Movie

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

Posted on by Jack Drees

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Photo by Courtesy of Searchlight Pictures – © Searchlight Pictures

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

Hamnet (2025): Chloe Zhao’s Latest Vision Breaks Your Heart and Puts it Back Together

Posted on by Jack Drees

“Hamnet” is directed by Chloé Zhao (Eternals, Nomadland) and stars Jessie Buckley (Wild Rose, Men), Paul Mescal (Gladiator II, All of Us Strangers), Emily Watson (Hilary and Jackie, Chernobyl), and Joe Alwyn (The Brutalist, Kinds of Kindness). This film showcases what happens as Agnes and William Shakespeare deal with the loss of their son, inspiring the latter’s play, “Hamlet.”

I was not aware that Chloé Zhao was working on a movie this year, but after seeing “Nomadland” and “Eternals” earlier this decade, I found her directorial efforts to be delivered with a sense of grace. There is something wholesome and calming with how her work is executed. Maybe it is because of the stories she chooses to tell. “Nomadland” is in a sense an inviting tale about real people. “Eternals” may be a Marvel movie with tons of CGI and fast-paced action, but it has a set of likable characters. I found Sprite’s arc in particular to be quite compelling. When I saw the marketing for “Hamnet,” I was less interested in the concept of the story as opposed to who was telling it. When I saw Chloé Zhao’s name pop up in the trailer, I was onboard. Is this film worth the hype? I would say so.

“Hamnet” is not my favorite film of the year. Though I have fiddled with at the least, making it an honorable mention on my best list this year. Spoiler alert, it is probably not going to make the list. I think select scenes throughout the film lack memorability compared to others. A number of factors play into this claim, because I found the atmosphere to be inviting. I thought the story, while it may not be the most thrilling, to be moving. But most of all, this film may have, collectively, the best acting I have seen in a film this year. The cast may not be the most recognizable, but every performer here is on their A-game. The chemistry between Jessie Buckley and Paul Mescal as Agnes and William Shakespeare is unbelievable, and the drama that is hankered in from their families also make for some compelling scenes.

The child actors were also incredible, and not just by the standards of “child actors.” They are so good that they honestly rival the grown-ups. In fact, as I watched this movie, I got the sense that just about every scene was presented in somewhat of a child-like spirit. It is a weird way to describe this movie, but every scene feels energetic. Even ones that are clearly drawn out. If a scene goes on for a while, it is supplemented by a satisfying dramatic effect. Part of this spirit is likely enhanced by the film’s location choices. Every place on camera looks gorgeous and I would not mind escaping into each one if I had the chance. Speaking of child-like spirit, I really enjoyed getting to see specific scenes from Hamnet’s youth. Seeing him swordfight with his dad emitted oodles of joy.

Before going to see “Hamnet,” I was told by friends who had already seen it that Jessie Buckley gave what may have been the best performance of the year. This set the bar really high for me. But even I was not prepared for the acting chops Buckley was bound to unleash. She is given so much to do in this film. You see her character, Agnes Shakespeare (left) through multiple portions of her life. You see her when she finds love, becomes a parent, deals with tragedy. Of course, she is no ordinary woman, as the film reveals she is a healer. Yes, there is quite a fantastical element to this story. After all, it is based on a fictional book. This is not my first film featuring Buckley that I have seen, but much like my previous review, “The Secret Agent,” this film does for Buckley what “The Secret Agent” did for Wagner Moura. It took someone I have seen in other movies and liked in other movies, but now that I have seen them in this one, it essentially put their name on the map for me. Buckley previously starred in Alex Garland’s “Men.” I barely remember that movie but I do remember Buckley giving her all in each scene. “Hamnet,” however, is a different animal entirely. I think this performance will be studied for quite a long time.

Of course, this is also a film about William Shakespeare (right), played brilliantly by Paul Mescal, and his portion of the story is not only compelling, but it sometimes paints him as a loving, but also imperfect father. I would not go as far as to say Shakespeare is a jerk. In fact, I often get a calming vibe from his character. But there is a fantastic scene between Agnes and William where the two argue and Agnes reminds her husband that he misses important life moments. The scene plays out in a way where I feel bad for both people.

There are many great films in recent years that do a good job at not just telling a marvelous story, but honoring storytellers while doing so. A lot of these have noticeably been about movies themselves, as seen in projects like “Babylon” and “The Fabelmans.” But “Hamnet” proves that there is room to pay tribute to the stage. The film sort of takes elements from “The Disaster Artist,” where a sequence of events happen, granted such events that happen in this story follow a significantly different structure. Then, instead of showing a movie at the end, “Hamnet” has a scene where a large crowd gathers to watch a play. The film reinforces a motto that I hear a lot when it comes to storytelling, specifically to write about and tell the stories you know. Seeing William Shakespeare tell the story of “Hamlet” really hits emotionally given the background the film offers through every moment leading up to said scene. In fact, there are multiple moments, especially towards the end, where the film plays out as if it was trying to make one tear up.

There is one music choice I was not expecting at the end of the film, but as soon as I recognized the song, it only made the scene hit that much harder. I am not saying the scene would not have hit without it, because that part of the movie by itself is as heavy as it is fulfilling, but the music choice was a bonus. If you know the name of this film’s composer, Max Richter, and one particular piece he crafted, you are in for a treat.

In the end, “Hamnet” is a beautifully done movie. Upon walking out, I debated as to whether this was my favorite Chloé Zhao film. Given time to marinate, I would probably give “Eternals” the edge at this point. But that does not mean I cannot appreciate her efforts here. The acting is some of the best I have ever seen, and I would not be surprised if this film dominates the SAG Awards. The film has brilliant cinematography, it is decently paced, and also finds time to both break your heart, then suddenly put it back in one piece. The film is definitely not for everyone, but I think if you are in the right mood, this movie could hit you where you live. I am going to give “Hamnet” a 7/10.

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

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

Thanks for reading this review! My next review is going to be for “Avatar: Fire and Ash!” Stay tuned! Also coming soon, stay tuned for my thoughts on “Is This Thing On?” and “Marty Supreme.” 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 “Hamnet?” What did you think about it? Or, have you ever read the “Hamnet” book? What did you think about that? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

The Secret Agent (2025): Wagner Moura Excels as the Lead in This Drawn Out Thriller

Posted on by Jack Drees

“The Secret Agent” is directed by Kleber Mendonça Filho (Aquarius, Bacurau) and stars Wagner Moura (Puss in Boots: The Last Wish, Narcos), Carlos Francisco (Bacurau, A Strange Path), Tânia Maria (Bacurau), Robério Diógenes (As Tentações do Irmão Sebastião, Onde Anda Você), Alice Carvalho (New Bandits, Love is a Knife), Gabriel Leone (Dom, Your Heart), Maria Fernanda Cândido (My Hindu Friend, The Traitor), Hermila Guedes (Second Call, New Bandits), Isabél Zuaa (Good Manners, Joaquim), and Udo Kier (Blade, Don’t Worry, He Won’t Get Far on Foot). This film, which is set towards the end of Brazil’s military dictatorship, is about a technology expert who returns to his hometown seeking peace, only to realize it may not be the right place take refuge.

If you read my review for “No Other Choice,” you’d know that my experience with Korean cinema is fairly limited. But at least when it comes to that nation’s output of movies, I at least knew who Park Chan-wook was prior to checking out his latest flick. I have a similar situation with Brazilian cinema, only worse. While some of this film’s cast has achieved international fame, I could not honestly say I recognized their faces going in. I had no idea who the director, Kleber Mendonça Filho, was before watching this movie. The only reason why I checked out this film is because of all the praise it appeared to be getting ahead of awards season. I never watched a trailer. I never saw a commercial. In fact, I went to see the film at one of the two theaters in my area playing it at the time. Was it worth the trip? I’d say so. The film is not bad, but it is far from my favorite of the year.

“The Secret Agent” is a great watch, but not the easiest watch for a number of reasons. Although one can say the film is rewarding if you can sit through all of it. The movie draws itself out pretty heavily and several scenes go on for what can best be described as a snail’s pace. Films like “Blade Runner” prove that a story can move slowly and still keep you hooked, therefore making the pace come off as a positive. “The Secret Agent’s” pacing often had me checking the time, and it made me less invested in the supporting characters than I probably should have been. However, that is not to say I disliked any of them.

On the surface, “The Secret Agent” is a solid narrative. But it is one that is probably at its best at the beginning and the end. The middle is where the film’s slowest and least engaging points tend to come up. The film starts off with a great hook, introduces a neat concept, and lets us get to know some admirable characters. The end, while not larger than life, is pretty killer with very little filler. The middle is by no means a bad watch, but the film’s highlights for me happen before and after said point. People often talk about how some audiences these days have very short attention spans, and I wonder, fairly or unfairly, how this movie would sit with people who are watching at home for the first time, or looking at their phones. When people think of movies that are best experienced in a theater, people will often lean to adventure, fantasy, or sci-fi blockbusters. “The Secret Agent” is a bit more grounded, but like those more expensive and flashy pictures, I think this film crafts a unique cinematic experience of its own.

“The Secret Agent” oozes an atmosphere like no other. Again, this film is slow, but if anything, it allowed me to carefully take in just about each scene one at a time. This film is often quiet, but it only allows me to suck myself into its environments. The film starts off in the middle of a desert. With the drawn out editing and lack of music, part of me felt like I was stranded in the middle of that desert. Part of the atmosphere is also highlighted by the production design. This film is set in 1977, so it felt classy to see a bunch of old cars in every other frame.

The cinematography, perfectly executed by Evgenia Alexandrova, is also a standout. Granted, going back to the desert at the beginning, having decent locations definitely helps. But each frame allowed those locations to shine. There is also a really cool POV shot involving blood towards the end of the film that blew me away. Each frame also weirdly goes against the film’s vibe. Every second of the film involves our protagonist trying to seek safety. Yet at the same time, nearly all the film’s frames feel bright and colorful. I am not mad about it though. The film looks incredibly picturesque. Another weird technical choice if you had to ask me involves the film’s music. For the most part, I thought the film had decent music choices that matched every scene. Then in the climax, there is a song choice that is oddly happy sounding for a chase sequence where our protagonist could die at any point. To me, this almost rubbed me the wrong way. If I were in charge, I would have picked a different song. Then again, the “Challengers” score left me with a headache and people seem to love those tunes, so what do I know?

The standouts to this film do not just extend to the technological elements, but little things like dialogue also pack a punch. “The Secret Agent” may not be my favorite screenplay of the year, but it most definitely has one of my favorite lines. When Marcelo says “I’d kill him with a hammer,” I felt that. There are few, if any lines of dialogue from a film released this year, that sent a chill down my spine like that one.

Also, Wagner Moura is fantastic in this movie. Moura is fairly well known internationally through the series “Narcos,” which I have not watched. Although I had the tremendous pleasure of seeing him play an infinitely haunting antagonist, specifically Death in “Puss in Boots: The Last Wish.” I love him in that movie, but “The Secret Agent” will be remembered as the film that made know his name. I cannot wait to see what roles he takes on next. Though this is no way of suggesting the supporting cast did not do a good job themselves. The two biggest MVPs in the supporting cast for me are Elza (Tânia Maria), whose charm knows no bounds, and young Fernando (Enzo Nunes) whose adorableness leaps off the screen.

In the end, I know there is a bit of hype going around for “The Secret Agent,” but frankly, I had the same reaction coming out of this movie that I had for “Sinners” and “Weapons.” I know both of those movies have their fans, and they are undoubtedly well made. If you read my reviews for those movies, you would know that I like both of them. “The Secret Agent” is not an exception to the rule. But I am not chomping at the bit to get an immediate second viewing of “The Secret Agent.” I would watch the film a second time, considering how much I liked the characters and production elements from the first watch. But I have personally seen more appealing films this year. I can see “The Secret Agent” winning a lot of people over, to the point where it is their film of the year. For me, it is a good watch, and I will leave it at that for now. I may revisit it in the future. I may not. Only time will tell. I am going to give “The Secret Agent” a 7/10.

“The Secret Agent” is now playing in select theaters. Tickets are available now.

Thanks for reading this review! My next reviews are going to be for “Hamnet” and “Avatar: Fire and Ash!” Stay tuned! If you want to see these reviews and more from Scene Before, follow the blog either with an email or WordPress account! Also, check out the official Facebook page! I want to know, did you see “The Secret Agent?” What did you think about it? Or, what is a film released this year that you like but also think is a tad overhyped? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

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

Posted on by Jack Drees

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No Other Choice (2025): My First Park Chan-wook Film

Posted on by Jack Drees

“No Other Choice” is directed by Park Chan-wook (Oldboy, Decision to Leave) and stars Lee Byung-hun (Joint Security Area, A Bittersweet Life), Son Ye-jin (A Moment to Remember, April Snow), Park Hee-soon (My Name, Seven Days), Lee Sung-min (Golden Time, The Spy Gone North), Yeom Hye-rann (The Glory, The Uncanny Counter), and Cha Seung-won (Uprising, Believer). This film is based on a novel called “The Ax” and is about a man who quite literally decides to eliminate his competition in order to secure a job.

Courtesy of Neon – © Neon

My experience with Korean cinema is very limited. In fact, to this day, I have never once reviewed a Park Chan-wook film on Scene Before. I have not even seen one of his films. Of course, I have heard of some of his work, but I have never had the chance to watch any of it. However, when I watched “Shelby Oaks” at AMC in October, one of the last trailers that played was for “No Other Choice,” which immediately caught my attention. This trailer boasted its positive reviews in addition to its 100% Rotten Tomatoes score. As of this publication, the score stands at 99%, but this is still mighty impressive. The trailer also made sure to emphasize that the film was from Park Chan-wook, whose last feature, “Decision to Leave,” was nominated for two BAFTAs. Not to mention, his feature prior to that one, “The Handmaiden” actually won him a BAFTA for “Best Film Not in the English Language.” While Chan-wook may not have as much recognition in the States as Bong Joon Ho, I would not be surprised if “No Other Choice” brings him some extra publicity that could make him somewhat of a household name. After all, I got to the see the film a little more than a week ago, and I have to say I found it to be quite good.

I have no idea how this film is going to do with general audiences, particularly those in the United States, but I really hope it succeeds. That sounds like a moot statement. In actuality, I want just about every film that exists to succeed. But I really hope “No Other Choice” in particular does, because the film has themes and ideas I think a lot of people living in the United States, as well as other parts of the world, can relate to.

The film starts off by introducing its lead character, Yoo Man-su, who basically has it all. A good life, a happy family, a couple dogs, a nice house, a good job, even some awards recognition. However, there comes a point where his collective success begins tumbling like a flimsy Jenga tower. He loses his job, keeps applying for other ones in his field but he cannot find success, so he ends up working in retail. With the pay not high enough, Man-su’s wife, Lee Mi-ri, gets to a point where she takes up some part-time work. The family starts sacrificing some of their hobbies and possessions. For Man-su, his extended struggle gets to a point where he feels he has, no pun intended, no other choice, but to kill off his competitors.

Seeing this plot play out is quite entertaining and results in some unpredictable moments. The screenplay weaves a lot of threads. Some some of those threads are more engaging than others. Admittedly, I felt the 2 hour and 19 minute runtime. If anything, that is probably the film’s biggest flaw. It is sometimes, not all the time, but sometimes, tediously paced. Yet it fails to change the fact that I was often intrigued by not just how much was going on, but the execution of all of it.

While “No Other Choice” will probably not end up amongst my top movies of the year, I do have to admit that it is absolutely one of the most technically beautiful movies I have seen in 2025. There are a lot of little quirks the film delivers that almost do not matter at all, but they nevertheless make the final product all the better. For example, there is a scene where we see one character holding a lighter, and there is a cartoony fire effect that comes up as said character flicks it. This is almost like something out of a graphic novel. The color grading in this film is extravagant. I got to see this film in IMAX laser, so I had a pretty bright projector in the auditorium, but I am sure even if it was not that bright, the film would still look incredibly poppy. The film is sometimes dark, but it takes a satirical route. It has a Tarantino vibe at times, so the color palette fits. Speaking of colors, sometimes the sun acts like a secondary character. There are a couple shots where the sun’s dropping or rising and it comes off as an Instagram influencer’s dream. The camerawork is also pretty solid. The film has maybe the sickest zooms I have seen since “Scott Pilgrim vs. the World.” I dropped my jaw at some of these movements. The film is often grounded, but there are occasional moments where the vibe can feel animated, and yet those two moods mesh together perfectly to make something fulfilling.

Another standout in the technical department is the soundwork. I saw this film with a large crowd, about a five to ten minute drive outside of Boston. My screening was almost sold out. The film has plenty of laughs, including some moments that, again, arguably do not matter much, but the fact that they are there makes the project better. There is a moment in the film where Lee Mi-ri is going over the changes that the family has to make in order to save money. One idea she had was to cancel Netflix. Of course, one of the children excuses themselves from the dinner table with an electronic device and says they’re going to get one final stream in. Next thing we hear is Netflix’s well-known “Tudum” sound effect that plays either before one of their programs or when you log in. It got a much bigger laugh from the audience than it should have, but it was timed and mixed so perfectly that it was almost impossible not to laugh.

The other sound effect that could have gone sideways was a specific door chime. You know how when you walk into a store, you hear a chime when the door opens? There is one scene set at a shop where a chime almost plays on a loop. The more it played, the funnier it became. At least to me. The chime itself was rather funny-sounding to begin with, but the fact that it kept playing only added to the comedy. “No Other Choice” has a lot of little things to appreciate in what is ultimately an ambitious ride. It has laughs. It has drama. It has entertainment. It has everything one could want to make a solid flick and more.

Courtesy of Neon – © Neon

In the end, I have no other choice but to recommend this film. I would not be surprised if “No Other Choice” ends up speaking to a lot of people. These include people who lost their jobs, perhaps those close to someone they know who lost a job, or people simply trying to get by. The cost of living, depending on where you reside, is getting out of control, and that is if it has not done so already. This is my first Park Chan-wook movie, and I would not mind seeing more. At some point, I would like to check out some of his older projects, or if he has something new up his sleeve, that could be cool to see too. I am going to give “No Other Choice” a 7/10.

“No Other Choice” arrives in select theaters this Christmas and will have a wide release in January 2026.

Thanks for reading this review! My next review is going to be for “Fackham Hall!” Stay tuned! Also coming soon, I will be sharing my thoughts on “Scarlet,” “The Secret Agent,” “Hamnet,” and “Avatar: Fire and Ash.” If you want to see these reviews and more from Scene Before, follow the blog either with an email or WordPress account! Also, check out the official Facebook page! I want to know, did you see “No Other Choice?” What did you think about it? Or, do you have a favorite Park Chan-wook movie? Let me know your suggestions down below as I would love to get into more of his work. Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

Bugonia (2025): Bu-Go See Something Else

Posted on by Jack Drees

Courtesy of Focus Features – © Focus Features

“Bugonia” is directed by Yorgos Lanthimos (Poor Things, Kinds of Kindness) and stars Emma Stone (The Favourite, The Amazing Spider-Man) Jesse Plemons (Civil War, Game Night), Aidan Delbis, Stavros Halkias (Let’s Start a Cult, Tires), and Alicia Silverstone (Clueless, Batman & Robin). This film is based on the 2003 South Korean feature “Save the Green Planet!”, and it is about two cousins who capture a pharmaceutical company CEO and keep her in their home. One of the cousins, Teddy, is convinced the captive is secretly an alien who is killing earth’s honeybees.

Yorgos Lanthimos… We meet again.

On Scene Before, I make an effort to talk about the things I love. Unfortunately, sometimes this blog feels like work, and Lanthimos is a reason for that. So far, Lanthimos is one for three through the films of his I have seen. In 2018, I watched “The Favourite,” which despite its stunning presentation and solid performances, I found to be incredibly boring. Then his next feature, “Poor Things” shocked me beyond belief. I not only genuinely liked the film, I found it to be one of the funnier watches of 2023. Then came his 2024 movie, “Kinds of Kindness,” which I found kind of forgettable, kind of overly disturbing, and ultimately, kind of a chore to get through. While there are other films I have not seen from the director, my experience with him showcases why I have avoided “Bugonia” for as long as I did. I know people who went to see it as soon as the film came out, but I waited a little more than a month. The marketing came off as quirky, and so did the concept. I do not mind a quirkfest, as long as it is good. Sadly, “Bugonia” not only fails to be good, it nearly left me with a headache.

As I write this, I recognize that my review is going to come off as something in the neighborhood of a CBR opinion piece that challenges people to reconsider one of their all time favorite films. But I am nothing if not honest. And as much as it pains me to tell the truth, “Bugonia” may be my least favorite film I have seen from Yorgos Lanthimos so far. And if it were not for select redeeming qualities that I had time to think about post-viewing, I would have been so close to calling “Bugonia” the worst picture of the year.

Look… “The Favourite” was a bore. “Poor Things” surprisingly scored. “Kinds of Kindness” is a chore. But “Bugonia…” broke me to the core! This movie is deplorable! Is the movie made by people who are clearly trying hard? Trying their best? You can say that. The film is by no means incompetent. In fact, like one of this year’s most prominent talking points amongst cinephiles, “One Battle After Another,” it is shot in VistaVision. Therefore, the color palette sometimes feels fairly diverse. Although unlike “One Battle After Another,” never once does the movie feel as grand. Maybe that is unfair of me to say since I saw “One Battle After Another” in IMAX 70mm whereas I saw “Bugonia” on AMC’s laser system. Although for a movie that uses a high quality format, it feels surprisingly intimate. While there are several shots that feel like they come from the same crew that did “Poor Things,” I think the on screen results are a bit more picturesque and satisfying in “Poor Things.”

On top of the VistaVision, another Lanthimosianism makes a return, particularly Emma Stone. This is their fourth film in a row together, and I can see why. The two clearly work well as a team, and the results sometimes show on screen. I would even go as far as to say that Emma Stone’s lead performance in “Poor Things” may be the best display of acting I have seen so far this decade. Not surprisingly, Stone plays her part well. A lot of it has to do with her given dialogue and the specific direction Lanthimos gives her. A large chunk of the movie is set amongst three people, Stone’s character included. Although the characterization is something I find to be one of the film’s weak points.

Much of the movie involves the two male leads, Teddy Gatz (Plemons) and his autistic cousin Don (Delbis), as they keep Michelle Fuller (Stone) captive inside their home. Teddy appears to be heavily invested in conspiracy theories to the point where it is nearly impossible for him to escape his echo chamber. Don appears to be somewhat easily influenced by Teddy, even when he questions some of the choices he makes. While both pairs have their distinctions, the relationship between Teddy and Don kind of reminded me of George and Lennie from “Of Mice and Men.” Only in the case of George and Lennie, I found that pair through their respective story, whether it was told on the page or the screen, to be more likable and compelling, whereas I found “Bugonia’s” main pair to peeve me on a regular basis. Granted, as I say that, I more than likely reserve most of my despise towards Teddy, who is practically the captain of their respective duo. Don often seems to follow Teddy’s lead. Given their characteristics and quirks, it makes sense. I buy into their mannerisms, I just wish both characters were executed better. Teddy is not that compelling of a lead to me. In fact, at times, I think he is kind of a psychopath. Perhaps that is the point of such a character and maybe that is what Lanthimos is going for, but this movie genuinely made me uncomfortable. Everyone is the hero of their own story, but if that hero is downright insufferable, then their story is probably not worth my time. If I were not reviewing this movie, and I were strictly watching this for entertainment, I would probably have walked out of the theater because some of the things Teddy does on screen deeply turned me off.

With the VistaVision filmmaking, distinct colors, and prominent use of actress Emma Stone, this film is about as Lanthimosian as it gets. As for that last part, I will not deny that Stone gives a good performance. There is a sense of mystery to her character, particularly as to whether or not she is an alien. Without spoiling too much, I thought Stone’s specific tendencies matched that mysteriousness. This is not the best performance of her career, but I thought she handled the role well, and props to her for shaving her head.

“Bugonia” is not short on commentary. In addition to perhaps having something to say on humanity’s place on earth, this film is essentially a satire on echo chambers, conspiracy theories, and extremes. As a result, it also satirizes those who follow such things. But just because the film supposedly spends a couple of hours mocking its subject matter, does not make the end result comedic, entertaining, or satisfying. The lead character is either so deep in his echo chamber to the point where it is difficult for me to root for, care about, relate to, or even sit back and admire him. I like complicated characters, but there is a flavor to Teddy that feels too rotten for yours truly. He reminds me of Ernest Buckheart from “Killers of the Flower Moon,” there are very few, if any, qualities that appealed to me about this character. Both characters, deep down, come off as jerks. Sure, there are people these characters care about, but if I ran into both characters at the mall I would immediately speedwalk past them as I try to get as far away from them as I can.

I think I have come to the conclusion that Lanthimos and I have completely different personalities and artistic preferences. I often say on this blog and in life that art is subjective. Not everyone is going to think the same way, therefore not everyone is going to like the same things. But I did not think I could become less excited for whatever else Yorgos Lanthimos has up his sleeve. Sometimes being wrong just plain sucks.

In the end, “Bugonia” broke me. I must reiterate, my opinion of this film is obscenely unusual. Chances are it might work for you. Heck, as of writing this, the movie has Best Picture nominations from the Critics Choice, Golden Globes, and to my complete and utter amazement, it is one of AFI’s top movies of the year. I highly question and nearly gag at all of these accolades but that is just how the cookie crumbles sometimes. As far as I am concerned, “Bugonia” is not one of the top movies of the year, but rather a movie released this year. Are there good things about it? With some time to marinate on the film, I can conclude that there are. The film has a nice color palette. While I do not think the commentary works 100% of the time, I do appreciate the film for getting me to think about humanity’s place on this planet. Even though I am not a fan of Lanthimos’ style, I do think he did a fine job with the direction, particularly with getting effective performances out of the actors, most especially Emma Stone. I will also give some credit for the casting of Aidan Delbis. The actor, who has autism in real life, plays a character in this film who is also on the spectrum. I will give some points for authenticity and it shows in his performance. This is also Delbis’ feature film debut, so I hope this leads to him finding more work. Maybe if I watch the film a second time with a different mindset, chances are I could appreciate it more. But this first viewing, which nearly left me with a headache, gave me the sense that I would probably would not have any desire to put on this film for a second viewing anytime soon. I am going to give “Bugonia” a 3/10.

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

Courtesy of Neon – © Neon

Thanks for reading this review! My next review is going to be for “No Other Choice!” Stay tuned! Also coming soon, I will be sharing my thoughts on “Scarlet,” “The Secret Agent,” “Hamnet,” and “Avatar: Fire and Ash.” If you want to see these reviews and more from Scene Before, follow the blog either with an email or WordPress account! Also, check out the official Facebook page! I want to know, did you see “Bugonia?” What did you think about it? Or, what is a film released this year that everyone seems to love except for you? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

Jay Kelly (2025): Movie Star George Clooney Terrifically Stars as a Movie Star

Posted on by Jack Drees

“Jay Kelly” is directed by Noah Baumbach (White Noise, Marriage Story) and stars George Clooney (Gravity, Ticket to Paradise) and Adam Sandler (Happy Gilmore, Billy Madison) in a film about an actor who reflects on his career, choices, relationships, and legacy.

Throughout the years, there have been cases where I would point out that an actor plays themselves in a movie. This could be in a literal sense like Kumail Nanjiani did in the hilarious and heartfelt “Big Sick,” or in a figurative sense like Dwayne Johnson playing some variation of a character he has portrayed before, or some version of their off-camera personality.

While the character of Jay Kelly is not based on George Clooney or any particular actor, it is interesting to see an actor of Clooney’s caliber take him on, and it results in one of the best performances of the year. A good chunk of the performance is enhanced by the screenplay, crafted by Noah Baumbach and Emily Mortimer. The former is already an acclaimed name through his work on 2019’s “Marriage Story,” and Emily Mortimer is known for her acting career, but this is her first feature writing credit, and may I say it is a fine one to have.

Courtesy of Netflix – © 2025 Netflix, Inc

It does not surprise me that Noah Baumbach would work on a film like this. Not just because it is great, which it is. But also because it appears to take slight threads from “Marriage Story.” If you go back and look at “Marriage Story” and some of the reasons why the main characters’ relationship falls apart, a lot of it has to do with their creative lifestyles. They were both artists, but happened to be after different goals. In “Jay Kelly,” we see the title character having a uniquely successful acting career, which ultimately puts a damper on the relationships between him and several people he knows. One of the movie’s most moving scenes happens between Kelly and one of his daughters. She reminds Kelly of one of his acting gigs as a loving father. She says she remembers watching that project in particular and did not understand how her actual father was not as caring and attentive as the character he played.

This scene furthers one of Kelly’s extended struggles. Kelly seems to find it easy and appealing to escape his own world and enter someone else’s. It is almost like Kelly has ADHD and constantly feels the need to daydream. Except in his case, he does not imagine himself in another world, he comes as close as he can to living it. In this sense, the movie seems to imply the importance of appreciating what you have. Kelly seems to love his job. So much to the point where it gets in the way of important people like those in his family.

“Jay Kelly” surprisingly sticks the landing, because this movie had the potential to make the main character look like a jerk. The screenplay instead does everything possible to make Kelly human. Kelly means well, but his flaws sometimes stick out like a sore thumb, either to the audience or to the rest of the cast. There are moments of unforgivable behavior, but the movie never once makes Kelly look like a complete psycho. Maybe it is because we spend much of the movie with Kelly’s manager, Ron Sukenick, played by Adam Sandler. While Sandler’s performance does not quite have the dramatic oomph of “Uncut Gems,” it is nice to see him continue to expand his range. Especially considering he just came off of “Happy Gilmore 2,” which I did not review, but if I had to say something quick about it, I thought it was, in a word, fine.

Sukenick plays a huge part in forwarding Kelly’s journey. Their relationship, and by extension, the movie, makes me think of Bob Sugar’s line from “Jerry Maguire,” specifically, “it’s not show friends, it’s show business.” I get the sense that these two people are close, but at times they feel more like partners than friends, if that makes any sense. That said, the two do seem to like each other and get along just fine.

Clooney and Sandler are not the only super-sized names in this film. Much like another recent Netflix feature, “Wake Up Dead Man,” the star power in this film is massive. For the most part, it is hard to pinpoint a bad performance in the film, but it is chock-full of talent including Laura Dern, Greta Gerwig, Isla Fisher, and Riley Keough just to name a few. Similar to how we see George Clooney playing an actor, the film’s director and cinematographer, Noah Baumbach and Linus Sandgren respectively, have cameo roles as, you guessed it, a director and cinematographer on one of Jay’s films.

I enjoyed getting to see Kelly’s work throughout various points of his career. One of these examples also happens to be the first scene of the movie, which does an incredible job recreating a backdrop of metro New York, particularly the area around the East River, Roosevelt Island, and Long Island City, complete with the Queensboro Bridge above it all. When I think of my favorite films this year in terms of production design, “Jay Kelly” would probably not be my first choice. But the way this set is laid out perfectly showcases the location itself, and when Kelly is on camera, it does a great job at maintaining an illusion. If I look hard enough at the backdrop, I can tell that I am not looking at the real New York, but the movie, as well as the movie within the movie, does a great job at making said backdrop feel as real as possible.

One of the film’s most memorable aspects is the relationship between Kelly and Timothy Galligan. The two start off as classmates in acting school. At one point, the two try out at the same audition, only for Kelly to steal his friend’s spotlight. It is at this point where everything changed for Kelly and his career essentially began. This is especially true when one particular storyline comes into play where Kelly is caught on camera doing something terrible to Timothy. If the footage of that moment is released, it could jeopardize his career. The way the film navigates this storyline is topsy turvy to say the least, but the way it closes out is surprisingly satisfying and carries some emotional weight for both Kelly and Galligan. “Jay Kelly” is some ways a comedy, some ways a drama, but those two genres mesh together to make something special. It is a fascinating character study and is likely to stand out in several regards this awards season.

In the end, “Jay Kelly” rules. I need time to marinate as to whether I like this more than “A House of Dynamite” but of the five Netflix films I have watched this year, “Happy Gilmore 2” included, “Jay Kelly” is easily my favorite. “Jay Kelly” showcases some of the finest displays of talent in any film released in 2025. Whether it is George Clooney in front of the camera or Noah Baumbach behind it. I am going to give “Jay Kelly” an 8/10.

“Jay Kelly” is now playing in select theaters and is also available on Netflix to all subscribers.

Thanks for reading this review! My next review is going to be for “Bugonia.” Stay tuned! Also coming soon, I will be sharing my thoughts on “No Other Choice,” “Fackham Hall,” “Scarlet,” “The Secret Agent,” “Hamnet,” and “Avatar: Fire and Ash.” If you want to see these reviews and more from Scene Before, follow the blog either with an email or WordPress account! Also, check out the official Facebook page! I want to know, did you see “Jay Kelly?” What did you think about it? Or, what is your favorite Netflix release this year? Heck, I’ll count TV. Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

Zootopia 2 (2025): Zoo Fast, Zoo Furriest

Posted on by Jack Drees

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

“Zootopia 2” is directed by Jared Bush and Byron Howard, both of whom had their share of credits on the original movie. This film stars Ginnifer Goodwin (Big Love, Once Upon a Time), Jason Bateman (Game Night, Ozark), Ke Huy Quan (Love Hurts, Everything Everywhere All at Once), Fortune Feimster (Bless the Harts, The Mindy Project), Andy Samberg (Saturday Night Live, Hotel Transylvania), David Strathairn (The Bourne Ultimatum, Godzilla), Shakira (The Voice, Jennifer Lopez: Halftime), Idris Elba (Pacific Rim, The Suicide Squad), Patrick Warburton (Family Guy, The Emperor’s New Groove), Quinta Brunson (A Black Lady Sketch Show, Abbott Elementary), Danny Trejo (Machete, Storks), Alan Tudyk (Rogue One: A Star Wars Story, Wreck-it Ralph), Nate Torrence (She’s Out of My League, Hello Ladies), Don Lake (Watching Ellie, Space Force), Bonnie Hunt (The Bonnie Hunt Show, Cheaper by the Dozen), and Jenny Slate (Everything Everywhere All at Once, Big Mouth). This film once again centers around its main bunny and fox duo Judy Hopps and Nick Wilde as they take on a new case and pursue Gary Da’Snake, the first reptile widely seen in Zootopia in ages.

“Zootopia” released on March 4th, 2016. That is just days after I launched Scene Before. Based on this information, it is possible that I could have made the film my first ever review. Unfortunately, that never happened. Instead, I decided to a make singularly paragraphed and grammatically unsound post on why I was not a fan of the “Ghostbusters” reboot trailer. I am proud of my blog over the years, but if I could go back in time, part of me wishes I could have done a “Zootopia” review as my first ever post, because that would have meant I could have spent time talking about something that gave me joy, rather than something that triggered my apprehension.

If I did not make myself clear, I thought “Zootopia” was a load of fun. Like a lot of animated fare aimed towards families, it packs in a lesson, and I thought it was nicely implemented. “Zootopia” has fantastic commentary on racism, the importance of inclusion, and like a lot of Disney films, it also tells people to follow their dreams. Judy Hopps is an admirable protagonist and a great role model for children. A lot of these ideas were reinforced upon my recent rewatch of the film.

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

As for this sequel, I was quite excited to see where things could go. Much like the first film, the tone definitely felt kid-friendly, but it also looked like something that adults could watch without feeling like they wasted their time and brain cells. Thankfully, that is what I got with “Zootopia 2.” Does this film match the quality of the original? In some ways, yes. In others, not so much.

The biggest standout for this film to me is the humor. “Zootopia 2” sort of plays out like a late night talk show. If you watch a late night talk show like “The Tonight Show” or “Jimmy Kimmel Live!”, you will notice that there are often several attempts at humor every minute. Not every single one lands, but every once in a while either the host or the sidekick or even one of the guests will deliver something that will have the audience rolling out of their chairs. This is most definitely the case for me with “Zootopia 2.” The film has an endless supply of jokes. Some had me laughing out loud. Others had me chuckling. Others had me silent. And others had me almost rolling my eyes. Comedy is subjective, however, so chances are the jokes could someone laugh nonstop from start to finish. That said, to me, a lot of the jokes work, but there are quite a few that miss the mark and if it were not for this film’s handle on the commentary, which we will get to later, this would probably knock my score down a few points.

One of my favorite jokes, surprisingly, has to do with the song “What Does the Fox Say?”. I have never understood how that song ever became popular, but for whatever reason, there was a moment where someone references the song and it gave me arguably my biggest laugh of the film. I have no idea how that joke is going to land with others, but for whatever reason, it worked for me.

The film includes a fair amount of movie references too. Of course, there are tie-ins to other notable Disney-owned properties, including some under the 20th Century banner like “Alien.” If you pay very close attention, there is a clever cameo from Michael J. Fox that pays tribute to one of his most popular projects. There is a joke that pokes fun at the state of Hollywood and Disney’s ambition to make endless sequels and remakes. …Even though this is, after all, a sequel… The film even inserted a reference in the climax that felt totally out of left field, the children watching will likely not get it, but I think a lot of the adults will. Out of all the movies I thought “Zootopia” could reference as part of an elaborate visual gag, I was not expecting “The Shining.” But here we are.

Is there anything in this film as genuinely gutbusting as the DMV scene? No. Although that is a bit unfair to say because that scene achieves a level of comedic genius greater than God. I rewatched the film a day prior to checking this new one out, and I laughed just as hard, if not harder than I did during my initial watch of the movie in theaters.

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

“Zootopia 2,” like its predecessor, provides some excellent commentary that could not be more fittingly timed. I do not like to talk about politics on Scene Before, but the film sort of reminds me about how some people are feeling about the current position of the United States. I will not go into specific detail as I will probably spoil the movie, but there is a key part of the story that taps into the importance of history. This is something that you would have to watch the movie to see come to fruition because me saying more would diminish the commentary’s impact. If you know your history, or are living in a certain state of awareness right now, “Zootopia 2” might stick with you upon leaving the theater. The film also showcases the importance of working together while also serving as a reminder that people might not always be on the same page with their partner. Part of working together sometimes means compromise and this film heavily leans into that idea.

The film does not break new ground story-wise, but delivers familiar beats in an entertaining way. If you watched the first film, you would know that the story mainly revolves around a bunny and a fox, an unlikely duo. While that film taps into how unlikely such a duo is, this sequel heavily expands upon that idea to the point where it allows both characters to grow. Parts of the film are rather predictable, but there are moments where we see the tension growing in Judy and Nick’s partnership that hit me. There is one moment on a mountain involving a particular object that felt earned at the exact moment it happened.

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

Like the first film, which features “Try Everything,” “Zootopia 2” has an original song from Shakira called “Zoo.” Frankly, I am not as big of a fan of this song as I am of “Try Everything.” The song, while by no means incompetent, has a lot less personality than “Try Everything.” Sure, in context of the movie, one could say it is used in conjunction with celebrating 100 years of Zootopia. Although if that were the case, I wish the song would have a had more of an oomph for such a momentous occasion. It lacks splendor and diversity in its beat. Again, the song is not the worst I have ever heard, but I thought it could have been better. I have not gone back to listen to “Try Everything” since “Zootopia” came out. The song, like this one, is a bit too poppy for my taste. But I think the song is perfectly used in the film and the lyrics could not be a better match for what the story was trying to shoot for. The lyrics in this song are okay, but I found “Try Everything” to be inspiring whereas “Zoo” did not leave much of an impact. That said, the day after seeing the film, I was at another cinema waiting for my screening of “Wake Up Dead Man,” only to see a mother and son walking out of their “Zootopia 2” screening, at which point the mother starts singing the lyrics of the song, so what do I know? It’s catchy, perhaps.

“Zootopia 2” features plenty of returning characters, but the film also makes room for new cast members, including Ke Huy Quan as Gary Da’Snake, Generic name aside, the character is likable. While Ke Huy Quan is an incredible action star as seen through films like “Everything Everywhere All at Once,” his high-pitch voice makes it very easy to sympathize with his character. Da’Snake often evokes a friendly presence and ends up playing a notable part throughout the film, which unlike the original, has reptiles.

The film also features the great Patrick Warburton as Mayor Winddancer. It is funny how Warburton can use the same voice for every character and yet carry so much personality each time. It is kind of like Brad Garrett, his normal voice is sometimes the best voice for the role. Even though I think J.K. Simmons is the slightly better performer, I think Warburton’s Mayor character is a slight step up from the original movie’s Lionheart. I liked getting to know about Winddancer’s background as a movie star. If anything, Winddancer is perhaps Zootopia’s closest comparison to Arnold Schwarzenegger, who many know as the Terminator, but he also spent years serving as the Governor of California.

Also, I know not everyone is eager to stay for the end of a Disney animation, but if you have time, you may want to stay for the credits. If you pay close attention at the end, you will notice something of importance.

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

In the end, “Zootopia 2” may not match the quality of its predecessor, but it is a fun, entertaining, and gorgeous-looking sequel. It does a great job at showcasing the continued journeys of its core characters we have come to know while solidly expanding the universe. Ke Huy Quan is a great addition to the cast, and so is Patrick Warburton. Those two actors in particular stand out. There is a lot of humor in “Zootopia 2,” which does lead to a lot of laughs, but it does not mean that there are no duds in the mix. I will give the writers an A for effort though. It seems like the team had a lot of fun coming up with the jokes. The film is a blast for kids and adults alike. I am going to give “Zootopia 2” a 7/10.

“Zootopia 2” is now playing in theaters everywhere. Tickets are available now.

Thanks for reading this review! My next review is going to be for “Wake Up Dead Man: A Knives Out Mystery.” Stay tuned! Also coming soon, I will be sharing my thoughts on “Jay Kelly,” “Bugonia,” “No Other Choice,” and “Fackham Hall.” 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 “Zootopia 2?” What did you think about it? Or, which of the two “Zootopia” movies do you like better? For me, the original gave me one of my all time biggest laughs as a moviegoer with the DMV scene, so I have to pick that one. Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

Sentimental Value (2025): The House That Joachim Trier Built

Posted on by Jack Drees

“Sentimental Value” is directed by Joachim Trier (The Worst Person in the World, Louder Than Bombs) and stars Renate Reinsve (Presumed Innocent, A Different Man), Stellan Skarsgård (Dune, Andor), Inga Ibsdotter Lilleaas (Women in Oversized Men’s Shirts, A Beautiful Life), and Elle Fanning (Maleficent, The Neon Demon). This film is about the relationship between a filmmaker and his two estranged daughters, which only becomes more complicated when one of them declines to be in a film based on their family’s history.

Of the many prestige titles coming out at the end of 2025, one of the names that eventually found its name somewhere on my must see list was “Sentimental Value.” The film’s trailer seemed to tap into its central family drama, making for a rather intriguing idea. I did not care that it had a couple big stars or acclaimed names behind the scenes, though such things happened to be a bonus. Though selling me on a movie is not enough, I wanted to dive deeper into what I was buying, and what I bought was a fulfilling experience that highlights the ups and downs that comes with making personal art. Or in this movie’s case, perhaps as close as one can get to personal art.

Few things in life are as important as a good first impression. And “Sentimental Value” brings forth a dynamite first impression. The movie starts off with some of the best narration I have heard in a long time. The opening scene of the film is narrated from the perspective of a young Nora, one of the two daughters who play a large role in the story, and it taps into the idea of whether her house was alive, or happened to be aware of everything happening on the inside. Things such as the memories being made as well as the wear and tear that was being done to it over time. The editing throughout the scene perfectly matches each thought and neatly sets up everything that happens after, considering how much of a role that house continues to play in the characters’ lives.

Despite the film being a Norwegian production, “Sentimental Value” at times feels more like something straight out of Hollywood. Part of it has to do with the film having recognizable cast members including Stellan Skarsgård, who kills it as Gustav. But there is also Elle Fanning, who plays Rachel Kemp, an American actress. Kemp ends up taking the role in which Gustav originally asked Nora to play in his film, and I thought her presence often did a great job at representing Gustav’s tendency to sell out for the sake of his project. There is a great scene where Nora is riding an escalator and we see endless screens playing the same ad of Kemp as she’s going up.

The events in “Sentimental Value” very much reflect its name. Much of the movie revolves around a family home. In fact, one of the things Gustav wanted to make happen in his movie was being able to shoot it at said house. While the film does not dive into Gustav’s entire resume, it is easy to assume that  “Sentimental Value” is arguably Gustav’s most personal project yet considering he wants either someone or some place he knows in it. There is a saying that people should write what they know. There is also a saying that in filmmaking it is not a matter of what you know, and instead, who you know. While the latter can sometimes be seen as a negative in terms of allowing certain people a chance to find work, this movie does sometimes showcase the beauty and fun of working alongside family. For something like Gustav’s project, it only makes it more personal.

“Sentimental Value” is far from my favorite 2025 release. Though I do highly recommend seeing it, especially with someone you know. I had the privilege of seeing this film with a friend, and we had a pretty insightful discussion about it after. We knew a bit about each other so we were able to connect this movie to our lives. For example, throughout the film, we see that one of the differences between Nora and Agnes is that the latter has children. Of course, Nora gets the comment from her dad that having children is something she will not regret. That is an area in which the two seem to disagree. One of my favorite moments in the film is when Nora and Agnes are talking about the concept of having children, and Nora says while she does not have them, she said being Agnes’ big sister felt like being her parent. I am 26 years old, single, and do not have children. Frankly, I debate each and every day whether it is actually right for me to have children. And if my children read this years from now, please know, I am not saying this because I regret having you, or that I fear I will regret having you. But when I was younger, part of me felt like I was playing, to a certain extent, a fatherly role with my sister’s upbringing.

I was also pleasantly surprised to see the film’s occasional comedy chops. At its core, “Sentimental Value” is a drama, but it also weaves in some natural humor. Every instance of comedy felt more like something in the moment rather than a planned attempt to make people holler. One of my favorite moments of the film is getting to see Gustav explaining to Rachel the main idea for one of his film’s scenes involving a stool. When it is revealed that the story that inspired said scene was fabricated, the way that such a thing is done had me laughing. That said, whether the film goes into its more lighthearted laughable moments, its darker moments where we get some backstory, or the quite literally sentimental moments somewhere in between, it makes for one of 2025’s most compelling screenplays.

One final note about the film. While Netflix had no hand in producing or distributing “Sentimental Value,” I found it amusing how Gustav’s upcoming project was at one point going to be a Netflix movie. The film notes that this is not exactly Gustav’s first choice. Of course, one of the questions asked by the press about the movie is if it is going to be in theaters, to which I chuckled. Netflix’s refusal to put movies in theaters is astounding to me. By the way, as a reminder, please check out my reviews for “A House of Dynamite” and “Frankenstein,” two Netflix movies I saw in theaters this year, as much as they want me tied to my couch.

In the end. “Sentimental Value” is a completely inviting and moving package. It is film that showcases the importance of family while also diving into one’s personal struggles of being an artist. It balances both of these ideas perfectly and makes something beautiful out of both of them. Again, there are other films released this year I prefer, but I could see “Sentimental Value” having replay value somewhere down the line. I am going to give “Sentimental Value” a 7/10.

“Sentimental Value” is now playing in theaters. Tickets are available now.

Thanks for reading this review! My next review is going to be for “Zootopia 2!” Stay tuned! Also coming soon, I will be sharing my thoughts on “Wake Up Dead Man: A Knives Out Mystery,” “Jay Kelly,” “Bugonia,” “No Other Choice,” and “Fackham Hall.” 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 “Sentimental Value?” What did you think about it? Or, would you ever want to make a movie based on your family’s history? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

Wicked: For Good (2025): Can This Second Half Follow the Yellow Brick Road?

Posted on by Jack Drees

© Universal Pictures

“Wicked: For Good” is directed by Jon M. Chu, who also directed the prior “Wicked” installment. This film stars Cynthia Erivo (Genius, Widows), Ariana Grande-Butera (Victorious, Scream Queens), Jonathan Bailey (Jurassic World: Rebirth, Bridgerton), Ethan Slater (Lost on a Mountain in Maine, Gen V), Bowen Yang (Awkwafina is Nora from Queens, Saturday Night Live), Michelle Yeoh (Everything Everywhere All at Once, Transformers: Rise of the Beasts), and Jeff Goldblum (Jurassic Park, Independence Day). This film is the second in a two-part adaptation of the “Wicked” musical, which itself is based on a book of the same name. In this story, we see our main characters from the first film return as they embrace their identities of Wicked Witch of the West and Glinda the Good.

© Universal Studios. All Rights Reserved.

If you read my review for “Wicked” over the past year, you would notice that I have not offered the fondest of opinions regarding the film. While I acknowledge the film is by no means broken, I found it to be mostly slow. I thought a lot of the musical numbers were not doing it for me. And I thought some of the film’s technical aspects such as the color grading needed improvement. That said, I know that movie has its fans. I will even say there are things I liked about it. While most of the music failed to impress me, signature songs like “Popular” and “Flying Gravity” were well executed. Cynthia Erivo and Ariana Grande are excellent as the main duo. And even though I thought the film could have been more aesthetically pleasing in certain regards, I was impressed by the production design.

I was quite nervous for this sequel, because I acknowledge that I probably pooped on a lot of people’s parties when it comes to my opinion on the first film. A lot of people I know really dug it. Those people were also looking forward to this one. The film was a shining star over the past awards season, but I wish I aligned with those who praised it. Given how I am a Movie Reviewing Moron of the people, I used one of my A-List reservations to see this film opening weekend.

Having now seen the film, I cannot say “Wicked: For Good” surprised me in any way. I expected to not like the film, and that is exactly what happened. Of course, I go into every movie wanting it to be good. But in the case of “Wicked: For Good,” it did not do it for me.

© Universal Studios. All Rights Reserved.

Believe it or not, there are plenty of positives in “Wicked: For Good.” Many of the things that I found to work in the first film also work here. Then again, this should not be a big surprise given how both titles were shot back to back. That said, much like the original film, the sequel wowed in terms of its production design. Oz feels just as grand as I recall it feeling a year ago. I thought the music was great, and in some ways, it was an improvement over the first part. There were bits of the first film where it felt like the characters were singing almost unnecessarily. In this sequel, every song seemed to have a purpose. They either fit the moment or enhanced a character’s arc. During my review for the first film, I pointed out that the music became so loud at my screening to the point where I almost had a headache. At the risk of torturing myself, I ended up seeing “Wicked: For Good” at the exact same theater and auditorium, which is a Dolby Cinema at an AMC location. I do not know if they turned the volume down in that theater, but I found the soundtrack much more comfortable to listen to than the one from the original. Speaking of sound, the sound editing was top notch. For example, I like the attention to detail the movie gives whenever Glinda is in her bubble. You can hear a little blockage coming through whenever she talks because the camera’s point of view is from the outside of the vehicle.

Another point of praise I would have to give is that most of the cast does a good job with the material they are given. Of course, Cynthia Erivo and Ariana Grande, who had dynamite chemistry in the first film, work well together this time around, that is during whichever moments allow the two to be on screen together.

© PHOTO BY: UNIVERSAL PICTURES – © 2025 UNIVERSAL STUDIOS. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

I am not going to pretend that I found the first film’s screenplay to be phenomenal, but there was at least a novelty to it even though it was based on both a play and a book. This film’s script is consistent with the first film in certain ways. Therefore, like the first film, I found a lot of the fantastical vocabulary to be rather annoying. I get that this film is not directly set on earth, but a lot of the diction dropped by select characters including “thrillifying,” “obsessulated,” and most especially “clock tick” felt too over the top. Every time a character in this film said the words “clock tick,” it felt tacked on. It did not feel authentic, even for Oz. It came off as a fantasy version of “Mean Girls” where instead of people trying make fetch happen, they were trying to make “clock tick” happen.

When I reviewed “Wicked” last year, I pointed out that there was a pink and green tint attached in my presentation. That was not the case this time. I can only make an assumption, but maybe the projector had a filter that should have been removed. I do not know if it was a 3D filter because the screen did not look that dark. Point is, the screen looked normal during “Wicked: For Good.” Shoutout to the staff at the AMC Liberty Tree Mall 20 for the upkeep. I found “Wicked: For Good” to look much better than the original “Wicked” did during my initial watch. The sequel’s viewing experience fully allowed me to see the film the way Jon M. Chu intended. Sadly, I do not know if his vision satisfied me all that much. “Wicked: For Good,” like its predecessor, feels lacking in color. Again, the set design is great. I will even say a quite a bit of the framing is pretty good. But I think the color grading could have been pinched up a little bit, and a lot of the shots seem to lack personality. I hate saying this, because I have a soft spot for these movies, but these “Wicked” films look like select MCU films. They look slapped together and almost done on the fly. Like the original, “Wicked: For Good” has some decent shots, but it is also packed with a lot of shots that look gray, digital, and lifeless.

© PHOTO BY: UNIVERSAL PICTURES – © 2025 UNIVERSAL STUDIOS. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

Overall, I found this film to engage me more than the original did. That said, this film will definitely be enhanced by watching the original, as much as I do not recommend doing so. I found “For Good” to start off with a bang. It quickly establishes the Wicked Witch as a threat amongst Oz, or at least a threat in people’s minds. That said, despite establishing Elphaba as a threat to Oz’s population, I can say that this film feels uneventful by the conclusion. Does this film have a beginning, middle, and end? Yes. But by the time the film is over, I had little attachment to any of the characters. Not Elphaba. Not Glinda. Not a single soul in the cast. This is a film that is supposed to cap off the story and instead of going out with an emotional bang, it closes things off with a dull whimper. I get that “Wicked” in essence paints the story told in “The Wizard of Oz” as an anti-Elphaba propaganda piece, but the way that the film showcases some of the events from “The Wizard of Oz” lacks something the classic tale had. Sure, “The Wizard of Oz” is a formulaic hero’s journey, but like a lot of formulaic hero’s journeys, it had stakes. As I watched parts of “Wicked: For Good,” I almost did not care about a single character in the cast. The film barely paints the Wizard as a threat, even if Elphaba most definitely sees him that way. The closest thing to an unforgivable act I can say he pulled off is him capturing a bunch of animals, which, okay, that is not something reasonable people do. Not to mention, such an action piggybacks off of material from the first film. But even that plot point feels like it barely gets any spotlight. It comes off as an afterthought.

Do things happen in “Wicked: For Good?” Sure. Do characters develop in “Wicked: For Good?” Sure. We see some characters change more than others, but there is some character development to be had. That said, by the film’s conclusion, I felt like nothing really mattered that much. There was not much in the film that left a significant impact on me.

There is quite a bit in this film that I do not like. I did say there are plenty of positives, but I utter such a sentiment with as much generosity as I can provide. That said, if there is one reason why you should watch this movie, especially on the big screen, I think I might be able to pull one out of my sleeve. The soundtrack to “Wicked: For Good” is not as solid as the original. In fact, the parts of the soundtrack I found to be the most memorable are throwbacks to songs from the original movie. There are some good songs, but not anything on the level of say “Defying Gravity,” except for one number. That number being “No Good Deed Goes Unpunished.” There are so many fantastic elements that make this sequence worth writing home about. I almost want to shout out Cynthia Erivo for her ability to carry a tune in this scene like it is nothing. But then I remember that this sequence contains some incredibly dazzling showcases of visual effects. And while I do think the film could have been improved from a color perspective, I thought the overall aesthetic of this scene was perfect at times. Despite a lot of pizzazz going on in the frame, several shots feel kind of dry and rugged. It kind of matched the tension of the film at the time. It came at one of this film’s closest moments to what somebody could call a tipping point. The soundwork in this scene is great, and this was most definitely a treat to hear in Dolby. After seeing these two “Wicked” films, I would be totally fine if I never had any chance to watch them a second time. But I will not lie, part of me could see myself going on YouTube and either watching this clip again for fun, or listening to this song through my headphones.

I have not seen the “Wicked” play. Yes, I know, “No Good Deed Goes Unpunished” is not a song that is original to this film’s soundtrack. That said, I like the way the song is utilized in this film. It satisfies both the eyes and ears. One thing I also like is that in the moments that follow, we have a crowd of people singing a similar sounding song called “March of the Witch Hunters” that changes the core lyrics ever so slightly. It is executed rather chillingly.

Speaking of singing, watching Jeff Goldblum try to sing in this movie is something else. Do not get me wrong, Jeff Goldblum as the Wizard, like many of his other roles, is charismatic. But the guy cannot sing. He can change your apartment, he can change the world, but he cannot sing. He tries. He puts some effort into his material, and even as he fails he still has a sense of star power. Although when the film has Goldblum singing, he comes off like a reserved, yet somewhat noticeably drunk dad who drags his family into the basement so he can try out his new karaoke machine for the first time. I love Jeff Goldblum, but this is not his best work. If I were to judge Goldblum for his performance in the first “Wicked” I would say his performance was perfectly acceptable. But when this movie asks him to sing, which is one of the most important parts of making a musical, that is where the corniness ensues.

In the end, the “Wicked” movies are 0 for 2. I do not mind musicals. I enjoy fantasy movies. To quote that one kid from “A Christmas Story,” “I like ‘The Wizard of Oz.'” If there is one adjective that I could use to describe these movies, it would be “consistent.” The films are consistently boring, consistently colorless, and consistently annoying. I never latched onto the universe that these two movies were trying to sell me. It has simply never once appealed to me. When I reviewed the first “Wicked,” I said it failed on the most important thing a part one is supposed to do, which is get me excited for this film, part two. Wait, sorry, I mean for “For Good…” The title card in the original says “Part One,” why does this one not say “Part Two?” Kind of weird. Anyway, now that I have seen “Wicked: For Good,” it fails at something of equal importance, which is getting me to care about the cast of characters. I like the actors in the film, and I think like the last movie, Ariana Grande easily gives the best performance. But their characters, like the story, rarely, if ever, engage me by the film’s conclusion. I am going to give “Wicked: For Good” a 4/10.

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

Thanks for reading this review! My next review is going to be for “Sentimental Value!” Stay tuned! Also coming soon, I will be sharing my thoughts on “Zootopia 2,” “Wake Up Dead Man: A Knives Out Mystery,” “Jay Kelly,” and “Bugonia.” If you want to see these reviews and more from Scene Before, follow the blog either with an email or WordPress account! Also, check out the official Facebook page! I want to know, did you see “Wicked: For Good?” What did you think about it? Or, which of the two “Wicked” movies is superior? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!