Movie

Clayface (2026): Part Body Horror, Part Revenge Thriller, All Entertaining

Posted on by Jack Drees

Courtesy of Warner Bros. – © Warner Bros.

“Clayface” is directed by James Watkins (Eden Lake, Speak No Evil) and stars Tom Rhys Harries (White Lines, Suspicion), Naomi Ackie (I Love Boosters, Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker), David Dencik (Serena, Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy), Max Minghella (Spiral, The Handmaid’s Tale), and Eddie Marsan (Happy-Go-Lucky, The World’s End). This is the third film in the Detective Comics Universe and is about star actor Matt Hagen who becomes disfigured by a mobster, motivating him to undergo a scientific procedure to restore his appearance. However, the procedure goes wrong, turning Hagen into a creepy monster who seeks revenge.

About a decade ago, the comic book movie sub-genre was creme of the crop. Whether we are talking quality or box office. The Marvel Cinematic Universe in particular had hit after hit after hit after hit. This even includes the Tom Holland-starring “Spider-Man” films, which wound up being collaborations between the Disney-owned Marvel Studios and Sony Pictures.

Around the same time, Sony thought of ways to make use of Spider-Man characters without necessarily making Peter Parker or the MCU the center of attention. The “Spider-Verse” movies have been particularly phenomenal and I cannot wait to see what they do with a third installment when it comes out. Another direction they took was to make live-action films based on Spider-Man villains. The “Venom” movies in particular made a bit of money, but that character was by far the biggest hit Sony had with this run. I say that as someone who particularly did not enjoy two out of three “Venom” movies, but I know they have fans and those fans definitely showed up at the box office, even during the second movie as theaters continued their recovery from the COVID-19 pandemic.

I say this because “Clayface,” which is based on a DC character, not Marvel, feels like a superior version of those movies. This is not to say that “Clayface” is Shakespeare. But if you are a DC fan, chances are you might be satisfied. If you are a horror movie fan, chances are you might be satisfied. If you are looking for a quick, decent watch, chances are you might be satisfied. I do not know if this film is going to be for everyone. This is the third film in the DCU. Unlike the last two, not only does it center on a less than heroic character, but there is a massive genre shift from the previous movies. I would also avoid recommending this movie for younger audiences. The film is rated R, and for good reason.

The Sony Spider-Man Universe movies and “Clayface” have their differences. I think these differences are what make “Clayface” watchable for me. This film is a bit more grounded than say “Venom,” which yes, also sees its main character turn into something of a monster, but whereas that film sort of treats Eddie Brock as an anti-hero, “Clayface” sees its main character, Matt Hagen, as something of a bad guy. From that alone, pulling off a movie like “Clayface” is somewhat difficult because it becomes harder to root for the main character. At least on paper. However, the movie’s execution of his journey, puts that fear to the side.

For one thing, Tom Rhys Harries is a great choice to play the lead. This is not my first time seeing Harries on screen. I watched him in “The Gentlemen” years ago, but I am not going to pretend I remember him from the movie. Heck, I barely remember the movie in general. I did not think it was that great. “Clayface” marks the first time that I got to truly soak in Harries’ talents. I would love to see more roles from him down the line and I think this film is a proper showcase of what he is capable of. Granted, he is given material that is not only fun to watch, but I imagine for an actor, is a hoot to see come to life. Every actor dreams about those milestone moments in their career from the big break to awards recognition. In this film, the character of Matt Hagen is on top of the world. He has a successful line of work. The film sees him being nominated for an Oscar. While “Clayface” may not be an Oscar-worthy film, it is neat to see the joy Harries experiences early on in the film. It is a good setup for what is to come.

Though just because “Clayface” is not Oscar-worthy does not mean you should avoid it. Actually, quite the opposite. This film at times has the same B-movie feel that Sony and Marvel’s “Venom” gave years ago. Although “Clayface” feels like it has an artistic touch, whereas “Venom” at times gave the illusion that it came off an assembly line. DC Studios is taking a much different approach with its characters than some other comic book movie universes, including the preceding Detective Comics Extended Universe. Sure, the DCEU had “Suicide Squad” in 2016, which centered around various criminals or villains like Killer Croc and Harley Quinn, but the story put them in a situation where they played a more heroic role. They were put in a position where they had to “do the right thing.” Granted, everyone is the hero of their own story. Therefore, even someone with bad morals believes they are doing the right thing, even if most people would argue it is for the wrong reason. But whereas “Suicide Squad” saw indecent people fighting for the greater good, “Clayface” sees its main character taking on people for more personal reasons.

This is one of the reasons why I would say unlike “Superman,” “Clayface” is not a film for every audience. One could argue that no film in history is for everyone, but “Clayface” is an R-rated body horror film. Heck, I am friends with someone who uses their AMC A-List stubs to the same degree that a “Mario Kart” player way behind in the pack will use a blue shell. And that is just about any chance they get. Despite this, the person told me they are avoiding this movie because it is in their words “too horror.” For the record, having seen the movie, I never found anything in it to be revoltingly scary or nightmare-inducing. Though I can see several audiences walking out of this film at least somewhat creeped out by it. When I say this film is not the scariest I have ever watched. I do not mean this as a dig. It is definitely creepy, but it is not like there is one particular scene that made me jump out of my skin. “Clayface” is a film that successfully combines different genres and ideas. It is part body horror, part revenge action thriller, part character study. It handles these concepts rather well.

The movie is also very nice-looking. While it may not look as expensive as “Superman,” “Clayface” does make the most of its reported $44 million budget. Despite the movie being a bit dark, it has some colorful and neon-filled scenes. The lighting is pristine and very much sets the mood. I know I said this film is not Oscar-worthy, but I will not deny that the makeup specifically could pick up a nomination. The makeup effects, particularly on Harries’ character as we see him evolve, easily caught my attention.

Another thing that caught my attention is the film’s aspect ratio. The film is in 2.76:1, or Ultra Panavision. It is such an unusual choice to have an aspect ratio like that for any movie coming out nowadays. In fact, director Watkins says the reason he wanted to have the aspect ratio is to make the movie look epic and old-school. I can definitely tell that is what Watkins was trying to go for. Heck, I thought “Sinners” was one of the most epic movies released last year and that used Ultra Panavision quite well. I cannot confirm or deny whether that film inspired Watkins to shoot “Clayface” the way he did, but I would not be surprised if that is the case. After all, the film was shot months after “Sinners” came out, when it was still a hot topic. Although to be completely real, even if Watkins wants to sell me on such an adjective, “epic” is not the first word I would use to describe “Clayface,” especially when the previous two movies in the DCU feature powerful characters who fly and deal with matters on multiple planets. This is not to say that “Clayface” is not interesting or fun. But epic feels bit exaggerative. On that note, I think a taller aspect ratio would have arguably been more fitting because it would it add to the film’s overall feeling of discomfort. That’s just me.

When I do these comic book movie reviews, I often like to take a look at where exactly the cinematic universe would go from this point. Sadly, due to recent events including James Gunn and Peter Safran stepping down as the heads of DC Studios, and Jeremy Latcham taking their place, the roadmap is a bit unclear as of now. Though prior to this happening, I cannot imagine most audiences would have guessed that the third movie set in this cinematic universe would have focused on Clayface. Heck, this is a Batman villain, and yet, we have still not gotten a Batman movie. Sure, technically, Batman has already appeared in the DCU to a certain extent with HBO Max’s “Creature Commandos” series, but that is about all the universe has given us. Personally, I am at the point where I do not care what comic book character you focus on first in your universe. Maybe you should start with a “big gun” like Superman to draw the audience in, but after that, you have permission to go crazy. This is especially true if James Gunn and Peter Safran were to actually stay. However, this month proves that we can never have nice things.

When Gunn was involved with the DCEU, he worked on “The Suicide Squad” and “Peacemaker.” The former is still my favorite DC movie and the latter is action-packed and hilarious. Sticking with the former, that film saw Gunn bringing unlikely characters to the forefront like King Shark and Polka Dot Man. So, if Gunn and Safran were cool with bringing someone like Clayface to fruition early on, I am for it. My rule is make a good movie first. It does not matter who appears in that movie. It is more of a matter of what you do with the idea or characters that movie centers around. Am I concerned about what these movies are building up to at this point? Not necessarily, though it is nice to imagine what this universe’s version of a Justice League could resemble. For now, I am just enjoying the ride.

The movie is not entirely perfect. Even though the film does have a different flair and direction for a comic book based-film, it does feel somewhat predictable in certain ways. This is not to say that such predictable moments were bad. But as the movie progressed, the roadmap was somewhat clear as to where the character of Matt Hagen would take himself. Having watched a number of comic book movies and origin stories through said subgenre, there is often a formula to these stories that becomes repetitive with each go. The formula can work, but there are a lot of origin stories that tend to borrow elements from others to the point where I end up thinking, “Oh, I have seen this happen in that movie,” multiple times during the same experience. What really separates “Clayface” from many of the other origin stories of this kind that have been brought to the screen is that this one does not necessarily focus on someone who becomes a hero. Matt Hagen wants revenge. Sure, if you look at a movie like 2002’s “Spider-Man,” Peter Parker wanted to get revenge and take down the person who killed Uncle Ben, but as the movie progresses, we see Peter remember his uncle’s teachings and philosophies, making him the hero everyone looks up to. Hagen is in a position where he feels like he has reached his lowest low, and now he feels the need to fight back to the top.

The film runs for an hour and 48 minutes. For the first half, the film is by no means boring, but it often feels like it is taking some time just to get going. The more action-packed material happens in the second half, which is to be expected, but at times I felt like I was barely pacing through the first half just to get to that action-packed latter portion. The film is nevertheless entertaining in each scene, even if some clearly stand out better than others. Despite the film’s flaws, there is still enough to write home about with “Clayface.”

In the end, “Clayface” is a lot of fun. This is the third DCU movie, and again, with James Gunn and Peter Safran leaving, I have no idea where things are going to go, but if they were to stay, I would tell them that if we can keep getting movies as enjoyable as this, then this universe is going in the right direction. It is much-needed win for the DCU at this point, at least on the movie front. I have heard decent things on the TV side with “Lanterns,” but I have not had time to check it out. But movie-wise, this is significantly better than “Supergirl,” which is almost the worst movie I have seen this year. That film, which was directed by Craig Gillespie, felt like it was helmed by someone doing a bad James Gunn impression. Gunn has some experience with horror. I recommend watching “Slither” if you have the chance. But this feels more like an artist doing a story with their own touch rather than seeing someone emulate another person. The film is predictable and takes a little while to get to the nitty gritty, but I give it a thumbs up. I am going to give “Clayface” a 7/10.

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

Thanks for reading this review! If you have a moment, please be so kind as to do me some favors! Check out the latest episode of Scene Before’s original web series, Movie Requests! The series features yours truly talking about movies suggested by your favorite stars. This latest episode features comedian Adam Conover! You may have seen him on television through programs including “Adam Ruins Everything,” “The Crystal Maze,” and “The G Word with Adam Conover.” Also, another favor I would like to ask of you is to subscribe to my YouTube channel and hit the notification bell that way you can stay up to date on more Movie Requests episodes as they drop!

We are getting close to the finale, and trust me, you will not want to miss it… Only two episodes left! Enjoy them while they last… Unless I decide to do a second season, which… We’ll see.

My next review is going to be for “You Can See Everything.” Stay tuned! Also coming soon, I will be sharing my thoughts on “Wild Horse Nine,” “La Bola Negra,” “The Cat in the Hat,” and “I Play Rocky.” 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 “Clayface?” What did you think about it? Or, do you think we will get a Batman movie in this exact cinematic universe at some point? We already got one of his villains, so where is Batman? That is probably going to be a lingering question for some time. Leave your thoughts down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

Wildwood (2026): A Boundary-Pushing, Emotionally Riveting Stop Motion Masterpiece

Posted on by Jack Drees

“Wildwood” is directed by Travis Knight (Kubo and the Two Strings, Masters of the Universe) and stars Carey Mulligan (Promising Young Woman, Maestro), Peyton Elizabeth Lee (Secret Society of Second-Born Royals, Andi Mack), Jacob Tremblay (Room, Wonder), Richard E. Grant (Can You Ever Forgive Me?, Withnail and I), Awkwafina (Crazy Rich Asians, Shang-Chi and the Legend of the Ten Rings), Amandla Stenberg (Bodies Bodies Bodies, The Hunger Games), Tom Waits (Father Mother Sister Brother, Licorice Pizza), Charlie Day (The LEGO Movie, It’s Always Sunny in Philadelphia), Blythe Danner (Meet the Parents, Will & Grace), Arthur Knight, Angela Bassett (Akeelah and the Bee, Black Panther), and Mahershala Ali (Moonlight, Green Book). This film is based on a fantasy novel by Colin Meloy and Carson Ellis. Upon watching her baby brother Mac get taken away by a murder of crows, a young girl named Prue goes on a quest through the forbidden forest to save him.

Life is full of surprises. As someone who has watched a lot of movies, I often get the feeling that it is difficult to be caught off guard anymore. Though the 2020s have shown me how much I continue to be marveled by the power of animation. My favorite film of 2020 was “Over the Moon,” which going into it, I thought was just going to be another throwaway Netflix film. Turns out it reminded me a lot of what I went through as a teenager and for that reason, it left me in tears by the end. 2021 saw the release of “Belle,” which I watched more times than I can count on two hands. “Spider-Man: Across the Spider-Verse” pushed the boundaries of the medium in 2023 and seamlessly blended together six different animation styles. Plus I must not forget other films that left an impact on me like “Puss in Boots: The Last Wish,” “Marcel the Shell with Shoes On,” and “The Wild Robot.”

These are all amazing films in their own right, and much like many other animated titles, these are fantastic choices for all ages. This brings me to a point I must make clear in this review. “Wildwood” is not for kids. It is PG-13 for a reason. Animated projects for adults are not a new thing, but I know in the United States, they’re not always the ones getting the most attention. I am not saying all kids should be kept away from “Wildwood,” but given this film’s intense moments and sequences, nudity, and language, this is a film that clearly keeps an adult audience in mind first. It is not like there’s a sex party or anything of that sort. This is not “Sausage Party,” nor is it something for “everyone” like I often claim Pixar movies to be. This is something in between.

That said, if you are of the right age or mindset and are able to watch “Wildwood,” do it now. Like, literally right now. In fact, if you make it to the end of this review and you still have not watched “Wildwood,” you may be doing yourself a disservice. This is one of the best animated films I have ever seen. This is a medium-defining movie, and I contend it could be the greatest project in the history of stop motion. I say this as someone who may not have a ton of experience with stop motion, but appreciates the works that goes into those movies and has some fond memories of watching them over the years, including those by Laika. I grew up with “Coraline” to an extent. I remember going to watch it in the theater and renting it from Blockbuster Video. Over the years, I got around to watching films like “Paranorman,” “The Boxtrolls,” “Kubo and the Two Strings,” and “Missing Link,” all of which were really good.

“Kubo” just so happens to be directed by Travis Knight, who went on to helm this very movie. When I saw “Kubo” in 2016, I thought it was Laika’s best movie. Having seen “Wildwood” a decade later, I think “Kubo” has been dethroned. It is not just because of how much this latest movie captivated me as a story, which it most certainly did, but because it is one of the most technically impressive feats in the history of filmmaking. What “The Odyssey” did this year for live-action, I would contend “Wildwood” does for animation. In fact, both are fantasy stories based on preexisting material. They are simple narratives, but they are brought to life in such a way that hits the goldilocks zone. In fact, I would not be surprised to find out that one’s complaint about “Wildwood” is that despite how good the film looks, the story and characters feel overly familiar. To me, that was not an issue, because I was engaged with what was in front of me. The characters are all beautifully fleshed out and go through admirable arcs. Meanwhile, the film continuously puts us in shoes of its protagonist, Prue, who is constantly trying to figure out what the deal is with the forbidden forest and its many ins and outs.

Although going back to the film feeling familiar, it did remind me a lot of some other projects I enjoyed. I have not read any of the “Wildwood” books. I cannot compare them to this movie. But I found myself reliving the joys I felt watching other films over the years. There is an incredibly immersive flying scene that felt very much like something out of “How to Train Your Dragon.” There are battle sequences that seemed to be inspired by “Lord of the Rings.” Even a film that I was admittedly not the biggest fan of, “The Goonies,” came to mind. Not only does this film, like that one, boast a sense of adventure, but both movies made me want to go to Oregon. When the film is not taking place in the forbidden forest, it is in Portland, Oregon. The sets representing Portland looked stunning as can be. I kid you not, hours after this movie ended, I looked up flights to Portland in hopes of being able to go next year.

There is not a single character that I could look at in “Wildwood” and say I dislike. I do think there is one slightly questionable voice casting choice. But even as I say that, I think they did an okay job in the movie. For the record, that one cast member is Awkwafina as Septima, a friendly rat. I have nothing against Awkwafina as a performer, but her many roles in recent years, both as a physical character as well as someone’s voice, have given me a sense that she lacks range. Every other movie, she seems to rely on the same schtick and quirks that she implemented in some of her previous roles. Awkwafina seems to bring that schtick to the table once again, but not to as obnoxious of a degree as she has in some prior roles. She also has some decent, funny material to supplement her performance. There are some good moments between her and Prue.

Speaking of Prue, she is voiced by Peyton Elizabeth Lee, and this is my first introduction to this young actress. I say young like she is a kid, she is actually 22. But after hearing her in this film, I hope I have the opportunity to see Lee get more work. There is a constant conviction in her voice that is as palatable as it is believable. Granted, with this being a stop motion animation, one could argue that the puppet is the star of the show as opposed to the person voicing it. And I was often impressed with how convincingly this puppet and others were brought to life. Prue has dynamite chemistry with just about everyone with whom she crosses paths.

There is a supporting character named Curtis (Tremblay) who we often see alongside Prue. The two do not always seem to mesh together, but seeing their imperfections play out allows for some entertaining sequences and fantastic character development on both ends. I bought into the bond between Prue and her parents. I particularly found her father (Jake Johnson) to be a solid voice of reason, even if he does have a helicopter parent vibe. I was constantly rooting for Prue to find her baby brother, not just because it is the right thing for her to do, but because she always gave off a sense of ambition. She sounded like she was going to stop at nothing to make sure Mac gets home safe.

The film also has a fabulous antagonist, Alexandra. While the movie does show her doing questionable things, Alexandra is not exactly vicious. What makes Alexandra compelling is that she seems to want something along the same lines of what Prue wants. Prue is willing to do anything to get her brother back, and we come to realize that there is someone in Alexandra’s life that she would give everything up to see return as well. The film sets up a situation that not only puts Alexandra in Prue’s way, but said roadblock is what gets Alexandra closer to getting to see that special someone one more time. Carey Mulligan also does a terrific job voicing the character. Much like the rest of the cast, Mulligan has some great material to work with.

The word “epic” is one that can often be used as a hyperbole. But “epic” is exactly what I would use to describe “Wildwood.” The sets and effects are mind-blowing. Dario Marianelli’s score is satisfyingly booming. The battle sequences look like something out of “Braveheart.” Each one feels like pure eye candy and quite heavy in terms of the stakes. Even when the movie slows down, the story feels like it is just getting started. Overall, this is a story that starts out small and by the end feels larger than life. I know that sounds every other movie ever made, but “Wildwood” is a project that understands how to perfect that philosophy. This film is 2 hours and 12 minutes. That makes “Wildwood” the longest stop motion animated film ever made. It earns every single minute. This film is never boring. It hits a sweet spot when it comes to pacing. The quick moments are exciting, but the film knows when to let the audience breathe. I am not going to pretend that everything in “Wildwood” is original. Though it is undoubtedly imaginative and presents all of its material in a spectacular, awe-inspiring package. It is kind of like the original “Star Wars.” If you think about the movie hard enough, you can come up with some idea as to what inspired it, but the film nevertheless brings something fresh to the table and offers a ton of replay value. As I said in previous posts, cliches are fine as long as they are done well. They could not have been done better in “Wildwood” if anyone tried, as is the case with all the extraordinary things included in this movie.

In the end, “Wildwood” is not just one of the best films of the year, there is a serious argument to be made that it could go down as one of my favorite films ever. This is a movie that I want to take friends to in the future. It is one that I want to show my dad. It is one that I can see myself rewatching in the comfort of my bedroom. I remember watching the “Lord of the Rings” and “The Hobbit” movies as a teen and being inspired to make films of my own one day. If “Wildwood” came out during that time in my life, it would have been just as formative of an experience as those movies. I am not sure what the legacy of “Wildwood” is going to be, but I am hopeful that it is going to inspire future artists and filmmakers. This is a movie that pushes the boundaries of animation and reminds me of the joys of being a film fan. Go see this movie. You’ll laugh. You’ll immerse yourself in such a wonderful world. You might even cry. I am going to give “Wildwood” a 10/10.

Laika is a studio that I am shocked yet happy is still around today. If it were not for Travis Knight being born into a family associated with Nike, this film probably would have never happened. As far as nepo-babies go, Knight is probably one of the coolest. In fact, this is not Knight’s only film he directed to have come out this year, as he also directed “Masters of the Universe,” which came out in June. This double-header may not have the same prestige as Steven Spielberg’s double-header in 1993 with “Jurassic Park” and “Schindler’s List,” but this is still quite the hot streak. Knight has not made a bad movie. I did not think it was possible for him to outdo “Kubo and the Two Strings,” but he did. If he sometime in the future outdoes “Wildwood,” I am going to need surgery, because chances are my jaw is going to break the earth from dropping so monumentally low.

And in case I did not make myself clear, please go see “Wildwood.” Take your friends. Take your loved ones. Maybe take your children if they seem like they can handle it. Please go. You will thank me later.

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

Thanks for reading this review! If you enjoyed this written review, check out one of my video-based reviews! Right now, I am working on a limited series called Movie Requests, and last week I just published the 13th episode, which features “Adam Ruins Everything” star Adam Conover! He requested I should talk about “To Live and Die in L.A.”, which was a first time watch for me. Did I enjoy it? Click the video above the find out! Also, be sure to subscribe to my YouTube channel that way you can check out more episodes of Movie Requests as soon as they drop!

My next review is going to be for “Clayface!” Stay tuned! Also coming soon, I will be sharing my thoughts on “You Can See Everything,” “Wild Horse Nine,” and “La Bola Negra.” 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 “Wildwood?” What did you think about it? Or, what is your favorite film of the year so far? Right now, “Wildwood” has made my job here so much harder. When I get cracking on that best movies of the year list, picking my number one is going to be tough. Let me know your favorite film of 2026 down below. Chances are I haven’t seen it, so maybe that can add to the challenge. Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

Whalefall (2026): Oh Whale, Better Luck Next Time…

Posted on by Jack Drees

Photo by 20th Century Studios. – © 2026 20th Century Studios. All Rights Reserved.

“Whalefall” is directed by Brian Duffield (Spontaneous, No One Will Save You) and stars Austin Abrams (Brad’s Status, Do Revenge), Josh Brolin (Weapons, Avengers: Infinity War), Elisabeth Shue (Back to the Future Part II, The Karate Kid), and John Ortiz (Fast & Furious, Jack Goes Boating). This film is based on a book written by Daniel Kraus, who co-wrote the film alongside Duffield. The story follows a scuba diver who is looking for his father’s remains in the ocean. While the diver is underwater, he is swallowed by a sperm whale. Now in a tough situation, he has an hour to come up with a way to exit the whale before his oxygen runs out.

Photo by 20th Century Studios./20th Century Studios. – © 2026 20th Century Studios. All Rights Reserved.

“Whalefall” has one of the most compelling pitches for a movie I have seen this year. Essentially, it follows a man who is scuba diving in the ocean, and in a sudden turn of events, he is swallowed by a whale. The pitch very much screamed “127 Hours” but in the ocean. It is a survival movie where our protagonist is constantly in a cramped space, time is not on his side, and he has to do anything he can to escape.

Upon hearing early reviews of the film, I found out “Whalefall” was based on a book. I have not read the book, and do not know when I will get around to it. But I hope it is better than this movie.

This is not to say that the movie is the worst I have ever seen. In fact, as an October movie, this is not super scary, but it is somewhat appropriate for this to release at such a time. I think “Whalefall” ultimately works somewhat better as a summer release because there is a lot of time spent in water, but still. I could somewhat defend the film being released in October because the moments in the water, particularly before we see the whale, are hypnotically shiver-inducing. I have never been scuba diving, and this movie sort of reminds me of why that is the case.

Photo by 20th Century Studios./20th Century Studios. – © 2026 20th Century Studios. All Rights Reserved.

Speaking of shiver-inducing, the moment we see our main protagonist, Jay Gardiner, encounter the whale itself is very well done. If you have a chance to witness “Whalefall” on the big screen, the whale encounter may justify the price of admission. The whale itself is menacing. Unlike say the shark in “Jaws,” the whale never comes off as an outright enemy and more so an obstacle. Even when we see Gardiner end up in the whale’s mouth, that sentiment stands. The movie never makes me hate the whale, but it nevertheless puts me in a position where I want the hero to succeed against said whale.

Even some of the moments inside the whale are somewhat tense. The movie is not short on conflict and keeps its protagonist, and therefore the audience, on their toes. The movie does a good job at establishing a ticking clock as well. Not just because Gardiner spends time inside a whale, but because he only has a certain amount of oxygen in his tank.

Does “Whalefall” give what it promises in the marketing? Absolutely. But it has an odd way of going about it. The film is presented in a non-linear fashion and brings forth maybe the oddest character ever given by Josh Brolin. Note that I said character and not performance. Brolin did okay with the material given to him.

Photo by 20th Century Studios./20th Century Studios. – © 2026 20th Century Studios. All Rights Reserved.

“Whalefall” reminds me quite a bit of “The Lion King,” partially because it is a story centered around a father-son relationship, even if that father is technically dead throughout the film. In fact, part of the film, prior to the whale encounter, sees Gardiner talking with other people and it is established that his father left a positive impact on those people. Eventually we see Gardiner go into the water specifically to find his father’s remains.

When we see parts of the father and son’s relationship play out, that is all presented through flashbacks. This does make sense to a logistical degree. If you are all seeing this post on November 5th, 2026, I am very much alive, so I do not what it is like to experience death, but there is a saying that life flashes before your eyes as you’re about to die, and this movie seems to deliver an interpretation of that.

Much like “The Lion King,” “Whalefall” effectively shows the complication between the father and son. The two did not always see eye to eye on everything, but they still admired each other.

For those who have seen “The Lion King,” you may recall there is a scene towards the final act where Simba, who is at a low point, talks to the ghost of his father, Mufasa. The latter winds up giving his son some words of encouragement so he can confidently progress through the rest of his journey. It is a fantastic scene and cements the film as one of the best animations of all time. There are quite a few moments through “Whalefall” where we see a somewhat similar version of that. We see the main protagonist having hallucinations and sometimes “talking” to his father. If this movie perhaps had better material to back it up or executed certain parts in a superior way I may have been more onboard with this concept. But these hallucinations wind up sometimes feeling cheesy. The dialogue does not really help much either. These moments at least progress the story forward to a certain degree, but it does not change the fact that they feel weird before said progression occurs.

Photo by 20th Century Studios./20th Century Studios. – © 2026 20th Century Studios. All Rights Reserved.

I said before that this movie keeps you on your toes, and it does. But the flashback moments sometimes feel distracting or do not exactly blend with the tone the movie might be aiming for. Maybe the people behind the film thought it would be best to give the movie some balance by slowing things down a bit, but it resulted in a few somewhat boring moments.

This is definitely a layered film because there is a whole father-son element. There is a story involving the son sort of “reuniting with his deceased father” if that makes any sense. Perhaps that is the heart of the film. But in my mind, part of me wonders if this movie would have been more entertaining if it were simplified. Maybe if it just happened to be about a scuba diver trying to get out of a whale, I would be more invested. There is nothing outside that comes off as a distraction or tonally inconsistent. One could argue that this keeps the film from being feature-length, and therefore would perhaps limit its box office potential as there is less prestige, if you want to call it that. Though I am not sure how much the feature-length runtime is helping as “Whalefall” has now been out for several weeks and has only made more than half of its $60 million budget.

Maybe the father-son element works great in the book. And perhaps we would live in a reality where book loyalists and fans would protest against this movie for taking the father-son relationship out of the movie. Though it also goes to show that is sometimes hard to adapt certain things for the screen. I saw “Project Hail Mary” earlier this year, and despite the crew taking things out of the book that I enjoyed, this resulted in one of my favorite films of the decade. If anything, maybe I would pick up a copy of the “Whalefall” book in my spare time because of the curiosity factor. Maybe it really is significantly better than the movie. But you only have one chance to make a first impression, and this movie did not impress me.

Photo by 20th Century Studios./20th Century Studios. – © 2026 20th Century Studios. All Rights Reserved.

In the end, “Whalefall” is not the most bottom of the barrel film I have ever seen, but it definitely could have been better. Parts of it are exciting, while others are noticeably less so. The actors do an okay job with the material given to them. There is definitely no shortage of tension from scene to scene. But while the movie itself isn’t outright boring, there are most definitely dull moments that stood out. Going into this film, the pitch screamed “127 Hours” but in the ocean. If there is a takeaway from this review, it is that I recommend you watch “127 Hours” before “Whalefall.” Maybe it is unfair of me to put these two together, because “127 Hours” is based on true events whereas “Whalefall” is based on a book, but it does not change that I found the former more compelling than the latter. I am going to give “Whalefall” a 4/10.

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

Thanks for reading this review! If you enjoyed this written review, check out my latest video review! The latest episode of Movie Requests is now online! This episode’s special guest is comedian Adam Conover, who recommended I should watch “To Live and Die in L.A..” This is my first William Friedkin film. I am glad to finally get around to his filmography, so I thank Conover for recommending this film to me. Did I enjoy it? Click the video above to find out! And if you enjoy the video, leave a like, subscribe to my YouTube channel and hit the notification bell! Movie Requests is being made in honor of Scene Before’s 10th anniversary. I have two more guests to tackle until the series comes to a close. Look forward to those episodes coming soon!

My next review is going to be for “Wildwood!” Stay tuned! Also coming soon, I will be sharing my thoughts on “Clayface” and “You Can See Everything!” 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 “Whalefall?” What did you think about it? Or, have you ever been scuba diving? Is it a one-time thing for you or can you not get enough of it? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

Sense and Sensibility (2026): A Mishmash of a Jane Austen Adaptation

Posted on by Jack Drees

“Sense and Sensibility” is directed by Georgia Oakley (Bored, Blue Jean) and stars Daisy Edgar-Jones (Twisters, Normal People), Esmé Creed-Miles (Hanna, The Doll Factory), Caitríona Balfe (Ford v Ferrari, Outlander), Frank Dillane (Urchin, Fear the Walking Dead), Herbert Nordrum (The Worst Person in the World, The Hypnosis), George MacKay (Marrowbone, 1917), and Fiona Shaw (Ammonite, Harry Potter and the Philosopher’s Stone). This film is based on Jane Austen’s book of the same name and is about sisters Elinor and Marianne Dashwood as they are forced to leave their estate to live with a distant relative, while also taking on romantic and financial struggles.

Movies are more fun. Sorry, books!

Those of you who followed me a long time may have come across a post of mine where those exact words are mentioned. Based on the typing of this very phrase, this should likely hint that I do not have the greatest fanaticism for Jane Austen’s bibliography. In fact, I read “Pride and Prejudice” in high school, and became increasingly exhausted with it page after page. Austen’s style is not for me, nor is that particular genre of book. By extension, I have not checked out many of the Jane Austen film adaptations. That said, maybe I am not giving them the fairest shot. I did check out “Emma.” in 2020 and had a lot of fun with it. Maybe I was just in the right place at the right time, as I got to see the film at a press screening before it came out. In fact, at said screening, star Anya Taylor-Joy and director Autumn de Wilde happened to be there promoting the project. Plus, the place was crowded, and likely packed with Jane Austen diehards.

As for “Sense and Sensibility,” I saw this film during its official release. I had no one behind the scenes in the room who could potentially influence me to think a certain way. Though the theater was crowded. That is something these two screenings had in common.

Having now seen “Sense and Sensibility,” it is… Okay.

I do not have a girlfriend, but if I did have a girlfriend who wound up dragging me to this movie as I beg her to go with me to see “Primetime” instead, I would walk out of this movie saying, “That was good.” I would not be lying, nor would I be exaggerating. The movie is technically good. Not great, but good.

That said, if my imaginary girlfriend did successfully get me to go to this movie, our relationship would be on the verge of disaster for the first 30, 40 minutes or so. The pacing in this film is sometimes rough. There is a saying that you do not have a second chance to make a first impression. This film is quite slow at the beginning. It takes a long time for things to truly get into gear. To me, this is almost a reverse of Greta Gerwig’s “Little Women,” because both films, while not the exact same in terms of setting, offer fairly similar vibes. I found myself invested in “Little Women” at the beginning and it got progressively more boring. “Sense and Sensibility” is a movie that I initially found disengaging only for things to turn around in acts two and three.

As the movie went on, I was surprisingly into the drama at hand. I am not going to pretend this movie is an all-timer or that I will remember it for as long as I live, but in the moment, it was engaging. As someone who never read the book, I was amazed with how much material the film threw at the screen in just a matter of 132 minutes. It really keeps you on your toes. I know I said this movie was boring at the beginning, but the film’s commitment to quantity, on top of adapting a novel many readers have found to be quality, make for something watchable.

That said, while the film is not short on drama, it appears to have a slight identity crisis. I am not saying that you cannot have levity or comic relief in a drama. It can work if done right. But in the midst of this somewhat serious narrative, there are a couple characters who sound like they are in a sitcom. One of these characters include Mrs. Jennings (Shaw). Watching Mrs. Jennings interact with almost every other character in this film reminded me of what it felt like watching Jar Jar Binks interact with just about anyone else in “The Phantom Menace.” Granted, while she gave an odd vibe, she was not quite as annoying as Jar Jar. Though it does not change the fact that she came off as if she belonged in a different universe compared to those around her.

This is not to suggest that every performance in “Sense and Sensibility” doesn’t work. The ones that are perhaps most important to the story stand out in a positive light. George MacKay does a good job as Edward Ferrars. Caitríona Balfe plays Mrs. Dashwood with conviction. Perhaps most importantly, the chemistry between the two main sisters is on point. Daisy Edgar-Jones and Esmé Creed-Miles kill it as Elinor and Marianne Dashwood respectively.

Technically speaking, the film is not too bad looking. Arnaud Potier is responsible for the film’s cinematography, and he never misses on the framing. Each shot is full of detail and does as best it can to immerse me into the world. That said, the world itself is a bit questionable. The color palette of the film probably could have been punched up. It could have been given a little more life. Everything from the color grading to the costumes to maybe even some of the sets. Again, this is a drama. Perhaps the color matches the film’s somewhat serious vibe, but it lacks a certain personality. The work that went into the film’s costumes and production design clearly took a certain amount of effort, and it led to something that one can describe as consistent. I just think it needed a different flavor. This feels too depressing. It feels like what the Hot Topic version of this story would be.

Courtesy of Focus Features – © 2026 FOCUS FEATURES LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

In the end, “Sense and Sensibility” is a bit of mishmash. I may sound like I am complaining about certain things in the film. But the reality is that the film does very well in certain regards, but lacks the same luster in others. I cannot compare this to Jane Austen’s book. Truth be told, this is not a book I would willingly read in my spare time. But if I happened to be in the shoes of someone who were to read this book in their spare time, part of me thinks I would most likely find this adaptation to work to a certain degree. Though I would probably also imagine myself saying the book is better. The movie mostly has good performances and an engaging back half. It is by no means the worst film of the year, but not the best either. I am going to give “Sense and Sensibility” a 6/10.

“Sense and Sensibility” is now playing in theaters everywhere. Tickets are available now.

Thanks for reading this review! For those looking forward to the next episode of Scene Before’s Movie Requests, I am happy to announce it is going to feature “Adam Ruins Everything” star Adam Conover! In addition, you know Conover from his comedy specials including “Unmedicated” and “Big Divorce Energy.” He is also known for his work on “The Crystal Maze,” “The G Word with Adam Conover,” as well as his podcast “Factually! with Adam Conover.” Click the video to watch the short promo, featuring Conover give a hint as to which film he suggested. That film will be revealed Monday, November 2nd here on Flicknerd.com and YouTube! As a reminder, please subscribe to my YouTube channel if you want to see new episodes of Movie Requests as soon as they drop!

My next review is going to be for “Whalefall.” Stay tuned! Also coming soon, I will be sharing my thoughts on “Wildwood,” “Clayface,” and “You Can See Everything.” 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 “Sense and Sensibility?” What did you think about it? How does this compare to other “Sense and Sensibility” adaptations, in addition to Jane Austen’s book? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

The Social Reckoning (2026): I Reckon You Should See Something Else

Posted on by Jack Drees

“The Social Reckoning” is written and directed by Aaron Sorkin (Molly’s Game, Being the Ricardos) and stars Mikey Madison (Anora, Once Upon a Time… in Hollywood), Jeremy Allen White (Star Wars: The Mandalorian and Grogu, The Bear), Wunmi Mosaku (Loki, Sinners), Betty Gilpin (Mrs. Davis, GLOW), Billy Magnussen (Game Night, Made for Love), Bill Burr (The King of Staten Island, F is for Family), and Jeremy Strong (The Apprentice, Succession). This film follows Facebook engineer Frances Haugen and Wall Street Journal reporter Jeff Horwitz as the two work together to blow the whistle on Facebook’s secrets.

As a film fan, it pains me to mention that I waited about 16 years to watch “The Social Network” after it came out in theaters. That is despite hearing rave reviews, seeing the film make some best film of the year and decade lists, and owning a really cool-looking Blu-ray copy of it since 2019. I finally put in that Blu-ray disc for a reason, and I am pleased to say that I was delighted with the movie. The story moves at a breakneck pace and comes packed with tons of technical nuggets including the fast editing, the stunning color palette, David Fincher’s shot choices, and Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross’s score. In front of the camera, each member of the cast does a fantastic job, most especially Andrew Garfield and Jesse Eisenberg.

Now… Let’s take everything that was great about that movie and toss it into the black void of space!

That is because a new sheriff is in town, and its name is “The Social Reckoning!” What a bore this movie was. Is it just me, or is October becoming the new January? I feel like we’ve had a hot streak of crap at the box office lately, and “The Social Reckoning” is just the latest example.

“The Social Reckoning” is one of those movies that when I first heard about it I thought, “Okay, that might work.” Did we need this movie? Not really, but in a world where every other fictional movie is getting a sequel, it is fascinating to see “The Social Network,” based on real life events get a companion piece. Facebook has changed a lot over the years, and so has Mark Zuckerberg. That said, this movie is, for the most part, not necessarily about him. Instead, it is about someone who works at Facebook and their connection to someone at the Wall Street Journal who is getting a story out of them. This has the bones to work. After all, recent years have shown that journalism-based stories like “Spotlight” or “The Post” have a tendency to get some attention during awards season, maybe this could follow in their footsteps.

It doesn’t even come close matching the positive experiences I had watching those movies.

I did not watch “The Social Network” when it came out, so while I did enjoy the film, I did not have the same attachment to it that maybe some people did early on. However, as someone who watched “The Social Reckoning” days following its release, I can say that this film is lacking in personality. There is a lot that feels cookie cutter including the shots, the color grading, the directorial choices… It does not have the oomph that “The Social Network” had. This is even noticeable in the performances. Despite this film casting Mikey Madison and Jeremy Allen White, who have proven themselves to be talented, the film does not have a single scene featuring either of them that stands out.

Arguably the most interesting performance in the film is Jeremy Strong as Mark Zuckerberg. Of all the characters in this film, he comes off as the most robotic, perhaps on purpose. Much like Eisenberg’s portrayal in 2010, Strong dives into Zuckerberg’s quirks. But these are much different quirks this time around. Eisenberg’s Zuckerberg was occasionally hyperactive and dynamic. He was energetic. Strong feels much flatter. Usually I list that as a critique, but not today. Strong gives a Sheldon Cooper vibe throughout the entire film. You could also argue this character is Sheldon Cooper if he dyed his hair orange. While Zuckerberg is by no means stupid, the movie dives into his social abnormalities. Other people are telling Zuckerberg how to talk and present himself.

Aaron Sorkin, much like “The Social Network,” takes a non-linear approach in the screenplay, but the material is not as engaging as what was given in 2010. That said, I could see this film being somewhat easier to follow than “The Social Network,” but I also left “The Social Network” compelled enough by its fast-paced narrative to think about giving it a second viewing. That is not the case with this 2026 follow-up.

Speaking of the screenplay, this material is not going to change anybody’s minds. First off, no one is buying tickets to “The Social Reckoning,” so there is that detail to keep in mind. Second, this movie takes a particular viewpoint, which there is nothing wrong with. Mankind’s greatest stories have a viewpoint. That said, if you are fond of President Trump, and happened to be fond of him for the past number of years, you might not like this movie. If you are on the opposite side of the spectrum, this movie is probably going to align with your preexisting beliefs.

Also, I cannot speak for every viewer, this film heavily dives into how Facebook (and by extension, Instagram), negatively affects its userbase. This movie would probably be more compelling if I were not aware of some of these things already. Maybe if I were not on social media I would enjoy this movie more. But I live in an age where I know enough about how the algorithm works, and some of the less than stellar ways the algorithm gets utilized. This movie seems to be going in with a swift punch, but it doesn’t hit that hard. I hate saying this next critique because movies typically take a long time to make, and I am sure “The Social Network” is no exception… But despite this movie being set in the 2020s, the subject matter already feels somewhat dated. When it comes to movies about tech, I have a strong feeling that another movie coming out this year, “Artificial,” is going to tackle A.I. in such a way that is relevant to today’s times. “The Social Reckoning” failed to do that with Facebook. I am not saying that this movie is not going to impact somebody, it just didn’t impact me.

In the end, “The Social Reckoning” is a bland, forgettable film that is probably not going to change the world in the way its crew imagined it would. Aaron Sorkin plays around with a good idea, and the fact that he is diving back into the world of Facebook rather than having someone else do the screenplay makes this film all the more intriguing, but the results left me disappointed. The characters have no pizazz. The direction is dull. The script feels like a step down from its predecessor, if you want to call it that. If it were not for Aaron Sorkin being involved, and perhaps the big names like Mikey Madison and Bill Burr, I would not be shocked if we lived in alternate reality where “The Social Reckoning” winds up going straight to streaming. Heck, the movie acknowledges the COVID-19 pandemic, so it would have been somewhat fitting to have “The Social Reckoning” wind up where almost every other film released in 2020 happened to go. I am going to give “The Social Reckoning” a 4/10.

“The Social Reckoning” is now playing in theaters everywhere. Tickets are available now!

Thanks for reading this review! I am happy to announce that the next episode of the Scene Before original series Movie Requests drops Monday, November 2nd! This episode is going to feature “Adam Ruins Everything” star Adam Conover! You may also know Conover from “The Crystal Maze,” “The G Word with Adam Conover,” as well as his podcast series “Factually! with Adam Conover.” His new comedy special “Big Divorce Energy” is available now on his YouTube channel, which you should totally subscribe to. He makes some excellent long-form videos, and I recommend watching them in your spare time. And you can catch the new episode of Movie Requests on MY YouTube channel, please subscribe now, that way you can stay alert for when said episode officially drops!

My next review is going to be for “Sense and Sensibility.” Stay tuned! Also coming soon, I will be sharing my thoughts on “Whalefall,” “Wildwood,” “Clayface,” and “You Can See Everything.” If you want to see these reviews and more from Scene Before, follow the blog either with an email or WordPress account! Also, it feels weird saying this at this point in the review… I have a Facebook page and you should totally give it a follow! I want to know, did you see “The Social Reckoning?” What did you think about it? Or, did you see “The Social Network?” Tell me your thoughts about that movie! Which of the two “Social” movies do you prefer? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

Digger (2026): I Didn’t Dig It

Posted on by Jack Drees

“Digger” is directed by Alejandro González Iñárritu (The Revenant, Birdman) and stars Tom Cruise (Mission: Impossible, Top Gun), Riz Ahmed (Sound of Metal, Rogue One: A Star Wars Story), John Goodman (Revenge of the Nerds, The Big Lebowski), Sandra Hüller (Project Hail Mary, Anatomy of a Fall), Michael Stuhlbarg (Doctor Strange, Boardwalk Empire), and Jesse Plemons (Game Night, Civil War). This film is about a powerful man who must prove to mankind he is their savior before a disaster he’s unleashed destroys everything.

© Warner bros co.

When I go into a movie, I typically do so having watched at least one piece of marketing. Making a good marketing campaign for a movie is hard, because there is a line. You cannot reveal everything, but you have to show just enough to the point where you can communicate to the audience what it is you are selling. You have to set the tone. Maybe if you are doing a comedy, you need at least one joke, but not too many. If you are doing an action movie, you need to unveil the plot, if the movie is smart enough to provide one, while also utilizing some sick sequence cuts. I remember back when I was a teenager I often avoided watching horror movies when they came out. Not because I thought I would be too scared of them, but because they show a lot of scares in the trailer to the point I feel less creeped out by whatever film said scare is coming from.

Now… What does this have to do with “Digger?” Let’s just say that if there was ever a fine example of a bewildering marketing campaign, “Digger” is it. The film tries its best to give a sense of what it is about or what it is in it, but it is not entirely effective in doing so. There is a reason why “Digger,” a film that cost at least $125 million to make, only opened to $8 million domestically. The movie has been out for nearly three weeks as of this publication, and it has only made $42 million at the box office.

© Warner bros co.

This is not to say that “Digger’s” campaign did not have selling points. Tom Cruise is one of the most recognizable names in Hollywood. While not as well known as Christopher Nolan or Steven Spielberg, Alejandro González Iñárritu is a well-liked filmmaker, having done award-winning work including “Birdman” and “The Revenant.” With this actor-director combo at the forefront, it seemed like a winning pair to start the 2026-2027 awards season. Note the use of the word “seemed.”

“Digger” is not the most incompetent film of 2026. But it does not change the fact that at times it felt like watching paint dry. Though I would not say it was cheap paint. It would be some of the most exquisite, fine, pristine, and downright divine paint mankind has ever seen. Nothing about “Digger” looks cheap. Everything from the recognizable cast members to the articulate makeup work to the posh production design to the filmmaking techniques. Much like last year’s “One Battle After Another,” this film was shot on VistaVision. Both films utilize the technology well. I have very few, if any complaints about how this movie was framed. Almost every shot looked like it belonged in a snobby art museum. I also had the privilege of seeing this film at an IMAX GT Laser-equipped theater. The screen is just a smidge off of VistaVision’s aspect ratio. For nearly the entire movie, you could see the tiniest sliver of black bars.

I may be boasting about the film’s looks, but it does not mean I should forget about its personality. The film definitely has one. It is oftentimes energetic, even if most of it is just people walking or talking. The film comes off as a louder, less colorful Wes Anderson project. It is as if Wes Anderson had a baby with Rian Johnson. Iñárritu’s direction unveils a lot of attention to detail in each scene. There are a couple moments where the talent is doing extremely specific movements while sitting down, thus allowing for certain comedic sound effects or facial expressions… There is also a physical gag involving a shovel on the floor that, admittedly, got old fast, but I do appreciate the effort that was put into it.

While this is a film that did not amuse me, it is at least one that I can see particular audiences thinking it is a banger. I have talked to people since the movie came out and they seem to adore it. This is a film that I can see certain people really loving or absolutely despising. I am not saying there is no middle ground with “Digger,” but there is a pivotal moment in “Digger” that is getting some discussion amongst viewers, including myself. That is the moment where I went from being somewhat onboard with “Digger,” to thinking this film kind of went off the rails. Note the use of the phrase “kind of,” as this film was already giving an unhinged vibe from the start.

© Warner bros co.

This film does make sense. I would not go as far as to say it has any obvious, no pun intended, story holes, but it does not mean I was a fan of the way the story was executed. Two-thirds or three-quarters of the way through the story, the film, without specific spoilers, basically pulls a “Don’t Worry Darling.” For those who must know about my experience watching “Don’t Worry Darling,” I found the film to be somewhat intriguing for the first half, but there is a pivotal moment in the second half where I questioned if that first half even mattered. It felt like the stakes went from surfing on top of a giant wave to crashing head first into the sand. Was there perhaps a point to that first half? Sure. But because the stakes stooped to such a low at a certain point, it was difficult for me to get invested in anything that was going on for the remainder of the runtime. The final scene almost saved the film, but there was a moment prior where I just stopped caring.

I want to like every movie I see, but I especially wanted to like “Digger.” Not only is it an ambitious effort overseen by a revered filmmaker, but the lead is played by one of my favorite actors. Also, on its surface, it seems to serve a decent message about how much humans have screwed up the planet. And those who played a massive role in the planet’s destruction seem to know about it and refuse to care. There are great films that remind viewers about humanity’s less than stellar relationship with the environment. Heck, I rewatched “WALL-E” last month and it holds up tremendously. “Digger” on the other hand, looks like a well-oiled machine, but it did not quite stick the landing. The first two-thirds are, overall, above average. But by act three, it sinks like the Titanic. And it most definitely sinks like the Titanic, considering how the villain of this film is a gigantic chunk of ice.

© Warner bros co.

In the end, “Digger” is a project where people are clearly firing on all cylinders. From Alejandro González Iñárritu behind the camera to Tom Cruise in front of it. The film gets an A for effort, but sadly, those efforts feel like a waste. There are a fair slate of bad movies that I watched over the years that are so unappealing that I wind up forgetting them. “Digger” is probably not a film that I am going to forget, at least not in the immediate future. However, part of me wishes I could forget this experience, especially around act three where I went from being intrigued to frustrated to bored. I love Tom Cruise, and he definitely gives it his all, but I am not going to look back at this project as one of my favorites that he has done. I am going to give “Digger” a 3/10.

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

Thanks for reading this review! If you have not done so already, be sure to check out the latest episode of the Scene Before original series “Movie Requests,” which features special guest Joe Gatto of “Impractical Jokers!” Click the video to find out his film suggestion, “Gringo,” gets a thumbs up or if it is tonight’s big loser! If you enjoy the video, leave a like and subscribe to my YouTube channel! I will have more Movie Requests episodes coming soon, so stay tuned!

My next review is going to be for “Other Mommy.” Stay tuned! Also coming soon, I will be sharing my thoughts on “The Social Reckoning,” “Sense and Sensibility,” and “Whalefall.” 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 “Digger?” What did you think about it? Or, what is a film that you did a complete 180 on as you were watching it? What is a movie that you found enjoyable until a key moment later on where the wheels fell off the wagon? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

The Weight (2026): A Middle of the Road Quest for Gold

Posted on by Jack Drees

“The Weight” is directed by Padraic McKinley (Fightworld, The Good Lord Bird) and stars Ethan Hawke (First Reformed, Moon Knight), Russell Crowe (Gladiator, Unhinged), Julia Jones (The Twilight Saga: Eclipse, Dexter: New Blood), Austin Amelio (Everybody Wants Some!!, The Walking Dead), Avi Nash (Silo, The Walking Dead), Lucas Lynggaard Tønnesen (The Rain, 1899), George Burgess (Beast, Land of Bad), Cameron Brady (Sapphire, Quantum Quest), Avy Berry (Hollyoaks, A Quiet Place: Day One), Alec Newman (Frank Herbert’s Dune, Winne-the-Pooh: Blood and Honey 2), and Sam Hazeldine (Resurrection, The Innocents). This film is set during the Great Depression and follows a veteran who is hired to help smuggle a fortune in gold through the wilderness.

Before we begin my review of “The Weight,” I would like to shout out a good friend of mine, some of you from the Massachusetts-New Hampshire area would know his name, Brandon Gunnoe, an anchor at WHDH, also known as 7 News. I have the pleasure of working with Gunnoe several days a week. He is a fun person to talk to. The reason why I am shouting him out is because he twice suggested that I should watch “The Weight.” I heard about “The Weight” before he recommended it to me, but his recommendation encouraged me to check out the trailer, which I thought was decent. It promised a tense journey through the wilderness and made the movie look like fun, even with a somewhat serious tone. As I said before, I am proud to call Gunnoe a good friend. But that friendship was fun while it lasted. “The Weight” could have been better…

I kid of course, Gunnoe is still my friend. Though it does not change “The Weight” being a bit of a bore. The film has an intriguing hook to it. It stars Ethan Hawke as Samuel Murphy, an incarcerated man who is tasked with smuggling gold during the Great Depression. The film is also a bit more than that. While the two are not together the entire time, the film is very much a father-daughter story. I thought that aspect of the film was handled very well. Plus, Avy Berry does a great job portraying the daughter character, Penny. She is adorable. The moments the two spend together are joy-filled and smile-inducing.

For the most part, “The Weight” is quite slow. I do not mind a slow film. Slow does not necessarily mean bad. Though when it comes to “The Weight,” I wound up feeling, well, its weight. It is almost unfair of me to say this because “The Weight” does a decent job at providing tension in each scene. This is a man versus nature tale and most of the film’s obstacles have something to do with the elements. Everyone is outside, trying to make it from point A to point B. Whether the characters are trying to cross a bridge or find their way through a river, the film does a fantastic job at making me think about possibly biting my nails.

That said, while the film does a decent job at putting its characters in eerie situations, I wish I cared more about the cast. While I have seen one or two other people in the cast play roles in other projects, Ethan Hawke and Russell Crowe have the most star power. How do they do in this film? Fine. I am not complaining about their performances. This is far from Crowe’s worst outing, and it most certainly is not his best. If you like listening to a rugged man call Ethan Hawke “son” sometimes, then this is the movie for you. Hawke plays the most captivating character by far, which is good partially because he is the lead. The film is kind of on his shoulders. That said, the movie does not deliver any standout scenes from its cast that I could see being used down the line as part of a “for your consideration” montage. Hawke and Crowe are competent. Surprise surprise. But these are far from their greatest roles.

I have nothing against the actors who make up the film’s supporting cast. They all play their parts to the best of their abilities. That said, a lot of them utter dialogue that could perhaps best be described as cookie-cutter or overly stereotypical to their personalities. The characters do not feel that complicated or authentic. It feels like there is something missing to them as people. I cannot really put my finger on it. But there is something about these characters that makes them come off as somewhat thin. If anything, they come off as characters from a “Team Fortress” game, almost as if it were easier to refer to them by what they do rather than by their actual name. I get that the movie is not about these characters, but I think the movie would have benefited if they had more depth to said characters.

Although what this movie lacks in substance, it makes up for in style. On the surface, I was impressed with the film’s overall look. The framing and cinematography are sometimes gorgeous. It is not my favorite of the year. In fact, to be frank, I cannot really name a single thing from this movie that I would describe as my “favorite of the year,” but I was nevertheless impressed with Matteo Cocco’s variety of shots as well as their specific timing. The film starts and ends in a similar manner, which allowed for a kind of poetry with the framing as well as Padraic McKinley and Matthew Woolley’s editing. The color grading also pops in its own way. It reminded me a bit of “Train Dreams.” While definitely somewhat modern-looking, “The Weight” had a slight pinch that made the film feel like a throwback. The grass in almost every frame looked immaculate. The contrast most certainly stands out. The film was shot on location in Germany, and those particular locations did not disappoint.

The film has a vibe that, again, reminds me of “Train Dreams” with more action. But unlike “Train Dreams,” “The Weight” sometimes comes off as conventional and lacking in an oomph. On a paper, it sounds like a human story, but the execution of this film feels somewhat wooden and boring. The film comes close to sucking me into its atmosphere, but almost never achieves such immersion. Is “The Weight” awful? No. But it isn’t great either.

In the end, “The Weight” is dull and rather forgettable. It has a couple big stars, but if you want to watch Ethan Hawke or Russell Crowe, there are other projects I would recommend before this one. This is a good-looking film that would probably make for a halfway decent tech demo. It even looks better than some of the big studio franchise titles that came out earlier this year, like “The Mandalorian and Grogu” and “Supergirl.” But looks are not everything, this film tends to lack personality, which is arguably more important. So, if Brandon Gunnoe at 7 News reads this, thank you for the recommendation. Sorry we did not see eye to eye. We’re still friends. I am going to give “The Weight” a 5/10.

As of this posting, “The Weight” is neither available at home or in theaters.

Thanks for reading this review! If you enjoyed this written review, why not check out one I did on video? Last week I posted my latest episode of “Movie Requests,” featuring special guest Joe Gatto. He requested I should watch “Gringo,” a 2018 dark comedy! What did I think of it? Click the video above to find out! If you enjoy the video, do yourself and I a favor by subscribing to my YouTube channel so you can see more episodes as they drop!

My next review is going to be for “Digger!” Stay tuned! Also coming soon, I will be sharing my thoughts on “Other Mommy,” “The Social Reckoning,” “Sense and Sensibility,” and “Whalefall!” 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 Weight?” What did you think about it? Or, what is a film that someone has begged you to watch that you disliked? Are you still friends with that person? Answer in the comments at your own risk! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

Primetime (2026): Have a Seat… For This Enticing Thriller

Posted on by Jack Drees

“Primetime” is directed by Lance Oppenheim (Some Kind of Heaven, Ren Faire) and stars Robert Pattinson (The Drama, The Odyssey), Merritt Wever (Nurse Jackie, Godless), Skyler Gisondo (Vacation, Booksmart), and Phoebe Bridgers. This film dramatizes what happens when Chris Hansen’s show, “To Catch a Predator” is put on primetime television. The story shows what happens as Hansen works with the vigilante group Perverted Justice to curb child predators.

I am 26 years old. While I grew up the same time that Dateline NBC’s “To Catch a Predator” first aired on television, I never found myself watching it. On paper, it sounds intriguing, but keep in mind, I was 5 when the first episode aired. I do not think my parents would have been happy with me learning about sex crimes at that young of an age. Even when I heard this film was coming out, I never got around to putting it on television. Despite that, I was interested in “Primetime” for a number of reasons. On top of the general premise providing for a decent pitch, this is an A24 film, and as a distribution company, their track record is usually solid. Plus, Robert Pattinson is playing the lead. He’s had a hot year and his acting chops continue to demonstrate that he is one of the industry’s most talented people working today.

Speaking of A24, one of my favorite movies they have put out is “The Disaster Artist,” which is based on the making of “The Room.” I have shown that movie to people who knew nothing about “The Room” and they had a great time watching it. Similarly, as someone who has never seen an episode of “To Catch a Predator,” heck, I do not know if I have even seen a clip of “To Catch a Predator” prior to this film’s release, I nevertheless found myself engaged in what this film had to offer. “Primetime” is not my favorite film of the year. In fact, had I been more invested in “To Catch a Predator” and Chris Hansen, this movie maybe could have hit me a little bit more. Just a theory. But that does not mean “Primetime” is bad. It’s the exact opposite, actually! This is a solid thriller with a one of a kind vibe.

“Primetime” is such a fitting title for its respective film. Not just because it is about a man who suddenly sees his show on the primetime lineup, but because this year feels like a prime time for this film’s star, Robert Pattinson. On top of playing a couple secondary roles in “The Odyssey” and the yet to be released “Dune Part Three,” Pattinson is also the star of “The Drama” as well as this movie. I have seen both “The Drama” and “The Odyssey” and Pattinson is 2 for 2 thus far. Both movies are fantastic and his performances make each one worth the watch.

But I was not prepared for “Primetime.” This is likely going to go down as Pattinson’s best performance this year. Granted, as mentioned, “Dune Part Three” is coming. We could be in for something special. But so far, “Primetime” is probably Pattinson’s best.

Is Pattinson’s performance in “Primetime” the best I have seen through the entirety of 2026? No. Those honors still belong to Ryan Gosling for “Project Hail Mary” and Emily Blunt for “Disclosure Day” respectively. But “Primetime” gives slightly more spotlight to Pattinson than some of his recent projects, considering he played a co-starring role in “The Drama” alongside Zendaya and did not have the most screentime in “The Odyssey.” This is Pattinson’s film through and through, and the experience is all the better for it. It is almost difficult to imagine anyone else in this character’s shoes.

While Pattinson is definitely the film’s biggest star, there are a few other notable names in the cast like Alex Winter and Anna Faris, and while they do a fine job in the movie, there is one name that stood out almost as much as Pattinson.

Skyler Gisondo plays Dan Plum, and I was moved by this character. Gisondo very much channeled a working man’s spirit into his role as an aspiring actor who finds out that the job that he’s taken is a bit more than meets the eye. There was an admirable sense of humility given off by this character that made him infinitely likable. If anything, it brings a perfect balance to the film as Pattinson’s character is sometimes played up to be larger than life, at least to a certain degree… But Gisondo feels more down to earth. In no way do these tones clash at all. I was pleasantly surprised with how the film went about their individual characters and the chemistry they have on screen together.

The film’s pace is never breakneck nor sluggish. The movie finds a goldilocks zone in between, and for the most part, it works. It is hard to say that there is ever a point where I found the film boring. There are moments that are slower than others, but that did not necessarily mean that they did not have any entertainment value. For the most part, the film is tense and exciting. There is a lot to love about it.

The film’s cast has plenty of experience, but behind the scenes, “Primetime” is a story of firsts. This film is written by Ajon Singh, and it is his first screenplay to see a full release. As for the director, Lance Oppenheim, he has had some experience behind the scenes, but “Primetime” is my first foray into his filmography. In fact, this is the first feature narrative he’s directed, and I would say this is a solid start. These two make for an excellent team. Oppenheim takes Singh’s material and gives it a gritty flair. The movie’s cinematography is quite untraditional. For starters, it is shot in 1.50:1 and 4:3. It is nowhere near as wide as most movies nowadays. Also, the film, appropriately, is presented in such a way that evokes the feel of a show like “To Catch a Predator.” The film offers a weird, but intriguing sense of immersion throughout. The film’s color palette is also never completely consistent, but each frame is immaculate. There is a beautiful yet messy feel to each scene. This is the kind of movie that I could see myself randomly watching after 2 a.m.. It has a distinctive vibe that works best at that specific time of day. But no matter what time it is, it is a good time to watch “Primetime.”

In the end, “Primetime” is worth watching, even if you are not familiar with “To Catch a Predator.” I say this considering, well, again, I had not watched a single episode. Robert Pattinson kills it as Chris Hansen. If there is any reason you should be watching this movie, it is him. He is also joined by an excellent supporting cast, and Lance Oppenheim kills it as the film’s visionary. I am a new fan. I do not know for sure if I will be checking out “You Can See Everything,” which he also worked on. We shall see what time I have in the coming weeks or months given everything else that is coming out. Even so, I will be on the lookout for whatever he does next. I am going to give “Primetime” a 7/10.

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

Thanks for reading this review! Tomorrow, TUESDAY OCTOBER 13th… Although based on this post’s publication, tomorrow is not that far away, isn’t it?… I will be sharing a brand new episode of Movie Requests featuring “Impractical Jokers” star Joe Gatto! For those who do not know, Movie Requests is an original series where I ask celebrities what movies they think I should watch and talk about. This series is being done in honor of 10 years of Scene Before. To watch the promo for the episode, click the video above! The episode will be available tomorrow on Flicknerd.com and YouTube! Speaking of YouTube, please subscribe to my channel and hit the notification bell!

My next review is going to be for “The Weight.” Stay tuned! Also coming soon, I will be sharing my thoughts on “Digger,” “Other Mommy,” and “The Social Reckoning.” 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 “Primetime?” What did you think about it? Or, did you ever watch “To Catch a Predator?” Tell me your thoughts about it down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

Forgotten Island (2026): Memory Mayhem Ensues in This Beautifully Chaotic Animation

Posted on by Jack Drees

© Courtesy of Universal

“Forgotten Island” is written and directed by Joel Crawford and Januel P. Mercado, the same team behind “Puss in Boots: The Last Wish.” This film stars H.E.R. (Yes Day, The Color Purple), Liza Soberano (My Ex and Whys, Lisa Frankenstein), Dave Franco (Together, Neighbors), Jenny Slate (Everything Everywhere All at Once, Marcel the Shell with Shoes On), Manny Jacinto (The Acolyte, The Good Place), Dolly de Leon (History of Ha, Verdict), Jo Koy (Easter Sunday, The Tiger’s Apprentice), Ronny Chieng (Crazy Rich Asians, The Daily Show), Kevin McCann (Puss in Boots: The Last Wish, Dog Man) and Lea Salonga (Mulan, Aladdin). This film is about a best friend duo who find themselves stranded on the island of Nakali. With time not on their side, they have to find a way back home, all the while keeping in mind they could lose the very memories they have built up over the years.

© DreamWorks Animation

I had high expectations for “Forgotten Island” going into it. While DreamWorks has its fair share of hits and misses, the studio can sometimes hit a bullseye with their efforts. One bullseye in particular came in 2022, with “Puss in Boots: The Last Wish.” The film released the same day as 20th Century Studios’ “Avatar: The Way of Water.” While “Avatar” wound up making significantly more money, “Puss in Boots” was the much better movie. I had polar opposite experiences with both films. The bar was high for “Avatar: The Way of Water,” the latest film from directing legend James Cameron. For the record, the film failed that high bar. On the other hand, “Puss in Boots: The Last Wish” made me go, “Are we really doing this?” After that fine-at-best 2011 cash grab?

Yes. Yes we were.

Part of what made “Puss in Boots: The Last Wish” so great was the crystal clear, fast-paced, ludicrous, knockout of a vision from its directing team, Joel Crawford and Januel Mercado. These two were able to get not just good, but masterclass performances out of the film’s stacked voicecast in addition to unleashing some of the most mind-blowing sequences I have watched in an animated film. Not to mention, it was a clever story with all kinds of emotions. Naturally, I was excited for whatever the heck they did next.

© DreamWorks Animation

Let’s start off with the bad news. “Forgotten Island” is not as good as “Puss in Boots: The Last Wish.” But I have a couple bits of good news. First off, the film is brilliant and you should see it. It does not matter how old you are. I showed “Puss in Boots: The Last Wish” to my mom recently, who does not care for animated films, but she was entertained by it and I am sure even she would be delighted by this latest movie. Second, “Forgotten Island” is more than likely going to get a lot of replay value from me. One of my slight peeves about this movie is that everything moves so fast that it is almost hard to keep up. But that is also what makes the experience of watching this fun. If I were watching this at 7 years old, I would be watching this over and over again for entertainment value, much to the possible annoyance of my parents. But as I potentially give my parents a headache from watching this film incessantly, part of me thinks that I will pick up something new with nearly each viewing. Much like “The Last Wish,” this film is so fast-paced to the point where I may have missed a joke or two. Possibly ten. There is a lot to digest, but it is not like I had to take everything in during the first sitting. The dialogue is snappy, the action is rambunctious, the characters are loud, and the animation is flashy.

The movie gets the most out of its voice cast. Yes, it is in certain ways, star-studded, which can be a question mark for me. Even if I like the stars, I hope that they can deliver something that goes beyond what they would give in a live-action performance. Thankfully, that is the case. Dave Franco as Raww is a standout in this particular regard. He comes off like an upbeat dad trying to motivate their children at any given moment.

I love how much DreamWorks is playing around with different animation styles. I am not going to pretend the variety always leads to perfection, but between “The Bad Guys,” “Puss in Boots: The Last Wish,” “Dog Man,” and now this movie, I admire the range on display. I am glad to say the animation style in “Forgotten Island” is spectacular. The film puts a lot of emphasis on blue and pink. Those are the colors of the best friends’ bracelets, plus there are quite a few blue and pink creatures our heroes run into along the way. Some standouts include Bungi (Jacinto), a baby demon, as well as King Truffle Wuffle (Chieng), whose army may be cute, but will not come off as cuddly should you acknowledge their adorableness to their face.

“Forgotten Island” is a fantastic story about friendship, especially considering how beautifully it showcases the connection between Jo and Raissa. Not all of DreamWorks’ films have aged well for me. I recently rewatched “Madagascar” during a rerelease. Despite how many times I watched it as a kid, I found myself questioning core aspects of the film that never crossed my mind when I was 7 years old. The biggest question on my mind is how the heck Alex and Marty were even friends. I did not feel any chemistry between them. That is not the case with Jo and Raissa. If I watched this movie at 7 years old, chances are I would enjoy watching these two on screen as friends, but the film does a great job at showcasing the two’s complications that have come as a result of being friends. It shows that their relationship, no matter how much they root for each other, is not perfect. They have some occasional patches that they either ignore or work through. There are times where one person is taking their life in a direction that does not match the other, thus affecting their bond. Maybe I would not pick up those complications at the age of 7, but give it a decade or two, I might.

This film serves as a solid reminder of what it means to be sentimental. Getting to live life each and every day is a blessing, and one of the amazing things about being human is being able to recognize that we can do, possess, or witness things that we will cherish for the rest of our lives. “Forgotten Island” is an incredible encapsulation of what it means to be human. After seeing this and “Puss in Boots: The Last Wish,” the directing team behind both movies should be allowed as much creative control as one can possibly give them. Please go watch this movie.

© DreamWorks Animation

In the end, “Forgotten Island” is gorgeous, funny, and chaotic. This is a fantastic film for families. It is another win for DreamWorks, in addition to two of their best minds. I am not Filipino, but culturally speaking, I can see this film becoming significant for people who are of that descent. Even with my missed connection, I found myself hooked by this movie. It is a rollercoaster ride that throws so much at you that it is almost impossible to take everything in. But that is not a bad thing, because I look forward to potentially taking those things in during future viewings, partially because this first viewing left me massively entertained. I remember my review for another DreamWorks film, “Dog Man,” and I had similar things to say about it in terms of the pace and presentation, but the material presented in that pace did not hit me in the way that “Forgotten Island” did. “Dog Man” is probably not going to have any replay value, but the same cannot be said for “Forgotten Island.” I am going to give “Forgotten Island” an 8/10.

“Forgotten Island” is now playing in theaters. Tickets are available now.

Thanks for reading this review! If you like this review, I have another one coming soon in video form. Be sure to look forward to the upcoming episode of Scene Before’s original series, Movie Requests, featuring comedian Joe Gatto! He will suggest a film for me to watch, and it will be my job to report my thoughts on said movie! The episode will be available to watch Tuesday October 13th! The video will be available to watch here on Flicknerd.com, but if you want to know the fastest way to watch it, subscribe to my YouTube channel and hit the notification bell!

Also, be sure to check out the previous episode of Movie Requests, which features “Ahsoka” star Rosario Dawson! She asked me to review the Ridley Scott movie “Legend.” Watch the video to see what I thought about it!

My next review is going to be for “Primetime.” Stay tuned! Also coming soon, I will be sharing my thoughts on “The Weight” and “Digger.” 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 “Forgotten Island?” What did you think about it? Or, since we are on the topic, have you seen “Puss in Boots: The Last Wish?” Isn’t it awesome? You know it is. Tell me how awesome you think it is down below. Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

The Uprising (2026): Death, Taxes, and Shaky Cam

Posted on by Jack Drees

“The Uprising” is directed by Paul Greengrass (News of the World, The Bourne Supremacy) and stars Andrew Garfield (The Amazing Spider-Man, Hacksaw Ridge), Jamie Bell (Fantastic Four, The Adventures of Tintin), Stephen Dillane (Game of Thrones, John Adams), Tom Hollander (Harley Quinn, Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man’s Chest), Cosmo Jarvis (The Alto Knights, Warfare), Thomasin McKenzie (Last Night in Soho, Fackham Hall), Jonny Lee Miller (Trainspotting, Hackers), Woody Norman (Cobweb, C’mon C’mon), and Katherine Waterson (Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them, Fackham Hall). Inspired by the 1381 Peasants’ Revolt, this film is about a group of people who rebel against King Richard II.

© Focus Features

To be real, there were not a ton of movies coming out in September that I was beyond excited to see. There were a couple titles that stood out to me, but when it comes to “The Uprising,” I felt like I was taking a chance on it. I knew little to nothing about the film other than listening to people talk about it online. I do not even recall if I watched a trailer for the movie prior to checking it out in theaters. That said, there are some promising things about the film at a glance, including star Andrew Garfield.

Andrew Garfield is a fantastic actor. I had iffy thoughts on his Spider-Man to a degree back in the day, but “No Way Home” gave him a bit of a boost for me. If anything, having seen that movie, I think part of that boost is because he was given much better material to work with than what was handed to him in the Marc Webb movies. But Garfield is more than Spidey. For example, he’s received Oscar nominations for “Hacksaw Ridge” and “Tick…Tick…BOOM!.” With each role, Garfield continues to prove he has chops and charisma. The same can be said for “The Uprising.” While Garfield himself is fairly recognizable in the role of a Ploughman, it does not change the fact that he does well as the story’s center. Is his performance the best of the year? No. But it is perhaps precisely what this movie needed due to Garfield’s range. Sometimes he is commanding. Other times he is a bit soft. It depends on the context of the scene, but Garfield plays his part well no matter what the role requires. Garfield is not the only actor who stands out. Others include Woody Norman as King Richard II, Jamie Bell as John Ball, and Thomasin McKenzie, the latter of whom has a particularly compelling backstory.

As for the film itself, it is quite good. The story is never boring and there is a healthy mix of engaging dialogue and thrilling action sequences to balance out the pace. Some might say the film is slow, which frankly, I kind of get, but do not wholly agree with. I prefer to call the film steady. It’s by no means a slog, but not a sprint either. It aims for the middle and does not miss.

© Focus Features

Despite being set in the 14th century, “The Uprising” is a fitting movie for today’s times. For the record, I live in the United States, and it is not like this is a problem that is exclusive to this part of the world, but in recent years, it has become noticeable that prices for just about everything have been going up. That’s not an unusual concept, but the rate at which it has been happening has been exorbitant. So, it feels like perfect timing to have a movie come out where its heroes are trying to confront the reality that on top of already struggling as they are, they now have to put up with more taxes.

“The Uprising” is directed by Paul Greengrass. I have not seen all of his movies, but I tend to like the ones that I did see. Although this movie has a bit in common with his 2020 outing, “News of the World.” In addition to both films being somewhat action-centric, they also deal with topics relevant to their time of release, even if the films themselves are set long before said period. “News of the World,” which is about a man who goes around reading newspapers to audiences, came out a few years after the term “fake news” popularized with certain people. This film features political controversy and complaints over taxes. Those two topics are arguably evergreen, but as someone living in the United States, it is not hard to notice them making the rounds today.

© 2026 – Focus Features

Much like Greengrass’s other projects, there is quite a bit of shaky cam in this film. If that is not your thing, you may be turned off by this film’s production elements. Frankly, sometimes it works, and other times it feels quite clunky. There are one or two battle sequences that I thought the shaky cam ended up blending perfectly with the chaos. That said, there are moments where I felt the handheld videography came off as a bit overdone. One could argue that this speaks more to my personal preferences as a viewer than anything else. Heck, to this day I have not watched a ton of “The Office” and yes, one of the reasons why is because I don’t find it funny. Sorry not sorry. But another, perhaps dumber reason is because all the camerawork is handheld and it throws me off. The handheld camerawork in “The Uprising” is by no means the worst thing I have ever seen, I can make out what is going on in just about every scene, but there are a lot of moments where it feels a bit unnatural. To be fair though, this is a dramatic narrative, and in some ways, the handheld nature of the film does contribute to said drama.

No spoilers for those who have not seen the movie, but I dug the ending. If anything, this film almost crosses a line to the point where it becomes something else entirely during this specific moment. In actuality, the ending is fitting given what the story is, but its delivery is perhaps intentionally linked to another famous character. The ending is well done and has some solid action to back it up. Look forward to it. Sadly, the film’s marketing does spoil this moment, so chances are some of you reading this already have an idea as to the connection I am talking about. But if you did miss the trailers somehow, the ending is a fitting, yet almost out of left field treat.

© 2026 – Focus Features

In the end, “The Uprising” is a good flick. Is it the most exciting film of 2026? Not even close. It is not even the most exciting movie to come out this month… More on that in the next review. But the film is nevertheless engaging in more ways than one. It features a solid lead performance by Andrew Garfield and is incredibly relevant for today’s audience despite being set in the late 14th century. This is not a film that is going to have massive replay value, at least from me. Maybe if I am scrolling channels and I come across it, I will put it on. But it is nevertheless beautifully made and executed. I am going to give “The Uprising” a 7/10.

“The Uprising” is now playing in select theatres and is available to rent or buy on VOD.

Thanks for reading this review! If you want to keep the party going, check out my latest episode of the Scene Before original series Movie Requests! In this episode, Rosario Dawson requests that I should talk about “Legend,” the fantasy film from 1985. To find out what I thought about it, click the video above!

Also, look forward to my next episode of Movie Requests, which will feature comedian Joe Gatto! You may know him from “Impractical Jokers” and “The Misery Index!” The official upload date is unclear at this time, but if you want to stay updated on that episode and others, please subscribe to my YouTube channel! And if you enjoy the last episode, please give it a like! It really helps out!

My next review is going to be for “Forgotten Island!” Stay tuned! Also coming soon, I will be sharing my thoughts on “Primetime,” “The Weight,” and “Digger.” 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 Uprising?” What did you think about it? Or, what is your favorite Paul Greengrass movie? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!