Mystery

Wake Up Dead Man: A Knives Out Mystery (2025): The Weakest Film of the Knives Out Trilogy

Posted on by Jack Drees

“Wake Up Dead Man: A Knives Out Mystery” is directed by Rian Johnson and this is the third film in his ongoing “Knives Out” franchise. This film stars Daniel Craig (Casino Royale, Logan Lucky), Josh O’Connor (Challengers, The Crown), Glenn Close (The Wife, Fatal Attraction), Josh Brolin (Avengers: Infinity War, Weapons), Mila Kunis (Family Guy, Jupiter Ascending), Jeremy Renner (The Avengers, The Hurt Locker), Kerry Washington (Scandal, Little Fires Everywhere), Andrew Scott (Sherlock, Ripley), Cailee Spaeny (Priscilla, Civil War), Daryl McCormack (Good Luck to You, Leo Grande, Bad Sisters), and Thomas Haden Church (Spider-Man 3, Wings). This film shows what happens as Benoit Blanc investigates the death of priest who passed during a Good Friday service.

“Wake Up Dead Man” is one of those films that I really should be more excited about. I did not make a most anticipated films of the year list this past January. Frankly, I do not know if I ever will make one of those lists again. But if I did do one for this year, chances are I would have put “Wake Up Dead Man” on it. I really enjoyed the last couple of “Knives Out” movies, especially the original. This film franchise comes off as a passion project for Rian Johnson behind the camera and Daniel Craig in front of it. That said, I kept forgetting that this third film was happening. I knew that a third film would happen at some point. But I feel like the hype machine for this film was miniscule compared to the previous ones. The first film, while definitely somewhat familiar as far as the mystery genre goes, was one of 2019’s freshest and most exciting originals. “Glass Onion” appeared to piggyback off of the first film’s success while still delivering something new and what I thought to be a solid sequel. It also surprisingly implements the COVID-19 pandemic quite well. There were quite a few 2020-esque callbacks that had me laughing. I did not see that coming. “Glass Onion” even got a wider theatrical release than most Netflix projects, as it should have. I could not believe I had the opportunity to watch a Netflix movie at an AMC, but it happened!

Meanwhile, “Wake Up Dead Man” also had a release in theaters, but it appears to have similar treatment to a lot of Netflix’s other movies that end up in cinemas. “Wake Up Dead Man” ended up playing a few locations, but none of the major chains. Not AMC. Not Regal. Not Cinemark. I took advantage of the limited opportunity to catch “Wake Up Dead Man” in cinemas, and part of me is thankful for it. Like the past couple films, “Wake Up Dead Man” has plenty of laughs. It was exciting to see this film play in front of an occasionally audible crowd. That said, of the three “Knives Out” films, I found this one to be the least funny.

Courtesy of Netflix – © 2025 Netflix, Inc.

One of the biggest positives I can give “Wake Up Dead Man” just so happens to be one of the biggest positives I’ve acknowledged through the last couple of “Knives Out” movies. Daniel Craig looks like he is having a ball in every single scene. Benoit Blanc is a perfect balance between being a voice of reason while also teetering to a point where he is practically a complete goofball. He has such a knack for theatricality and a lust for shenanigans all the while being in complete focus to simply solve whatever case is in front of him. This is Craig’s third outing as Blanc and he continues to shine. Of course, Craig surrounds himself with plenty of star power. This film’s ensemble cast includes big names like Mila Kunis, Josh Brolin, Thomas Haden Church, Kerry Washington, and Josh O’Connor to name a few.

“Wake Up Dead Man: A Knives Out Mystery” feels the most Netflix-esque of the “Knives Out” movies so far. Granted, this statement may be unfair, considering the first one is not a Netflix original. It was distributed by Lionsgate. But of the three movies, this is the one that feels the most disposable of the bunch. I hate to stereotype Netflix films, but when I think of Netflix’s filmography, much of what comes to mind is “content.” These are stories designed to be consumed as soon as it drops, only for them to be quickly forgotten. “Wake Up Dead Man” undoubtedly has some memorable moments, but I would not be lying to say it is the most forgettable film of the trilogy so far.

That said, there are some things that this film does to separate itself from the previous two. Like the last couple of films, the story revolves around a large ensemble cast. However, this story involves a group of people who are to a certain degree, constantly in a tight knot, but we also see them constantly separated. Specifically, people who work within and go to a specific church. Sure, we see the cast of first film split up through town, but much of the picture sees a large family gathering in one home. The second film sees a big group of friends coming together at an unusual abode. This film goes bigger and many of the crucial story moments happen from one place, followed by another. It is not like multiple people are dying in the same home similar to the second movie.

“Knives Out” so far has remained a consistent franchise for the most part. All three films are directed by Rian Johnson, and his touch has been exquisite with each go. Every film to a certain degree feels like a throwback set in modern times. All the films run at a smooth pace and have laugh out loud humor. That said, this film let off a particular vibe that the other two did not. As this film reaches the end, it felt draggy. There is a moment in this film where this huge revelation is unveiled. Of course, it is eloquently explained by Daniel Craig’s Benoit Blanc. The film’s timing with its edits, shot choices, and music also play a role in such mastery. While Craig seems to be having fun on set, I had less fun watching him and the surrounding characters during this scene. The revelation is incredibly drawn out, perhaps on purpose. Regardless of the intent, watching this scene occasionally felt tedious. The climax of this film felt rather underwhelming compared to the other two.

All of the “Knives Out” films exceed a two hour runtime including credits. While “Wake Up Dead Man” is the longest “Knives Out” film statistically, it is perhaps the only “Knives Out” movie where I could feel the runtime, almost to the point where I thought the movie was longer than what the runtime said it was. This is the first time I watched a “Knives Out” movie wondering it would end. I was far less invested in this film than I was the other two. Is the film clever? Sure. Is it well made? Sure. But it lacks the oomph that the other two movies have delivered. This may be because I found the screenplay or characters to be less compelling this time around, or perhaps that the formula is not as novel as it was in 2019. As much as I respect Rian Johnson, I would be curious to see what another filmmaker could bring to this franchise in the future. I feel like they could bring a breath of fresh air. This is not a horrible movie, but it is the least palatable of the trilogy so far and by its conclusion, I kept wondering when it would roll the credits.

Courtesy of Netflix – © 2025 Netflix, Inc.

In the end, “Wake Up Dead Man: A Knives Out Mystery” feels like a step down for the franchise. I walked out of the first couple of “Knives Out” movies buzzing. Even though I gave “Glass Onion,” a 7/10, which is good, not great, I found the film to be a memorable experience. The first two films had nonstop laughter, engaging plots, and likable characters. While there is still plenty of humor in “Wake Up Dead Man,” I found myself less attached to the story and cast. Sure, Jud is a solid protagonist, but I found the supporting cast to not stand out as much as those from the previous installments. There is no Chris Evans in the cast or Dave Bautista. I cannot name that one character who had one or two extremely quotable lines that I will be thinking about for a long time. Sure, this film gets plenty of big names, but I do not think they were used as well as the actors from the last movies. Maybe I will rewatch the film on Netflix one day and have a totally different opinion, but for now, I am going to give “Wake Up Dead Man: A Knives Out Mystery,” a 6/10.

Little sidenote, this is not sponsored, but if anybody wants to watch a really fun “Knives Out” parody, this is your chance. Netflix, who not only distributes “Knives Out,” but also airs new episodes of “Sesame Street,” released a new short called “Forks Out.” The 5 minute story features the cast of “Sesame Street” trying to figure out who ate the Cookie Monster’s pie, with some help from Detective Beignet Blanc, inspired by Daniel Craig’s Benoit Blanc from the movies. Go check it out. It’s a take on “Knives Out” with puppets. How can this not be funny?

“Wake Up Dead Man: A Knives Out Mystery” is now playing in select theaters and is available on Netflix for all subscribers.

Thanks for reading this review! My next review is going to be for “Jay Kelly!” Stay tuned! Also coming soon, I will be sharing my thoughts on “Bugonia,” “No Other Choice,” “Fackham Hall,” “Scarlet,” “The Secret Agent,” and “Hamnet.” 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 “Wake Up Dead Man: A Knives Out Mystery?” What did you think about it? Or, what is your favorite film in the “Knives Out” trilogy? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

Honey Don’t! (2025): A Blandly Sensual Ride from Star Margaret Qualley and Director Ethan Coen

Posted on by Jack Drees

“Honey Don’t!” is directed by Ethan Coen (The Big Lebowski, No Country for Old Men) and stars Margaret Qualley (Once Upon a Time in Hollywood, The Substance), Aubrey Plaza (Parks and Recreation, My Old Ass), Chris Evans (Captain America: The First Avenger, The Gray Man), and Charlie Day (It’s Always Sunny in Philadelphia, The Super Mario Bros. Movie). This film is the latest installment what some may call Ethan Coen and Tricia Cooke’s “lesbian B-movie trilogy” and centers around private investigator Honey O’Donahue, who must look into multiple deaths supposedly tied to a church.

“Honey Don’t!” is Ethan Coen and Margaret Qualley’s latest collaboration following the above average “Drive-Away Dolls.” I ended up giving the film a positive score, but it was far from my favorite movie of 2024. I praised the film when it came out, but if I had to name a core weakness, it would have to be the plot. I liked a lot of what went down in the film, but some of the script is kind of forgettable.

Having seen “Honey Don’t!,” I think it has a lot more in common with “Drive-Away Dolls” than its star-director combo. Both films feature its lead playing a homosexual woman finding herself while connected to an ongoing case. The film heavily leans into its sensual vibes. The film is also on the shorter side with a runtime of 89 minutes. And unsurprisingly, it is tightly paced.

Though one thing that individualizes “Honey Don’t!” is that I honestly do not see myself revisiting the film anytime in the near future. I ended up buying “Drive-Away Dolls” on Blu-ray. At best, I see “Honey Don’t!” as background noise while flipping channels and trying to get some sleep at a hotel. Even as I write this down, I am second-guessing myself. This is the kind of movie that I could imagine playing great if the TV were on mute. It has big stars in it, the overall look of the film is not bad. The production design is sometimes picturesque and individualistic. I will even add that some of the costume choices are memorable. But if you are going to ask me what my favorite part of this movie was, I would draw a blank. This is a clear case of all spark but little personality. At times, the film does have a quirky vibe to it, but it does not really do much to make the overall product better. There is a blandness to the quirkiness, if that makes any sense. It feels weirdly flat.

I said this about “Smurfs” recently, and the people behind “Honey Don’t!” can rest easy, because their movie is nowhere near as awful, but this movie somewhat feels like it should go straight to streaming. If I had to guess, the main reason why this film did not end up on streaming is because of the same reason why “Smurfs” did not end up on streaming, and it is not exactly due to how much it cost or how pristine it looks. Some of the production value is not bad. I thought a lot of the film’s style was clever. But its substance was lacking. It kind of reminded me of The Russo brothers’ “The Gray Man,” because the film is nice to look at, but it stars a talented group of people who deserve a better story. Heck, if I needed an even more recent comparison, Wes Anderson’s “The Phoenician Scheme” seems to fit the bill. Ethan Coen is kind of in the same boat as Wes Anderson given their respected resumes and individual filmmaking quirks. But on top of that, both of these films also have star-studded casts. If these films were not directed by people whose names are as well known as they are, I would imagine that someone is going after several big names to compensate for a lackluster story.

In addition to Margaret Qualley, the film stars Aubrey Plaza, Charlie Day, and Chris Evans, the latter of whom was also in “The Gray Man,” so this is not his first dose of mediocrity in somewhat recent times. I would not say that any of these actors give bad performances. In fact, I buy the chemistry of Qualley and Plaza as a horned-up couple. I thought Charlie Day was charming in his supporting role, even if it is not his best work. I have nothing overtly negative to say about him, much like many of the movie’s other cast members. They play their parts well, even if they are not written to their highest potential.

That said, the real standout for me is Chris Evans, who plays the marvelously unhinged Reverend Drew Devlin. Kind of like his outing in “The Gray Man,” Evans is chaotic in all the right ways. He brings an energy to this film that kept me interested. It is almost cartoon-like compared to some others in the cast, but it works. In recent years, Evans has been proving his range by playing complicated or moronic characters that separate himself from the hero who can do no wrong such as Captain America or Buzz Lightyear, and this is the latest example on Evans’ resume. It is not his best performance, but he comes off as if he is having fun with the role.

While I have not rewatched Ethan Coen’s preceding film to this one, “Drive-Away Dolls,” since the theater, I much prefer it to “Honey Don’t!” simply because there is a clear zaniness to it. The film is funnier, I like the characters more, and much like this movie, it is fun to look at. “Honey Don’t!” on the other hand feels like there is something missing. There is an emptiness to it. And empty is not an adjective I would want to use to describe any movie, much less one from a Coen brother and its talented cast. Once again, this is supposedly the second film of an unofficial trilogy. I hope this is the one dud of the bunch. But there is a saying that you are only as good as your last project, and I am a little worried that the next movie could be as flat as this one. I hope that is not the case.

Courtesy of Focus Features – © Focus Features

In the end, if I had genuine words to describe “Honey Don’t!”, I would be blanking. This is not the worst film of the year as I can truthfully name some redeeming qualities such as the technical aspects, some of the performances, and to my surprise, the rather tight pacing. The film by no means feels rushed, though I will admit I did check the time at one point. But when it comes to personality, this is where “Drive-Away Dolls” is a slightly better movie. Margaret Qualley is a great actress, and if you want a better example of her talent, maybe go watch “Drive-Away Dolls.” Heck, I would even recommend “The Substance,” which some of you might hate me for saying this, was far from my favorite film of 2024. But that film was something that “Honey Don’t!” was not. An experience. As much as I was turned off by the climax of “The Substance,” I will also likely not forget it anytime soon. “Honey Don’t!” on the other hand is withering in my brain as we speak. I am going to give “Honey Don’t!” a 4/10.

“Honey Don’t!” is now playing in theaters and is available to rent or buy on VOD.

Photo by Jasin Boland/Jasin Boland – © Courtesy of Vertical

Thanks for reading this review! My next review is going to be for “Eden.” Stay tuned! Also coming soon, I will be sharing my thoughts on “Splitsville,” “The Long Walk,” “A Big Bold Beautiful Journey,” and “Him.” 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 “Honey Don’t!”? What did you think about it? Or, which film do you prefer? “Honey Don’t!” or “Drive-Away Dolls?” Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

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

Posted on by Jack Drees

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Posted on by Jack Drees

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Accountant 2 (2025): Ben Affleck and Jon Bernthal Shine in Two Hours of Punches and Booms

Posted on by Jack Drees

“The Accountant 2” is directed by Gavin O’Connor, who also directed this film’s 2016 predecessor. This film stars Ben Affleck (Justice League, The Way Back), Jon Bernthal (The Walking Dead, The Punisher), Cynthia Addai-Robinson (Spartacus, Arrow), Daniella Pineda (Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom, The Originals), and J.K. Simmons (Spider-Man, Whiplash). This film once again follows Christian Wolff who teams up with his brother, Braxton, to find mysterious assassins.

Before going to see “The Accountant 2” I made an effort to rewatch the original. If you remember my amateurish review you would know that I connected to the film at the time. This was mostly due to how the protagonist was written and executed. Ben Affleck plays an individual who has high functioning autism. I have grown up having many of the traits and quirks that we see from various stages of this character’s life such as his lack of urge to socialize with others. I also thought the film does a good job at providing a humanized portrayal of autism as opposed to a more stereotypical, robotic interpretation.

Is “The Accountant 2” as good as the first one? No, it is not. But is it still worth watching? Perhaps. My biggest problem with this film is that it feels less story-driven and a little more action driven. It’s like the writers listened to Elvis Presley’s “A Little Less Conversation” and suddenly thought, “We’ve cracked the code!”

Now I have no problem with good action. And to be honest, this movie has some good action. However, the action scenes sometimes lack the oomph of those in the original. Part of it is because the story here is rather convoluted. I am not going to pretend the story in the original riveted me all the way through. The movie relied way too much on flashbacks towards the end to the point of utter boredom. But this sequel at times feels overstuffed.

While the film may be slightly above average, one great thing about it is the chemistry between Christian (Affleck) and Braxton (Bernthal). The film spends lots of time putting these two in the same place, and every scene between them is worth the price of admission. There is a fantastic scene where Bernthal says he wants a dog and Affleck says everything possible to confirm that he is a cat person. The delivery between these two is on point each and every time.

Going back to how I relate to the characters in this franchise, I almost see Christian and Braxton as a personal representation of a conflict that has been circling in my mind nonstop throughout my young adult life. While these two bond as brothers, they have their differences. One key difference between these two is their individual wants in life. We see Braxton as a lone wolf, which I have always been throughout most of my life. If he puts his mind to something, he does it. He works on his own terms. But then we find out a little bit about Christian, who would like to have a partner he can check in on every once in a while. In this way, Christian, is a little more than meets the eye. You would not expect someone of his mannerisms to be interested in a relationship, but I buy his desire. As I watched this film I thought these character differences represented my personal yin and yang. Do I love being alone? Quite a bit, actually. But do I want someone to check in on? A part of me thinks about it every day.

Speaking of conflicts, I have a conflicting opinion regarding Christian Wolff in this film. Starting with the positives, I genuinely think Ben Affleck put a lot of effort into his performance and he is a standout as the character. Although some of the choices that were made in regard to the character threw me off. I get that Wolff has autism, but he comes off as a robot in this film, especially in comparison to the original. If anything, Wolff is sometimes a lackluster stereotype for people on the spectrum. For some reason, some of his line delivery and choice of words lack authenticity. I would not say that this film paints autism in the worst light, but sometimes his performance, particularly through his onslaught of stoicism, is overly emphasized. Sure, in the original, Wolff may be a bit robotic, but he also has a heart as well as feelings. In this sequel, he sounds more like the T-800. Sure, Affleck is not entirely robotic. When paired with Bernthal in this film, the two seem like genuine brothers. But if I were to judge Affleck by himself, he is sometimes soulless. Again, this is not an incompetent performance. I just think a little more depth and pizzazz could have been added to it.

“The Accountant 2” is not a movie I can see myself renting or buying to watch on my own schedule. To me, it is a cable movie. It is a movie that I would watch on a Sunday at home and eventually rely on for background noise. Now whether this movie will ever end up on cable is another story. The film is from Amazon after all and I doubt they want anybody leaving Prime or whatever the heck MGM+ is. Seriously, who uses MGM+? Anyone? If you have not seen the original “Accountant,” I much recommend that film over this one. It moves at a better pace, is less convoluted, and honestly does a much better job at characterization than the sequel. I enjoyed getting to know Christian Wolff not only through his profession but as someone who is on the spectrum. I thought the flashbacks during that film, most of them anyway, were used to its benefit. Like this sequel, the original has some decent action, but I cared more about what happened during those action scenes based on what I was learning about Christian as a character at the time. The sequel’s action is not bad, but it suffers from inferior character progression as well as storytelling. If it were not for the perfect chemistry between Affleck and Bernthal, I do not think I would be lending as much praise to this film.

In the end, “The Accountant 2” has its ups and downs. There are other recent films I would recommend watching before this one, especially in the action genre. Although if you are simply looking for good action, you will find it here. But this film is not a full meal. It satisfies in some ways and leaves a little to be desired in others. Do not get me wrong, Ben Affleck does not do a bad job in this film, and neither does Jon Bernthal. But I would not rush to see this film right away. I am going to give “The Accountant 2” a 6/10.

“The Accountant 2” is now playing in theaters and is available to stream on Prime Video.

Thanks for reading this review! My next reviews are going to be for “Bring Her Back,” “Friendship,” “Ballerina,” “The Phoenician Scheme,” and “The Life of Chuck.” If you want to see these reviews and more from Scene Before, follow the blog either with an email or WordPress account! Also, check out the official Facebook page! I want to know, did you see “The Accountant 2?” What did you think about it? Or, which of the two “Accountant” films do you like better? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

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

Posted on by Jack Drees

© Mena Films, Inc

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

© Mena Films, Inc

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

Unfortunately, it is not.

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

© Mena Films, Inc

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

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

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

© Mena Films, Inc

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

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

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

© Mena Films, Inc

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

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

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

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

Paddington in Peru (2024): This Bear’s Still Got It

Posted on by Jack Drees

“Paddington in Peru” is directed by Dougal Wilson and this is his feature film debut. The film stars Hugh Bonneville (The Monuments Men, Downton Abbey), Emily Mortimer (The Pink Panther, The Newsroom), Julie Waters (Mamma Mia!, Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone), Jim Broadbent (Bridget Jones’s Diary, Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince), Carla Tous (30 Coins, El hombre del saco), Olivia Colman (The Favourite, The Mitchells vs. the Machines), Antonio Banderas (Shrek 2, The Hitman’s Wife’s Bodyguard), and Ben Whislaw (Skyfall, Fargo). This film is the third installment to the “Paddington” film franchise, where Ben Whislaw once again voices the title character. The film dives into Paddington’s adventurous journey to reunite with his Aunt Lucy, who now lives at the home for retired bears in Peru.

Two similar phrases I notice myself use sometimes as a film fan are “better than it should be” or “better than it has any right being.” Those two phrases very much apply to the current “Paddington” movies. Sure, these movies might appeal to kids, but just like I often say about Pixar titles, they are presented in such a way where they also have a lot for adults to enjoy. I watched both “Paddington” titles leading up to this one earlier this year. I have heard nothing but good things about both, and boy do they live up to the hype. Ben Whislaw adorably voices the lead role. The rest of the cast has perfect chemistry and all play their parts well. The atmosphere of these films do a great job at adding an enhanced otherworldliness to real life locations. The films somehow get you to buy that an animated bear lives with a large human family.

That said, I did maintain a notable nerve with “Paddington in Peru.” The director of the past couple movies, Paul King, is not in the chair this time around. Dougal Wilson is helming this project instead. As someone who is sometimes resistant to change, it was something lingering in my mind upon this film’s release. Thankfully, my nerves were rid of by the time the film got into gear because this film maintains the tone, atmosphere, and therapeutic nature of the previous “Paddington” installments. I did not know this was Wilson’s first film. But having seen it, I would love to see more from work from him. Heck, if he wanted to do a sequel to this movie, I would not be against it.

Is “Paddington in Peru” as good as the Paul King installments? No. It is a step down. But it is a step down in the same way that I see “Inside Out 2” as a step down from its predecessor. “Inside Out” is so masterfully made that whatever came after it had big shoes to fill. While “Inside Out 2” was good, it was nowhere near the level of the original. In fact, one similarity I will note between these sequels is that these latest films do not pack as much emotional weight as their predecessors. I will forever cherish the ending to “Paddington 2.” It has become a new favorite of mine because not only is it earned, but it almost broke me. There is nothing in this film as emotionally charging as that scene. This does not mean the film itself lacks emotion, it just does not have as much.

In addition to emotion, the film has laughs and adventure. This is a great watch for the entire family, but also maintains a balance between being overly mature and overly childish. Pardon the incoming bear pun, but when it comes to finding a balance for all audiences. The film is “just right.”

“Paddington in Peru” is a solid trilogy capper that understands its characters, its vibes, and successfully progresses the universe into a direction that is bigger than what came before. Bigger does not necessarily mean better in this case, but this film in terms of scope, sometimes feels more epic than the last two. At times, the film has an “Indiana Jones” feel. Not only because of the adventurous structure, but also likely because the film mainly takes place in the jungle. As a bonus, there is a scene involving a giant boulder.

One of the most crucial aspects many movies must balance is a sense of realism combined with suspension of disbelief. The “Paddington” movies do a great job at this, and this one is no exception. One example of this involves Olivia Colman’s character, the Reverend Mother, a happy go lucky, singing, guitar-playing nun who lives in the middle of the Peruvian Jungle. Unsurprisingly, Colman kills it here. She is so dynamic and hyperactive to the point where every scene of hers is a highlight. She makes you believe that someone as over the top like her can exist in a world much like ours.

Going back to what I said about change, turns out the director was not the only change behind the scenes. While Mary Brown (right) from the previous movies does return here, Sally Hawkins has been replaced with another actor, Emily Mortimer. While watching the film, I did not know Hawkins was replaced, but when I look at the two actors side by side I could barely see a difference. Mortimer maintains the welcoming, calm feel Hawkins previously brought to the role and gives a solid performance in her own right. I would love to watch all three of these movies back to back one day and see how these two performances compare as a whole. Although upon my first impression, I have no complaints regarding Emily Mortimer’s portrayal of Mary Brown.

That said, Hugh Bonneville does come back as Henry Brown (right center), and while I think his presence here is probably the weakest of the three movies, I still think Bonneville himself plays the role nicely. I am glad to see him come back. The film tends to dive into Henry’s risk aversion. I thought that was handled well and brought a decent load of conflict into the character’s path.

I see this franchise in the same way that I see some of my favorite sitcoms like “Seinfeld” or “The Big Bang Theory.” Story is arguably the most important aspect of any movie. But even if the story comes off as an afterthought, which for the record, it does not here, I would keep coming back to the “Paddington” movies just to hang out with the characters. Paddington himself is a bundle of joy. The supporting human characters are all likable. The antagonistic roles in this film are some of the best parts of the movie. I would watch a fourth “Paddington” film just to see where these characters go next. If you are under a lot of stress or you want to forget about the troubles of the world, the “Paddington” movies, including this one, are a solid option to pass the time.

The film also looks beautiful. This should not come as a major surprise considering a lot of it takes place in the Peruvian jungle, but the color palette, much like the last two films, has this slight homey gloss to it. Many of the river shots, the tree shots, and anything else related to the jungle environment are pleasing to the eyes. Erik Wilson, who shot the last two “Paddington” movies, comes back to shoot this one, and he follows up those two with another gorgeously framed spectacle.

Also, when the credits roll, do not get out of your chair. There is an extra scene. If you are familiar with these movies, it is a nice little addition that would be worth your time.

STUDIOCANAL – © STUDIOCANAL SAS

In the end, “Paddington in Peru” is the worst of the “Paddington” movies. But like the “Toy Story” franchise, even the weakest film, in my case the fourth one, is worth a watch. The film is a fine-looking, exquisitely presented, well-oiled machine of happiness. Feeling down? Watch this movie. I am not a doctor, but I watch a lot of movies. This is simply my professional advice. The film has the vibe of a glorified Saturday morning cartoon that also feels down to earth. I am looking forward to seeing what Dougal Wilson does next as a director. If “Paddington” continues, I will go to the cinema to support it. The franchise is 3 for 3 so far. I am going to give “Paddington in Peru” a 7/10.

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

Thanks for reading this review! My next reviews are going to be for “Love Hurts,” “The Brutalist,” and “I’m Still Here.” 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 “Paddington in Peru?” What did you think about it? Or, which is your favorite of the “Paddington” movies? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

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

Posted on by Jack Drees

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Babygirl (2024): “That’s Magic.” – Nicole Kidman

Posted on by Jack Drees

“Babygirl” is written and directed by Halina Reijn (Bodies Bodies Bodies, Instinct) and stars Nicole Kidman (Being the Ricardos, The Northman), Harris Dickinson (Beach Rats, Trust), Sophie Wilde (Everything Now, Boy Swallows Universe), and Antonio Banderas (Shrek 2, The Mask of Zorro). This film is about a CEO who puts her career and family on the line when she has an affair with a much younger intern.

I saw “Babygirl” at an AMC Theatres location. If you have been to an AMC in the past few years, you may know that Nicole Kidman has served as a bit of a mascot for the brand. I am not completely in love with this, as her spots make up part of the reason why the previews at AMC are so neverendingly long. Honestly, I would be happy if they get rid of the AMC spots containing Kidman altogether. Some see these spots as an anthem, but I find them to be an annoyance. Amazingly, during my screening of “Babygirl,” they did not play one of the Nicole Kidman spots on top of the other 26 or so minutes of theatre promotion and trailers and such. I was a bit perplexed. As much as I hate those ads, I think seeing one of them play before this film in particular would have set the mood.

That said, it does not change the fact that I was rather excited for “Babygirl.” The trailers I have seen for the film are well produced, and allowed me to have high expectations for what was to come. I had a sense of what the movie was about before going in. I think if anything, the trailers did a great job at letting the audience know what the vibe was going to be. The marketing looked fun, compelling, and perhaps most importantly, sexy. After all, desire plays a major part in this film’s narrative, particularly when it comes to the state of our protagonist, Romy.

“Babygirl” is going to end up being one of the more memorable movie experiences I have had this year. It is not my favorite movie of the year, but it is an experiential event. And it all starts at the beginning of the film when we see Romy’s major problem. The film impressively highlights Romy’s lack of desires with her husband (Banderas) and her struggle to fulfill herself in her sex life. We see this part of the story flesh itself out over time and it unleashes some great acting from both Kidman and Banderas. The two perfectly portray a couple who happen to be on a bit of a decline.

“Babygirl” delivers the vibes I was hoping I would get out of “Challengers.” A lot of people love “Challengers,” but I was not one of them. “Babygirl” is easily the steamiest film I have seen this year. This is a film that I would recommend watching, but I would think twice before putting it on when your parents, or especially your grandparents are in the same room. I think this could make for a hot movie to set the mood on date night. This is especially noticeable with the fiery chemistry between Nicole Kidman’s Romy and Harris Dickinson’s Samuel. Their boss/intern connection eventually develops into something not as necessarily safe for work. Several scenes between these two do much more than satisfy. They also beautifully fit within the context of the story. They help us get to know each of the characters. They remind the audience of Romy’s internal struggle. Both actors are completely believable as said scenes play out. Harris Dickinson was not on my radar previously. Although he had a role in 2022’s “See How They Run,” which I gave a positive review. Dickinson is not just good in this movie, I cannot see anyone else playing his specific character. I left this film wanting to see more of his work. If there is another Harris Dickinson movie coming out, consider me interested.

Now judging by what has been said so far, you might think that I will remember this movie for its eroticism. While that is definitely this movie’s top selling point, the film is layered when it comes to fleshing out its protagonist. I must reiterate, Nicole Kidman is a knockout in this film. She gives a powerful performance that I hope gets plenty of buzz in the coming months. But I love how this film manages to make its main character a CEO. We see Romy in a position of power at work. At home, she is busy raising a family and pleasing her husband to the point where she forgets to take care of herself. Additionally, this film is set around the holidays, which is traditionally a hectic time of year. Romy is busy being this wise, helpful presence in other people’s lives that when all of a sudden Samuel enters her own life, she cannot help but submit to him. I mentioned this film is steamy, but sex is just a selling point. As a character piece, “Babygirl” sings.

Though in more ways than one, “Babygirl” is easy on the eyes. The film has a clean look to it. The color palette looks like something out of an insurance commercial, but I mean that as a compliment. The film is certainly picturesque with some vibrant locations and sets. The camerawork is also very good. The shot choices consistently deliver on immersion. Select shots go on for extended periods of time, allowing me to take in and digest the actions of said shots. There is also one shot in the film that starts in the air and slowly navigates down to several of the characters as they walk through a yard. It is a breathtaking series of images.

Again this movie is set around the holidays, and it does maintain a joyful look to it, even if a good portion of it is spent inside a corporate office. In a sense, kind of like the holidays, the movie has a vibe that meets somewhere in the middle of noticeable stress and occasional happiness. Every moment in this film maintains a brisk pace and there are scenes I practically leapt into the screen. There is one scene at a rave that is arguably worth the price of admission. Although fair warning, if you have trouble with flashing lights, I recommend maybe sitting this movie out. For all I know, “Babygirl” could become a Christmas tradition for some people. Maybe not with the family. But I think if you are either by yourself or with your partner, this could make for a great watch around the holidays. While the films have their notable differences, I think “Babygirl” could even serve as part of a double feature with “Eyes Wide Shut.” After all, both films are associated with sexuality, feature Nicole Kidman, and are set around Christmas! It’s perfect! Also, as the Movie Reviewing Moron, I do not endorse watching “Eyes Wide Shut” with the family either. That’s a no-no.

Courtesy of A24 – © A24

In the end, “Babygirl” is 2024’s sexiest movie. Nicole Kidman gives a standout performance as Romy. The rest of the cast is also quite solid. Harris Dickinson also notably plays his role to perfection. The film is a great balance between vibes and characterization. I do recommend this film under the right circumstances. Again, do not watch if your parents or grandparents are in the room. Same goes if you have kids. But if you are in the right place at the right time, “Babygirl” is a must see. I am going to give “Babygirl” an 8/10.

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

Thanks for reading this review! My next review is going to be for “A Complete Unknown,” the brand new movie starring Timothée Chalamet as Bob Dylan. If you want to see this review 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 “Babygirl?” What did you think about it? Or, what movie do you watch every year around the holidays? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

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

Posted on by Jack Drees

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

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

Ehh…

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks for reading this review! My next reviews are going to be for “Nightbitch,” “Kraven the Hunter,” and “The Lord of the Rings: The War of the Rohirrim.” If you want to see these reviews and more from Scene Before, follow the blog either with an email or WordPress account! Also, check out the official Facebook page! I want to know, did you see “Smile 2?” What did you think about it? Or, which of the “Smile” movies puts a bigger grin on your face? The original? Or the sequel? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!