Movie

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!

Eternity (2025): Romance Isn’t Dead in This Clever Take on the Afterlife

Posted on by Jack Drees

“Eternity” is directed by David Freyne (Dating Amber, The Cured) and stars Miles Teller (Whiplash, Top Gun: Maverick), Elizabeth Olsen (Avengers: Age of Ultron, Godzilla), Callum Turner (Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald, The Boys in the Boat), John Early (Search Party, At Home with Amy Sedaris), Olga Merediz (Blockbuster, Orange is the New Black), and Da’Vine Joy Randolph (The Holdovers, People of Earth). This film is set in an afterlife where people are presented with endless realms called eternities, one of which they can choose to remain for as long as they are dead. The story revolves around a love triangle in which a woman named Joan is forced to choose between spending the rest of her afterlife with her first love who died at war, or the man with whom she built the rest of her life.

Prior to watching “Eternity,” I have not seen a single trailer for the film. Anytime I go into a film without having seen a trailer, part of me gets a pep in my step, as blindness can often lead to a great surprise. I ended up checking out “Eternity” about a week before its release. The film had a press screening in Boston, a city from which I live 20 minutes north. I thought I would take advantage since I had a free Thursday night.

I am pleased to say that “Eternity” is quite good. It is not my favorite film of the year, and there are some notable problems I will bring up during the review. But it is a film that keeps a good pace, contains a likable cast, develops its characters nicely, and offers a fun take on what may happen after people die.

“Eternity” is not the first story I have seen brought to the screen that focuses on the afterlife. The film does tend to remind me a bit of other takes on it I have seen. This film reminds me of is the NBC series “The Good Place.” While I have not seen the whole series, the production design feels very similar with lots of bright colors filling the frame. As for both properties’ takes on the afterlife, that is where some of the differences start to come in. For instance, “Eternity” gives people some options on how exactly they spend their afterlife. There is a whole area of tents set up advertising all sorts of places where people can go spend the rest of their afterlives, and the possibilities feel nearly infinite. “Eternity” also establishes that there is not exactly a “Hell” or some equivalent to it where people wind up when they die. Everyone gets a chance to pick their eternity, and if they try to leave, they get chased down and sent to this film’s closest concept to Hell, which is a black void. More on that later… Also, one thing to note about these distinctions… It should not come as a surprise that there is no Hell because some of the eternities are based on seemingly unattainable desires, or bad habits. There is even an eternity dedicated solely to cigarette smoking!

A24 is a distributor whose movies always tends to get a reaction out of me, and “Eternity” is no exception. As I watching “Eternity,” a thought popped in my head that I do not tend to experience that often. Of all the A24 movies I have seen, “Eternity” may have the most franchise potential. Sure, A24 has the “X” trilogy and “The Souvenir” has two parts, but there is some really good world building and lore establishment in this film to the point where if another story in its universe were announced, I would be onboard. This film ends in a way where its main trio might not have much more of a story to tell, but I would not mind seeing another installment featuring new characters. This movie focuses on a love triangle, but it would be interesting to see what it is like for someone who never found love to have a chance to do so once they enter the afterlife. This could even spin off into a TV show. Maybe each new episode could feature the staff dealing with new people who are dying each day. They could probably make a whole season about someone who died if they wanted to go in that direction.

This film does not have a major antagonist. The biggest problem our characters face throughout the movie is that Joan is forced to choose between two men she’s loved at certain points of her life. That is the everlasting dilemma affecting our main trio. Although as mentioned earlier in the review, if someone leaves their eternity, they have to go on the run and avoid getting placed in a black void. Frankly, I think this movie would be better off if it did not have this consequence. It basically shames people for making the wrong choice even if they had the best of intentions while making it. For those who read my review for “Bone Lake,” sorry if this comment sounds familiar, but it works here too. The consequence sounds like something brought up during an episode of YouTube’s “Pitch Meeting” series, where the Executive Guy asks why a particular concept is a thing, to which the Screenwriter Guy responds “So the movie can happen!”

That said, “Eternity” is still pretty funny. In fact, this whole movie feels like an extended “Simpsons” episode. I cannot tell you every single joke or sight gag in this film, but for the most part, the movie seems to be running at a mile a minute. If you like that kind of humor, I think you will dig “Eternity.” This movie might be worth watching a second time to see if there are any jokes I missed.

Overall, this film is quite creative. There is a whole world built around what happens when people die. It gives its characters a week to choose where they would like to spend the rest of their time. I like how the film establishes there being a whole staff that has to acquaint dead people to their new environment. That said, when it comes to being a romcom, that is where things become a little more familiar. When it comes to the breakdown of how Joan navigates her dilemma, I could see certain key points of her journey coming from a mile away. That said, never once did I get the sense that any point in her journey was broken, and I do think said journey was slightly enhanced by both men being in her actual life. She had someone she was getting to know, but lost too soon. Then she had another man with whom she spent more than sixty years. It is a compelling dilemma and makes for a great story. All three of the main characters are layered and give all the exposition the audience needs to know for the rest of the movie to play out exquisitely.

In the end, “Eternity” is not only funny, but it made me think. I am 26 years old and I have never had a partner. If anything, this film made me not only think about what happens after I die, but it makes me wonder what is going to happen throughout the rest of my life. If the afterlife somehow ends up being similar to what this film presents, it makes me think much harder about any crucial life decisions I am going to make. Also, one last note, this film proves that Da’Vine Joy Randolph is a comedic force. I would love to see her as the lead in a comedy one day. I loved her in “The Holdovers.” She is also fantastic in “Eternity.” She is incredible at what she does. I am going to give “Eternity” a 7/10.

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

© Universal Studios. All Rights Reserved.

Thanks for reading this review! My next review is going to be for “Wicked: For Good!” Stay tuned! Also coming soon, I will be sharing my thoughts on “Sentimental Value,” “Zootopia 2,” and “Wake Up Dead Man: A Knives Out Mystery.” 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 “Eternity?” What did you think about it? Or, if you could choose to spend the afterlife in one place, real or imaginary, where would it be and why? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

The Running Man (2025): Edgar Wright Delivers a Supersonic Ride

Posted on by Jack Drees

“The Running Man” is directed by Edgar Wright (Scott Pilgrim vs. the World, Last Night in Soho) and stars Glen Powell (Twisters, Anyone But You), William H. Macy (Fargo, Kingdom of the Planet of the Apes), Lee Pace (Foundation, Guardians of the Galaxy), Michael Cera (Scott Pilgrim vs. the World, The LEGO Batman Movie), Emilia Jones (CODA, Locke & Key), Daniel Ezra (A Discovery of Witches, All American), Jayme Lawson (The Batman, Sinners), Sean Hayes (Will & Grace, The Three Stooges), Colman Domingo (Sing Sing, Rustin), and Josh Brolin (Avengers: Infinity War, The Goonies). This future-set film is based on the book by Stephen King and follows Ben Richards who is put on a game show where he has the chance to become a billionaire by surviving for 30 days against hunters.

The 2025 adaptation of “The Running Man” is my first true exposure to the property. Yes, I have long been aware that Arnold Schwarzenegger starred in a previous adaptation years ago. It took me a while to realize that said adaptation was based on a Stephen King book. That said, I was onboard for this 2025 film just for the fact that Edgar Wright was helming it. I love his fast-paced directing style utilized in films like “Scott Pilgrim vs. the World” and “Baby Driver.” He has a knack for sick action scenes.

That said, compared to those movies, “The Running Man” does not hold a candle. Yet at the same time, like I often say about Pixar, an inferior Edgar Wright project can still equal a good movie, and a good movie “The Running Man” is.

While I have not seen the original “Running Man” film, I am aware that former “Family Feud” star and record-breaking lady kisser Richard Dawson played Bobby Thompson, a charismatic game show host. I cannot say much about Dawson’s performance given my lack of experience with the 1987 movie, but I can see why he was cast to play the character. Flash forward to 2025, where we have Colman Domingo, who last I checked, let me check my notes here =flips papers= hosted ZERO game shows. But Domingo’s performance as Bobby T makes me think he could easily kill it as a game show host in real life I would love to see what he could do on perhaps a reboot of “1 vs. 100” if that ever comes back. In fact, at times, that’s what part of “The Running Man” game show feels like, at least before “The Running Man” gets started. Maybe it is because both concepts involve one person trying to fend off a group of people.

Domingo says his role was inspired by Jerry Springer, and I can see where he is coming from, because if you watch those kinds of talk shows, even ones like “Maury” or “The Steve Wilkos Show,” there is a sense of heightened reality that those hosts are responsible for bringing to the table. In fact, when it comes to Domingo’s line delivery and the production design that often matches perfectly alongside it, it reminds me of something I and others would often compare “The Jerry Springer Show” to, specifically wrestling. The theatrics on “The Running Man” are much more extravagant than most real life game shows. At times it makes “Who Wants to Be a Millionaire?”, a show that partially succeeds on its elaborate production design, seem insignificant.

“The Running Man,” like many films set in the future, paints a dystopian, bleak picture of what’s to come. To my surprise, I found quite a bit in common with “The Running Man” and “Idiocracy.” Granted, people are much smarter in “The Running Man,” but if you look at the state of television in both films, you would notice that both heavily feature programming that focuses on people’s pain. Sure, we have that now. One of my all time favorite game shows is “Wipeout,” which features people falling from great heights in each episode. But it is on a different level in this film. Life in “The Running Man” has gotten to a point where gambling is supposedly dominating the world. For Ben Richards, getting on a game show means everything to him. Not necessarily because he likes the shows, but because those shows are a means to make a quick buck. He wants a better life for himself, his family, and game shows are a fast and easy way to get to that point.

Overall, I thought Ben Richards was a likable protagonist. The movie gives him one obstacle after another. He cares about the people he loves. I like the film indicating his distaste for being on “The Running Man” despite doing all he can to make it through. If I had one thing to say though, I feel that of all the characters in this film, Ben Richards is the most likely candidate to receive the title “character that could be played by almost anyone.” I have nothing against Glen Powell. Each role of his proves he is a movie star in the making. Powell has charisma, and he even impressed me in the neither romantic nor funny “romcom” some like to call “Anyone But You.” But as I look back at Ben Richards, I feel that this is maybe the least Glen Powell-esque the actor has been thus far. Through the films in which I have seen him, this is the most “everyday” Powell has come off.

This is a film that fires on all cylinders in act one, keeps up the pace in act two, and while it does not fall apart in act three, if I had to name a “worst act,” it is easily the third. By the time the film reaches its end, I found it to be overstuffed, too long, and close to tonal inconsistency. The third act sometimes feels slow, and slow is the last adjective I should be using to describe a movie called “The Running Man.” The movie is 2 hours and 13 minutes long, and for the most part, it is paced well. That said, the third act has a pacing problem. Certain moments of the third act feel rushed and slapped together, while others tend to drag. It lacks the personality of the acts that came before. It is not the worst schlock I have seen this year, but I do not think it is up to the standards of Edgar Wright, who is generally praised as a filmmaker. This is not Wright’s finest outing, but it does mean the movie is bad. I would still recommend it if you want a fun action-adventure.

In the end, “The Running Man” is worth checking out. The film looks great, sounds great, and at times, it feels like Edgar Wright’s passion for the material shines through. That said, there are quite a few scenes in this film that are noticeably superior to others. “The Running Man” paints a future that I can see happening. It has traces of our present with the popularity of reality TV, gambling, and humanity’s noticeable desire to see others fail for the sake of entertainment. I am going to give “The Running Man” a 7/10.

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

Thanks for reading this review! My next review is going to be for “Eternity!” Stay tuned! Also, look forward to my thoughts on “Wicked: For Good,” “Sentimental Value,” “Zootopia 2,” and “Wake Up Dead Man: A Knives Out Mystery.” 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 Running Man?” What did you think about it? Or, what is your favorite Stephen King film adaptation released this year? As for me, I have not seen “The Monkey” yet, so I am not sure if I can validly answer that question, but I must declare that “The Life of Chuck” is a must see if you have not gotten the chance to check it out already. Leave your thoughts and opinions down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

ANNOUNCEMENT: Celebrity Movie Requests – Coming 2026

Posted on by Jack Drees

Hey everyone, Jack Drees here! To those living in the United States, happy Thanksgiving! In the spirit of giving thanks and with the upcoming holiday season, I think it is appropriate to give you all something. Specifically, an announcement. Today I would like announce that I am working on a brand new series called Celebrity Movie Requests!

This year, I searched for ten prominent people to see if they had any ideas on films I should talk about and review. Next year, you will finally get to see which celebrities I recruited for this series, as well as the films they requested. And these are all real people. No A.I., no deepfakes, no Photoshopping Maury Povich’s face on my body to make it seem like he requested something… None of that nonsense! I have walked up to all of these celebrities in person, and asked them if they were interested in participating in this series. To my delight and surprise, all of the people you will see in the coming year said yes.

Celebrity Movie Requests will be available through two avenues. For those of you who visit this very site, Flicknerd.com, you will be able to find these posts here. If you are not subscribed to the blog already, please do so with an email or WordPress account so you can be notified about when these reviews drop, as well as other posts I decide to make. Also, these reviews will be done through video, not text. Therefore, I will be uploading each one to my YouTube channel, so please subscribe to know when the videos drop! I am still thinking about how exactly I am going to pull each video off. I do not know if I will have a dedicated set or if I will do each one in a different location. But I still have some time to iron out a few kinks.

You may notice the poster hides each person on it. At this time, the people on this poster shall remain a mystery. But more details as to who is on the poster will be revealed in the coming months. So, this begs the question. Who do you think is on this poster? And I know some of you reading this have been informed about some of the people already. KEEP YOUR MOUTHS SHUT. Do not ruin the surprise for anyone. No one likes a party pooper.

Once again, Happy Thanksgiving! I am still over the moon that I get to do Celebrity Movie Requests. This is especially true considering Scene Before officially turns a decade old in March. I thank everyone for their viewership and support. I hope you are all looking forward to Celebrity Movie Requests as much as I am. In the meantime, be sure to follow the official Facebook page, and check out my other movie reviews right here! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

Good Fortune (2025): Comedy Gets its Wings

Posted on by Jack Drees

“Good Fortune” is written and directed by Aziz Ansari (Parks and Recreation, Master of None), who also stars in the film as Arj. Joining him is a cast including Seth Rogen (Neighbors, Sausage Party), Keke Palmer (Nope, Password), Sandra Oh (Killing Eve, Grey’s Anatomy), and Keanu Reeves (John Wick, The Matrix). This film showcases what happens when an angel switches the life of a man struggling to get by with that of his wealthy employer.

“Good Fortune” is a movie that I have looked forward to since I watched the first trailer several months ago. Every time I saw the trailer at the theater, it felt like a dose of joy. This looked like a film that refuses to take itself seriously. At least in part, because it also features characters dealing with serious problems. Sure, many movies have characters dealing with problems, but we are talking about a protagonist who lives in their car. And not a camper, this is a typical, everyday car!

I am proud to say that “Good Fortune” met, and in some ways, exceeded my expectations. It definitely met my expectations when it comes to humor. The film is consistently funny. But I was not expecting this film to have such fantastic commentary on societal issues. The film sort of feels like a live-action “Family Guy” episode. In this case, this would be an extended commentary on the gig economy and the divide between the rich and the poor.

There is not a single character in this film I dislike. Even Seth Rogen, who plays a lazy, rich snob, is charming in his own way. That said, if I have one negative about Rogen’s role of Jeff, despite him doing a good job, part of me would have liked to see someone else in his shoes. After all, Rogen played a very similar character just a couple years ago in the super funny “Dumb Money.” Is he good at playing a pretentious bro? Sure. But the more I think about Rogen in “Good Fortune,” the more I link it to his previous performance in “Dumb Money.” There are some differences between the two characters, however. In this film, Jeff appears to be happily single, which I thought was perfect because on the polar opposite, Arj spends much of the movie trying to impress a woman. This movie reminds me of that debate of whether it is more fulfilling to have love or money. We know Jeff was able to find money, or perhaps more accurately, be born into it. But for Arj, finding both money and love is like finding a needle in a haystack.

I also like how the movie seems to hint that Jeff equates proving one’s self in a relationship to how much you are willing to spend on a person. When Arj tells Jeff he is taking his date out for tacos, Jeff thinks Arj needs to step up his game,  so he recommends an upper class restaurant whose meals cost an arm and a leg. But with Jeff not seeing money as that much of an issue, he claims the place is affordable. Jeff seems to mean well with his recommendation, but it was most definitely not a good match for someone of Arj’s budget. While I saw where this joke was going from a mile away, the execution of the restaurant scene as it was happening was rather funny.

For me, Keanu Reeves is an instantaneous selling point when it comes to marketing your movie. Reeves may not always be in the best films. Just read my review for “Replicas.” But as soon as this movie pitched me the concept of Keanu Reeves as an angel, I wanted to know more. I am proud to say that Reeves is fantastic in this film. He has perfect chemistry with everyone around him, most especially Aziz Ansari and Seth Rogen, but he has a knack for comedy. That said, he is not wholly responsible for his excellent performance, some credit has to go to the writing. Hearing Keanu Reeves say the words “chicken nuggies” alone is a guaranteed laugh.

That said, like a lot of comedies, I can see viewing experiences varying significantly based on whether you have seen the trailers. I found a good amount of the movie’s funniest bits to be in the trailers. Although there are some surprises to be found.

“Good Fortune” feels like this year’s “Thelma.” Conceptually, the two films are worlds apart, but in terms of what they are going for, the two follow and accomplish similar objectives. “Good Fortune” is one of the year’s biggest gooffests. There’s a lot of funny lines, lighthearted moments, and a ridiculous plot. But for some reason, everything works.

The other thing “Good Fortune” has in common with “Thelma” is that it made me think. The film taps into one of life’s growing problems. It deals with the near impossibility to live comfortably or be happy, no matter how hard one tries to make it. This is something we see with Aziz Ansari’s character, Arj, who despite working multiple jobs still has trouble affording basic necessities and lives in his car.

I was also pleased with how the movie was able to attribute this commentary to Keanu Reeves’ Gabriel as well. At the beginning of the film, we learn that Gabriel is one of several angels given a beat to oversee. In Gabriel’s case, he’s at a low point on the corporate ladder considering his duty is to stop people from texting and driving. We find out he runs into the opportunity to heal a lost soul, which is another angel’s job. Gabriel takes advantage of this opportunity, which is not only problematic because he tries to do someone else’s job that he has no experience doing, but it also causes him to forget about his primary duties, ultimately causing chaos. That said, despite Gabriel not having experience, I understand why he did what he did. He wanted to prove that he could do something above the bare minimum.

Thankfully, Gabriel’s mishaps lead to an excellent story that I can honestly buy into. There are certain things that I am willing to cheap out on in life, but I think some of us have had that experience where we spend a little more money on something and think we’re never going back to the cheap route ever again. I just bought a Sony OLED television over the summer and while I have had previous televisions I enjoyed, the picture quality on this bad boy is night and day compared to the other ones I owned. I still go to the cinema regularly, but the colors and black levels on my TV honestly rival some movie theaters I have been to in recent years. There is a moment in the film where Gabriel says that despite his best efforts, it seems that money, and by extension, the luxuries that come with it, has solved most of Arj’s problems. Once we get a little taste of the good life it is hard to return to what preceded it. While the good life can bring happiness, it can also trigger insatiability. The movie does a great job at capturing that.

In the end, “Good Fortune” is a fun little movie. It feels rare to find a genuine comedy in cinemas these days, but to have it be this good is just a bonus. That said, if you have not seen the trailers for this film, I would maybe recommend avoiding them because as funny as “Good Fortune” is, one could argue that it would be even funnier if you went into it blind. I watched the trailers multiple times before seeing the film, and I still laughed like a hooligan, so maybe that recommendation would not matter that much. But I do think a lot of the film’s best jokes are in the trailers, so proceed with caution. Aziz Ansari gives this film his all by crafting a hilarious screenplay, delivering a good performance on his own, as well as executing the best possible portrayals out of his fellow actors. Keanu Reeves is more well known as an action star than a comedic talent, but this film showcases his chops for humor. I hope to see him in more comedies. I am going to give “Good Fortune” a 7/10.

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

Thanks for reading this review! My next review is going to be for “The Running Man!” Stay tuned! Also coming soon, I will be sharing my thoughts on “Eternity,” “Wicked: For Good,” “Sentimental Value,” and “Zootopia 2.” If you want to see these reviews and more from Scene Before, follow the blog either with an email or WordPress account! Also, check out the official Facebook page! I want to know, did you see “Good Fortune?” What did you think about it? Or, what is your favorite Aziz Ansari project? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

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

Posted on by Jack Drees

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Posted on by Jack Drees

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A House of Dynamite (2025): Kathryn Bigelow’s Back, and with More Perspectives Than Ever!

Posted on by Jack Drees

“A House of Dynamite” is directed by Kathryn Bigelow (Point Break, The Hurt Locker) and stars Idris Elba (The Suicide Squad, Pacific Rim), Rebecca Ferguson (Dune, Reminiscence), Gabriel Basso (Hillbilly Elegy, The Night Agent), Jared Harris (Mad Men, Chernobyl), and Tracy Letts (Homeland, Lady Bird). This film showcases different people’s perspectives as the U.S. tries to respond to an intercontinental ballistic missile.

If you know me in person, you know that when I hear the term “Netflix movie,” I automatically go, “NEXT!” When you are a studio dedicated to hiring some of the biggest stars and putting them in a paint by numbers or completely forgettable story like “Red Notice” or “The Gray Man,” I start to think your track record needs improvement. That said, Netflix can occasionally deliver a diamond in the rough. Like many of its competitors, Netflix will usually spend the end of the year delivering their prestige films. These are movies that are likely to get some awards contention like “The Irishman” or “The Power of the Dog.” This year, one of Netflix’s prestige films happens to be “A House of Dynamite,” directed by the first woman to win an Academy Award for Best Director, Kathryn Bigelow. Like some of her other movies, this one involves a serious subject matter and in some cases, might make for a tough watch.

Upon my first impression, “A House of Dynamite” is exactly what I just said. It is one of those films that as soon as I finished watching it, I thought to myself, I need to go home and find something comfortable to put on the television. As soon as the movie was over, I left the theater, got in my car, got takeout, went home, turned on my TV, as well as my 4K Blu-ray player, and popped in “A Bug’s Life.” I sometimes talk about certain films going for the emotions, but this one goes for the emotions in a different way. It goes for the emotions not so much to make you sad, but more so to make you hopeless on top of being sad.

“A House of Dynamite” is this year’s “Oppenheimer.” It is not as good as “Oppenheimer,” but the two are close in terms of quality. “A House of Dynamite” is presented in such a surprisingly brisk pace. I am gobsmacked on how intriguing they ended up making certain segments of this movie. On paper, the movie sounds like pure cinema, but that may depend on how much detail that paper contains. If I told you that this movie was about a bunch of people trying to deal with an intercontinental ballistic missile that is on its way to the continental United States, you might be sold. The concept sold me. But I was not expecting it to be done in the way the filmmakers’ decided to go about it.

The movie is a case of more talk than action. We never see the missile. The closest we get to seeing the missile is through detection screens indicating where exactly in the air it happens to be.

The film also seems to take a page from “Top Gun: Maverick,” because if you remember that film, it never names the enemy. I think this is actually a somewhat wise move, and the way the movie went about it is surprisingly effective.

If I had to look ahead months from now, I cannot see “A House of Dynamite” winning Best Picture at the Oscars. I can see it being nominated. However, winning seems to be off the table. This is not necessarily because it is a Netflix movie, which, like it or not, can come as a turnoff when your awards body is mostly dedicated to movies in theaters. The main reason why I cannot see this film winning is because if I had to name the film’s most significant imperfection, it would be that the characters do not appear to take center stage. The film appears to be more plot-driven than character-driven.

There is an extensive list of characters in the movie, but I could not tell you any of their names. In fact, in the case of Idris Elba, whose name appears first on the cast, he is credited as “POTUS.” Not to digress, I never imagined Elba playing the President of the United States, but I think on paper it is a great pick. In execution, he plays his part well. “A House of Dynamite” does not really have a central character, but the President is arguably the core of the movie.

The film, like many great stories, is presented in three acts, but it presents its acts somewhat similarly to “The Last Duel,” which shows the same story three times from alternative perspectives. The perspectives are packed with differences, but they all take place around the same time and involve the same incident.

Having seen the film, I would love to know how this movie was written. I want to know which perspective Noah Oppenheim started with, how long it took for him to mesh everything together, and how long it took for him to decide on the order of the three acts. For all I know, it could be a boring backstory, but it does not change the fact that this is one of the most unique screenplays of the year. As for the order of the acts that was chosen, I thought it was perfect. Each act seems to hint at things that become more relevant later, and the hints enhanced the acts that followed as they happened. If this film follows in the footsteps of other Netflix projects like “Roma” or “Marriage Story,” I would love to see a Criterion Collection physical copy of the film be brought to market, because I would kill to see a bonus feature on the process that went into putting the screenplay together.

I am curious to know how people will perceive the ending, because without spoilers, let’s just say that the film does not end in a way that I think a lot of people would expect. I do not outright hate how this film ends, but I cannot say it was satisfying either. It almost makes the film feel incomplete. Once again, the screenplay has such a unique layout, therefore the ending is also fittingly unique. But it does not change the fact that it is lacking an impact. It feels like the movie had more to tell but decided to forget about whatever was ahead. Does the ending take away from what made the rest of the movie good? Not really. Sure, the film does not stick the landing once it concludes, but by no means does it split its head open.

In the end, “A House of Dynamite” is one of the most thrilling pictures of 2025. Pardon my overuse of Christopher Nolan film comparisons, but the film somewhat reminds me of “Dunkirk.” This is due to the recently mentioned imperfection of the movie not exactly having a main character. Instead, the closest thing to it would be the main event itself. And it most certainly helps that the main event is quite exciting. The film overall is intense and nail-biting. And this is without getting to see the nuclear missile itself! Is this is Kathryn Bigelow’s best movie? No. I have such a soft spot for “Point Break.” Although if you are looking for another banger on her resume, look no further than “A House of Dynamite.” I am going to give “A House of Dynamite” an 8/10.

“A House of Dynamite” is now available on Netflix for all subscribers.

Thanks for reading this review! My next review is going to be for “The Smashing Machine!” Stay tuned! Also, look forward to my thoughts on “Shelby Oaks,” “Frankenstein,” “Good Fortune,” and “The Running Man.” If you want to see these reviews and more from Scene Before, follow the blog either with an email or WordPress account! Also, check out the official Facebook page! I want to know, did you see “A House of Dynamite?” What did you think about it? Or, what is your favorite Kathryn Bigelow movie? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!