendous age gap with her teenage character. I am not going to pretend that “The Way of Water” hid this age gap the entire time, but I thought “Fire and Ash” did an inferior job at keeping it hidden. Weaver’s voice sometimes sounds too wise and deep for a 14 year old. I sometimes found this performance to be a tad distracting. I love Weaver. I think she is a phenomenal actress. But the more I watched this film, the more I felt Cameron should have cast someone who was younger to play her character. Perhaps someone unknown.

It may sound like I hate “Avatar: Fire and Ash.” But the truth is that I liked the film more than the last one, which I thought was mediocre. As much as I think the film feels like it plays the hits, it sometimes plays them well. I thought the characterization was also better this time around. Again, once this film finishes jumping the shark with Quaritch’s death in 2022’s outing, I like the direction in which they took him. I also thought this film gave some fascinating material for Spider. I thought the way he was handled in “The Way of Water” was rather questionable, but I like some of the ways he was developed in this film, particularly in regard to his overall connection with the Na’Vi. There is also a gripping scene in the second half of the film where his character serves as a crucial subject of the film’s larger message. We see Jake Sully trying to determine the best of two difficult choices, both of which involve Spider’s character. I thought the scene was excellently dramatized and may be one of the better character moments this franchise has offered.

Speaking of the Sully family, I thought they were another positive in this film. I found myself to care more about the children this time around than I did in the previous outing. I thought them dealing with the loss of one of their own gave each member some substance, including Neytiri, who establishes her opposition for humanity. But if you were to ask me what stood out to me in this film as a positive, I would find it difficult to come up with immediate, definitive answers. There are things I liked, but nothing that I truly loved. Part of me wants to say the CGI and the 3D are great, but “Avatar” can only offer the same thing so many times before it feels less fresh than it did before. If we get an “Avatar 4,” I am slightly more onboard for that than I was for this film. But I am still worried about this franchise becoming an old dog that can no longer learn new tricks. But, what do I know? This franchise makes buttloads of money, and people keep watching them. That is how the business works.

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

In the end, if you were to ask me if you should go see “Avatar: Fire and Ash,” chances are I would answer yes. That said, it may be a specific yes. I would say to go see the movie, but I would not commit to seeing it at night. Settle for a matinee showtime when it is cheaper. “Avatar: Fire and Ash” sometimes feels like more of the same, but sometimes the repetitive parts work. I also thought the characterization was improved from the second movie. I found myself bored with that experience at times. With a three hour and 17 minute runtime, “Avatar: Fire and Ash” may be five minutes longer than “The Way of Water,” but this threequel comes with a much more engaging, faster pace. I cannot say I found a moment during the film where I wanted to drift off to sleep. In terms of the storytelling, I was surprisingly hooked. “Fire and Ash” does a not great, but good job with that. That said, if they are going to do the high frame rate in “Avatar 4,” I hope the film stays at 48 frames per second the whole time. I think 24 frames per second looks cooler. It makes things look more dramatic. But that is just me. Regardless of how many frames this film handles in a second, the switches honestly jarred me. If anything, it made the high frame rate come off as more of a gimmick. I will give this “Avatar” installment, as well as the others, props for the stunning 3D, which I often find gimmicky in other projects. But the high frame rate? Forget about it. I do not think it needed to be there. I do not give this film the highest of recommendations, but in no way am I going to disapprove of it either. I am going to give “Avatar: Fire and Ash” a 6/10.

“Avatar: Fire and Ash” is now playing in theaters everywhere. Tickets are available now.

Photo by Courtesy of Searchlight Pictures – © Searchlight Pictures

Thanks for reading this review! My next reviews are going to be for “Is This Thing On?” and “Marty Supreme.” Stay tuned! Also coming soon, I will be unveiling my picks for my best and worst movies of 2025! I enjoy doing both lists. It has become an annual tradition. It is always fun to keep up with it. If you want to see these upcoming posts and more from Scene Before, follow the blog either with an email or WordPress account! Also, check out the official Facebook page! I want to know, did you see “Avatar: Fire and Ash?” What did you think about it? Or, what is your favorite of the “Avatar” movies? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

Scarlet (2025): Revenge is a Dish Best Served in the Afterlife

Posted on by Jack Drees

“Scarlet” is directed by Mamoru Hosoda (Belle, Mirai) and stars Mana Ashida (Pacific Rim, Mother), Masaki Okada (Drive My Car, Confessions), and Koji Yakusho (Babel, Perfect Days). In this film, the titular princess, who lives in Medieval Times, is out to get revenge against her father’s killer. Unfortunately for her, the mission does not go according to plan, because she dies before completing it. Her quest continues in the afterlife, where the killer also happens to reside. In the meantime, she runs into a medical worker from the present day, whose views on violence and revenge strongly conflict with hers.

“Scarlet’s” wide U.S. release does not take place until 2026, but I had the unique opportunity to watch the film in 2025, as it received a very limited engagement in select IMAX theaters. One of those theaters happened to be 20 minutes from home, and given how much I was chomping at the bit to see “Scarlet,” I bought a ticket lickety split. That said, even if “Scarlet” were only playing one, two, three, or even four hours away from where I was, I would have still bought a ticket because the film is from someone who has become a favorite filmmaker of mine in recent years, specifically, Mamoru Hosoda.

If you have read this blog in 2022, or sometime after, you may have discovered that I have a very unhealthy obsession for Hosoda’s movie “Belle,” which I have made multiple posts about, and watched countless times. Since then, I have gone back to watch Hosoda’s other films including “The Girl Who Leapt Through Time,” which was clever and fun. “Summer Wars,” which is creative and full of likable characters. “Wolf Children,” which by the end, triggered all kinds of emotions for me. “The Boy and the Beast,” which I found to be an entertaining journey with a likable duo. And “Mirai,” which I think is the weakest of Hosoda’s filmography, but still charming and neatly animated. Even with his inferior films, Hosoda boasts an incredible resume, and I am proud to say that “Scarlet” just the latest success from the masterclass storyteller.

Every once in a while, there comes in a film that makes people say that such a story is something we need right now, and I would argue “Scarlet” is not just a story we need right now, it is story that we will probably continue to need for years to come. This is not so much a movie as much as it is a message about being kind. A message reminding people of the horrors of violence. A message concerning the importance of the human condition. I really enjoyed seeing the major differences between the film’s two main characters, Scarlet, a princess from medieval times, and Hijiri, a first responder from modern times. Both characters end up dying, meet up in the afterlife, and come to realize each other’s differences.

“Scarlet” is not the only afterlife-centric film I reviewed this year. If you have followed Scene Before recently, you would know I reviewed “Eternity.” Both of these films have clever interpretations on what happens after you die, but both films are likely to hit certain audiences differently. “Eternity” takes a more comedic approach to dealing with the concept of death and the uncertainty of what happens after one ceases to exist. “Scarlet” on the other hand, while it occasionally has a funny moment, is grittier, bloodier, and more violent. If you dig this more dramatic approach, this movie could work for you. One indication of how dramatic this movie can get at times is its messaging about war.

Technically speaking, this film sings. The sound mixing in this film blew me away. There are some lightning claps in this movie that shook me as soon as they emitted. Granted, I saw this film in IMAX, so it is not much a surprise that a lot of the sound effects end up packing a punch. Not surprisingly, like most of Hosoda’s work, this film looks beautiful. Granted, I will say unlike some of his past work like “Summer Wars” or “Wolf Children,” there is a lot less emphasis on color. The film is not only rugged in terms of its vibe, but it is often matched by its color choices, or lack thereof. Though I will note, between this film and “Belle,” Hosoda seems to like focusing on protagonists with pink hair. The animation style is not the easiest to explain in layman’s terms. It is almost “Spider-Verse“-esque considering the film’s mix of 2D and 3D elements. It is not quite on the same level, but at times “Scarlet” does remind me of those films.

The music in this film is also fantastic. There is one song that is original to the film called “A Celebration Song.” I thought it was perfectly timed and utilized around the story’s midpoint. The score, whose percussion elements stood out to me in particular, is composed by Taisei Iwasaki. While I do not think this is as memorable as his “Belle” score, his efforts here result in some chilling tracks.

The story does have elements that are familiar. In fact, “Scarlet” takes a bit from William Shakespeare’s “Hamlet,” but it does not mean it is not its own animal. Scarlet and Hijiri come from different times, different places, different backgrounds. But both note that they are no strangers to war and violence. Scarlet wants to get revenge on the person who killed her father. And Hijiri suggests that people like him are trying to keep the concept of war in the rear-view mirror, despite the difficulty of doing so. He also establishes that his very profession involves saving people from death, and that he has never become used to the idea of people dying despite what his job entails. Scarlet mocks Hijiri, calling him a do-gooder, but he simply wants there to be world peace. As these two navigate the afterlife together, it becomes clear that in a sense, this movie is practically a near two hour plea for pacifism.

I also found the ending quite satisfying. Granted, it does require some suspension of disbelief. But if you can get past the logic leap, then it might hit you in the same way it hit me. Then again, as I say that, I realize how much this film made me suspend my own disbelief. I have no clue what the afterlife is going to be like, but most of my interpretations of the afterlife over the years have a timeline that is almost parallel to the one we experience in “real life.” When someone dies, I sometimes think of them “looking down” at me, or somebody else. The thought has never crossed my mind that there could be another version of me that has already died, or that if I die, I would travel to a time so to speak long before the people I know are born. The afterlife in this film is undoubtedly creative, but it is kind of mind-numbing to think about, and if I did end up there after I died, I would be a bit bewildered. The afterlife feels very specific to the movie’s universe in order to tell its specific story, and it works here. But it does not feel like a place in which people would truly end up after death if you ask me.

I cannot stop thinking about this film’s afterlife, which is in part a good thing because it is clever, but also a bad thing because I sometimes question its logic. But that is not all that is on my mind upon leaving “Scarlet,” because the film reminds me of how I sometimes think about some of the bad things in my life and how I could at one point say to myself, “This is the worst timeline,” or “This is the worst time in history.” But in actuality, my time in history is probably as not as bad as some others. In fact, it is very likely that as I look back in the past, so many people felt that their specific time had an overwhelming amount of negativity attached to it. I look at our world today and there is so much war going on across the planet, but this film reminds me that even though war exists, my generation did not invent it. In fact, many people in my generation are trying to stop it. This film made me wonder what life would be like if I were born at a different time, all the while making me appreciate the good that we have in this current time. I need time to marinate, but “Scarlet” is likely my favorite animated film of the year. It looks pretty, has likable characters, and is also a bit of a thinker.

In the end, “Scarlet” is, to me, in the middle tier of Mamoru Hosoda’s filmography, which is another way of suggesting that I really dug this movie. Hosoda tells a fast-paced, riveting, emotionally satisfying story with a couple of fleshed out main characters. I liked getting to know about both of them. On top of that, the film is beautifully animated and has tons of great music. I am going to give “Scarlet” an 8/10.

“Scarlet” arrives in theatres Feburary 6th, 2026.

Thanks for reading this review! My next review is going to be for “The Secret Agent!” Stay tuned! Also coming soon, I will be sharing my thoughts on “Hamnet” and “Avatar: Fire and Ash.” If you want to see these reviews and more from Scene Before, follow the blog either with an email or WordPress account! Also, check out the official Facebook page! I want to know, did you see “Scarlet?” What did you think about it? Or, what is your favorite film from Mamoru Hosoda? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!