Horror | Scene Before

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Send Help (2026): See This Thrilling Survival Flick One Way or Another

Posted on 11 Days Ago by Jack Drees

“Send Help” is directed by Sam Raimi (Spider-Man, Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness) and stars Rachel McAdams (Mean Girls, Game Night), Dylan O’Brien (The Maze Runner, Teen Wolf), Edyll Ismail (La Brea, Ghosts), Xavier Samuel (Blonde, Tell Me Your Secrets), Chris Pang (As We See It, Blade of the 47 Ronin), and Dennis Haysbert (24, Now and Again). This film follows office employee Linda Liddle and her boss Bradley Preston as the two individuals, whose personalities and backgrounds could not be more different, do what they can to survive while stranded on an island.

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

Sam Raimi is a director who defined my love for movies and the art of filmmaking. Raimi directed Tobey Maguire in three “Spider-Man” movies, a trilogy that defined my childhood. Since then, I have gone on to enjoy some of his other works including “Evil Dead,” “Army of Darkness,” “Oz the Great and Powerful,” and “Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness.” Raimi is a master storyteller whether he is doing something original or working with popular IPs. If there was any reason for me to be excited for “Send Help,” he was it. Not to say that the film lacked talent in front of the camera, as the film starred Rachel McAdams, who recently worked with Raimi in “Multiverse of Madness.” Alongside her is Dylan O’Brien, who I have grown to appreciate with each role he’s taken through the years.

Having talented people on your project is a great start. Though that does not guarantee the movie will be good. For example, I love me some Wes Anderson. But his last couple movies have been a bit too off the rails for me. Hopefully, that would not be the case with Sam Raimi’s latest flick. Thankfully, “Send Help” brings out the best in its cast and crew in just about every regard.

Given his past work, some would say Sam Raimi is a master of horror. “Send Help,” while not Raimi’s scariest film, undoubtedly taps into his horrific tendencies when it comes to showing the brutality of a plane crash or the adrenaline rush of hunting in the woods. One of my favorite scenes of the film is a one on one between Linda Liddle and a boar. Despite her clear obsession with the outdoors and nature, the scene does a good job at showing she is still afraid of the near inevitability of doom while in an unfamiliar environment.

As a master of horror, Sam Raimi also manages to implement perhaps one of the scariest concepts of all time… Office culture. The concept is probably a pinch scarier knowing that a woman is the protagonist. While the film is set inside the office, we come to realize that employees are sometimes punished for having lunch at their desk, even if time does not allow them to have it elsewhere. For people like Linda, it is difficult to achieve career growth. Part of this is because the higher-ups tend to maintain a bro culture, one of whom happens to be Bradley Preston, the son of Linda’s former boss.

The script for “Send Help” starts off fantastic and only becomes more compelling by the second. It is full of twists and turns, each of which made sense despite some colossal shock value. Everything feels very contained. There are not many characters in the film, which works in its favor as it allows each individual to stand out. The movie perfects the chemistry between Linda and Bradley. They are finely tuned frenemies. Throughout the movie, we learn about these characters’ pasts and personalities. Both are well written, and when it comes to Linda Liddle in particular, it is the little things that stand out like her passion for “Survivor,” the fact that she has cats, or her karaoke song of choice being Blondie’s “One Way or Another.” Is this a “Mean Girls” easter egg? Perhaps. Regardless of the reason the song is in the movie, it works perfectly.

For the record, Sam Raimi did not write this movie. Screenwriting duo Mark Swift and Damian Shannon handled those duties. Their previous work does not boast high confidence as their resume includes “Freddy vs. Jason” and 2009’s “Friday the 13th,” neither of which got the best reviews. They also did the 2017 adaptation of “Baywatch” starring Dwayne Johnson, which is one of the movies ever. I am proud to say though, “Send Help” is probably going to put both of these gentlemen on the map for me. Though it is worth noting, their screenplay was likely enhanced by the directing talents of Sam Raimi, who has an eye for great shots, brilliant timing, and chilling scares. That said, there is that saying that one is only as good as their last project. Swift and Shannon are now on my radar because this is a twisty movie that had me hooked from the very beginning. Although the beginning is not all to rave about in this film. This film’s ending is not only mind-blowing, but it is something I will be thinking about for a very long time. I could not think of a cooler ending to a movie like this if I tried.

Once again, Rachel McAdams plays Linda Liddle, a dorky cat lady who spends her time off work watching “Survivor.” In fact, she was even passionate enough to audition for the show. Seeing her journey play out, most particularly when the movie passes its inciting incident is riveting as can be. If you are looking for incredible character development, then put this movie on the top of your must-see list. McAdams proves she has talent as this film’s lead.

“Send Help” does a great job at showcasing Dylan O’Brien’s chops. While he may not be the first actor that I would call a thespian, the film proves he has skills. Also, despite his tendency to come off as a jerk, O’Brien, and perhaps by extension, filmmaker Sam Raimi, does a spectacular job at making Bradley look like a jerk, but also likable enough from the audience’s point of view.

On the technical side, “Send Help” sings. Sam Raimi has had an extended career and it is not surprising to see him surround himself with a crew he’s trusted over the years. You have composer Danny Elfman who assembles a marvelous score. There is Bill Pope, who continues to prove he is one of the best cinematographers working today. Editor Bob Murawski puts together some clean, perfectly timed scenes, and his choices enhance the movie’s occasional attempts at humor that rely on visuals or sound. There is one scene involving a boar’s head that had me dying. No spoilers, and you might know this moment when you see it, this film contains one of my favorite cuts in recent memory, and it involves a golf ball. That is all I will say.

In the end, “Send Help” is another excellent film given by the directing god known as Sam Raimi. I can see this movie having quite a bit of replay value down the line. I read that Sam Raimi fought Sony, who did not end up distributing the final project, to keep this film from going straight to streaming. I am so glad he did that, because this is a film I think is best experienced with a crowd. It is scary, it is fun, it is why people go to the movies. The film contains a plethora of exciting scenes helmed by a master of his craft. It showcases the talents of two well cast leads doing their best to deliver a satisfying experience. This film is “Cast Away” with just the smallest pinch of “Office Space.” The story sucked me as it started, and refused to let me leave as it ended. Check this movie out if you can. I am going to give “Send Help” an 8/10.

“Send Help” is now playing in theaters. Tickets are available now.

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

I am also pleased to announce some information about the ongoing film review series Movie Requests, which features special guests selecting films for me to review. The second episode, which will feature “Clerks” actor Jason Mewes, will be released Saturday, March 28th! If you want to see the episode as soon as it drops, subscribe to my YouTube channel! Also, if you have not done so already, be sure to check out the first episode of Movie Requests, featuring actress Bryce Dallas Howard.

If you want to see all 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 “Send Help?” What did you think about it? Or, what is your favorite Sam Raimi movie? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

Primate (2025): Monkey Mediocrity

Posted on January 12 by Jack Drees

“Primate” is directed by Johannes Roberts (The Strangers: Prey at Night, 47 Meters Down) and stars Johnny Sequoyah (Dexter: New Blood, Believe), Jessica Alexander (Get Even, Penny on M.A.R.S.), and Troy Kotsur (CODA, In Cold Light). This film follows a group of friends who must survive against a rabid pet monkey while on a tropical vacation.

January is genuinely where movies go to die. I did not make a most anticipated movies list for this year. However, if I were sick enough to make a least anticipated movies list, I would probably have “Primate” on there somewhere. I saw the trailer one time in the theater, and it looked like a movie that a character within a movie or TV show would make as part of a joke. Think “Serial Ape-ist” from “The Big Bang Theory” if it had a bigger budget and happened to be way less pornographic.

However, the reviews for this film have been surprisingly good, with the project averaging itself out to a Certified Fresh Rotten Tomatoes score as of this publication. Therefore, my expectations went up a little bit by the time I got to my screening. As soon as said screening finished, I thought the movie could have been better.

Is “Primate” the worst movie ever made? Not really. While I do not think it is good, there are things I like about it. First off, much of the film is set in Hawaii, allowing for some occasionally beautiful shots and scenery. There is a driving scene that sort of reminded me of the beginning of the “The Shining” if it were set in a hotter climate. The film also features Troy Kotsur, who also had a prominent role in “CODA,” one of my favorite projects of 2021. It is nice to see him get more work and he does a decent job here.

The monkey in this film, known as Ben, is presented fantastically. The film often utilizes practical effects rather than CGI. The overall look of this film is not much to sneeze at. I was impressed by how much I bought into the monkey’s mannerisms and movements. Ben ends up showing a lot of character in certain scenes. His backstory is simple, as is the movie itself.

Speaking of simplicity, the movie is simply forgettable.

Am I going to remember “Primate” in five years? That is tough to say. Honestly, if it were not for the fact that this film occasionally looked picturesque, part of me thinks this could have gone straight to streaming. There is not a single moment that I will remember fondly in this film for years to come. There are some creative scare attempts, like one involving “Dora the Explorer,” though if I had one problem with that scene, as someone who grew up watching the series, the film does take liberties with the source material and does a major timejump from one point in an episode to another so the monkey’s reaction to the show is in line with one of the series’ most popular gags. Does this really matter in the grand scheme of things? Perhaps not. But this nevertheless stood out to me.

The overall vibe of “Primate” feels inconsistent. Sure, the whole movie feels campy. Although that degree of campiness varies. The three main girls in the film are sometimes loud and energetic. I would not call them party animals, but they do like to have fun. That said, the movie also occasionally features a couple of horny young men named Drew and Brad. Those two on the other hand are practically party animals. My problem is not that the boys themselves are party animals, but part of me does not buy the boys as characters.

The trailer for this film unveils that these boys cross paths with Ben the monkey. The moments leading up to that point, and even as soon as we get to that point, had me bewildered. No disrespect to Charlie Mann and Benjamin Cheng as actors, but their performances feel way too cartoony for a film like this. Sure, this is a film featuring a killer chimp, but I bought into why the chimp went off the rails. When Drew and Nick enter the frame, “Primate” goes from being a straight up horror flick and perhaps transforms into an unintentional comedy for several minutes. The dialogue uttered between these two as they talk to each other, those around them, and even in private had me perplexed. I had trouble buying that this is actually how these people communicate.

Speaking of characters, it is really hard to appreciate a movie like this when even the main characters do not come with a ton of substance. Sure, in a sense, Ben the monkey is kind of the star of the show. He is not the protagonist, but he is perhaps the most marketable character of the bunch. That said, the movie does not give me a ton of reasons to root for the main cast. Sure, at the end of the day, the characters are all aspiring to survive, but I am not so sure what exactly is so interesting about the main characters themselves. Honestly, of all the people in the movie, the most interesting of the bunch may be the father. He is a famous novelist and happens to be deaf. The rest of the people that make up the film feel like stereotypical, everyday college students. I do not hate any of these characters. Granted, Drew and Nick did annoy me a little bit and threw a curveball at the movie’s tone, but it is hard to say that I outright wanted to see anyone brutally murdered. I just think a little more depth could have helped this movie a little bit. The runtime is just under an hour and a half. The movie may be tight, but one could argue maybe it is too tight.

Perhaps it is interesting that the monkey is not just a strange creature from the wild, and instead someone this film’s characters consider a pet. It is not like “Jaws” where the characters are fighting the creature in its natural habitat. The people in this film are being tormented by the monkey directly from their home.

Does “Primate” have a future in popular culture? Despite my lack of urgency to recommend this film, I will admit that part of me sees “Primate” becoming a popular film to watch amongst young friends or even at sleepovers. “Primate” is rated R, so it is probably not going to be every teen’s movie of choice, but I can see a bunch of teens watching this film with all the lights out if they have cool parents or if their parents straight up do not care about what their children watch. For all I know, this could even be a goto choice amongst adult friends with some alcohol. Again, I am in the minority when it comes to this film. Most people who watched this film seem to like it, even critics. I wish I were amongst the many who admired what this film had to offer. Although if you have seen my review for “Bugonia” recently, you would know that I am not afraid to speak my mind.

In the end, “Primate” is much better than I expected it to be after seeing the trailer, but I still do not think it is a thumbs up. The movie does a have an okay scare or two up its sleeve, but not much else to write home about. The film has a number of intriguing concepts and scenes, but I thought the execution of everything could have been better. I would be curious to know how this film is going to be received with time, because at the moment it feels rather disposable, but for all I know it could stay relevant with the right audience. The film is not broken or anything. In fact, when it comes to the story, the film does a decent job at getting things from point A to point B and tying different threads together. It is just that this movie does not have a ton of personality and feels too surface level at times. I do not see myself watching “Primate” again, but I cannot say I want to cast it into the fire either. I am going to give “Primate” a 5/10.

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

Thanks for reading this review! My next review is going to be for “All You Need Is Kill,” based on the Japanese light novel of the same name that later inspired Doug Liman’s 2014 film “Edge of Tomorrow.”

Also, stay tuned for Sunday, January 25th as I will unveil this year’s nominations for the Jack Awards! The show will celebrate the very best of 2025 in film, so look forward to seeing some peak cinematic experiences get some extra moments in the spotlight! If you want to see this 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 “Primate?” What did you think about it? Or, do you have any unpopular opinions regarding a recent film? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

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

Posted on November 23 by Jack Drees

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Shelby Oaks (2024): Chris Stuckmann’s Chilling Feature-Length Debut

Posted on November 18 by Jack Drees

“Shelby Oaks” is written and directed by Chris Stuckmann (Notes from Melanie, Auditorium 6) and stars Camille Sullivan (The Man in the High Castle, Rookie Blue), Brandon Sexton III (Don’t Breathe, The Killing), Keith David (The Thing, Pitch Black), Sarah Durn (Where the Crawdads Sing, Carry-On), Derek Mears (Friday the 13th, Swamp Thing), Emily Bennett (Alone with You, City on a Hill), Charlie Talbert (Where the Crawdads Sing, Angus), Robin Bartlett (The Powers That Be, Mad About You), and Michael Beach (Saw X, Kingdom Business). This film is about a woman who is searching for her missing sister, with whom she previously made YouTube videos about the paranormal.

Before I begin my review for “Shelby Oaks,” I must preface by saying that there is potential for bias in what I am about to say. For those who do not know, this film is directed by Chris Stuckmann, one of the most popular film reviewers on YouTube. In fact, Chris Stuckmann, along with fellow YouTube critic Jeremy Jahns, are two of the biggest inspirations as to why I started critiquing films. As for Stuckmann, I happen to be in the same boat as him. While I love to talk about movies, I am also interested in making them. In fact, not to brag but I have taken my passion for film and media and turned it into something bigger. I work for a news station in Boston, and I made various shorts throughout high school and college.

To add extra potential for bias, I donated to this film’s Kickstarter campaign. I typically pay for the movies I review through movie tickets, physical media, subscription services, etc… But this is the first time I am reviewing a film whose budget literally comes from my own money.

As for my expectations for the film, I will be real… I was not sure what to expect. While I have seen a lot of social media marketing, I only watched the trailer one time in theaters, specifically before “Together,” which like this film, is from Neon. Was I excited? Sure. But I also did my best to keep myself from letting my expectations shatter the roof, as that only increases the chance of disappointment.

“Shelby Oaks” is responsible for making me spend more money on a movie prior to checking it out in the theater than any other, and I would say I made a worthwhile investment because I thought the film is quite good.

Is “Shelby Oaks” a perfect movie? No. But I did not leave this film thinking that Chris Stuckmann needs to stick to his dayjob on YouTube. That said, having watched his YouTube channel and getting to experience what he’s discussed for years, it did enhance my viewing. Stuckmann has established himself as a horror junkie, and it is clear that this is a passion project of his. The film reminded me of “Hereditary” for example due to its tone and lead performance. That film ended up being one of Stuckmann’s favorites of 2018.

The first ten, twenty minutes of the film, admittedly, caught me a little off guard. That whole segment is presented in the style of a documentary. You have interviews, b-roll, all that jazz. There are also several clips that feature YouTube in its older layout, which is not only a nice nostalgic touch, but also fits with the time in which part of this movie is set. It was also fun to see the creative comments sections and the fascinating user names listed there.

Camille Sullivan leads this film as Mia, and I did not know much about the actress leading up to this film’s release, but I am glad to know her name now. She carries this film in several scenes. Her performance, again, reminded me of Toni Collete’s in “Hereditary.” The performance here is not as powerful, but that is partially because “Shelby Oaks'” dialogue does not stand out as much as that of “Hereditary’s.” Granted, I do think this film does a great job at prioritizing visuals over dialogue. At times I felt like I was watching a “Quiet Place” installment. As for the dialogue that is in the film, I cannot say I found any lines that I outright despised. There are no lines that will go down amongst the greatest in history, but I thought overall, the dialogue was effective and helped in getting the characters from point A to point B.

Speaking of getting from point A to point B, I thought this film flew by. Granted, it is on the shorter side, but even with that in mind, it felt shorter than it was estimated to be. Maybe that is because of the film’s documentary approach in the beginning, which took up way more of the runtime than I anticipated. I have nothing against that portion of the film, but still. Even with the film flying by, almost each scene in the main feature feels incredibly drawn out. Each scene tends to take its time, which I have no problem with as they did a good job at drawing me in and immersing me into their respective environments. The film is shot on location, part of which includes the Ohio State Reformatory, the spot used for the prison in “The Shawshank Redemption.” While its lower budget definitely shows, the film’s effects, cinematography, and production design, all maintain a luster to them.

In terms of scares, “Shelby Oaks” reminded me of “Weapons,” which I found more tense than horrifying. It is a film that does not go overboard with any particular scare, although there are a fair amount of cliches in this film such as jumpscares. I am not traditionally a fan of jumpscares, but here they were used sparingly and were not too overly dramatic, which I did not mind.

Speaking of cliches, while this film does have an unusual structure, I found parts of it quite predictable. There is one particular scene where as soon as a certain person popped up, I knew pretty much where it was going, and lone behold, the end result was not much different from what I was expecting. Predictability is not exactly the most satisfying thing to see as a moviegoer, but at least everything in said scene appeared to fit into place.

When I first reacted to this film on social media, I spoke about the pace and how it reminded me of “Blade Runner.” I meant that as a compliment because, again, the film draws out its scenes to the point where they can sometimes feel slow. But by no means does that indicate that the scenes themselves are boring. In fact, I was wide awake for each scene. I cannot tell you everything that happens in each scene. If anything, the film does tend to weaken as it goes along to the point where some of the third act is rather forgettable. Even with that flaw in mind, it does not change how the setup of this film had me hooked. I was still onboard by the end, but less onboard if you will.

Speaking of the third act, I also found the film’s ending to be a bit haphazard. The ending does not break the movie. It does not ruin anything that came before. It does not fundamentally change the scope of the film for the worse, I just thought it was a bit abrupt. It is also kind of ironic because again, multiple scenes in the film feel drawn out. Yet when the movie gets to its ending, it is about as rushed as a TikTok video. This is not the worst ending I have ever seen. Not even close. But it kind of reminded me of “Kingsman: The Secret Service,” which outright refused to overstay its welcome once the climax finished.

What I am about to say next is probably not going to be a problem for many viewers, This is most definitely in nitpick territory but it is something that nevertheless caught my eye. This is probably going to to feel like déjà vu to those who just read my “Smashing Machine” review, I apologize, but bear with me… This film is presented in multiple aspect ratios. Granted, this is not the first time this has happened. Christopher Nolan for example has experience where he often swaps between traditional widescreen and the ratio of an IMAX screen. I have no idea how this film was assembled, but based on my presentation, it seems to have been assembled with a 16:9 aspect ratio in mind.

The film switches between three aspect ratios. There’s the movie footage, which is 2.39:1 widescreen. There’s the documentary footage, which is 16:9, or the traditional aspect ratio of a modern flat-screen television. And there’s the found footage, which is 4:3, or the aspect ratio of a traditional CRT television. Maybe I have to watch the film again in a different theater to see if anything changes, but given how much 2.39:1 footage there is, I am shocked how long I had to look at it on the screen and see two black bars from top to bottom. Maybe Stuckmann and crew tested this film on a wider screen and did not like how it looked, which, okay… I was not there. Maybe it looked ugly. But I found it weird to be watching this film in a theater, which traditionally sets up its screen for many different aspect ratios, and for a majority of the film, I was looking at black bars. I have a feeling this is an artistic choice, and I think it is one that could suit the home market given how most people watching this at home will likely watch this on a 16:9 screen. But I am curious to know how this film would have looked had it been designed for a wider screen. Funny enough, the movie is executive produced by Mike Flanagan, who directed one of my favorite films of the year, “The Life of Chuck.” That film also features changing aspect ratios. I wonder how much he and Stuckmann discussed this matter, and if one person seeing the other’s work had an effect on the look of either film.

In the end, despite some flaws, I was riveted by “Shelby Oaks.” It is not destined to become the next all-time classic, but it is a solid horror flick with a likable protagonist. This is the first feature film from Chris Stuckmann, and I am happy he was able to get his vision out there. It is a vision that sometimes comes with a rushed, albeit intriguing script. It is a vision that comes with some minor pacing problems, despite a multitude of well-timed sequences and scares. It is a vision that comes with a middle of the road at best ending, but not one that damages the positive moments that happened prior. I am not saying Chris Stuckmann should avoid writing more films. In fact, he sometimes has a knack for creating a decent scene. That said, I would love to see what he could do if he were to put the pen down and focus on directing something from another writer. That said, if Chris Stuckmann has something else up his sleeve, sign me up. I am going to give “Shelby Oaks” a 7/10.

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

Thanks for reading this review! My next review is going to be for Guillermo del Toro’s “Frankenstein.” Stay tuned! Also coming soon, look forward to my thoughts on “Good Fortune” and “The Running Man.” 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 “Shelby Oaks?” What did you think about it? Or, have you watched Chris Stuckmann on YouTube? What are your thoughts on his channel? And lastly, who’s your favorite movie critic? …Actually, don’t answer that, you all know it is me. Eat your heart out, Roger Ebert! Let me know what your thoughts are in the comments! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

Bone Lake (2024): Small Cast, Short Runtime, Scareless Movie

Posted on November 12 by Jack Drees

“Bone Lake” is directed by Mercedes Bryce Morgan (Fixation, Five Points) and stars Maddie Hasson (Twisted, Malignant), Alex Roe (The 5th Wave, Hot Summer Nights), Andra Nechita (Inhumans, Matlock), and Marco Pigossi (High Tide, Gen V). This film centers around a couple whose vacation is interrupted when another couple shows up at the house where they happen to be staying, and eventually thwart them into a string of mind games and manipulation.

My exposure to “Bone Lake” before checking out the film last month in theaters was minimal. On top of reviews and posters, the little online marketing I happened to see, appeared to tap into the movie’s sensual nature. There is a saying that sex sells, and it seems to have sold me.

But good marketing does not automatically guarantee a solid flick, and a solid flick “Bone Lake” is not. Is this movie broken? No. In fact, it starts off quite well. It introduces a couple who arrive at their vacation rental, enjoy some intimate moments together, only to find out that they supposedly booked the house the same weekend as another couple. Okay, maybe the filmmaker really enjoyed “Barbarian,” which starts off in almost the same way. Although this film starts off with four characters getting into a conflict rather than two. I cannot blame them for taking inspiration from one of the decade’s best horror films.

Around the first 10, 20 minutes, I was onboard. It introduces both couples and puts them in a situation that neither of them want to be a part of, but they make do. Once the film gets into its first act of backstabbing, that’s where this Jenga tower starts to loosen, and eventually, topple. And it is sad, because backstabbing and a lack of trust seems to take center stage for a majority of the film’s runtime.

The film sometimes feels tonally inconsistent. Do not get me wrong, I can obviously claim that this is a horror flick, and I have a strong feeling most people would agree with me for that assessment. But the characters have this grounded nature to them, but they progressively evolve into personalities that can be found in a Saturday morning cartoon, either through their general tone, or their backstories.

I did not think I would be bringing up an old GEICO commercial during this review. That said, for those of you who remember the ad with the voiceover, “If you’re in a horror movie, you make poor decisions, it’s what you do,” I thought about that ad at least once or twice while watching this movie, because there are some choices the characters make that had me wondering about their IQ. Maybe it is unfair of me to say this because I am not a character in the film and rather someone observing them, but as this movie progressed, I could not help but wonder why the main couple would not simply try to leave at the first sign of trouble. When it comes to brainwashing, these two seem to be fairly easy targets. For those of you who watch the “Pitch Meeting” sketches on YouTube, you’ll understand… There are certain moments that take place throughout the story for what appears to be only one reason. That reason being, “so the movie can happen.”

There is a decent movie somewhere in “Bone Lake.” It has plenty of flaws, no doubt. It could be scarier. The characters could be written better. But I will admit that I liked some of the production design. The locations were not bad. Some of the camerawork is creative. And even though the movie does not progress fantastically, it does start off with a pinch of intrigue. The tone appears balanced at first, only for said balance to fizzle over time. I probably would have liked this movie more if it constructed its characters like they are human beings, rather than cartoons or puppets.

The film also builds up its main couple rather well. After all they are on vacation, they’re alone, so of course, they have sex. The film does a good job at establishing how Diego and Sage feel about their relationship from a sexual perspective. It shows the divide the two seem to have in that regard, and while there are some elements of the movie that topple, that is one that works with time. This is especially true when considering the tension and rivalry that tends to build between Diego and Sage and the other couple, Will and Cin.

There is a saying that a bad ending can ruin a good movie. In the case of “Bone Lake,” the opposite is true. This film, as explained, is not my favorite of the year. But what happens in the last scene is satisfying and also does a good job at fulfilling a certain part of the movie that was heavily built up. I wish I could explain it, but the film does end on a rather satisfying note that if I were to dive into it any further would mean I would have to drop enormous spoilers. This does not mean I am recommending the film, it just means the ending is clever despite the project’s other flaws.

This is a film that gets crazier and crazier as it goes along, but not exactly in a good way. If anything it kind of reminds me of “Argylle” where the story becomes more annoying with each reveal or twist. By the time the film enters the third act, a part of me wanted to tune out. Then again, part of me sees half of this film as a fun watch with drinks perhaps. I do not drink alcohol, but I can see this as a film where one can invite some friends, get schnockered, and let the fun begin. Whether this is a positive or a negative, I will let you be the judge. Despite this movie featuring two main couples and having a name that is a double entendre, I unfortunately cannot say this is the best date movie. Also, despite this movie trying to go for a tense, eerie rivalry between two couples, I unfortunately cannot say this is the best horror flick. This is not scary, not interesting. Honestly, it is rather forgettable. With a 94 minute runtime, the film is short, but it is certainly not sweet.

In the end, “Bone Lake” doesn’t satisfy. Are there building blocks for a good movie? Sure. But at best, this film feels middle of the road. It is a well-crafted and polished-looking film for what it is, but I wish I liked the characters and story a lot more. I was engaged in the beginning, but the film lost me around act two and kept me unplugged in act three. If you want to see a better horror movie involving a double-booking at a vacation rental, just go watch “Barbarian.” I am going to give “Bone Lake” a 4/10.

“Bone Lake” is now available to rent or buy on VOD.

Thanks for reading this review! My next review is going to be for “A House of Dynamite!” Stay tuned! Also coming soon, I will be sharing my thoughts on “The Smashing Machine,” “Shelby Oaks,” “Frankenstein,” and “Good Fortune.” 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 “Bone Lake?” What did you think about it? Or, did you see “Barbarian?” What did you think about that movie? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

Him (2025): Prepare to Sacrifice Your Brain Cells While Watching This Football Horror Story

Posted on October 16 by Jack Drees

“Him” is directed by Justin Tipping and stars Marlon Wayans (Scary Movie, A Haunted House), Tyriq Withers (Don’t Tell Mom the Babysitter’s Dead, I Know What You Did Last Summer), Julia Fox (Uncut Gems, Presence), and Tim Heidecker (Tim and Eric’s Billion Dollar Movie, Us). This film is about an up-and-coming football player who trains under the wing of an eccentric quarterback in an isolated location.

When I look back at movies like “Bob Marley: One Love” and “Argylle,” my most prominent memory of those movies is not so much the movies themselves, but rather the fact that every other time I went to the cinema before those films came out, one of their respective trailers would play during the preshow. “Him,” while not as frequent as say “Bob Marley: One Love,” had a strong chance of meeting the same fate because the “Him” trailers have been attached to many preshows I’ve witnessed this summer. And, sadly, the trailers did not really do anything for me.

The marketing for “Him” lacked an oomph that made me go, “I need to see this now!” This film is produced by Jordan Peele. Again, read that closely. Produced. He did not direct it. As for the films he did direct, he aced all of them. I would be more excited about Peele’s Monkeypaw Productions being attached if it were not for the release of “Monkey Man” in 2024. That movie was not a complete disaster, but it was very much a case of style over substance and I wish it were better. Speaking of things I wish were better, “Him” is a dull waste of an hour and a half.

There are some positives regarding “Him.” The movie was made for $27 million, and there are select moments where the film maintains a polish that lives up to its budget. Everything from the lavish costuming to select characters’ detailed makeup to the otherworldly production design. It is tough to call “Him” the biggest technical standout of the year, but it nails its aesthetics for the entire runtime.

“Him” is basically a mishmash of “Whiplash” and “Ex Machina.” It combines several elements of these two movies, including themes revolving around ambition, sacrifice, and well being. The film is also set mostly at one isolated location and revolves around a connection between two somewhat similarly-minded gentlemen. But unlike “Whiplash” and “Ex Machina,” “Him” differentiates itself from the fact that it is nowhere near as compelling as those two films.

Also, instead of centering around music or technology, the movie primarily focuses on football. That is… When it chooses to focus on football. Honestly, if you are looking for football in “Him,” you are not going to get that much of it. Most of the football played in the movie is done during training sessions. So if you are watching this movie and expecting a big game on a field, look elsewhere.

That said, I do dig the filmmakers trying to give football a horror angle. Over the years, I have come to realize how dangerous of a sport football is. There’s constant tackles, incessant contact between players, and an alarming number of concussions. It is truly a scary sport.

To call “Him” a football movie is a bit of an exaggeration. Yes, the sport exists within the context of the film and plays a heavy role in it, but the film is not “about” the sport per se. In the case of “Him,” it is more about how football, or perhaps more accurately, one person’s passion for football, or anything else for that matter, affects behavior and ego. The film quickly establishes its protagonist’s dedication to the sport. The film has a solid opening scene where a young Cameron Cade is instilled with the idea that one person’s sacrifice makes them a man. He learns this from his father while they are watching football on TV together. The film seems to tap into themes regarding toxic masculinity, suggesting that real men need to toughen up even when they face their greatest pain.

While I am glad to point out Jordan Peele did not deliver his first directorial stinker, I unfortunately have to say I wish Justin Tipping stuck the landing a bit more. That said, this film does have a Jordan Peele-esque DNA in it. For all I know, Tipping could follow in Peele’s footsteps and deliver his “Get Out.” This is not that movie. The film feels like a “Twilight Zone” episode, and at times it works, but in others, it lacks engagement.

The film also has some parallels to religion. That seems to be the case in more ways than one. The film does not establish exactly what belief system Cade follows, but much like how Christians for example look up to their God, we see how much Cade looks up to his athletic idol, Isaiah White. Our protagonist is at one point told to avoid some of life’s greatest pleasures, like pornography or dating. There are more connections in the film, but they could be considered spoiler territory.

Speaking of Marlon Wayans, he was easily the highlight of the movie for me. Isaiah Thomas (left), while not perfect, has the DNA of a beautifully complicated character. Thomas is one of those characters who you really do not know if you can trust. Wayans somehow convincingly manages to shift from pure rage to genuine friendliness in as little time as possible. He gives the performance his all, but I wish the script, which director Tipping is partially credited in writing, did him favors.

Am I going to forget “Him?” To a certain degree, one can argue that I probably will. The film is not fantastic, but I also would not go as far as to say it is the year’s absolute worst picture. As a story, it had more to say than some other stinkers this year like “A Minecraft Movie” or “Jurassic World: Rebirth.” Although I wish it communicated its messages more effectively. The film has a terrific performance from Marlon Wayans, it looks top notch, and even if I did not enjoy every scene, I got the sense that everyone working on said scenes happened to be trying their best.

In the end, “Him” is no good. That said, it is not a total fumble. It has glimmers of good ideas, but there is nothing in this film that I can say was executed to their full potential. Marlon Wayans gives a killer performance. If there is a character that has been on my mind more than any other since watching this film for the first time, it is his. The film starts off somewhat promising, but quickly runs out of steam. I think Justin Tipping has a future in the movie business, but this film is not quite cutting it. I am going to give “Him” a 3/10.

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

Thanks for reading this review! My next review is going to be for “Eleanor the Great!” Stay tuned! Also coming soon, look forward to my thoughts on “The Lost Bus,” “One Battle After Another,” “If I Had Legs I’d Kick You,” “Tron: Ares,” and “Bone Lake.” If you want to see these reviews and more from Scene Before, follow the blog either with an email or WordPress account! Also, check out the official Facebook page! I want to know, did you see “Him?” What did you think about it? Or, on the topic of “Ex Machina” and “Whiplash,” have you seen those movies? What do you think of those? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

Weapons (2025): A Slightly Repetitive, but Undoubtedly Creative Sophomore Outing from Zach Cregger

Posted on September 4 by Jack Drees

“Weapons” is directed by Zach Cregger, who also directed the brilliant 2022 horror flick “Barbarian,” and stars Josh Brolin (The Goonies, Avengers: Infinity War), Julia Garner (The Fantastic Four: First Steps, Ozark), Alden Ehrenreich (Solo: A Star Wars Story, Cocaine Bear), Austin Abrams (This Is Us, The Walking Dead), Cary Christopher (Days of Our Lives, The Rookie), Toby Huss (The Adventures of Pete & Pete, King of the Hill), Benedict Wong (Doctor Strange, Annihilation), and Amy Madigan (Uncle Buck, Gone Baby Gone). In this film, several children wake up at 2:17 a.m. and disappear. Now it is up to a community to come together to figure out why these children vanished.

While not my favorite film of 2022, Zach Cregger’s “Barbarian” left me gobsmacked. It is genuinely one of the cleverest horror screenplays I had the privilege of seeing come to life. That said, I really was not sure what his future would hold when it comes to filmmaking.

By the way, where’s the “Barbarian” Blu-ray? Come on, Disney! I thought you wanted my money!

I was not sure what to think going into “Weapons,” partially because I missed out on much of the marketing. I knew this film was coming out. I had people in my circles who were stoked to see it. But I did not know what I would think of it. Then the week of its release, I watched the trailer for the first time. If I were a higher-up for a studio and someone pitched me this film in an elevator, I would probably follow that person out, needing to know more. This is an incredible idea that has translated into quite a good movie.

“Weapons” sucked me in from minute one. This movie only had one chance to make a first impression, and as soon as it started, I figured I was going to get something of the nature of an epic bedtime story. The movie starts off with narration from a child, and I thought having a child narrate was smart partially because of the subject matter, but also because it makes what’s being told much more mysterious and chilling. If an adult were narrating this, I might have more trouble buying it because the subject matter dives into a certain degree of fantasy. But it is perfect the way it is.

The film contains an unbelievable cast, led with excellence by Julia Garner. Safe to say, she is having quite a year for herself between this film and “Fantastic Four.” She might be the star of the summer, and while she was good in “Fantastic Four,” this film allows her to unleash much more of her chops. While she may not have as high of a profile as some of her co-stars such as Josh Brolin or perhaps even Benedict Wong, this film put her on the map for me. I would like to see her in more movies going forward.

“Weapons” is one of the freshest films of the year. Though I will admit, like another highly rated horror film from earlier this year, “Sinners,” I might have to be a party pooper and say “Weapons” is probably not going to end up amongst my favorite films when I do my countdown at the end of 2025. The film has problems and I have the balls to talk about them. There is a concept in this film involving people eating soup. This is really hard to dive into without giving much away, but I’ll give it my best shot. For those who have seen the movie, you likely know what I am talking about. My biggest question, how do the people eating the soup, one, swallow it, and two, digest it? The people eating the soup all have something in common, and that similarity is boggling my mind as to whether they are actually able to eat. I should probably stay calm about this issue. But I am conflicted as to whether it really makes sense.

One of the things I loved about Zach Cregger’s “Barbarian” is how it successfully blended multiple key perspectives without having the end result feel convoluted or jarring. “Weapons” does not do exactly the same thing, but the film commits to something similar. “Weapons” is much heavier in its storytelling. It combines a multitude of perspectives as a large cast takes in the same event playing in front of their eyes in different ways. Some of these perspectives are handled better than others. A lot of these perspectives are blended nicely, but sometimes it is a little unsatisfying to have the moment play out multiple times. The film itself is finely edited, but every once in a while it does feel a little repetitive.

“Weapons” falls into the horror genre, and it does the number one job these movies are supposed to accomplish, delivering on the scares. When I say that, it should be made clear that I would not call “Weapons” terrifying. If anything, it is more tense than it is scary. I am not going to pretend that this film goes over the top with its scares, but it does not mean it does not fail when it comes to the creeps.

The film is also, at times, surprisingly hilarious. I can probably see some of the comedy being a distraction for some people considering quite a bit of the narrative comes off as serious. But this movie has a knack for delivering naturally funny moments. I went to see this film with a small crowd and I was delighted to see quite a few people other than myself letting out a few laughs.

While the movie does have some bumps in the road, I have to admit that the ending is beyond satisfying. It is one of my favorite scenes of the year. Not only does it do a good job at tying all the loose ends but it is simply one of the most well directed scenes in cinema I can recall seeing recently. Everyone on camera gives it their all. There is sometimes a point of view shot that made me feel like I was in the middle of the scene. The ending is a rollercoaster ride worth seeing on the big screen, much like the film as a whole.

In the end, “Weapons” is another decent outing from Zach Cregger. They say you are only as good as your last project, and thankfully, Cregger’s last couple of projects have me looking forward to whatever he has up his sleeve next. The cast of the film unleashes a ton of talent and they all have a great script that does them favors. The film is endlessly intriguing and well-paced despite some minor flaws. Will I watch “Weapons” again? It’s within the realm of possibility. I am in no rush, frankly, but if a friend were at my place and they wanted to put it on, I would not say no. This is a solid flick. I am going to give “Weapons” a 7/10.

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

Thanks for reading this review! My next review is going to be for “Freakier Friday!” Stay tuned! Also coming soon, look forward to my thoughts on “Nobody 2,” “Honey Don’t!”, and “Eden.” If you want to see these reviews and more from Scene Before, follow the blog either with an email or WordPress account! Also, be sure to like the official Facebook page! I want to know, did you see “Weapons?” What did you think about it? Or, which Zach Cregger movie did you like more? “Barbarian” or “Weapons?” Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

Together (2025): Real-Life Couple Dave Franco and Alison Brie Display Unreal Chemistry in Michael Shanks’ Creepy Directorial Debut

Posted on August 22 by Jack Drees

“Together” is directed by Michael Shanks and this is his first feature film. This movie stars Dave Franco (The Disaster Artist, Neighbors), Alison Brie (The Disaster Artist, Freelance), and Damon Herriman (Flesh and Bone, Justified). The film is about a couple who move out of the city and into the country, where new lives and an unnatural force waits for them.

I often talk about my love for the distribution company A24 and its long list of excellent, one of a kind titles. Although if A24 had a close cousin, it would be Neon. I have not caught all of Neon’s films, but most of the ones I have seen are excellent. “Colossal” is one of my favorite films of the 2010s. ”Anora” ended up amongst my top movies of 2024. Neon even made history as the North American distributor for “Parasite,” with the film becoming the first made outside the U.S. to win the Academy Award for Best Picture. While I was not expecting “Together” to be the next Best Picture frontrunner, I was intrigued by the film mostly due to its concept.

The film is, fittingly, titled “Together” because it mainly revolves around a couple who quite literally become attached to each other. Of course, the two love one another, but on top of that, their bodies literally combine at times. The idea is just gross enough to the point where I need to know more. This film has a little bit of what I was expecting through its scare factor, though I am not going to pretend that it made my skin crawl. What I did not see coming is how deep down the rabbit hole the film would take me through its dialogue. I do not want to give much detail away, but when the story gets to a point where the characters discuss Zeus, I was compelled to know how the rest of the movie would go. From a more straightforward perspective, a lot of the back and forth between Dave Franco and Alison Brie is pristine.

Part of why Dave Franco and Alison Brie work so well as Tim and Millie is the fact that the two are a real life couple. I sometimes get nervous when two people who are related in some capacity work on a film together, but Franco and Brie are an exception. This is not their first film together. They were also in “The Little Hours” as well as “The Disaster Artist,” But the difference between those projects and “Together” is that their relationship takes center stage and the supporting cast is incredibly limited. After all, this film is set in the middle of nowhere.

“Together” is a delightfully deranged commentary on how human beings tend to survive based on connection. We are smart, or perhaps more accurately, stupid enough to be able to work and live on our own to some extent. But this film shows humans are ultimately co-dependent. Much of the film is about a couple, and the two seem to work at their best when they are by each other’s side. We see Tim and Millie deal with some unusual obstacles, but we also get to know some of their more traditional setbacks such as an inability to drive or cook. The film is uniquely romantic. It is by no means sweet. But between the leads’ fantastic chemistry and their characters’ commitment to bettering each other even in the most dire of situations, it kind of made me believe that “soul mates” could be real. “Together” is not a movie for all audiences, but if you and your partner like horror and are in the mood for something dark, this is a good date flick.

That said, the film does have problems. Going back to what I said about the scares, the film was not as terrifying as I was expecting it to be. The film has some scares, but they felt tamer than what I thought a film of this caliber would deliver. Personally, if you were to ask me which film from this year I would recommend based on scares alone, I would point you to “Bring Her Back.”

Also, there is a scene set in a school classroom where a young girl draws a picture of two dogs attached to each other and presents it to Millie before she leaves. I get what that picture is referencing, but I thought it did not add much to the movie. Although as the film itself progresses, it does a good job when it comes to callbacks and plot devices.

Despite its flaws, I am more than impressed with the turnout of the final product. There are a multitude of creative concepts and scenes. The film is timed and paced perfectly. Never once did I have the urge to fall asleep. This is Michael Shanks’ first feature film. Shanks has some prior production experience with shorts, but I think he has enormous potential should he continue down the path of making features. You can tell that each filmmaker gives it their all with each project they take on, but Shanks’ passion for filmmaking is clear as crystal with how he handles this movie. The screenplay could be scarier, but I acknowledge my claim is completely subjective. When it comes to the structure, pace, lore, and characterization, this film sings. This is far from my favorite film of the year, but Shanks did for me this year what Takashi Yamazaki did for me back when “Godzilla Minus One” came out. If Shanks has a new movie coming out, I hope to be first in line to see it. I am eager to see how Shanks’ sophomore outing turns out should he continue making features.

Without spoilers, I also like how the film ends. It is a fitting conclusion that references an earlier point in the film. It took me a second to realize what was happening, but when my brain connected the dots, I thought it was a neat way to address what was previously established.

In the end, “Together” is a solid film to watch alone, with the love of your life, or even someone to whom you are physically attached. Again, “Together” is not the scariest film I have seen this year, but it is one that I would say has potential to make certain groups of people think they are watching something that will haunt their nightmares. If you need any reason to watch this movie, it is because of how well written and portrayed the main couple happens to be. Dave Franco and Alison Brie are perfectly cast and I believed every scene between them. “Together” wastes no time and had me intrigued from start to finish. I am going to give “Together” a 7/10.

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

Thanks for reading this review! My next review is going to be for “Oh, Hi!” Stay tuned! Also coming soon, I will be sharing my thoughts on “Weapons,” “Freakier Friday,” “Nobody 2,” and “Honey Don’t!.” If you want to see these reviews and more from Scene Before, follow the blog either with an email or WordPress account! Also, check out the official Facebook page! I want to know, did you see “Together?” What did you think about it? Or, is there a real life couple you would like to see star as an on-screen couple in a feature film? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

M3GAN 2.0 (2025): Does Not Compute

Posted on July 23 by Jack Drees

“M3GAN 2.0” is directed by Gerard Johnstone, who also directed the original “M3GAN” installment. This film stars Allison Williams (Get Out, Girls), Violet McGraw (The Haunting of Hill House, Black Widow), Ivanna Sakhno (The Spy Who Dumped Me, Pacific Rim: Uprising), and Jermaine Clement (Moana, The Flight of the Conchords). This sequel sees the return of the original cast a couple years after the titular character went on a rampage. Despite her dangerous antics, said title character is tasked with taking down a robot named Amelia.

Photo Credit: Universal Pictures – © 2025 Universal Studios. All Rights Reserved.

If you told me in 2023 that I would walk out of the original “M3GAN” having a great time, I would summon a lightning cloud and strike a bolt into your head. But to my surprise, the film is solid. And not just because the robot does a funny dance. I found it to be a fine metaphor for technology always being there for you, perhaps to extremely dangerous levels. I liked the first film so hopefully “M3GAN 2.0” would keep up the good work.

“M3GAN 2.0” had an unusual marketing campaign. The trailers seemed to indicate a shift similar to that of a James Cameron sequel like “Aliens” or “Terminator 2: Judgment Day.” The first film is at its core, a horror movie. This sequel has horror elements, but it is a bit more action-oriented. It is definitely not as scary as the original film, at least not in a direct sense. Although if there was something that was as scary this time around, it would be the overhanging commentary. Another key difference this time around is that M3GAN goes from being a bad robot to a good gal. The film finds a less than buyable way to have her make amends with those she either harmed or nearly killed in the previous installment to justify her goodness, but still.

That is just one of several wrongs in this film’s screenplay. “M3GAN 2.0” is not that scary. Sure, this is less of a horror film than what the first film turned out to be, but there are attempts at horror in this film that do not stick the landing. The film clearly tries to be funny and edgy, but if anything it just sounds like M3GAN is trying her darndest every other second to join the cool kids table. If anything she comes off as a PG-13 robot “Deadpool.” There are select moments and lines where I think the film would have been better if they were done in a more R rated fashion. I am not saying that this film needs to go overboard like it’s the next “Wolf of Wall Street,” but I think it would have helped if M3GAN had a tad less of a filter. Granted, the original film was PG-13, so I guess logically this one had to be as well. If the film goes for an R, that would risk losing the younger audience who likely checked out the last film. But seriously! This sequel changes the genre as well as the titular robot’s personality. Why not a maturity shift? Is it to get more money? Because I do not think your $10 million opening weekend is not doing you any favors.

Honestly, the only genuine laugh I remember having in the film involves a line having to do with a yeast infection. If I did laugh at all for the remainder of the runtime, then said laughter was not that hard or it ended up being for the wrong reasons.

As previously established, “M3GAN 2.0” is an action movie. Is the action good? Well… It is competent. I do not have a ton of complaints regarding the action, but I am not going to pretend any of it was that memorable. Although there was one fun scene between the film’s antagonist and a wealthy individual in his erotic cave. Remember how I said the film was not that funny? Well, this part actually had me laughing for, you guessed it, the wrong reasons. It was not necessarily comedy gold. I was laughing at the movie rather than with it.

One thing that people seem to remember distinctly from the first film is the scene where M3GAN jumps around and dances. That moment is still ingrained in my mind and its memability is noticeable. In this sequel, the filmmakers appear to create a scene inspired by the roaring response that scene got. And quite frankly, it seems that is the only reason why that scene was put in the film. It felt kind of forced.

Speaking of memes, this movie introduces some new meme potential for the M3GAN character… She sings now. I do not want to spoil much about it, but I was so thrown off by this moment to preposterous levels. The moment that M3GAN sings is so out of left field that I would not have been surprised if at one point Lady Gaga’s Harley Quinn showed up in the background asking to perform a duet. It kind of reminded me of the musical planet from “The Marvels,” but at least that moment had some greater context and purpose in the story.

That said, I can somewhat appreciate the film’s commentary, which presents a double edge sword. Part of me wonders how this movie, and the more I think about it, the last one, is going to age. I saw the last movie as a warning that being too attached to your phone, or in some cases, your phone being too attached to you, can be dangerous. If anything, this film is a warning about artificial intelligence. You can argue the last film was as well, but this one feels stricter in that regard. It shows the dangers of advancing technology to a point where it could potentially kill us, and it may lead to an inevitability where we have to adapt to the technology being in our lives rather than ignoring it. As campy as these films occasionally come off, there are moments where they feel down to earth.

Unfortunately, the commentary feels like a downgrade from that of the original because as I said before, this film is not that scary. Part of what made the commentary work in the original movie is that it had a hand in the film’s scares. Here it is just littered throughout the script.

In a way, I can appreciate the crew behind “M3GAN 2.0” for trying something different rather than resorting to the same old tricks. I was looking forward to a more action-centered installment. But what makes this film different either felt too out there or simply put, poorly executed. As for what felt the same, it was kind of lame this time around. It does not matter if you try to go for something different or the same as before. If all of your material is bad, then it is bad. Plain and simple.

In the end, “M3GAN 2.0” was kind of disappointing. It is one of the weakest films of 2025. I was really looking forward to this film after the original turned out to be a delightful surprise. In a way one could say that this sequel was a surprise of its own, but not in the way that I would want it to be. The film differentiates from its predecessor in more ways than one. This is more of an action movie than a horror movie. But no matter what genre it shoots for, I simply wish it were a good movie. And unfortunately, it is not. I am going to give “M3GAN 2.0” a 3/10.

“M3GAN 2.0” is now playing in theaters and is available to rent or buy on VOD.

Thanks for reading this review! My next review is going to be for “F1: The Movie.” Stay tuned! Also, coming soon, look forward to my thoughts on “Superman” and “Guns Up.” 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 “M3GAN 2.0?” What did you think about it? Or, what is a sequel you enjoy that shifts its genre from the original? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

	The Bride! (2026): B… on Thor: Love and Thunder (2022):…
	The Bride! (2026): B… on Frankenstein (2025): Guillermo…
	The Bride! (2026): B… on Hamnet (2025): Chloe Zhao…
	The Bride! (2026): B… on Marty Supreme (2025): Josh Saf…
	The Bride! (2026): B… on Joker: Folie à Deux (2024): An…