Fantasy

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

Posted on by Jack Drees

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Posted on by Jack Drees

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks for reading this review! My next review is going to be for the brand new blockbuster “Jurassic World: Rebirth.” Stay tuned! Also, look forward to my reviews for “M3GAN 2.0” and “F1: The Movie.” If you want to see these reviews and more from Scene Before, follow the blog either with an email or WordPress account! Also, check out the official Facebook page! I want to know, did you see “Elio?” What did you think about it? Or, what is your favorite Pixar movie? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

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

Posted on by Jack Drees

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks for reading this review! My next review is going to be for the Celine Song’s newest film, “Materialists.” Stay tuned! Also coming soon, I will share my thoughts on “Elio,” “Jurassic World: Rebirth,” and “M3GAN 2.0.” If you want to see these reviews and more from Scene Before, follow the blog either with an email or WordPress account! Also, check out the official Facebook page! I want to know, did you see “The Life of Chuck?” What did you think about it? Or, did you read the short story that inspired this film? Let me know your thoughts on it down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

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

Posted on by Jack Drees

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Photo by Marvel Studios/MARVEL STUDIOS – © MARVEL 2025

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Posted on by Jack Drees

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dog Man (2025): Part Dog, Part Man, All Mid

Posted on by Jack Drees

“Dog Man” is directed by Peter Hastings, who also provides a few voices in the film, including the titular character. Joining him is a casting including Pete Davidson (The King of Staten Island, Big Time Adolescence), Lil Rel Howrey (The Carmichael Show, Get Out), Isla Fisher (Tag, Now You See Me), Poppy Liu (No Good Deed, Sunnyside), Stephen Root (Office Space, Finding Nemo), Billy Boyd (The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring, Outlander), and Ricky Gervais (Night at the Museum, The Office). This film is set after an event so nonsensical it might just work… Sewing a dog’s head onto a man’s body so both sides can live on as a singular being. The film follows Dog Man’s mission to bring a halt to Petey the Cat’s desire to stop all do-gooders.

My interest in “Dog Man” was almost next to none. There was no way I saw myself paying my hard earned money to see something like this. The trailers barely did anything to motivate me to go see it. I enjoy a good animated flick, but there was nothing about “Dog Man” that made me think it would be worth my time. The humor did not seem to land with me. The general tone felt overly silly for my taste. That said, I ended up watching the film at a free screening a week before it came out. They say the best things in life are free right? Well, that is not always true. Because “Dog Man” is just okay.

“Dog Man” is the latest DreamWorks animated movie. I am rather fond of DreamWorks. I grew up watching several of their animated titles. In fact, I recently rewatched one of my childhood films, “Kung Fu Panda,” and found more layers to unpack from it that I probably did not realize were there when I was watching it for the first time at eight years old. Not every DreamWorks movie hits, but “Kung Fu Panda” packs a mighty punch. Similar to that movie, I can see kids watching “Dog Man” when they are young, revisiting it at a later age, and unpacking more of the film’s lessons. The problem is, I am wondering if they will enjoy the movie as much as they did when they were growing up. This film definitely has material that adults can appreciate, but I think the kids will end up latching onto this film more.

The film cleverly handles Dog Man’s communication. A lot of animated movies will personify animal characters, including dogs. Dog Man is an exception to the rule. Despite having man in his name, the communication style is strictly canine. He does not speak English. He only communicates through barks and howls. Sometimes it is a little over the top, but there are also times where it works. As for the character himself, he is a decently fleshed out center of the film. The story does a good job at meshing the personalities of the two characters we see during the first few minutes as they merge and become one.

You can kind of say this about other major studios too, but I feel like we are experiencing an era in DreamWorks history where each film delivers a different animation style than the previous one. Sure, “Kung Fu Panda 4” felt rather familiar to its predecessors. But if you look back at “The Bad Guys” or “The Wild Robot,” you would probably get a sense that you are looking at something that could only exist in its respective universe. Granted, those two properties are also based on books that have a distinctive style of their own. “Dog Man” is no exception. I saw one review that compared the animation style to “Captain Underpants,” another book series that also became a DreamWorks movie. Turns out, both book properties are by the same author, and “Dog Man” was originally teased in a “Captain Underpants” book. It only makes sense that the two productions look alike.

For the record, I did not watch the “Captain Underpants” movie. If I had to pinpoint something “Dog Man” reminds me of, and I do not know how many people would actually agree with me, the first thing that comes to mind is the “Backyard Sports” series of video games. Remember those? You had the animated characters with the crazy thin eyes? Every time I look at a character’s eyes in this film, I am convinced they were borrowed from a “Backyard Sports” game.

If you go into this movie expecting realism, you are going to be severely disappointed. I mean, come on. The movie is literally about what happens following the stitching of a dog and a man. The movie has a fast-paced, TikTok sort of style to it, to the point where just about every line of dialogue is incredibly piped up and quickly edited. It throws a lot of information in such a short runtime. The film does poke fun at certain tendencies we see in everyday life, especially from pets. We see Dog Man on the chase, completing his task, but he gets distracted by a squirrel. The main rivalry of the film is between a dog and a cat. The cat has a variety of evil plans to capture his rival, including the use of a vacuum cleaner. What is this, “Spaceballs?” The movie reminds me a bit of “The Mitchells vs. the Machines.” Because upon my first watch of both projects, I got the sense that there were so many blink you’ll miss it details to the point where you would have to watch the movie a second time to see what flew over your head. Thankfully, I understood the film’s basic plot, structure, and character motivations. It is not like the film is broken. The film is paced like “Run Lola Run” and contains perhaps a thousand times more instances of dialogue.

That said, even if I did have any interest in picking up on details I missed the first time, I simply do not see myself watching “Dog Man” again. The film is not for me. I do not have a lot of younger children in my social circles, but I have heard from people either in conversation or online that they know kids who love the books on which this film is based. Maybe they will enjoy the movie, but I am not sure how the film will age. The film has good lessons about being a role model and how some people emulate their parents, but it is surrounded by a visually obnoxious series of scenes that almost overwhelm the senses.

Speaking of details, that is also where the devil seems to lie. By that I mean, the devil probably came in and fiddled with them. Because there are parts of this film that are genuinely funny. In fact, there is one gag involving characters exchanging money that had me in stitches. It makes no sense but that is why it works. But going back to this film’s TikTok pace, that can most definitely apply to the humor as well. Forget a mile a minute, the humor in “Dog Man” flies at a kilometer per minute! Having so many jokes could be a good thing. Again, going back to “The Mitchells vs. the Machines,” that film had me laughing nonstop and uncontrollably. That is a film where if I watched it with the windows open, I would probably get a noise complaint from a neighbor. They would probably think I’m a madman. But in the case of “Dog Man,” the movie shoves so much comedy into its script that a lot of it inevitably fails to stick the landing.

The film also has a noticeable amount of news exposition. This is common in a lot of movies and television, but I will give credit to the news sequences in this film having a unique flair to them. Granted, they did add to the film’s overall obnoxiousness, but I will not deny that Isla Fisher does a good job in her role as Sarah Hatoff, a news reporter with tons of screentime.

In the end, “Dog Man” is just fine. I am not a dog person, and I am barely a people person. But I can say, as a movie person, this is as middle of the road as animation gets. There is nothing remotely offensive about “Dog Man.” At times it is undoubtedly creative, but the film ultimately prioritizes quantity over quality. This is particularly noticeable when it comes to comedy. Having a lot of jokes is great, but it is better when all of them land. A noticeable number of them did not do that for me. This is not my least favorite DreamWorks film, but I am still going to give “Dog Man” a 5/10.

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

© thelove.me

Thanks for reading this review! My next review is going to be for “Love Me,” the brand new sci-fi film starring Kristen Stewart and Steven Yeun. Stay tuned! If you want to see this 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 “Dog Man?” What did you think about it? Or, do you have any experience with the “Dog Man” books? Are they any good? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

Flow (2024): 2024’s Quietest and Most Unique Animated Film

Posted on by Jack Drees

“Flow” is directed by Gints Zilbalodis (Away, Oasis) and is an animated film featuring no voice actors and no dialogue. This film is about a stray cat whose home is devastated by a great flood. After finding refuge on a boat, the feline must team up with different kinds of animals and cooperate with them despite everyone’s differences.

I saw the trailer for “Flow” once when I was in the cinema. Specifically, when I was watching one of my favorite movies of the year, “Look Back.” The film looked different but wonderfully simple. I am not much a cat person, nor an animal person really. Nevertheless, I was intrigued. But I almost forgot about it until it came out. I saw this film on December 21st, the same weekend that another big cat movie was coming out, “Mufasa: The Lion King.” I had no interest in supporting yet another one of Disney’s live-action remakes. 2016’s “Jungle Book”-aside, which has truly stunning visual effects, none of them really interested me. So I decided to go see “Flow” instead since I had the time. I have not heard a single bad thing about this movie before I went in, so naturally I should like this movie right?…

Of course! Ladies and gentlemen, whatever hype comes your way regarding “Flow,” believe it. This movie is amazing!

“Flow” is not my favorite movie of the year, but it is up there. It is certainly one of the best animated movies of the year. If it ends up taking some of the Best Animated Feature categories during the awards shows this season, I will applaud its victory. My top 10 BEST movies of the year is coming within the next couple weeks or so, and right now in terms of animations, “Flow” belongs in the big three and has a chance of getting on the list, or at least an honorable mention. You have “Flow,” the recently mentioned “Look Back,” and the Hollywood-produced flick “The Wild Robot.” When it comes to that last film, “Flow” has some striking similarities to it. For one thing, both heavily involve animals. Granted, the animals are utilized in significantly different ways. “The Wild Robot” uses animals as secondary characters, and they are voiced by people. As for “Flow,” not only do the animals lack human voices, they are literally the only characters in this movie. No humans, no robots, no aliens. I mean, humans are animals. Still, I am sure many of you have the common sense to understand my point. Both films even present a possible reality that society could face if we are not careful enough. Both films seem to imply that mankind has ruined the earth with our own activities and did not do enough to deal with climate change. There are scenes in each picture where you can see risen water levels, particularly around manmade structures and buildings. In fact, as established previously, the film is about a cat trying to survive after a great flood.

Another similarity I can state is that I have iffy thoughts on the animation. Although I will be fair to “Flow” because it is not produced at as high of a budget as say a DreamWorks or Illumination movie, therefore I can forgive the film’s cheap look every once in a while. That said, there are times where it does look cheap. I will compliment the animation for its vibrant color palette and smooth feel. That said, if were to take certain frames out of context, I would say those frames could end up feeling cheap. At the same time, however, considering the budget of this movie, €3.5 million, which translates to $3.6 million, the animation does present a decent amount of detail. The animation style of this film, even though it feels minimalistic, is by no means bad. It is actually somewhat lifelike. If these animals were in our world, I would buy them if they had a few more specks of detail added to their bodies. There were also several shots in the movie that put me into the frame, not just because of the detail on display, but because of how long such shots went on. Some moments of this film kind of reminded me of action scenes from “Kingsman: The Secret Service,” “Atomic Blonde,” or “Zombieland: Double Tap,” where the sequence is all done in a way to make things look as if it were a single shot. “Flow” has one or two great shots that go on for an extended time. Safe to say, I was captivated.

Speaking of things that are lifelike, I admire this movie’s unique approach to have no spoken dialogue. Literally the only utterances in this film are animal sounds. This is an animated movie, and I know that these kinds of films often do well with children. There were children at my screening for the record. Although I wonder how this particular film is going to sit with the children who end up watching it. In films like these, where animals dominate the cast, children are often used to seeing them speak our own languages. I think a film like this could be a good watch for children if you want to give them a challenge. The film never “tells” the audience what it is about. It trusts the audience to understand what is happening. Even if you were to present this film to a child and they do not quite understand what is happening, I am sure that they will like watching the animals. I am sure they will enjoy the spectacle. I think there are things that they can appreciate. Although if this film were to get repeat viewings, they might pick up more as they rewatch it. I often talk about how accessible Pixar movies are not just for children, but also adults. “Flow” is in the same boat. I think this is a great movie for all ages that does not resort to immature gags or tired humor. Kind of like Pixar’s “Wall-E,” very little is said in the movie, but the film itself has a lot to say regarding our future, and offers an exciting adventure at the same time.

As I said before, I am not an animal person. Therefore, it should also not surprise you that I am not a pet person. However, I have been around dogs extensively so I know some of the realistic tendencies that were on display from those specific characters during the movie. I think dog owners will appreciate those being in the film. I think if you are a pet owner and you watch this movie, or at the very least, if you have been around these animals for extended periods of time, you will be able to appreciate this film for the little actions it sprinkles in the script here and there.

In the end, “Flow” is a must see movie that ranks as one of the best animations of the year. The style is sometimes iffy, but also kind of charming. The film has a lively adventure, great score, and ultimately, something for everyone. If you do not mind movies without dialogue, this should definitely be a priority on your movie to-do list. I have no clue on what the replay value for this movie will be, but I think that “Flow” is a movie that everyone should watch at least once. I am going to give “Flow” a 9/10.

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

© www.screenrant.com

Thanks for reading this review! Ladies and gentlemen, we are down to the final three movies I saw in theaters in 2024! My next reviews are going to be for “Nosferatu,” “Babygirl,” and “A Complete Unknown.” Once these reviews are done, it is time once again for the end of the year countdowns! Look forward to my top 10 WORST movies of 2024 and my top 10 BEST movies of 2024, coming to Scene Before next year. If you want to see these 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 “Flow?” What did you think about it? Or, what is your favorite animated movie you saw this year? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

Sonic the Hedgehog 3 (2024): Colorful Spectacle and Obnoxious Dialogue Overshadows Stakes in This Threequel

Posted on by Jack Drees

“Sonic the Hedgehog 3” is directed by Jeff Fowler, who also directed the previous “Sonic the Hedgehog” movies. This film stars Jim Carrey (Batman Forever, The Mask), Ben Schwartz (Parks and Recreation, The Afterparty), Krysten Ritter (Veronica Mars, Gilmore Girls), Shemar Moore (S.W.A.T., Criminal Minds), Colleen O’Shaughnessey (Digimon, Naruto), James Marsden (X-Men, Superman Returns), Tika Sumpter (Mixed-ish, Ride Along), Idris Elba (Pacific Rim, The Suicide Squad), and Keanu Reeves (The Matrix, John Wick). This film follows Sonic and his team as they face a new enemy, Shadow the Hedgehog. When the team realizes the potential dangers of Shadow’s power, they choose to band together with an unlikely ally to stop him.

Video game adaptations have had an iffy history at best. Yes, on the television side you have hits like “The Last of Us” and “Arcane,” but as far as movies go, there is not a single title I imagine most people would consider to be a masterpiece. Sure, the 1995 “Mortal Kombat” had some charm to it. It is definitely not a horrible movie. Same goes with 2023’s “The Super Mario Bros. Movie” which I have no plans to watch ever again, but I would be lying to you if I said it was inferior to 1993’s “Super Mario Bros.” adaptation.

The “Sonic the Hedgehog” movies have made for an interesting franchise. And I do believe “interesting” is the best word to use in this case. Because neither of the two movies I have seen up to this point have been bad. I thought the first one in particular is quite fun and offers replay value. It has a simple but effective story. Ben Schwartz is a great pick to voice Sonic. Jim Carrey as Robotnik may go down as some of the best casting of the decade. The climax is really fun. Overall, it is a good time for all ages. Then we get to “Sonic the Hedgehog 2,” which maintains some of the positives of the original. You have good visual effects, nice sound design, and a pretty cool third act. But the film also drags because there is an abysmally irritating wedding subplot that makes no sense. There were other things to make up for it. I even gave the film a 6/10 in my review. But that score was pretty generous if you asked me. For the record, I bought the original “Sonic the Hedgehog” and watched it at home after checking it out in the cinema. The same cannot be said for the sequel.

They say you are only as good as your last project. And while I had a positive experience with “Sonic the Hedgehog 2,” I still found it disappointing. So my expectations for “Sonic the Hedgehog 3,” while they were not sitting right at rock bottom, were also not that high. But those expectations shot up with a pretty solid marketing campaign. I thought by the end it gave away a little too much, but the trailers were funny and promised something a little darker than the other two installments. I was ultimately onboard.

So what did I think? Eh, the movie’s fine.

“Sonic the Hedgehog 3” is in fact a step up from “Sonic the Hedgehog 2.” But the movie is also nowhere near as good as the original “Sonic the Hedgehog.” Though if I had to name a positive for not only this movie, but all three movies so far, it is that they maintain a sense of consistency. They all feel like they belong in the same universe and work well off each other. As a trilogy, the “Sonic the Hedgehog” movies are not quite as good as say “Lord of the Rings.” But just like “Lord of the Rings,” the movies feel perfectly interconnected. Coincidentally, both of these trilogies are done through a singular vision. All the “Lord of the Rings” movies were directed by Peter Jackson, and all the “Sonic the Hedgehog” installments were helmed by Jeff Fowler. If there is anyone who is perhaps responsible for “Sonic’s” consistency, Fowler is perhaps the most likely candidiate. They even got the same writers for all three movies. Pat Casey and Josh Miller wrote the first movie together. The two ended up coming back for the sequels along with John Whittington.

This leads me to perhaps the most robust assertion I could perhaps make about “Sonic the Hedgehog 3.” If you really liked “Sonic the Hedgehog” and its sequel, you are going to like “Sonic the Hedgehog 3.” If you find those first two movies to be bad, then chances are you will feel the same way about this latest installment. As for me, I made it clear I liked the first two movies. I did not love either of them, in fact, I would even say “Sonic the Hedgehog 2” is barely passable, so to have the third one find itself on the lower end of my positive scale comes as almost no surprise whatsoever.

One of my complaints about the second movie was the dialogue. For the record, the dialogue in the second film feels similar to the first. But every other minute Sonic is spewing out some random pop culture joke or some semblance of words that come close to such a thing and not many of them land. This film seems to maintain my dialogue distaste. There is a lot of obnoxious chit chat and a lot of the lines feel overly cartoony. Yes, I know this film has animated characters. But even for something like this, it comes off as overblown. That said, the film does still get the occasional laugh from our hero characters.

However, the biggest laughs in the film, perhaps unsurprisingly, come from Jim Carrey. Jim Carrey is back in this film doing double duty. Not only is he back for his third portrayal of Doctor Ivo Robotnik, but he is also playing his grandfather, Professor Gerald Robotnik. Seeing Jim Carrey play both of these characters at the same time makes for a weird, wacky, and fun experience like no other. I think Carrey is the best part of these movies. I say that even though I do think his material in the second film hindered his performance a bit. As for this third film, it is nice to see Carrey getting some funny, ludicrous material to work with. Every time he was on screen, I had a grin on my face.

This film also introduces a new hedgehog character, Shadow. Keanu Reeves plays the role, which I think is a great choice. Having heard the character’s voice in certain video games, this is fairly decent match. Also when it comes to Shadow’s design, Reeves’ voice seems to mesh well with the character. But as much as I liked the trailers for this film, my one worry was that Shadow would sound too much like Keanu Reeves was playing himself. I felt a lot of John Wick-isms in his execution. I like “John Wick,” but one problem I have with celebrity voice casting is that the celebrities sound so much like themselves that they fail to blend in with their character. Having seen Shadow, I can say there are scenes where Keanu clearly sounds like he is playing himself, but by no means is he phoning it in. I saw a little bit of Keanu in the performance, yet simultaneously, I saw all Shadow if that makes any sense.

Also to a certain degree, I liked seeing Shadow’s backstory. While I am one to complain about this movie being a bit obnoxious at times, I think Shadow’s backstory occasionally makes for some solid visual storytelling. There is even some decent dialogue. The film also develops a nice little commonality between Sonic and Shadow, particularly how the two were able to find humans with whom they became best friends sometime after their arrival to earth. We saw this previously with Sonic and Tom Wachowski, AKA “Donut Lord.” Shadow seems to develop a similar connection with a young girl named Maria.

If I were a young kid watching this movie, I would probably have a great time with it. There is a lot of action, adventure, and humor. This would probably be a frequent watch in my house if I were 9 or 10 years old. As a 25 year old, I am trying to think about what this movie teaches our children. Sure, it is over the top and zany to no end. But I think it delivers positive lessons. Shadow’s presence in the movie makes me think lots of children will be introduced to the potential negatives of animal testing. On the hero’s side of the spectrum, the film also showcases the importance of teamwork and the complications of making the right choice.

Photo by [Paramount Pictures and Sega of A, Inc.]/Paramount Pictures and – © 2024 Par. Pics & SEGA

I talked about how I think “Sonic 3” is a step up from “Sonic 2,” and there is another improvement regarding this film I have not mentioned yet, the humans. For one thing, the humans’ involvement in “Sonic 3” raise far fewer questions as to the logistics of the plot. There are some moments of the movie in general that I thought were a bit far-fetched, but still. We also tend to focus more on Sonic and his crew this time around as opposed to the humans. Granted, Tom and Maddie do play a significant role in the film. Though their use throughout the runtime is much more pleasing compared to the last film. This film is also noticeably tighter than “Sonic the Hedgehog 2.” Though it should come as no surprise considering “Sonic 3” is 13 minutes shorter. But they seemed to have trimmed out the fluff so to speak. In terms of plot, characters, and overall details, the film is definitely more complicated than this franchise’s kickstarter. But by no means does the film feel terribly overstuffed or boring. There is never a dull moment in “Sonic the Hedgehog 3.” There are slower moments, there are cheesy moments. However not once did I want to fall asleep watching this movie.

I said before that one of my complaints about this movie is that it is a little overly cartoony. And if you watch cartoons, you would know that the characters from one episode to the next behave very similarly to how they do in the last. That makes sense for consistency’s sake. You can even say the same thing in other television shows done in live-action, but it is especially noticeable in cartoons. I watched this movie and I noticed not only are Sonic, Tails, and Knuckles very similar to how they behave in the second movie, Knuckles in particular almost feels too similar. Sure, we learn that apparently he has picked up some pop culture knowledge. We see him make a “Pokemon” joke early on in the film. Even with that in mind, Knuckles still sounds like a fish out of water when it comes to concepts with which many earthlings would happen to understand. I do not know exactly how long this movie takes place after “Sonic 2,” but if Knuckles is still behaving the way he is, the timejump cannot be that far. At least for logic’s sake I hope that is the case.

Throughout the review we have talked about just how consistent this property has been. This has resulted in positives like Jim Carrey continuing to kill it as Robotnik and some action-packed third acts. But it has also resulted in negatives like a lack of character development or nonsensical scenes. There is one more consistency that if this franchise were to continue for some time, I hope gets addressed. By the end of this film, I left feeling the stakes in this franchise are minimal. I am not going to dive into detail, but the “Sonic the Hedgehog” franchise somewhat feels like the “Fast & Furious” franchise for a younger audience. Yes, both are action-packed films involving speed and globetrotting missions. But the further we get into the franchise, the more I am convinced that several characters are perhaps either invincible or lucky.

I understand that the “Sonic” franchise is a hit with younger viewers and the people behind it would therefore not want to make it too dark. But this franchise keeps adding new faces that it just makes you wonder when the heck it is going to suddenly get rid of one of them. “Sonic the Hedgehog” is a decent moneymaker for Paramount. As good as it may be now to have all the movies feel the same, it also risks running the franchise into the ground and having it feel bland. We have seen this problem with the Michael Bay-directed “Transformers” franchise, another popular product of Paramount. While the movies tend to have slight differences, they for the most part come off as carbon copies of one another. Despite my complaint, if Jeff Fowler and the same writing team were to come back for “Sonic the Hedgehog 4,” I would be onboard. They have a proven track record, even if it is not the greatest. Although I think it would be fun to see someone put their own creative spin into the franchise.

Also, one more consistency to bring up, this film has some extra material during the credits. There is a mid-credits scene and a post-credits scene. Stick around for both of them.

In the end, “Sonic the Hedgehog 3” is not a bad movie. In fact, by the standards of video game movies, it is one of the better ones. Despite that, the movie is still not a masterpiece by any stretch of the imagination. I think it is a step up from the last “Sonic” outing, but still not good enough to rival the original. Also, as far as video game movies go, I think it is slightly more watchable than “The Super Mario Bros. Movie.” This feels more like a movie compared to that film, which literally just comes off as an hour and a half of nonstop easter eggs and references just for the sake of forced nostalgia within a generic storyline. The voicework in this film, per usual, is top notch. The human characters are a noticeable improvement compared to the previous installment. Shadow is a nice addition to the franchise. But the jokes are off and on, the dialogue is a little too obnoxious, and I know this is a movie about a talking hedgehog, but even with that in mind, there are things in this film that feel a tad far-fetched. If you like the last two movies, this is definitely for you. If not, maybe go see something else. I am going to give “Sonic the Hedgehog 3” a 6/10.

“Sonic the Hedgehog 3” is now playing in theaters everywhere. Tickets are available now!

Thanks for reading this review! Stay tuned for my thoughts on films including “Flow,” “Nosferatu,” “Babygirl,” and “A Complete Unknown.” If you want to see more from Scene Before, follow the blog either with an email or WordPress account! Also, check out the official Facebook page! I want to know, did you see “Sonic the Hedgehog 3?” What did you think about it? Or, what is your favorite of the “Sonic the Hedgehog” movies so far? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

Wicked (2024): A Great Leading Duo Cannot Save This Middle of the Road Musical

Posted on by Jack Drees

WARNING: Review MAY contain spoilers depending on your point of view.

“Wicked” is directed by Jon M. Chu (Crazy Rich Asians, In the Heights) and stars Cynthia Erivo (Genius, Widows), Ariana Grande-Butera (Victorious, Scream Queens), Jonathan Bailey (Fellow Travelers, Bridgerton), Ethan Slater, Bowen Yang (Awkwafina is Nora from Queens, Saturday Night Live), Marissa Bode, Peter Dinklage (Game of Thrones, Pixels), Michelle Yeoh (Crazy Rich Asians, Everything Everywhere All at Once), and Jeff Goldblum (Jurassic Park, Thor: Ragnarok). This film is based on a book that inspired a popular Broadway musical and centers around the connection between two students at Shiz University… A misunderstood green woman named Elphaba and a popular girl named Galinda.

Photo by Universal Pictures – © Universal Studios. All Rights Reserved.

“Wicked” is a property that I have heard by name for years. Obviously, I am familiar with some Oz stories, so I know that “Wicked” is connected to that universe. I have seen commercials on television promoting the play when it arrives in my local area. My earliest memory regarding the play has to do with one episode of “Deal or No Deal” I watched when I was 10 years old, when the contestant received an offer from the banker revolving around the play. But I cannot say I have seen the play, nor have I listened to the soundtrack. I have heard decent things about it, I know it is popular, I know people enjoy it. But I have never bothered to check it out. Safe to say, there is a first time for everything.

Perhaps the biggest movie phenomenon in terms of marketing in 2024 so far would have to be “Deadpool & Wolverine.” That film has pushed itself rather hard, gotten so many people looking forward to it, and gotten rather creative with its advertising leading up to its release. Though I say that with a supposed bias because I am definitely the target audience of “Deadpool & Wolverine.” “Wicked” on the other hand, not really. Like any genre, I can appreciate a great musical, but I would not say musicals are my first choice. Nevertheless, I am seeing more than enough promotion for “Wicked,” and I do not think I am alone in this. Though I will admit, like “Deadpool & Wolverine,” there are creative approaches I like regarding “Wicked’s” push. At AMC Theatres, where I usually flock to if I am seeing a movie, they made a reminder for audiences watching whatever film they paid for to follow the traditional rules of moviegoing. As this happens, Jeff Goldblum, who plays the Wizard in the film, says each rule, after which a completely fitting clip of “Wicked” plays.

In fact, this PSA played before my “Wicked” screening as well, which I saw at a Dolby Cinema auditorium at AMC. The video also comes with the rule, “NO SINGING,” which thankfully, my audience followed. Shoutout to my fellow moviegoers for maintaining a respectful atmosphere. But I could tell that I was part of a passionate crowd. There were some enthusiastic responses to certain parts of the film when they came up, I even remember seeing someone below me wearing a witch’s hat. I love when people embrace their inner fan. This is why I often go to conventions because I love those kinds of atmospheres.

Photo by Universal Pictures – © Universal Studios. All Rights Reserved.

Sadly, while “Wicked” clearly has fans, I cannot say I am one of them. I was not one before watching this movie, and I cannot say it turned me into one. This is genuinely one of the most middle of the road movies of the year. One can even argue it is disappointing. Because even as someone who was not the target audience, I could clearly see craftsmanship, love, and effort put into the picture. But there are also some things that have turned me off.

Once again, I am not the target audience for musicals, though I have enjoyed some. In recent years, I have raved about Steven Spielberg’s “West Side Story” remake time and time again. That said, the songs in this movie, while there are highlights, for the most part, did not really do anything for me. There are some tolerable pieces like “No One Mourns the Wicked,” “Popular,” and of course, “Defying Gravity.” But for the most part, the movie failed to impress me. I thought from the concept, the marketing, and the fantastical universe in which this movie was going to be set, we would get an incredibly vibrant film, but that is not the case.

Photo by Universal Pictures – © Universal Studios. All Rights Reserved.

When it comes to the color palette, that is a spot where “Wicked” falters. The color grading in this film feels pale and wooden for a place that is clearly supposed to be otherworldly. If anything, it kind of looks like a rushed Marvel movie. Do not get me wrong, I love my Marvel movies. But there are a couple titles I where I think the color grading should have been cleaned up a little bit. It looks kind of empty. That said, the film’s look is not all bad. The production design feels grand and epic at times. Oz looks great. The interiors look great. There’s a shot early on showing a massive field of flowers that captivated me. That also leads me to say that I like the film’s camerawork. The framing feels wide and vast, trying to fit as much information as possible from one side of the screen to the other. This film is shot by Alex Brooks, who is no stranger to shooting musicals. In 2021, she shot “Tick, Tick…BOOM!,” which I adored. Months before that movie came out, she was credited for the less enjoyable but still fun “In the Heights,” also directed by Jon M. Chu. Brooks has a good eye for framing and definitely knows how to make shots feel grand, even if there are other aspects that drag such grandeur down.

Photo by Universal Pictures – © Universal Studios. All Rights Reserved.

Although if I had to name my favorite aspects of the film, there are two that come to mind… The leads. The entire film revolves around the relationship between Elphaba and Galinda. Thankfully, this movie casts both of these parts perfectly. For Elphaba, you have Cynthia Erivo, who not only plays her part well, capturing the uniqueness of her character that goes far beyond her looks, but boy can she sing. There is a lot of singing in this film, and admittedly, some of the singing in this film, particularly from multiple characters, sometimes feels out of place. Though it is not “Joker: Folie à Deux” bad. Some of it just feels tacked on if anything. I imagine some would say all of the singing in the film has a point. From my point of view, maybe it fits better on Broadway. I do not know. There are a lot of scenes within the context of a musical that I happened to buy. But there are other songs that either feel slapped together almost unnecessarily, or just plain annoying. But thankfully, Erivo sings all of her songs well, and the same can be said for Ariana Grande, who practically steals every scene she is in. She plays the popular girl type to a tee. She is fantastic. Dare I even say Oscar-worthy. I hope she gets a nomination. Whether it will be for Best Lead Actress or Supporting Actress we will have to see. I know Universal probably does not want Erivo and Grande competing against each other for the same award. The Golden Globe nominees just came out and both performers are in different categories. Even so, Grande is a knockout. There is an otherworldliness to her character that I bought into. She is funny, charming, and perhaps gives one of the best physical performances of the year. There are plenty of other actors in this film that play their individual parts well. I thought Jeff Goldblum was a great choice to play Oz. Michelle Yeoh is commanding as Madame Morrible, and Jonathan Bailey does a good job playing Fiyero Tigelaar.

As said earlier this review MAY contain spoilers depending on your point of view… This where is where we get into those potential spoilers. You have been warned.

Photo by Universal Pictures – © Universal Studios. All Rights Reserved.

Kind of like “Dune,” there is one thing “Wicked” hides in its marketing that I would have never gathered from trailers and ads alone. I knew about this before going into the film, because other people dropped the news beforehand. But for those who do not know, “Wicked” is a part one. Early on in the film, the title card of this movie shows up, we see “WICKED” in huge letters, and shortly after, the words “PART 1” shows up. And BOY does this movie feel like a first half of a two part story. You can say the same for “Dune,” a movie that for the record, I happen to fall within the target audience… My point is, I feel like “Dune” does a good job at not only getting me invested in a universe that aesthetically leaps off the screen ten times better than this one does. But I care more about the journey our lead character goes on. In fact, we see him during the start of the film in a certain way, and he fully develops as a character, giving a solid end to his arc in the story. There are questions regarding the character that are left unanswered, but I am intrigued enough to find out how things would unfold in a future chapter. Elphaba develops somewhat in this film, but her development feels slightly incomplete. “Dune,” despite being a book split in half, comes off as a full story. At least to me it does. I would not be surprised if some people disagree. It leaves the audience with questions. But as far as Paul Atreides is concerned, I think the movie gives him a solid progression. It left me knowing enough about the world of Arrakis. It left me knowing enough about Atreides. It left me wanting more. I left “Wicked” feeling as if I was watching an unfinished story that barely kept me awake. I remember last year when “Spider-Man: Across the Spider-Verse” came out. Like “Dune,” I happen to be in the target audience for that film too. I loved the movie, and I could tell that like “Wicked,” it was made with love. But also like “Wicked,” if I had a complaint about the film, it definitely feels like a setup movie at times. It is a great setup movie. But there is a reason despite me giving the film a 10/10 for its many positives during my review, I ended up sliding it down a spot on my Top 10 BEST Movies of 2023 list, where “Godzilla Minus One” just so happened to be my number one pick for the year.

Sticking with “Across the Spider-Verse,” I enjoyed all the characters, the animation, the production value, everything that particular movie had to offer. They do way more than enough to make the part one worthwhile. As for “Wicked,” there are decent characters but they are in an off and on story. The world is not as interesting as I hoped it would be. A few songs are okay, but I cannot say I am raving about them. In fact, some of the song sequences gave me a headache. Part of it may do with me seeing the movie in Dolby, but still. If I were to watch the movie a second time either at home or in a regular theater, hopefully that does not happen again. The pacing of this movie is as slow as snail. The movie is two hours and forty minutes long. It honestly almost feels like three or even longer. I found myself rather invested in the second half at times, but the first half? I found myself wanting to fall asleep. But I could not do that, because I was in a Dolby Cinema, and the songs were so loud they were giving me a headache!

As the film was ending, I will be real, despite my many negatives, I was rather riveted by Erivo’s take on Defying Gravity. This is not a song I would listen to on my own time, but within the context of the story, she puts on a good show. There is also, again, really good camerawork in this sequence. There are a couple shots that are so immersive you feel like Erivo is singing right in your face. For many people, I would imagine this would be the reason why the movie is worth seeing. Unfortunately for me, I was immensely tired after the first half to the point where the movie barely redeemed itself by the conclusion. This was a good sequence. I just wish it were in a movie that had more of my attention.

Photo by Universal Pictures – © Universal Studios. All Rights Reserved.

In the end, I left “Wicked” rather unfulfilled. I will remind everyone, this is a part one. Unfortunately, this film failed on an important objective, which is getting me excited for part two. I am probably going to see it, because I know a lot of people will be talking about it. But if I were not reviewing movies, chances are I might skip it unless someone I know invited me to see it as their plus one. Again, I am not the target audience for this movie. It was likely made for someone who was not me. But the same can be said about other movies I reviewed like “Barbie,” “On the Basis of Sex,” and “Hope Gap.” I liked all of those movies! I cannot say the same about this one. If you like “Wicked,” good for you. I am glad you had fun. But I found the soundtrack to be mediocre, the overall look of the film to be slightly unappealing, and the world to lack my overall investment. I have to give credit to certain groups in this movie. A lot of the actors do a good job. The costumes are really nice. The sets definitely have effort put into them. This movie comes with plenty of good, but I nevertheless found an equal amount of bad. You could even say there are things that make “Wicked” watchable, but it is done in a package that failed to win me over. I like Jon M. Chu as a director, and when it comes to unleashing good performances out of his cast, that is where he excels here. But when it comes to creating an enjoyable musical atmosphere, I think he does better job with that with “In the Heights.” I do not love “In the Heights,” but I think it is a slightly better film than “Wicked.” If someone were in the room with me and they put it in on, I would not leave. I would watch it again. As is the case “Killers of the Flower Moon” last year and “Elvis” the year before that, “Wicked” is probably going to be a huge awards contender. But like those two other films, I am definitely in the minority with my negative opinion when it comes to “Wicked.” I mean, I liked the movie more than “Challengers…” Go ahead, punch me in the face. I do not care. I said what I said. All I can do is give my honest opinion. I am going to give “Wicked” a 5/10.

One last thing I want to bring up… I do not know if this was a studio choice or a directorial intention or if this was just my screening, but I want to know if anyone else experienced this. When I saw this film for the first time, I noticed that there was a tint attached in my presentation that was pink and green. It stayed that way during the entire film. You might think I am just seeing things because those are the two consistent colors throughout the picture. Although I must point out that this tint was also present during the trailers. When the MPA warning flashed, I noticed hints of pink in the font. I am not sure what the purpose of that was, but it was kind of distracting. Did anyone else see that too or was it just me?

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

Thanks for reading this review! By the way, a lot of people appear to be seeing “Wicked” as part of a double feature with another film, “Gladiator II.” Be sure to check out my review for that movie as well! Also on the pipeline, I have reviews coming for “Smile 2,” “Nightbitch,” “Kraven the Hunter,” and “The Lord of the Rings: The War of the Rohirrim.” If you want to see these reviews and more from Scene Before, follow the blog either with an email or WordPress account! Also, check out the official Facebook page! I want to know, did you see “Wicked?” What did you think about it? Or, what is your most unpopular movie opinion regarding this year in cinema? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

Red One (2024): A Holiday Movie for Everyone, and Therefore, No One

Posted on by Jack Drees

“Red One” is directed by Jake Kasdan (Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle, Sex Tape) and stars Dwayne Johnson (Central Intelligence, Moana), Chris Evans (Captain America: The First Avenger, Knives Out), Lucy Liu (Charlie’s Angels, Strange World), and J.K. Simmons. This film showcases what happens when Santa’s bodyguard (Johnson) and a hacker (Evans) team up to find and rescue Saint Nick himself after he has been kidnapped.

Courtesy of Prime – © Amazon Content Services LLC

There are two words that define “Red One” for me. And no, they are not “red” or “one.” The two words that have consistently stayed in my head regarding “Red One” just so happen to be “it’s fine.” It is that middle of the road utterance you give to someone when you are trying not to hurt their feelings, but you also do not want to overblow your emotions and put on a performance. What did I think of the first “Red One” trailer? Eh, it’s fine. What did I think of the second trailer? I mean, it’s fine I guess. Looks fun enough. I was entertained by both of them. They both made me curious about the film. But I am not going to pretend it boosted my excitement in the same way that Marvel’s “Thunderbolts*” did, which took me from a concept I felt rather indifferent about, to immediately demanding at least five or so minutes of more footage.

I will be real, if you were to measure my excitement for “Red One,” it would be somewhere in the middle. I cannot pretend I have massive expectations for this film, but there are promising elements to behold. I liked the whole spy action vibe the film was promising, where the objective for our two recognizable leads is to rescue Santa Claus. “Violent Night” recently showed you can make a cool modern action flick with a Christmas backdrop, so maybe “Red One” would result in something similar.

Not to beat a dead horse… But “Red One” is, well, what other description can I possibly give?! It’s fine! If they come out with a DVD for this film, please note how I said if, not when, because this movie is an Amazon production. But if they come out with a DVD for “Red One,” you might as well take the two words I just said, “It’s fine,” and put that quote on the bottom of the cover. I bet that will make a great addition to the Walmart $5 bin. Do those bins even exist anymore? Asking for a friend.

I have heard this comparison before, but I think there is almost no better way to pitch this film to someone. “Red One” is practically a movie within a movie. It is a movie that you would make that purely exists within the universe of another film, or even say a TV show. This is the kind of movie that would exist in an episode of “The Big Bang Theory,” Penny would have to pitch the concept to her friends after she reads the script only to pause for audience laughter. The concept sounds goofy enough, but putting actors as notable as Dwayne Johnson and Chris Evans in the lead roles? It is a perfect recipe for a two minute gag in a coming of age comedy. But this movie is not two minutes. It is more than two hours. And it packs quite a bit into the runtime. Some of it lands, some of it does not. But it is hard for me to say that there was a lot in the movie that gave me a particularly strong reaction. Not much made me overly irate. Not much made me giddy with glee. That said, there are things that stood out to me about the film.

One positive I have about the film is how much lore they put into the mythology of Christmas, the North Pole, Santa Claus, or even other mysterious beings. The film undoubtedly puts a creative twist on handling what we tend to know as mythology.

That said, this film’s interpretation of the North Pole is both creative and underwhelming at the same time. For my “Star Wars” fans out there, it is basically the midichlorians of North Pole interpretations. When I think of the North Pole based on how I imagined it as a kid and what I have seen through media, I have always interpreted it as this whimsy, magical place. But a couple of the first things I notice when we get to the North Pole are a semi-depressing color scheme and drones flying. Sure, maybe drones can be magical… But when I look at the drones they have no poppy color to them, no pizzazz, and they honestly look like something you’d find in a store. The North Pole does not look as fun or magical as other interpretations. If anything it looks kind of bland. I get that the movie is a spy action thriller, and I like parts of what they are going for. But the North Pole is not one of them.

I also want to note something to families looking to see this film. I will not spoil anything considering the movie is new, but the movie opens with some material I think certain children should not be seeing. Also, this scene does set up the rest of the film, but I also think that scene would have been a better set up to a different story. For the record, the scene features a younger version of Chris Evans’ character, Jack O’Malley, and shows him doing something he probably should not be doing. We see this develop into something else in the long term, but I would love to see how this would have paid off in a shorter term. Perhaps hours, days, or even a year after Jack commits to his actions. Again, I will not go into detail. I think it would have spiraled into a movie that would have been much more fun than the one we got.

The holiday season is full of new films with great performances, many of which get nominated for Oscars, Critics Choice Awards, SAGs, and so on. “Red One” is not one of those movies. In fact it is not even close. Yes, there are competent performances on the supporting end. There is nothing totally anger-inducing, yet there is also not really much to write home about. With that in mind, if you were to ask me what I want for Christmas this year? It would for this movie to have two significantly better lead performances.

I am not going to pretend that Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson is the greatest actor of all time. Though I would not doubt his charisma gets him by from one movie to the next. That said, after several outings, he almost seems to do the same song and dance every other time. Yeah, maybe the “Jumanji” movies showcase his skills sometimes because he has to play other people simulating him. But when I look at movies like “Skyscraper,” “Rampage,” “Red Notice,” or this latest one, he seems to be playing some variation of himself. In some of these movies, even if he does not give an Oscar-worthy performance, he at least has a positive presence. The same can be said for “Red One” in certain scenes. I liked all the scenes between Johnson’s character, Callum Drift, and Santa Claus, played nicely by J.K. Simmons. But for various portions of the film, Johnson came off as if he was just playing the hits, but giving a tired version of them. The performance is not that inviting. It feels been there, done that. Does Johnson look like he wants to be on set? The way the movie is presented certainly makes him look that way. But I am willing to bet whenever he smiled on screen, that smile came with the knowledge that he would soon be getting a good chunk of the movie’s $250 million dollar budget.

Yeah… There is no way this movie cost $250 million. There are definitely a lot of special effects and things going on in each frame, but there is no way this is movie cost as much to make as “The Dark Knight Rises…”

Speaking of people who probably got paid a crapton of money for their presence in the film, let’s talk about Chris Evans! I love Chris Evans. Of course I have enjoyed watching him as Captain America, but even in movies I did not enjoy, I still think Evans ends up being a highlight. Personally, he was the best part of that forgettable Netflix movie, “The Gray Man.” But as far as Evans goes, his performance belongs on the naughty list. Though I would not entirely blame Chris Evans. While he may appear to be sleepwalking in the film from time to time, the script does him almost no favors. His character is about as one-dimensional as a ragdoll in “G-Mod.” Every other moment with Evans is just him acting bewildered or mind-blown. He is clearly playing the fish out of water role, but such a trait brings nothing interesting to the table as far as this project is concerned. Other than trying to get what he wants when he wants it, being a lame fish out of water might as well be Jack’s entire personality. Well, those aspects in addition to perving out on Wonder Woman.

Courtesy of Prime – © Amazon Content Services LLC

As for the action in this film, I am surprised to say that there are some standout scenes. There are a couple minutes inside of Jack O’Malley’s apartment where he fends off tons of people at once. I thought the choreography in that scene was really good. There is a creative moment in the film involving Rock ‘Em Sock ‘Em Robots. While I thought the scene itself was average, I did like one confrontation between Jack O’Malley and a giant snowman that turns its head like a Terminator when placed on a burning grill. But I cannot pretend I was that riveted by any of the action scenes. If anything I was amused by them, but to say I was wowed would be a hyperbole.

This is not necessarily an action scene as much as it is a face off, but there is a fantastic scene where our heroes come face to face with Krampus. There is a perfectly paced few minutes where Krampus and one of the characters are going one on one in the creature’s own game. It is quite entertaining. Sadly, I cannot say most of the movie is just as thrilling. By the way, for a movie full of visuals that would make you think it is a forgotten project from the late 2000s, early 2010s, I have to say the look for Krampus is a great display of practical effects. He looks great!

Theoretically, “Red One” is a movie that seems to be made to entertain or satisfy just about every person who would see it. But that is also where the film has a drawback. It tries to be dozens of things at once to the point where it does not really seem to know who exactly it is for. Is it for action junkies? Is it for people who like Christmas movies? Is it for people who like “The Rock?” Is it for people looking for a bit of a family dynamic? Will teens like it? Does it have enough for the kiddos? The movie throws a bunch of things at the wall. Some may stick, but not like superglue. Sure, “Red One” has action, but it is not the most innovative or exciting of the year. Yes, this movie has a Christmas backdrop, but lacks a sense of spirit or magic. Of course, “The Rock” is in the movie, but I would say he has had better performances and scripts to work with. There is a family dynamic but it almost lingers in the background. Certain teens would probably get behind some of the spectacle-based scenes but to call this movie the most spectacular-looking of the year when “Dune: Part Two” and “Twisters” exist would be generous. Kids could also be entertained by the adventure, but there are some things in this film that I imagine their parents would not want them to see.

When you break it down, “Red One” tries to be for everybody, but embraces its elements so minimally or poorly to the point where the movie is arguably for nobody. If you want to watch a movie from this year that so brilliantly speaks to several demographics, one that comes to mind would probably be “The Fall Guy.” For those looking for holiday cheer, you might be disappointed. Maybe some younger viewers should stay away from the film too. But for those looking for ludicrous action, charismatic stars, great music, an engaging love story, and a fun adventure, it is one of the year’s best flicks. I cannot say “Red One” is the movie equivalent to a lump of coal, but watching the movie at times sort of feels similar to going into my stocking on Christmas morning and finding a toothbrush. It works, but it might not exactly be what I am looking for.

In the end, “Red One” is as the kids say, mid. It is not great, not terrible. Just okay. Do I feel like my time was wasted watching “Red One?” Probably not. Will I watch it again in the future? Also probably not. But “Red One” is not worthy of the same applause that certain Christmas classics continue to get today. Movies like “Home Alone” or “Elf” or if you want to talk about something from this decade, I would say “Red One” does not even hold a candle to “The Holdovers.” If you are having company over during the holidays and need background noise on the television, “Red One” is somewhat serviceable. But you could also do a lot better. I am going to give “Red One” a 5/10.

“Red One” is now playing in theaters. Tickets are available now.

© 2024 SEARCHLIGHT PICTURES

Thanks for reading this review! My next reviews are going to be for “A Real Pain,” “Y2K,” “Juror #2,” “Wicked,” and “Smile 2.” If you want to see these reviews and more from Scene Before, follow the blog either with an email or WordPress account! Also, check out the official Facebook page! I want to know, did you see “Red One?” What did you think about it? Or, are there any Christmas movies you watch once a year? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!