Horror

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

Posted on by Jack Drees

© NEON

“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.

Courtesy of 1.21 – © 1.21

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 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!

Bring Her Back (2025): Another Clever, Scary Outing from the Philippou Brothers

Posted on by Jack Drees

“Bring Her Back” is directed by Danny and Michael Philippou, the directing duo behind “Talk to Me.” This film stars Billy Barratt (Kraven the Hunter, Responsible Child), Sora Wong, Jonah Wren Phillips (Human Error, How to Make Gravy), and Sally Hawkins (The Shape of Water, Paddington). This film centers around Andy and Piper, a brother and sister who are placed under the care of an eccentric woman and find themselves part of a terrifying ritual.

I ended up going to see “Bring Her Back” mainly because of the films that were out in one particular weekend, it piqued my curiosity the most. Note my choice of words. I never said I was looking forward to this film. But I cannot say I was dreading it either. If anything, I was going to see “Bring Her Back” because of my past experience. If I saw any trailers for “Bring Her Back,” they likely flew over my head. That said, I saw “Talk to Me” one time a couple years back. I thought it was a respectable effort by filmmaking brothers Michael and Danny Philippou. While the film had its fans, I cannot say I thought it was perfect. Though I liked it enough to give it a thumbs up. There is a saying that you are only as good as your last project. The Philippou brothers’ last project got me in the door. So, how is their latest outing?

Out-freaking-standing, and I cannot emphasize my enthusiasm enough.

“Bring Her Back” is easily one of the best films of the year. It is a movie that is not quite committed to one genre. I have called it a horror film, and knowing what “Talk to Me” turned out to be, I was kind of expecting “Bring Her Back” to be in the same boat as that movie. While the film is creepy, I will say that one could easily put “Bring Her Back” in the category of psychological thriller. One can simply say it is a drama. Regardless of whatever genre you call it, it handles all of its mini-genres with excellence.

What makes “Bring Her Back” so great is my attachment to the core characters. We come to find out that they all have something in common. Specifically, they are all grieving over someone they lost. While it is traditional for people to grieve over someone’s death, these deaths are unlikely scenarios. For the two younger characters, Andy and Cathy, we see early on in the film that they lose their dad. Shortly after, they meet a new foster parent (Sally Hawkins), whose young daughter died after drowning in a pool. The movie made me feel bad for all three of these people, even if something seems off about one of them.

When these three people first met, it did not take long for me to develop a pit in my stomach. I knew we were in for a ride with Sally Hawkins from the moment I saw her. First off, like some of her previous projects, Hawkins does not phone it in whatsoever when it comes to her performance. She has so much range packed into one character. At one moment she is kind of a creep, then lovable, then flamboyant. Whatever she happens to be as Laura, Hawkins nails it. That said, even when she is those last two adjectives, there is a sense of creepiness to her that remains consistent.

There are some things Hawkins does throughout the runtime that not only made me hate her, but made me want to straight up punch her in the face. She is everything you can want in a solid antagonist. While I will give praise to Hawkins for her performance, I will not deny that her character is sometimes straight up unlikable despite her occasionally having a chill or “cool mom” vibe. And me loathing her is a good thing. All it got me to do is get behind the kids through their journey as it plays out. As wacky as this movie gets at times, I was able to buy into Laura’s motivation. I could see where she was coming from even if I ultimately thought she was a psychotic lunatic.

I would not call this a complaint, but this is more or less something I noticed through my experience of watching the film. Keep in mind, I found “Bring Her Back” to be quite scary. But I cannot say that there are many jaw-dropping individual scares in the film. If anything, I found the film to maintain a consistent eeriness. Going back to how this film balances itself between multiple genres, this is another example to support that case. The scariest part of this film is not any particular scene, but it is the everlasting sense that Laura is going to do something bonkers. And she ends up doing some bonkers things.

Structurally, “Bring Her Back” does not miss a beat. It has a great hook that gets you to care about the two younger kids. You have all the adventures these kids encounter alongside their new foster parent, and as the film gets to the climax, it means business. Again, Sally Hawkins is a fantastic performer. But by the end of the movie I would not have minded seeing her character splatter into bits. There is never a boring moment in this film. The story is captivating. The characters are well written, everything ends on a solid note, and the entire film has a pretty good soundtrack. There are some tunes that slide their way into the film that are perfectly placed.

Sally Hawkins is not the only standout amongst the cast, though she is by far the biggest name. That said, I must give credit to all the younger cast members as well. Billy Barratt does a solid job in the film as Andy. I thought he was on the money when it came to channeling his character’s apprehension in a variety of situations. Jonah Wren Phillips is not given as much to do as Oliver compared to some of the other characters, but what he ends up doing stands out. There is one particular scene in the film that involves him chewing an unusual object that will linger in my mind beyond the end of the year. And lastly, Sora Wong as Piper is adorable. This is Sora Wong’s first role and I am very pleased by how it turned out. I think she is going to have a great career ahead of her. I can totally tell how masterful the Philippou Brothers are as directors based on the efforts of the talent. Each actor feels perfectly in sync with the others around them and not a single performance feels off.

In the end, “Bring Her Back” is top tier filmmaking. I cannot believe we have been blessed with cinema as compelling as this. When I walked out of “Talk to Me,” I did so having had a good time with it. Flash forward a couple years later to “Bring Her Back,” I am genuinely onboard for whatever the Philippous can produce. I keep bringing up Sally Hawkins as a selling point, partially because she is a recognizable name. But everyone else in this film does a great job too. I have to give the entire cast credit for their work. If you like good storytelling, look no further, because I am going to give “Bring Her Back” an 8/10.

“Bring Her Back” is now playing in theaters. Tickets are available now.

Thanks for reading this review! My next review is going to be for the brand new comedy “Friendship.” I have been looking forward to seeing and talking about this movie. And I finally get to discuss it in the coming days. Stay tuned! Also look forward to my reviews for “Ballerina,” “The Phoenician Scheme,” and “The Life of Chuck.” 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 “Bring Her Back?” What did you think about it? Or, which film did you like better? “Talk to Me” or “Bring Her Back?” Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

The Ruse (2024): Veronica Cartwright Carries… Whatever This Is

Posted on by Jack Drees

© Mena Films, Inc

“The Ruse” is written and directed by Stevan Mena (Brutal Massacre: A Comedy, Malevolence) and stars Madelyn Dundon (Getting Grace, Lucky Louie), Veronica Cartwright (The Birds, Alien), Michael Stegar (90210, The Chosen), and Drew Moerlein (Blue Bloods, NCIS: New Orleans). This film is about a caregiver who fears for her life after she is assigned to an elderly patient at a remote seaside home.

© Mena Films, Inc

I will be honest, last May was surprisingly uneventful for film, at least for me. Yes, there are some big titles that I was looking forward to seeing like “Mission: Impossible – The Final Reckoning” and “Thunderbolts*,” but there are plenty of films from other recognizable IPs that I am not nearly as excited about like “Final Destination: Bloodlines,” “The Karate Kid: Legends,” or “Lilo & Stitch.” In the cases of these films, I am either behind on the franchise or I just do not care about seeing more of the property. This is where smaller films like “The Ruse” come in, which honestly, I went into blind. It is always refreshing to see a little film come out of nowhere and intrigue me. “Secret Mall Apartment” came out of nowhere for me earlier this year and blew my socks off. Hopefully “The Ruse” would be the next example of that.

Unfortunately, it is not.

The film is not all bad, but by the time it is over, I left feeling less than satisfied. Arguably my most consistent problem is that I found not a single moment of the film scary. This movie tends to present itself as something out of the horror genre. But when it comes to the scares, the film appears to be trying too hard during select moments to the point where said scares are not as compelling as they could be. Unsurprisingly, this film has its fair share of cheap jumpscares. I honestly found these more annoying than scary, and the more they happened, the angrier I got. Although if I had any compliment in this department, I will note that some of the buildup to the scares is not bad. But when it comes to the payoff, none of it sticks the landing.

© Mena Films, Inc

The best part of this film, without a doubt, is Veronica Cartwright. If “Thelma” deals with old age with a positive spin, then “The Ruse” is most definitely the opposite. Cartwright plays an older, retired, house-ridden woman who had a notable career in music. One can argue that Cartwright’s role is borderline stereotypical, but I also think people would find it relatable. Chances are you have seen some variation of Cartwright’s character in real life. And if you have not yet, you probably will at some point. Cartwright gives a compelling performance that far outshines anybody else in the film. Her performance is so good that it makes everyone else look insignificant.

As for the other actors, I cannot say any of them are incompetent, but the script does not do them many favors. If the dialogue is not cookie cutter, it is either expositional or unmemorable. The same can be said for the direction. Not many of the actors in this film happen to be household names. I am sure whatever comes up for this cast next will likely be bigger and better than this.

To be completely honest, whenever Veronica Cartwright is not on screen, the film becomes ten times more boring and forgettable. Cartwright is the only character that truly interested me to the point where I wanted to know more about her. I enjoyed getting to know her backstory, her mannerisms stood out, and while the film itself is not scary, she at least added a pinch of eeriness at certain points that needed them. Everyone else in this film feels wooden or lacking in personality. I cannot name a single quote from this film off the top of my head, but I will say Cartwright is given a good line here and there that either gives us a little hint into her as a character or is just plain fun to hear coming out of her mouth.

© Mena Films, Inc

There is a saying that a bad ending can ruin a good movie. In the case of “The Ruse,” I am not going to pretend the film was Shakespeare, but it had its moments. To be quite honest, I was, to my surprise, consistently engaged with almost everything that was going on. Not all of it was perfect, but I was always onboard. Then of course, the ending ruined everything. If anything, the final ten minutes of this movie had chunks of decent buildup to it, even if some of it was a little dull. But as I reflect on this film, it seems more concerned with building things and setting them up as opposed to satisfyingly paying them off.

This film’s climax honestly has a tone to it that feels like it belongs in a second act. Without giving much away, the end of this film was definitely trying to be clever, but I on the other hand was definitely trying not to be bored. The film already had a preposterous vibe that became increasingly noticeable before it got to the ending, but this crap was the icing on the cake. When I left the auditorium, I left feeling empty and unfulfilled. This movie did not have much to write home about to begin with, but this? Come on.

I said at the beginning of this review that I went into “The Ruse” blind, and I think that may have affected my experience just a bit. Throughout “The Ruse”, I mainly interpreted it as a horror flick. But if you watch the trailer, which I did while writing this review, it refers to the film as “a terrifying whodunnit.” Granted, that can fall into the line of horror, but even when the film dives into its mystery aspect, it never once engages me. If anything it comes with a hint of predictability and the supporting characters that find themselves involved in said mystery are not interesting enough to bring it to a level where I find myself engaged. I have seen decent horror movies and I have seen decent mysteries. “The Ruse” is neither of those things.

© Mena Films, Inc

In the end, “The Ruse” is one of the most forgettable movies of the year. Other than Veronica Cartwright, there is no real standout in this film other than the ludicrously paced final ten minutes that left me wanting something better than what I got. It is not the most unforgivable abomination in cinematic history, but it is by no means something I can recommend. There are barely any things I enjoy in this film, and there are a few negatives that stand out quite a bit. I wish the people behind the film luck with their future projects. I just hope they are a step up from whatever this is. I am going to give “The Ruse” a 4/10.

“The Ruse” is neither available to watch at home or in theaters as of this review’s publication.

Photo by Paramount Pictures and Skydance/Paramount Pictures and Skydance – © 2024 Paramount Pictures

Thanks for reading this review! Look forward to my thoughts on films including “Mission: Impossible – The Final Reckoning,” “The Accountant 2,” “Bring Her Back,” “Friendship,” and “Ballerina!” If you want to see my reviews for these films 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 Ruse?” What did you think about it? Or, as stupid as this question sounds on paper, I will give this a shot… What is the most forgettable movie you have seen this year? For all I know, your answer might actually be inaccurate. Maybe you saw something so uninteresting that it fizzled out of your noggin. Whatever your answer is, let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

Sinners (2025): Michael B. Jordan Pulls Double Duty in This Solid Vampire Flick

Posted on by Jack Drees

“Sinners” is directed by Ryan Coogler (Creed, Black Panther) and stars Michael B. Jordan (Creed, Black Panther), Hailee Steinfeld (Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse, Hawkeye), Miles Caton, Jack O’Connell (Back to Black, Skins), Wunmi Mosaku (Moses Jones, Vera), Jayme Lawson (How to Blow Up a Pipeline, The Batman), Omar Miller (Ballers, CSI: Miami), and Delroy Lindo (Da 5 Bloods, The Good Fight). This film is about two criminal twin brothers who start over in their hometown, only to discover that a greater evil is about to welcome them back.

Courtesy of Warner Bros. – © Warner Bros.

I have been eager to see “Sinners” since the first trailer dropped last year. It did not explain a ton, but like a lot of good first trailers, it gave “enough” to sell me. And that is putting things lightly. Because I thought it was very well put together. The film had a lot to like behind the scenes. Michael B. Jordan playing two roles… Other great cast members like Hailee Steinfeld in the supporting roles… Ryan Coogler in the director’s chair… Things were lining up perfectly. And to later find out that the film was shot on IMAX cameras, I could not be more in if I tried. The hype I had for this film was through the roof. So was it worth the excitement? To a certain degree, yes.

This might shock some of you, “Sinners” is not necessarily my favorite film of the year so far. If I had to be honest, I think it had some minor pacing issues and I cannot say I walked out of the theater remembering every single character’s name. I was engaged with the film, but I have seen better this year when it comes to the story. It is hard to say the film is overrated though. I can totally see why other people would consider it to be a masterpiece. I do want to watch the film again at some point, and I genuinely think it would benefit from a second viewing.

That said, I think when it comes to pure experiences, there are few that compare to “Sinners.” For the record, I saw this film in IMAX 70mm, meaning I was able to experience “Sinners” in the most definitive way possible, with the finest detail and clearest sound, so there were definitely some enhancements. Regardless of however you see “Sinners,” do so on the biggest screen you can.

This film is shot entirely on 65mm film, some of it in IMAX. Every frame of this film looks immaculate. Several shots might as well be a painting. This movie also makes history, as it is also the first film shot in IMAX by a woman. Autumn Durald Arkapaw is behind the camera for this project and there is so much to love about how she handled the end product. Many of the exterior shots in particular are going to linger in my mind throughout the year.

Much like another one of Ryan Coogler’s films, “Black Panther,” “Sinners” is a great time. Also like “Black Panther,” this is a film perhaps best suited for Ryan Coogler’s voice. This is a film that I, a straight white male, would probably sully if I were to write or direct it myself. There is a sense of pride in each scene, each shot, each line, and that is because of Coogler’s touch. He clearly knows what he is doing. If you remember “Black Panther,” one of my favorite moments from that film is this one action scene in a casino where the camera navigates between levels to get a solid view of different things that are going down. I thought it was a flawless one take scene, but without going into detail, there is a one take scene during this film that might surpass that moment if you ask me when it comes to execution.

Not too surprisingly, I am quite impressed with the film’s cast. Of course, you have a talented actor in Michael B. Jordan who plays not just one, but two roles. He does a good job here. Both of his characters have charisma. Despite some differences, the two twins genuinely feel like the same person at times. That might have been the point because watching these two reminded me of my own interactions with twins in real life. Mainly because as much as I have built a bond with some of them, I will admit, despite them wearing different outfits and letting off slightly different mannerisms, it is occasionally hard to tell which one is which unless you are digging for certain features.

From mainstay talent to young talent, this film is also the acting debut of Miles Caton. After seeing this film, I am convinced that Caton is going to have a great career. Now he is at the helm of a terrific director, so part of his on-screen talent may be owed to Ryan Coogler. Even so, seeing what I have seen of him in this movie, it shocks me that this is his first role. If anything I would figure he would have a few under his belt. Maybe they were never documented on his IMDb page, I do not know.

While I cannot see it winning an Academy Award, the standout performance for me in this film is Hailee Steinfeld as Mary. I think of all the characters in this movie, she is the one written in the sense that allows for the most range. If you have seen the trailer, you can probably get a sense of where this character is going, where the narrative takes her. But when it gets to “that” point, it is satisfying. I have seen Hailee Steinfeld in other projects, but this is arguably the most fun she has been on screen. It is not my favorite role of Steinfeld’s, but if I were to determine which role of hers appears to be the most fun, I think it comes down to “Sinners” and “The Edge of Seventeen.”

“Sinners” is a vampire movie, and it is a good vampire movie at that. But it kind of gives you a little bit more than just vampires. It takes on concepts such as brotherly connections, music, and then it goes ahead and plops in vampires as a bonus. And when it gets to the vampires, it is a treat. The film has its scary moments. It has its fun moments. The action during the vampire-centered scenes is very well done. This is a film that if you are to see it, try do so on the big screen. The music in the film is also attention-grabbing from the foot-tappable soundtrack to Ludwig Göransson’s admirable score.

If I had anything else to say, and I hate to say this, but I will be real, I am going to remember this film more for its second half than its first. For me, this film took a bit to get going, and I do mean a bit. But when it gets into gear, it goes at lightspeed. That said, the entire film is worth watching. Check it out.

In the end, “Sinners” is a thumbs up. It is another solid outing from director Ryan Coogler. If the Oscars were tomorrow, I could totally see “Sinners” getting some awards attention, especially in the technical categories like film editing and cinematography. But again, I do want to emphasize that this film is one that starts off okay but gets better as it goes. I do not want to confuse anybody. I never said this film was bad, but the second half is much more inviting to me than the first. I might be alone in this statement. I have talked to friends who say that this film is peak cinema. If anything, I think it is a fine movie. I would watch it again. And I will say this again, maybe it would benefit from a second watch. I am going to give “Sinners” a 7/10.

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

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

Thanks for reading this review! My next review is going to be for Marvel’s latest project, “Thunderbolts*!” Stay tuned! Also coming soon, look forward to my thoughts on “Rust,” “The Ruse,” “Mission: Impossible – The Final Reckoning,” and “The Accountant 2.” If you want to see my thoughts on these films 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 “Sinners?” What did you think about it? Or, what is your favorite film directed by Ryan Coogler? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

The Damned (2024): A Barely Engaging, Tiring, Walk Through the Cold

Posted on by Jack Drees

“The Damned” is directed by Thordur Palsson (The Valhalla Murders, Brothers) and stars Odessa Young (The Staircase, The Stand), Joe Cole (Green Room, Secret in Their Eyes), Siobhan Finneran (Downton Abbey, The Stranger), Rory McCann (Game of Thrones, Transformers: EarthSpark), Turlough Convery (Killing Eve, Sandition), Lewis Gribben (Somewhere Boy, Generation Z), Francis Magee (EastEnders, White Lines), and Mícheál Óg Lane (Ros na Rún, Calvary). This film is set in the 19th century and centers around a widow who must make a difficult choice when a foreign ship sinks near her Icelandic fishing village.

The first weekend of January always seems like a prime time for releasing a title that fits somewhere in the horror genre. “The Damned” is no exception. January, and also February for that matter, are also likely the months of the year where movies go to die. Sure, there are a ton of awards contenders in theaters, but many of them came out either in December, or sometime even before that. In terms of new releases, January and February are chock full of movies that are either hard to market or lack the quality of the titles they are competing against.

Last year, the big horror film that kicked things off was “Night Swim,” which I did see, and honestly wish I could unsee. But I will admit that the film at least had a clever concept, albeit one that becomes more absurd the more I think about it. For those who did not see the movie, it is about a family living in a house with a killer swimming pool in the backyard. “The Damned” seems to be more grounded on the other hand. Coincidentally, its main story also revolves around a body of water. After all, there is a shipwreck in the film that kicks things into gear. “The Damned” deals with faith, choice, and it is told at a bit of a slower pace, so if you are a bit drowsy while seeing this movie, I highly recommend drinking a caffeinated beverage. Trust me, I needed one. Because honestly, I almost tuned out of this film.

I do not mind a slow burn every once in a while. Just read my “Blade Runner” review to allow me to prove my point. But “The Damned” is one of those times where the word “slow” treads into a territory where it could definitely equate to being boring. The film noticeably takes its time to introduce a bunch of characters, and the actors may occasionally nail the personalities of these individuals, but I had trouble latching onto them as people in their current situation. Many of the supporting characters in this film kind of reminded me of the dwarves in “The Hobbit” at times. I do not hate them by any means, it is just that if you were to ask me to name all of them, chances are I would have a little trouble.

This film does an okay job at capturing atmosphere. Overall, “The Damned” reminds me of John Carpenter’s “The Thing.” Yes, that is the version of “The Thing” I am using in this case. I will admit, I have not seen any of the other ones. But I say this because both horror films are set in cold areas, have a decent sized ensemble, but at the same time, there is this enormous sense of tension looming over the cast.

I also want to comment on the film’s cinematography. There are parts of the film that look not just good, but great. “The Damned” is shot on location. The crew actually ended up shooting in Iceland, and all of the film’s scenery and backgrounds definitely dazzled on screen. There are also some interior scenes that are well lit, especially with fire in the background. Although there is one scene that I thought could have been handled better, and it pains me to say it because it is one that is kind of crucial to the overall story. It is a moment where we see most of the cast in the water searching for supplies, when all of sudden, things go wrong. There were times during this scene where I almost could not tell what was happening. I understand this scene takes place at night, but I do not think the camera flawlessly captured the actions the filmmakers were trying to show on screen.

The film also fulfills the most important task of any horror title, which is providing some decent scares. If you remember my review for “Nosferatu” I posted a few weeks ago, I noted that as unique as the film is in some ways, it nevertheless failed to scare me. I will admit, what “The Damned” sometimes lacks in flair, especially compared to “Nosferatu,” it makes up for in scares. The film is not the most terrifying I have seen in years, but there is plenty of disturbing imagery that I continue to think about. That kind of says something because the movie itself is rather forgettable, but for whatever reason, I remember finding it scary.

If you are like me and live in the United States, chances are you do not recognize most of the people in the cast. A lot of them have experience making content primarily seen by international audiences. But I will compliment the cast because even though I probably will not remember all their characters, I will praise them for their solid performances. There is not one portrayal I can think of I outright disliked. The standout of course is Odessa Young, who does a great job as the center of the movie. I bought her in every scene. Going back to what I said about the scares, seeing the film through her eyes enhanced said scares just a bit.

And as much as certain parts of the film continue to wither away from my brain, I do remember the ending being a standout. I will not spoil it, but it takes things into a bit of a different direction than I originally anticipated. It is a fitting conclusion to the film, and despite me sometimes tuning out, this part of the film is one of the closest instances I got to being on the edge of my seat.

In the end, “The Damned” is not a horrible movie, but I am in no way going to recommend that each and every one of you should see it. It is not offensive, but it also lacks an individual flavor. It definitely does not feel like something crapped out by a corporation. You can definitely see the artistry in this piece of work. But I do not know if it stuck the landing with me. There is good acting. There is good production value. But the pacing of this film, despite only being an hour and a half, made it feel longer than advertised. I wish I were more interested in the characters, and despite a lot of this film looking nice, I will note that one scene towards the beginning that really turned me off. Is the movie scary? At times, it is. But it is not quite nightmare. This movie is not going to have a ton of replay value for me. So despite the positives, I am going to give “The Damned” a 5/10.

“The Damned” is supposedly playing in no theaters at this point. The movie is not even a month old, so it is probably not the best sign for the movie’s staying power. But if you do want to watch “The Damned,” it is available to rent or buy on VOD.

Thanks for reading this review! My next reviews are going to be for a couple of animated films! From Japan, we have “The Colors Within,” which I just saw yesterday and cannot wait to talk about. And after that, you can expect my review for the Hollywood-produced DreamWorks film, “Dog Man.” The film is not out yet, I actually got to see it early. Therefore, I will leave my lips sealed on my thoughts related to it. 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 Damned?” What did you think about it? Or, with this being the first official 2025 release I am reviewing, even though it was also shown in 2024, what movies are you looking forward to seeing in 2025? My most anticipated film at this point is probably “Superman.” I have a feeling James Gunn is going to knock this film out of the park. Let me know your most anticipated film of the year down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

Nightbitch (2024): Amy Adams Plays a Relatable Character in This Fairly Average, Wasted Concept of a Movie

Posted on by Jack Drees

“Nightbitch” is directed by Marielle Heller (A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood, Can You Ever Forgive Me?) and stars Amy Adams (Enchanted, Arrival), Scott McNairy (Speak No Evil, Monsters), Arleigh Snowden, Emmett Snowden, Zoë Chao (Strangers, The Afterparty), Mary Holland (Happiest Season, The Big Door Prize), and Ella Thomas (Surrogates, Nina). This film is based on a book of the same name and is about a stay at home mother who occasionally transforms into a dog at night.

Amy Adams is a fine actress with a ton of range. Doing everything from family flicks like “Night at the Museum: Battle of the Smithsonian,” to crime films like “American Hustle,” to comic book movies like “Man of Steel,” to modern sci-fi classics like “Arrival.” Now she is taking on her latest role, a woman who occasionally turns into a dog.

Judging by the film’s epically awesome title, it is easy to assume “Nightbitch” will not have the family friendliness of say “The Shaggy Dog,” which sees its main character also transforming into a canine from time to time. Whether you like the various editions of “The Shaggy Dog” or not, I think most people who know about it can admit that the concept is at the very least, clever. That is also a word I would use to describe the hook of “Nightbitch.”

This brings me to my first gripe regarding the film. The whole concept of the main character turning into a dog feels rather wasted, especially considering how much I heard about that hook going into the film. Having seen the film, I understand that seeing the main character turning into a dog is not necessarily what it is about. There is more to it. But I think if you are going to dive into that concept, you might try to expand it just a little. For the most part, “Nightbitch” is about a woman’s journey and struggles that come with being a mother. I am fine with that. I will also say the concept is handled well. But if you have this idea of occasional dog transformations, maybe do a little more than one or two scenes featuring a canine version of Adams and having her occasionally interact with other dogs every once in a while.

The film, in more ways than one, effectively turns Amy Adams into a dog in a figurative sense. This is especially noticeable when her character is interacting with her child. Though when it comes to the advertised literal sense of Adams becoming a dog, that is where the film disappoints. In fact, having seen this film now, part of me is curious about what it would have been like to go into this movie blind. Maybe I set my expectations too high. Maybe I would have been caught off guard by certain scenes in the film.

I will compliment the film for its point of view on parenting, particularly motherhood. This is far from a happy go lucky take on the concept. Amy Adams does a good job encapsulating the stress her character goes through from scene to scene. If I have one thing to say though, this film is based on a 2021 novel, and for all I know, the novel is great. But “Nightbitch” definitely feels more like literature at times than it does cinema. For one thing, we spend much of the movie hearing Amy Adams’ character, simply named “Mother,” talking inside of her head. There is not a rule saying you cannot have characters talk inside their head. Heck, there is a movie from earlier this year called “Boy Kills World” where the voice inside the main character’s head is probably my favorite part. That said, like any other movie, “Nightbitch” is presented in a medium that is traditionally more show than tell. This movie tends to spend a significant amount of time taking the tell approach. Sometimes it works, other times it does not really add anything to the scene. It kind of spells out certain things that I may have already come to realize. In addition to Adams’ narration, the film also contains fourth wall breaks. That said, this is a dark comedy, so I will at least point out that the narration thankfully provides for some laughs.

I think “Nightbitch” will definitely have an audience. I do not know how much staying power this film will have going forward. For all I know, it could do well when it comes to streaming. Though I think mothers in particular will find this film relatable. Even if they love their children or their partner, I think they will pick up something from “Nightbitch” that they can attach to a certain peeve in their lives. This film is not only a solid dive into motherhood and the struggles it can bring, but what such a common concept could take away. It could interfere with career paths, dreams, ambitions, all to continue the human race.

I imagine dads could find the film relatable themselves. There are several moments of the film that I imagine a father, no matter the age of their kid, has experienced. Either when they try to be useful, or when they want some private time with their partner. That said, “Nightbitch” is presented from a mother’s perspective, therefore it will relate to mothers the most. There is even a line out of Adams’ character that I will not cite verbatim, but she is talking to her husband and she mentions she is busy trying to take care of him, in addition to their child. Also keep in mind, I am single and do not have children. So while many opinions are valid when it comes to art, including ones presented in this review, my thoughts on the film could change should I get married or have kids sometime down the road.

The pacing of this film is brisk, although at times a little overly spontaneous. Though I do admire the film’s efforts for packing in as much as it does in such a short runtime. While there are one or two events that definitely almost come in almost out of the blue, the film for the most part maintains a steady, but speedy path from start to finish. Never once was I uninterested or bored. I have to give credit to Marielle Heller and Rachel Yoder for crafting a consistent script. While I would have been more delighted had said script unleashed more of the dog-related hook, it makes for a fine hour and a half at the cinema. Best movie of the year? Far from it. But is it decent? Sure.

In the end, “Nightbitch” is a fairly… PAW-sitive moviegoing experience. The star of the show, figuratively and literally, is Amy Adams, who overdelivers as “Mother.” Yes, she has a ton of narration. Sometimes it is hit or miss, but Adams goes all the way with it. It is not my favorite performance from Adams, but she clearly owns the role. I also think it was a smart choice to have Marielle Heller direct the film. I can say as a man, I do not think I would have done as effective of a job with a story like this. She is also a parent, so that helps too. This film, even if it is based on something else, definitely has a personal touch. It is noticeable in the dialogue and the performances. I would not recommend the film to all audiences, but I am certain it will find an audience regardless. I am going to give “Nightbitch” a 6/10.

I would also like to shout out this film’s director, Marielle Heller, whose directorial outing prior to this film was “A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood,” a film partially centering around Fred Rogers. I must say “Nightbitch” is quite a transition from Heller’s previous film… A wholesome, comforting, feel good drama, to a vulgar, honest, dark comedy. While Heller is not my favorite director working today, I am definitely looking forward to seeing what she does next because like I said about Adams at the start of this review, Heller definitely has range.

“Nightbitch” is now playing in theaters and is available to stream on Hulu Friday, December 27th.

© Sony Pictures Entertainment

Thanks for reading this review! Do you have comic book movie fatigue? I don’t! But I just saw “Kraven the Hunter” and I am most certainly having “Sony Spider-Man Schlockiverse” fatigue as we speak. Look forward to that review as long as I do not smash my computer in rage while making it. Also coming soon, I will have reviews for “The Lord of the Rings: The War of the Rohirrim” and “Sonic the Hedgehog 3.” 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 “Nightbitch?” What did you think about it? Or, what is your favorite Amy Adams movie? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

Smile 2 (2024): Parker Finn Returns to Deliver One of My Most Pleasant Surprises in 2024 Cinema

Posted on by Jack Drees

“Smile 2” is directed by Parker Finn, who also directed the first “Smile,” starring Sosie Bacon. This sequel stars Naomi Scott (Power Rangers, Aladdin) as a singer by the name Skye Riley. Joining Scott is a cast including Rosemarie DeWitt (La La Land, Poltergeist), Lukas Gage (Love, Victor, You), Miles Gutierrez-Riley (Agatha All Along, The Wilds), Peter Jacobson (House, Colony), Ray Nicholson (Out of the Blue, Panic), Dylan Gelula (Unbreakable Kimmy Schmidt, Dream Scenario), Raúl Castillo (Cold Weather, Looking), and Kyle Gallner (A Nightmare on Elm Street, Jennifer’s Body). This film is about a global pop star who experiences strange events while she promotes her tour.

If you have followed Scene Before for the past couple years, you would know that I have been thrilled with the horror genre lately, particularly in 2022. In that year you had one solid horror film after another. “The Black Phone,” “Barbarian,” “X,” “Pearl,” “Nope,” and of course, “Smile.” The last of these films is the feature-length debut from Parker Finn, and it was, deservedly, a huge success at the box office for Paramount. “Smile” even made my top 10 of the year. So naturally I HAD to be excited for the sequel right?

Ehh…

I love “Smile,” but it was a film I thought would be better off as a one and done. Do not get me wrong, I love the concept of “Smile,” and I was at least slightly intrigued to see another take on it. I did not see this sequel coming. Thankfully, Parker Finn is back, and he clearly knew what he was doing the first time around. He created a film that made me feel uneasy, terrified, and riveted. But if you are going to get someone to expand this universe, it might as well be an individual who knows it well. Though name recognition is not good enough. I hope Finn had a solid idea up his sleeve and was not just coming back to slap something together for a quick buck.

Thankfully, I am proud to say that this sequel lives up to the original. There are parts of this movie that I would even say are an improvement from the original. While I was more intrigued by the story of the first film, maybe due to the concept feeling fresh, I found the lead for “Smile 2” to leap off the screen more. Both in terms of her character, and her performance.

“Smile 2” is led by Naomi Scott, who I have not seen in a ton of projects. I know she is particularly famous for her appearance in the 2019 Disney “Aladdin” remake. I have not seen that film. Although I do like her based on what I saw her in leading up to this picture. I thought Scott was a good actress before seeing “Smile 2,” but I had no idea what exactly she was capable of until watching this film. Scott is given a lot to do between channeling a neverending sense of fear, singing, trying to convince others she is not going berserk. I bought into her entire performance. I will also give some credit to the costuming and makeup departments. Scott plays a pop star, and those two departments do a great job at transforming Scott into an artist admired by a sea of fans.

I have not seen the first “Smile” since the theater. I want to watch it again at some point. It could be fun to do a double feature of these films back to back. But kind of like the first film, once it gets to the ending, that is where “Smile 2” becomes as unhinged as it possibly can. This film might not exactly contain my favorite ending of the year. But I could not imagine a more fitting outcome of the story if I tried. Going back to the original “Smile,” I cannot say I remember everything that happens in that film’s climax. Though I will not deny that whatever did happen, made my skin crawl like you would not believe. It is not to say that the rest of the film was not scary. But I specifically remember the feeling I had watching parts of the climax. I felt an equally noticeable sense of discomfort watching the entirety of “Smile 2.” I was scared not just because of what loomed over our protagonist from a supernatural perspective, but also from a pure sanity standpoint. This film to a certain degree repeats concepts from the original in addition to other horror movies, but even these familiar elements feel as if they are done to their maximum potential.

Also with “Smile 2” being a sequel, it follows a cliche that many sequels tend to carry with them, that is to go bigger than its predecessor. I sometimes cite this as a negative in my reviews because while the scope expands, the quality of the story does not. Therefore, bigger does not always mean better. But I felt that the added scope of this film made for a more immersive and better production than the original. The film cost $28 million to make, up from its predecessor’s $17 million. Both budgets are not necessarily high, but the crew behind “Smile 2” clearly threw more money at the screen to give something more visually appealing than what was given in the first “Smile.” The sets feel more grand. The color palette is glossier. Even the look of our main character played by Naomi Scott has more pizzazz. Granted, she is a pop star, so she would require more elaborate outfits and makeup than the original’s lead, Sosie Bacon, who played a therapist.

Though if I have one negative-ish thing to say about the film, it is that it often comes off as a commercial. It is not shot like a commercial. It very much has the look and feel of a movie. But we get numerous glimpses of Paramount Global’s assets in order to further the story including a CBS news network and “The Drew Barrymore Show.” Have you ever watched a Sony movie and noticed them trying to promote their phones? TVs? Headsets? PlayStations? That is kind of what this feels like. In fact, some would even say that this shameless self-promotion is not even the biggest piece of commercialism in the film. It stood out to me, probably because I have a good amount of experience with mass media. But some would even say that Voss Water plays an even bigger role in “Smile 2” in terms of product placement. This did not bother me in particular. If anything, I thought anytime our main protagonist drank water in the movie, those moments properly encapsulated what she was feeling in specific scenes. Did this movie make me want Voss Water? Not really. So as for the effectiveness of this commercial, maybe it will work better for other people. I sound like a Negative Nancy, but if you want me to be real, the product placement here, while noticeable, is not as obnoxious as “Madame Web.”

“Smile 2” has something in common with another sequel from this year, “Inside Out 2.” These are movies that I thought had phenomenal first outings, but I was rather nervous when I found out they were getting sequels. I did not think a follow-up would be as good or worthwhile. I did not find a sequel to be all that necessary compared to other properties out there. But both sequels surprised me and stuck the landing. I think “Smile 2” is more consistent in quality with its predecessor whereas “Inside Out 2” is a noticeable step down, but still a pretty good flick. Another thing these movies have in common… I would not mind seeing a third one. I would especially be happy if Parker Finn comes back to do a threequel, though if someone else has a fresh idea up their sleeve, I would not be opposed to checking it out. But this second film is worth watching. It is not my favorite horror movie of the year. I think “A Quiet Place: Day One” is slightly better when it comes to characterization and overall engagement. But this is a huge win for the franchise, for Parker Finn, and for Paramount. I would love to see more of this property if possible.

In the end, it is safe to say, if you like the first “Smile” movie, chances are you will enjoy the second one. If you are not a fan of the first “Smile” movie, then maybe skip this sequel. I am going back and forth as to which movie I like more. I have to give the first film a lot of credit because it took a clever, crazy idea and turned it into an equally clever, crazy movie. Though I think this second film ups the scares, ups the insanity, ups the acting, and ups the production value. That said, I do think the first film’s story is slightly more engaging, as much as I like the main character and concept of this film as well. Despite how often this movie made me wince, I am definitely all smiles talking about it now. I am going to give “Smile 2” an 8/10.

“Smile 2” is now playing in theaters and is available to rent or buy on VOD. As of this writing the film is available to all Paramount+ and MGM+ subscribers.

Thanks for reading this review! My next reviews are going to be for “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 “Smile 2?” What did you think about it? Or, which of the “Smile” movies puts a bigger grin on your face? The original? Or the sequel? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

Y2K (2024): A Group of Teens Celebrate a Crappy New Year in This Rad Horror Comedy

Posted on by Jack Drees

“Y2K” is directed by Kyle Mooney and this is his directorial debut. The film stars Jaeden Martell (St. Vincent, It), Rachel Zegler (West Side Story, Shazam! Fury of the Gods), Julian Dennison (Deadpool 2, Godzilla vs. Kong), Lachlan Watson (Chilling Adventures of Sabrina, Chucky), Mason Gooding (Love, Victor, Scream), Fred Durst (The Education of Charlie Banks, The Fanatic), and Alicia Silverstone (Clueless, Batman & Robin). This film follows two teenagers who crash a New Years Eve party as the clock gets closer to 2000. When the clock hits midnight, the group of partiers must survive against an army of machines.

While it is not my top film I have been looking forward to all year, “Y2K” is a project that has been on my radar ever since the trailer dropped. The film looked like a crazy good time that answers a question that I have to imagine some people have asked over the past 24 years. What if Y2K actually happened?

This is not the first time Y2K has been played out through a form of entertainment. There is a great “Family Guy” episode that came out around the time said event was on the verge of potentially occurring. It is a funny watch, I highly recommend it. “Y2K,” interesting enough, sometimes plays out like a “Family Guy” episode. There is a lot of throwback humor. There are also a couple sights that might make certain audience members wince. The characters, while well thought out and decently portrayed, are somewhat stereotypical. You have Jaeden Martell playing Eli, a well meaning guy who does not really happen to be that popular. You have his quirky, hyperactive best friend, Danny, played by Julian Dennison. Rachel Zegler plays Laura, a character that fits somewhere within the “popular girl” stereotype. And because this is a movie and we need our hero to want something, we come to know that the unpopular kid, Eli, ends up with the desire to kiss the more popular Laura, particularly during the first moments of the year 2000. And adding a similarity to another Seth MacFarlane project, kind of like the 2012 movie “Ted,” there is a celebrity who appears in the film as themself and they play a bit of a bigger role in the film than a simple cameo.

There are three main elements of “Y2K” that make it worth the price admission for me. I ended up seeing this film at a free screening, so maybe that is not the best phrase to use. But if I were to pay to see this in a theater again, I have a few factors as to why. First off, going back to the actors, they all do a good job with the material given to them. Each character is full of energy to the point where they almost leap off the screen. I especially adored the connection between Jaeden Martell and Rachel Zegler. For the most part, they are believable. There is a bit of an out of the blue turn between them that almost comes off as forced, but I can forgive it somewhat because the two characters are likable and I was nevertheless engaged even in lesser moments between them. Of all the characters in the film, Jaeden Martell is the center of the story, so we get to see him crushing on Zegler for a good amount of the runtime. I thought the film did a great job at displaying that. It felt like something I would have experienced in say middle school or high school. Something so fantastical, yet it is real, but also seemingly hard to act upon. I have a feeling this connection would evoke a sense of nostalgia for some people watching this at a later age.

Speaking of which, this movie tends to handle its 90s nostalgia and timeframe fairly well. The movie delivers a decent soundtrack. There are a lot of good songs in the film that match their specific scenes. The movie starts off doing its best impression of “Searching,” where our point of view is presented through a screen on a computer. As that is going on, there is a moment where dial-up Internet can be heard in the background, and we are seeing a conversation play out in AOL. We also get some moments in a video store. The nostalgia in this film is definitely played up, but it appears to work within the context of the story.

The film is also a horror comedy, and while the film is not the scariest of all time, it contains some good kills, some of which are very funny. Seeing various pieces of technology in this film become completely unhinged is a definite highlight for me. “Y2K” is probably not going to be a movie for everyone, but if you are someone who likes creative attacks and kills, you might be entertained.

Despite containing a lot of positives, “Y2K” is not going to win any Oscars. The film works and is structurally sound, but there is not a ton in it that changes the game. I say this despite also feeling that “Y2K” has given me some of the biggest laughs I had at the cinema this year. I do recommend watching this movie with a crowd. I think it is a great one to see with friends. It would make for a fun night out. If anything, it is a solid first directorial outing from Kyle Mooney, a former “Saturday Night Live” cast member. This film shows he has potential as a filmmaker, and his best work has probably yet to come. But for a first time film, it seems to work. When you have first time directors in recent years firing on all cylinders like Ari Aster with “Hereditary” or Greta Gerwig with “Lady Bird,” it is easy to forget that not all first films have the potential to end up being that director’s best in the long run. When I see debuts like these two, I automatically get excited for the director’s next movie because I think their first film is not just good, but one of the best of the year in which it came out. Therefore, that introduces a problem of recency bias. They say when you do something so lackluster or outright terrible, the only way to go is up. Kyle Mooney’s “Y2K” is definitely far from terrible, but just like something terrible, Mooney has the potential to step things up in his sophomore effort, and I look forward to seeing if he can do that should he continue his directorial career.

In the end, “Y2K” is a mighty fine film. Some would even say it is the bomb. “Y2K” is a film that I would watch a second time if given the opportunity. It is really funny, violent, and contains a likable cast. I am glad to see Rachel Zegler continuing to get more roles. Her cinematic resume is small, but she is one of this generation’s youngest and brightest talents. I loved her in “West Side Story.” I am not really a “Hunger Games” guy so I do not know how she is in “The Ballad of Songbirds & Snakes,” but I still think she is a great performer. She can sing. She can act. She can do it all. Hopefully she has a strong career going forward. While Kyle Mooney’s debut as a director is not perfect, “Y2K” carries its own sense of style. I think Mooney could have a future directing more movies. As far as this first movie goes, I had a great time. I am going to give “Y2K” a 7/10.

“Y2K” is now playing in theaters everywhere. Tickets are available now.

Thanks for reading this review! My next reviews are going to be for “Juror #2,” “Wicked,” “Smile 2,” and “Nightbitch.” Stay tuned! 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 “Y2K?” What did you think about it? Or, if you lived during the transition from 1999 to 2000? What was that time like for you? For me, I was not even two months old so I could not tell you. But for those who do remember that time more vividly, leave your comments down below! Or, if you were born in 2000 or later, what is something associated with the 1990s you enjoy? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

Beetlejuice Beetlejuice (2024): A Long-Awaited, Gorgeously Convoluted Sequel to Tim Burton’s 1988 Horror Comedy

Posted on by Jack Drees

“Beetlejuice Beetlejuice” is directed by Tim Burton (Edward Scissorhands, Charlie and the Chocolate Factory) and stars Michael Keaton (Batman, Spider-Man: Homecoming), Winona Ryder (Little Women, The Age of Innocence), Catherine O’Hara (The Nightmare Before Christmas, Schitt’s Creek), Justin Theroux (The Girl on the Train, The LEGO Ninjago Movie), Monica Bellucci (The Passion of the Christ, The Matrix Reloaded) Jenna Ortega (Wednesday, Jane the Virgin), and Willem Dafoe (Spider-Man, The Lighthouse). This film is the sequel to the 1988 film “Beetlejuice” and follows the Deetz family as three generations return home to Winter River. Meanwhile, Lydia Deetz’s life turns upside down when her daughter, Astrid, accidentally opens the portal to the Afterlife.

Much like this summer’s “Twisters,” I perhaps got around to “Beetlejuice Beetlejuice” out of pure luck. Why? Much like the original “Twister,” I only saw the original “Beetlejuice” once. And I managed to watch 1996’s “Twister” just days before its follow-up released. The same can also be said for 1988’s “Beetlejuice.” As for my thoughts on that original film, I found it to be clever and it occasionally delivered a few chuckles. The production design and costumes are also pretty good. But it is not my favorite Tim Burton movie. That said, I did watch the marketing for “Beetlejuice Beetlejuice” and was somewhat captivated by it, even before seeing the original film. It looked like a good time, funny, and aesthetically pleasing.

For the record, I saw “Beetlejuice Beetlejuice” on its opening weekend in September. One of the first positives I can say about “Beetlejuice Beetlejuice,” and this is a timely one, is that it set the mood for spooky season. I love fall. I love this time of year. Especially as someone who lives in New England and has high standards for foliage. One tree’s trash is another man’s treasure. Speaking of my mood, this movie starts off by putting me in a good one. While the movie feels somewhat updated compared to the original, it is easy to tell it is part of the same universe, and it all starts with the intro credits. “Beetlejuice Beetlejuice” starts off in the best possible way it can. It kicks things off pretty similar to the original, where you have the opening credits, a series of nice-looking shots, and Danny Elfman’s awesome music booming in the background. It is very much a successful welcome back to this universe similar to how “Top Gun: Maverick” welcomed audiences back a couple years ago with some similar musical choices to its original counterpart.

Much like the original, Michael Keaton steals the show as Beetlejuice. He is funny, over the top, and gives it his all in the role. This is Keaton’s latest long-awaited comeback as a character he played in the 1980s. You may recall he reprised his role as Batman last year in “The Flash.” While I did not despise Keaton as Batman in “The Flash,” Keaton shines much brighter this time around as Beetlejuice. He is delightfully kooky and captures my attention every second he is on screen.

While this movie does see the return of actors like Winona Ryder, Catherine O’Hara, and the recently mentioned Michael Keaton, I was intrigued by the newer characters too. Believe it or not, I never watched “Wednesday” or the recent “Scream” movies so I was not fully familiar with Jenna Ortega’s resume. The only major role of hers I have seen was in 2022’s “X.” But I am delighted to say Ortega does an okay job in her role. I thought while her character was written with some cliches, I thought Ortega played her part well. I was invested in her role. She also develops a connection with a character named Jeremy Frazier, played by Arthur Conti. Their connection takes the story in a much deeper direction than I was anticipating. But while I appreciated the depth of the story by the time we get to see these two together, there are some things in this movie that I would have preferred to be cleaned up.

The biggest problem I have with “Beetlejuice Beetlejuice” is that this movie tries to shove so much into one project. This movie is on the shorter side, with a runtime of 104 minutes. But at times it feels longer. There are scenes in this film that go on for what feels like an eternity. Again, I had fun with this movie. But not only do scenes overplay, but there are so many story elements going on at the same time that “Beetlejuice Beetlejuice” falls into the typical sequel trap where it tends to go bigger, but unfortunately, not better. I cannot pinpoint to an element that breaks the movie beyond repair, but there is nevertheless so much going on.

Speaking of a lot of things going on, this film at times comes off as tonally inconsistent. To repeat what I said recently, the film is fun. That said, it is not all fun all the time. And when the tones shift, that transition feels nearly seismic. There are instances, particularly in the beginning of the film, that came off as serious. The movie’s serious moments were not as well executed as I would have hoped. They did not invest me as heavily as the moments that followed. As for the moments that followed, those are the moments that I came to the movie hoping to see and just so happened to be pleased by. The start of the film, perhaps the first half hour or so, feels dark and gloomy. However, I should not pretend this is not exactly dissimilar to the original film, where within the first ten minutes, we see a couple drive off a bridge and die. But even when that happens, there is a sense of wonder, a sense of mystery, a sense of fun. “Beetlejuice Beetlejuice” in comparison starts off making me wonder when the fun begins.

“Beetlejuice Beetlejuice” has some clever concepts and ideas. I like the direction in which they took Lydia Deetz’s character. We now see her hosting a show called Ghost House, which deals with the supernatural. One concept that stuck with me by the end of the film is a Soul Train that takes passengers to the Great Beyond. It is not just called that because of something that could happen to your soul, but there’s a cool sequence where we see tons of people around said train dancing to soul music. I think by the end of the film, that becomes one of the concepts that feels overdone, but still, it was clever.

As for other positives in the film, Willem Dafoe does a good job as Wolf Jackson, I thought he brought some energy to the project. The color palette of this film is gorgeously vivid and immersive. It is truly eye-popping at times. Like I said regarding the original, the sets in this film are also a work of art. They are otherworldly and offer some extensively pleasing detail. This film aces its looks, but falters a tad when it comes to its personality. It comes off as somebody you know, perhaps a good friend, trying too hard to please or impress you. While they may be partially successful in said task, part of you wants them to calm down. Their point has been established and their task has been accomplished eons ago, so to speak.

In the end, I am glad I saw “Beetlejuice Beetlejuice.” Does it feel like a movie only Tim Burton could make? For the most part I would say yes. But the movie is ultimately a series of ideas that sometimes works and at others, fail to stick the landing. If you liked Michael Keaton in the original film, you will like him in this one. He does a fantastic job as Beetlejuice. I am not one of those people who hails the original “Beetlejuice” as an all timer or as my favorite Tim Burton project, but I think this sequel is a step down from its 1988 predecessor. If I had to pick a film to watch tonight between the two, my pick is the original. I did not hate “Beetlejuice Beetlejuice.” There are moments to appreciate, but it is nowhere even close to being flawless. I am going to give “Beetlejuice Beetlejuice” a 6/10.

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

Thanks for reading this review! My next reviews are going to be for a couple animated films, “Transformers One” and “The Wild Robot!” Stay tuned! 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 “Beetlejuice Beetlejuice?” What did you think about it? Or, which of the two “Beetlejuice” movies do you prefer? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!