NBCUniversal

Bugonia (2025): Bu-Go See Something Else

Posted on by Jack Drees

Courtesy of Focus Features – © Focus Features

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

Yorgos Lanthimos… We meet again.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Courtesy of Neon – © Neon

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

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!

Him (2025): Prepare to Sacrifice Your Brain Cells While Watching This Football Horror Story

Posted on by Jack Drees

“Him” is directed by Justin Tipping and stars Marlon Wayans (Scary Movie, A Haunted House), Tyriq Withers (Don’t Tell Mom the Babysitter’s Dead, I Know What You Did Last Summer), Julia Fox (Uncut Gems, Presence), and Tim Heidecker (Tim and Eric’s Billion Dollar Movie, Us). This film is about an up-and-coming football player who trains under the wing of an eccentric quarterback in an isolated location.

When I look back at movies like “Bob Marley: One Love” and “Argylle,” my most prominent memory of those movies is not so much the movies themselves, but rather the fact that every other time I went to the cinema before those films came out, one of their respective trailers would play during the preshow. “Him,” while not as frequent as say “Bob Marley: One Love,” had a strong chance of meeting the same fate because the “Him” trailers have been attached to many preshows I’ve witnessed this summer. And, sadly, the trailers did not really do anything for me.

The marketing for “Him” lacked an oomph that made me go, “I need to see this now!” This film is produced by Jordan Peele. Again, read that closely. Produced. He did not direct it. As for the films he did direct, he aced all of them. I would be more excited about Peele’s Monkeypaw Productions being attached if it were not for the release of “Monkey Man” in 2024. That movie was not a complete disaster, but it was very much a case of style over substance and I wish it were better. Speaking of things I wish were better, “Him” is a dull waste of an hour and a half.

There are some positives regarding “Him.” The movie was made for $27 million, and there are select moments where the film maintains a polish that lives up to its budget. Everything from the lavish costuming to select characters’ detailed makeup to the otherworldly production design. It is tough to call “Him” the biggest technical standout of the year, but it nails its aesthetics for the entire runtime.

“Him” is basically a mishmash of “Whiplash” and “Ex Machina.” It combines several elements of these two movies, including themes revolving around ambition, sacrifice, and well being. The film is also set mostly at one isolated location and revolves around a connection between two somewhat similarly-minded gentlemen. But unlike “Whiplash” and “Ex Machina,” “Him” differentiates itself from the fact that it is nowhere near as compelling as those two films.

Also, instead of centering around music or technology, the movie primarily focuses on football. That is… When it chooses to focus on football. Honestly, if you are looking for football in “Him,” you are not going to get that much of it. Most of the football played in the movie is done during training sessions. So if you are watching this movie and expecting a big game on a field, look elsewhere.

That said, I do dig the filmmakers trying to give football a horror angle. Over the years, I have come to realize how dangerous of a sport football is. There’s constant tackles, incessant contact between players, and an alarming number of concussions. It is truly a scary sport.

To call “Him” a football movie is a bit of an exaggeration. Yes, the sport exists within the context of the film and plays a heavy role in it, but the film is not “about” the sport per se. In the case of “Him,” it is more about how football, or perhaps more accurately, one person’s passion for football, or anything else for that matter, affects behavior and ego. The film quickly establishes its protagonist’s dedication to the sport. The film has a solid opening scene where a young Cameron Cade is instilled with the idea that one person’s sacrifice makes them a man. He learns this from his father while they are watching football on TV together. The film seems to tap into themes regarding toxic masculinity, suggesting that real men need to toughen up even when they face their greatest pain.

While I am glad to point out Jordan Peele did not deliver his first directorial stinker, I unfortunately have to say I wish Justin Tipping stuck the landing a bit more. That said, this film does have a Jordan Peele-esque DNA in it. For all I know, Tipping could follow in Peele’s footsteps and deliver his “Get Out.” This is not that movie. The film feels like a “Twilight Zone” episode, and at times it works, but in others, it lacks engagement.

The film also has some parallels to religion. That seems to be the case in more ways than one. The film does not establish exactly what belief system Cade follows, but much like how Christians for example look up to their God, we see how much Cade looks up to his athletic idol, Isaiah White. Our protagonist is at one point told to avoid some of life’s greatest pleasures, like pornography or dating. There are more connections in the film, but they could be considered spoiler territory.

Speaking of Marlon Wayans, he was easily the highlight of the movie for me. Isaiah Thomas (left), while not perfect, has the DNA of a beautifully complicated character. Thomas is one of those characters who you really do not know if you can trust. Wayans somehow convincingly manages to shift from pure rage to genuine friendliness in as little time as possible. He gives the performance his all, but I wish the script, which director Tipping is partially credited in writing, did him favors.

Am I going to forget “Him?” To a certain degree, one can argue that I probably will. The film is not fantastic, but I also would not go as far as to say it is the year’s absolute worst picture. As a story, it had more to say than some other stinkers this year like “A Minecraft Movie” or “Jurassic World: Rebirth.” Although I wish it communicated its messages more effectively. The film has a terrific performance from Marlon Wayans, it looks top notch, and even if I did not enjoy every scene, I got the sense that everyone working on said scenes happened to be trying their best.

In the end, “Him” is no good. That said, it is not a total fumble. It has glimmers of good ideas, but there is nothing in this film that I can say was executed to their full potential. Marlon Wayans gives a killer performance. If there is a character that has been on my mind more than any other since watching this film for the first time, it is his. The film starts off somewhat promising, but quickly runs out of steam. I think Justin Tipping has a future in the movie business, but this film is not quite cutting it. I am going to give “Him” a 3/10.

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

© Sony Pictures Classics

Thanks for reading this review! My next review is going to be for “Eleanor the Great!” Stay tuned! Also coming soon, look forward to my thoughts on “The Lost Bus,” “One Battle After Another,” “If I Had Legs I’d Kick You,” “Tron: Ares,” and “Bone Lake.” 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 “Him?” What did you think about it? Or, on the topic of “Ex Machina” and “Whiplash,” have you seen those movies? What do you think of those? 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!

Nobody 2 (2025): Hitman: Far from Home

Posted on by Jack Drees

“Nobody 2” is directed by Timo Tjahjanto (The Night Comes for Us, Killers) and stars Bob Odenkirk (Breaking Bad, Incredibles 2), Connie Nielsen (Wonder Woman, Gladiator), John Ortiz (Kong: Skull Island, American Fiction), Colin Hanks (The Great Buck Howard, Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle), RZA (The Man with the Iron Fists, American Gangster), Colin Salmon (EastEnders, Krypton), Christopher Lloyd (Back to the Future, The Tender Bar), and Sharon Stone (Casino, Basic Instinct). This sequel once again centers around suburban dad Hutch Mansell, who is pulled back into his violent past while trying to have a nice family vacation.

Part of me is surprised “Nobody” ended up getting a sequel. If that film came out before COVID-19, we might be having a different conversation, but unfortunately, it came out in March 2021, when some people were still hesitant to go back to the movies. Despite the film likely missing some box office potential, there is no denying that those who ended up seeing it had a good time, including me. I would have totally been down for a second installment, but with the film flying over some people’s radars, part of me wondered if it was reasonable to even get one in the first place. Nevertheless, we did get one, and when I first saw the trailer, I was given the impression that we would be getting more of what worked in the original film.

“Nobody 2” maintains a lot of what was good about the 2021 original, but it is not perfect.

What does work? To no surprise at all, Bob Odenkirk once again kills it as Hutch. A lot of people, including myself, would say “Nobody” shares some similarities to “John Wick.” One similarity happens to be that the protagonist is not only fighting for himself, but for those he loves. While John Wick spent several movies fighting for a dead dog, we see Hutch in this second outing continue to fight for his family. Remember in the first film when Hutch finds out his daughter’s kitty cat bracelet was taken, and he starts to lose his mind? There is a moment in this film that reminds me of that scene. Granted, this scene presents Hutch losing his mind over something perhaps more important than a bracelet, but it goes to show how easily Hutch will lose it if someone messes with his family.

Speaking of family, the rest of the main cast of characters from the last film come back too. I buy into Bob Odenkirk and Connie Nielen as the main couple. They have good chemistry with each other and blend perfectly with their children. The family members all play a significant role in the film to a certain degree. After all, the film sees the group going on vacation together.

I was also very pleased to see Christopher Lloyd come back as David. Not just because he is Christopher Lloyd, but to me, he was the surprise standout from the last movie. In this film, he has a lot less to do, but every scene with him is a riot. I like the way the film handled him, he was directed in such a way where he practically turned into a big ball of energy, but part of me does wish he played a bigger role in the story.

Lendina, the “big bad” in this film, is played by Sharon Stone. To me, this character is an enigma, because she feels like she is in a much different movie than everyone else. Part of me wants to compliment Stone in one regard because she is undoubtedly evil and not afraid to show it. But she is also cartoonishly evil sometimes. There are moments where I thought she reminded me of a “Fast & Furious” villain. In fact, at first I thought I was watching Charlize Theron on screen. But Stone sometimes nears the point where I am convinced she was supposed to be in a “Power Rangers” project and somehow magically ended up on the set of “Nobody 2.” I do not expect Shakespearean performances out of a movie like this, but it would have been nice to get something a step above what the movie delivered. That said, I am also not going to call Stone’s performance incompetent. If anything, I would call it uneven. Though it would not shock me if Stone gets nominated for a Razzie at the end of the year.

This may sound weird considering my previous complaints, but part of me wishes Stone had more screentime. The movie takes a long time to introduce the character. Despite being a pivotal part of the story, her appearance in the film feels kind of out of the blue. It would be one thing if the movie were longer, but the runtime is 89 minutes. It does not give me a lot of time to get invested in the character. By the time we get to the end of the movie and our protagonist must face off against her, the rivalry did not feel as exciting as it could have been.

I am also a little conflicted on how the final fight concludes. The end of the final fight makes a lick of sense considering the film’s overall themes and tendencies to focus on a group supporting each other when they need it most. It also makes sense because we see Hutch is not perfect when it comes to fighting. But truthfully, the fight spent too much time showcasing what the villain is capable of rather than showing what Hutch, the star of the film, can do going up against said villain.

Despite my complaints, I will acknowledge that this film does generally satisfy when it comes to action. There is not one sequence that was improperly shot or lazily done. The filmmakers spared no expense. If you are simply looking for some solid action sequences, “Nobody 2” has them. This is not my favorite action film of the year. It also does not have my favorite action scenes of the year. But that does not mean the film is bad. If anything, it implies that this has been a pretty good year for action, and “Nobody 2” is the latest project to prove that point, even if it is a step below some other recent movies.

In the end, “Nobody 2” is not a bad movie, but it is definitely inferior to the original. It has action that is about as solid as its predecessor, but the story and characterization is sometimes lacking. The past few months have delivered some terrific action movies, particularly “Mission: Impossible – The Final Reckoning,” and “Ballerina.” If you are looking for an action flick to watch in the near future and you want my recommendation, I would probably suggest those two films before this one. I am going to give “Nobody 2” a 6/10.

“Nobody 2” is now available to rent or buy on VOD.

Courtesy of Focus Features – © Focus Features

Thanks for reading this review! My next review is going to be for “Honey Don’t!” Stay tuned! Also coming soon, I will be sharing my thoughts on “Eden,” “Splitsville,” and “The Long Walk.” 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 “Nobody 2?” What did you think about it? Or, which of the two “Nobody” installments do you prefer? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

The Bad Guys 2 (2025): DreamWorks Delivers a More Entertaining Caper Than the 2022 Original

Posted on by Jack Drees

“The Bad Guys 2” is directed by Pierre Perifel and JP Sans, and stars Sam Rockwell (Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri, The Way Way Back), Marc Maron (Maron, GLOW), Awkwafina (Shang-Chi and the Legend of the Ten Rings, Renfield), Craig Robinson (Ghosted, The Office), Anthony Ramos (Transformers: Rise of the Beasts, In the Heights), Zazie Beatz (Deadpool 2, Atlanta), Danielle Brooks (The Color Purple, Orange is the New Black), Natasha Lyonne (American Pie, Orange is the New Black), Maria Bakalova (The Apprentice, Borat Subsequent Moviefilm), Alex Borstein (Family Guy, The Marvelous Mrs. Maisel), Richard Ayoade (The Watch, The IT Crowd), and Lilly Singh (A Little Late with Lilly Singh, Canada’s Got Talent). Struggling with acceptance from the general public, the Bad Guys, who have since turned “good,” are recruited for a job by an all-girl squad of criminals.

Kind of like Illumination, it is somewhat unusual for a DreamWorks animated property to not end up getting a sequel at some point. It was perhaps inevitable this would happen with “The Bad Guys.” The first film was well received by critics and was a hit with families. It is also based on a popular series of books. Naturally, it makes sense to create a “Bad Guys” sequel. As for my thoughts on the original film, I thought it was surprisingly fun, but also a bit disposable. There is also a problem I have with the film that, spoiler alert, I also have with this sequel. More on that later.

If you like “The Bad Guys,” chances are you will like “The Bad Guys 2.” I have my problems with “The Bad Guys” but I enjoyed it just enough to the point where I could say I had an okay time. “The Bad Guys 2” maintains everything that works from the original, and delivers it in a new, fresh package that I personally found to be more entertaining.

A lot of the original cast returns for this second outing. Of course you have the film’s big name stars including Sam Rockwell, Awkwafina, and Marc Maron coming back as some of the core characters. Like the original, they unleash tremendous charisma in each of their roles. I appreciated this sequel’s continuation of having Rockwell’s Mr. Wolf (top right) break the fourth wall. It adds a welcoming touch and sucks you into this film’s world.

The film even welcomes back my favorite character from the first outing, Misty Luggins (center), once again voiced by Alex Borstein. Between the two films, she has been promoted from Chief to Commissioner, which ends up becoming one of the script’s many gags. The gag is a simple one… Mr. Wolf repeatedly messes up Luggins’ position. As far as gags go, one could call this lazy, and I would not blame anybody for doing that, but it is saved by how the voice actors, most notably Borstein, deliver their lines. You could feel the ire coming out of Luggins with each misinterpretation.

I like my characters to have depth, but sometimes the simplest character can work if done right. Luggins is one example of this. Because in each scene, much like the previous installment, I got a sense of the character’s passion. Whether it is represented through something as simple as being acknowledged correctly, or as complicated as capturing the Bad Guys once and for all. Luggins feels like DreamWorks’ version of Wile E. Coyote. Between what we saw of her in these two films so far, part of me wishes she could have her own spinoff. Maybe we could see her trying to catch the Bad Guys time and time and time again, and failing. Or maybe a life in a day film showcasing some crazy story or case she has encountered. I think it would also be a great way to showcase Alex Borstein’s chops. She is fantastic in the role.

© DreamWorks Animation LLC. All Rights Reserved.

This is an animated film, so some suspension of disbelief is inevitable. But when the film gets to the climax, I felt the same way that I did during the climax of “Sisu.” The film spends a lot of time getting you immersed into this crazy, zany world, but things that happen on screen get dumber and less realistic by its conclusion. There is a whole concept involving gold that on the surface, sounds intriguing, but the resolution left me with a question regarding how this was handled according to the public eye.

Speaking of suspension of disbelief, much like the original film, I am left wondering why there are not more non-human characters in this world. If “The Bad Guys” were a video game, the only NPCs would be humans. No one else. There are plenty of non-human characters in the forefront, but not so much in the background. Why is this? If you look at a film like “Zootopia,” it has such a diverse group of creatures making up its universe. This film’s universe kind of feels less creative and lazy by comparison. This is not to say the film itself is lazily done. The animation style is stunning and unique. The script is sometimes clever, even if it does get a little too over the top.

© DreamWorks Animation LLC. All Rights Reserved.

When it comes to the DreamWorks Animation library, this is not the most memorable film of the bunch. But it is undoubtedly entertaining. One reason why I would love to go back to it one day is for the action scenes. The film has a couple of creative sequences that feel like they are straight out of a graphic novel. The scenes are flashy and full of life. There is one sequence that takes place in a wrestling ring that is a feast for the eyes.

Although this film is more than just style. As someone who experienced a little trouble finding work once graduating college, there are some scenes that I related to as it properly highlights the competition that comes with the job market. Although in the case of this film’s core group, it is much harder, because they are known for committing crimes, and therefore have a bad reputation.

Heck, they’re literally called the BAD guys! I wonder if Agent Burns from “Bumblebee” would have anything to say about this group.

Sure, the ensemble may have turned good, but their past does not appear to have gone over the general public’s head. Overall, the movie is a good lesson for younger audiences, reminding them to maintain a positive image, because one wrong move could change everything.

To my surprise, at the end of “The Bad Guys 2,” one of the first thoughts that crossed my mind is that I want to see another one. These characters are fascinating and seem to play off each other quite well. I would not mind hanging out with them one more time.

By the way, once the film gets to the credits, do not leave your chair, because there is a mid-credits scene that you might want to stick around for.

In the end, “The Bad Guys 2” is funny, brilliantly animated, and wonderfully paced. It is an all killer, no filler good time. “The Bad Guys 2” maintains many positives from the original and even improves upon some of them. Granted, it also contains some of the negatives. I still cannot get over the fact that there are not more non-human characters in a world like this one. Is that just a me thing? Is this not bothering anyone else? In all seriousness, I think families will have a blast with this film. It is filled with mile a minute humor and my theater, myself included, was laughing quite a bit. I am going to give “The Bad Guys 2” a 7/10.

Before I conclude this review, I would like to point something out in the film’s end credits. Just before the credits conclude, there is a short text that reads “This work may not be used to train AI.” I have no idea if that is a Universal Pictures policy, a DreamWorks policy, or if this was at the request of the director or a producer, but I fully endorse this. I understand that “the future is now,” but as an artist, I would prefer to see more work done strictly by people. We cannot have human stories without a human touch. Anything to have more human stories out there is always a good thing.

“The Bad Guys 2” is now playing in theaters. Tickets are available now.

Courtesy of Paramount Pictures – © Paramount Pictures

Thanks for reading this review! My next review is going to be for another animated family film, “Smurfs.” Stay tuned! Also coming soon, look forward to my thoughts on “Together,” “Oh, Hi,” “Weapons,” “Freakier Friday,” and “Nobody 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 “The Bad Guys 2?” What did you think about it? Or, which installment of “The Bad Guys” do you prefer? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

M3GAN 2.0 (2025): Does Not Compute

Posted on by Jack Drees

“M3GAN 2.0” is directed by Gerard Johnstone, who also directed the original “M3GAN” installment. This film stars Allison Williams (Get Out, Girls), Violet McGraw (The Haunting of Hill House, Black Widow), Ivanna Sakhno (The Spy Who Dumped Me, Pacific Rim: Uprising), and Jermaine Clement (Moana, The Flight of the Conchords). This sequel sees the return of the original cast a couple years after the titular character went on a rampage. Despite her dangerous antics, said title character is tasked with taking down a robot named Amelia.

Photo Credit: Universal Pictures – © 2025 Universal Studios. All Rights Reserved.

If you told me in 2023 that I would walk out of the original “M3GAN” having a great time, I would summon a lightning cloud and strike a bolt into your head. But to my surprise, the film is solid. And not just because the robot does a funny dance. I found it to be a fine metaphor for technology always being there for you, perhaps to extremely dangerous levels. I liked the first film so hopefully “M3GAN 2.0” would keep up the good work.

“M3GAN 2.0” had an unusual marketing campaign. The trailers seemed to indicate a shift similar to that of a James Cameron sequel like “Aliens” or “Terminator 2: Judgment Day.”  The first film is at its core, a horror movie. This sequel has horror elements, but it is a bit more action-oriented. It is definitely not as scary as the original film, at least not in a direct sense. Although if there was something that was as scary this time around, it would be the overhanging commentary. Another key difference this time around is that M3GAN goes from being a bad robot to a good gal. The film finds a less than buyable way to have her make amends with those she either harmed or nearly killed in the previous installment to justify her goodness, but still.

That is just one of several wrongs in this film’s screenplay. “M3GAN 2.0” is not that scary. Sure, this is less of a horror film than what the first film turned out to be, but there are attempts at horror in this film that do not stick the landing. The film clearly tries to be funny and edgy, but if anything it just sounds like M3GAN is trying her darndest every other second to join the cool kids table. If anything she comes off as a PG-13 robot “Deadpool.” There are select moments and lines where I think the film would have been better if they were done in a more R rated fashion. I am not saying that this film needs to go overboard like it’s the next “Wolf of Wall Street,” but I think it would have helped if M3GAN had a tad less of a filter. Granted, the original film was PG-13, so I guess logically this one had to be as well. If the film goes for an R, that would risk losing the younger audience who likely checked out the last film. But seriously! This sequel changes the genre as well as the titular robot’s personality. Why not a maturity shift? Is it to get more money? Because I do not think your $10 million opening weekend is not doing you any favors.

Honestly, the only genuine laugh I remember having in the film involves a line having to do with a yeast infection. If I did laugh at all for the remainder of the runtime, then said laughter was not that hard or it ended up being for the wrong reasons.

As previously established, “M3GAN 2.0” is an action movie. Is the action good? Well… It is competent. I do not have a ton of complaints regarding the action, but I am not going to pretend any of it was that memorable. Although there was one fun scene between the film’s antagonist and a wealthy individual in his erotic cave. Remember how I said the film was not that funny? Well, this part actually had me laughing for, you guessed it, the wrong reasons. It was not necessarily comedy gold. I was laughing at the movie rather than with it.

One thing that people seem to remember distinctly from the first film is the scene where M3GAN jumps around and dances. That moment is still ingrained in my mind and its memability is noticeable. In this sequel, the filmmakers appear to create a scene inspired by the roaring response that scene got. And quite frankly, it seems that is the only reason why that scene was put in the film. It felt kind of forced.

Speaking of memes, this movie introduces some new meme potential for the M3GAN character… She sings now. I do not want to spoil much about it, but I was so thrown off by this moment to preposterous levels. The moment that M3GAN sings is so out of left field that I would not have been surprised if at one point Lady Gaga’s Harley Quinn showed up in the background asking to perform a duet. It kind of reminded me of the musical planet from “The Marvels,” but at least that moment had some greater context and purpose in the story.

That said, I can somewhat appreciate the film’s commentary, which presents a double edge sword. Part of me wonders how this movie, and the more I think about it, the last one, is going to age. I saw the last movie as a warning that being too attached to your phone, or in some cases, your phone being too attached to you, can be dangerous. If anything, this film is a warning about artificial intelligence. You can argue the last film was as well, but this one feels stricter in that regard. It shows the dangers of advancing technology to a point where it could potentially kill us, and it may lead to an inevitability where we have to adapt to the technology being in our lives rather than ignoring it. As campy as these films occasionally come off, there are moments where they feel down to earth.

Unfortunately, the commentary feels like a downgrade from that of the original because as I said before, this film is not that scary. Part of what made the commentary work in the original movie is that it had a hand in the film’s scares. Here it is just littered throughout the script.

In a way, I can appreciate the crew behind “M3GAN 2.0” for trying something different rather than resorting to the same old tricks. I was looking forward to a more action-centered installment. But what makes this film different either felt too out there or simply put, poorly executed. As for what felt the same, it was kind of lame this time around. It does not matter if you try to go for something different or the same as before. If all of your material is bad, then it is bad. Plain and simple.

In the end, “M3GAN 2.0” was kind of disappointing. It is one of the weakest films of 2025. I was really looking forward to this film after the original turned out to be a delightful surprise. In a way one could say that this sequel was a surprise of its own, but not in the way that I would want it to be. The film differentiates from its predecessor in more ways than one. This is more of an action movie than a horror movie. But no matter what genre it shoots for, I simply wish it were a good movie. And unfortunately, it is not. I am going to give “M3GAN 2.0” a 3/10.

“M3GAN 2.0” is now playing in theaters and is available to rent or buy on VOD.

Thanks for reading this review! My next review is going to be for “F1: The Movie.” Stay tuned! Also, coming soon, look forward to my thoughts on “Superman” and “Guns Up.” If you want to see these reviews and more from Scene Before, follow the blog either with an email or WordPress account! Also, check out the official Facebook page! I want to know, did you see “M3GAN 2.0?” What did you think about it? Or, what is a sequel you enjoy that shifts its genre from the original? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

The Odyssey IMAX 70mm Tickets Going on Sale One Year Early – Let the Hype Begin

Posted on by Jack Drees

© Courtesy of NBCUniversal

Hey everyone, Jack Drees here! You know that feeling when you were going Black Friday shopping in the 1990s or the 2000s? You found a parking spot at Walmart, and you were trying your best to get your hands on that new TV and would push hundreds of people out of the way just to get your hands on it? Imagine that, but online, and with movie tickets. “The Odyssey” is about to do something that as far as I know, no movie in history has done before. Not even a “Star Wars” or Marvel title.

Tickets are going on sale for “The Odyssey” a full year before its scheduled release. If I had to be honest though, part of me is not surprised this is happening. The film, which comes out July 2026, is expected to be one of the biggest of that year and unleash a first in cinematic history.

If you look on several ticketing sites right now, you will notice that there are times available for Christopher Nolan’s “The Odyssey” a year in advance. This kind of push rarely, if ever, happens for films. If the tickets are not sold out by the time you are reading this, they are likely ready to buy. This post is being published on July 16th, 2025, one day before these tickets officially drop. That said, if you are reading this hours after publication, check Fandango. Check AMC. Tickets are available!

There are a few caveats however… The showtime options are limited, and the tickets are only available at select locations. “The Odyssey” is expected to have a wide release, but if you are looking for times in cities like Boston, which is where I live for example, be patient. Also, these are for IMAX 70mm screenings. If you want to see the film in a standard theater or another format such as Dolby Cinema or IMAX digital, you will have to wait a bit longer. But if you are eager to see the film early the way it was intended, now may be a good time to buy your tickets.

Based on Homer’s epic poem of the same name, “The Odyssey” centers around the character of Odysseus as he ventures home following the end of the Trojan War. The film features an all star cast including Matt Damon, Tom Holland, Zendaya, Jon Bernthal, Robert Pattinson, Lupita Nyong’o, Charlize Theron and Anne Hathaway. That is just scratching the surface! Christopher Nolan is writing and directing the film, as well as producing it alongside his wife Emma Thomas. You might think with an all star cast and an Oscar-winning filmmaker who is hot off of “Oppenheimer” these reasons would be enough to sell tickets early. But perhaps the biggest selling point for me is the opportunity to see the film in IMAX 70mm. 

Those who know Christopher Nolan are well aware that he champions the IMAX format, most especially IMAX 70mm, the company’s original film format that has decreased in use throughout the current century with the rise of digital filmmaking and projection. But in recent years, it has regained popularity following the releases of certain movies. Christopher Nolan’s most recent film, “Oppenheimer,” released in a list of theaters playing it in IMAX 70mm. The presentation allows the IMAX-shot scenes to cover the entire screen in a resolution that is theoretically as high as 18K. That movie was Nolan’s latest effort where he would combine traditional 35mm or 70mm film with IMAX film while shooting. But “The Odyssey,” which is also showing in IMAX 70mm, is a different story.

“The Odyssey” has many distinctions of being a cinematic event, including the fact that this is the first Hollywood feature to be shot entirely on IMAX film cameras. This is a feat that yours truly thought might never see the light of day. IMAX film cameras are traditionally known for being loud and bulky, Despite their magnificent results through the lens, they are not always the most realistic camera to use. One reason why “Dunkirk” in particular has so much IMAX-shot footage is due to the film having minimal dialogue.

Dropping the tickets this far in advance is not just a great way to get people talking and push this film’s marketing campaign into gear, but it is essentially an invitation to be a part of history. People who buy tickets for these shows on opening weekend not only get to see the movie, but they earn the right to say that they are the first people to see a Hollywood film shot entirely on IMAX film. Seeing any movie on IMAX film is worth bragging about, especially today when much of the moviegoing market is digital. I had the opportunity, by complete coincidence, to see Ryan Coogler’s “Sinners” on IMAX film a week into its release while it was playing in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. Like some of Christopher Nolan’s previous movies, “Sinners” combines multiple film formats. But “The Odyssey” is a different animal. Whereas with the “Sinners” IMAX experience, where that movie will switch between black bars and full screen, “The Odyssey” will show the entire movie with the picture covering the screen from top to bottom.

Do any extra perks come with these tickets? Other than bragging rights, it does not look like that will be the case. At least for now. That said, it would be cool to include something special for the attendees whether it means a Q&A, getting to meet one of the film’s stars, or maybe an exclusive t-shirt or popcorn bucket. Just spitballing ideas.

Thankfully, if these theaters are too far for you, IMAX film has a digital equivalent capable of showcasing the IMAX-shot scenes in all their glory through their 4K laser projection system. The projector is available at a short list of IMAX’s “true” theaters, and definitely worth seeking out if you cannot watch the movie on film. That said, tickets are not on sale for any of those locations. But it is nice to have options closer to the film’s release.

As of writing this, a part of me is planning to buy a ticket for one of these screenings, perhaps at the AMC Lincoln Square 13 in New York City since as of now, it appears to be the closest theater to me with showtimes. If you know me, I am such an avid Christopher Nolan and IMAX fanatic that being one of the first to see this film in IMAX 70mm would be a dream. I am honestly willing to fly to another state if New York starts selling out and they have tickets over there. Move over, Taylor Swift, the Eras Tour is so 2023! As a cinephile, my moment is here, and I am “ready for it!” For my fellow New Englanders, the Providence Place Cinemas in Providence, Rhode Island has an IMAX with a film projector. However, due to certain issues it had during “Oppenheimer’s” run there, I do not think that theater is going to end up screening “The Odyssey” in IMAX 70mm. One can hope, but I am worried it will not make the list.

Do you have to buy “The Odyssey” tickets right now? Not necessarily. Again, the showtimes available are limited. The film is not out for a year and they are inevitably going to add more times. Heck, the film could end up getting delayed, thereby making all these advance purchases irrelevant. But if you want to guarantee your spot as a part of film history, this might be a solid investment. Should the ticket gods by on my side, I plan to be a part of this cinematic event, and I hope to see you there in July 2026.

I also very much look forward to potentially bonding with my new best friend, the “refresh icon.”

Thanks for reading this post! This was a bit impromptu, but I had to get this off my chest because to be honest, the hype is real and I choose to be a part of it. There are probably people reading this right now, including my own friends and family that think I would be a madman for buying a movie ticket a year in advance in a theater far from home. They might be right, but I make no apologies. What if I move to that city? Who’s crazy now? That’s one less travel ticket I have to buy! That’s less gas in the car! I should not have to apologize for being a fan. That said, if you are getting tickets for “The Odyssey” a year in advance? What theater are you going to? What showtime? Maybe we will run into each other. I would love to meet my fellow movie fans. Let me know down below! In the meantime, please check out the official Facebook page if you want to be updated on my latest posts through social media! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

PS: If you plan to sell scalp tickets for this, do the world a favor and get off this page. In fact, even better, get off the Internet.

Jurassic World: Rebirth (2025): Dinosaur Dullness

Posted on by Jack Drees

“Jurassic World: Rebirth” is directed by Gareth Edwards (Godzilla, The Creator) and stars Scarlett Johansson (Black Widow, Under the Skin), Mahershala Ali (Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse, Moonlight), Jonathan Bailey (Bridgerton, Wicked), Rupert Friend (Obi-Wan Kenobi, Pride & Prejudice), Manuel Garcia-Rulfo (Sicario: Day of the Soldado, The Lincoln Lawyer), and Ed Skrien (Alita: Battle Angel, Deadpool). This film is about a group of people who are on a mission to extract DNA from dinosaurs in order to achieve a medical breakthrough.

Photo by Universal Pictures and Amblin Entertainment – © Universal Studios. All Rights Reserved.

Here we go again. “Jurassic Park” is undoubtedly a well known franchise. But so far, it is, at best, two for six as far as yours truly is concerned. Maybe three if I am being generous. Of course, the original “Jurassic Park” is peak cinema. I also enjoyed “The Lost World.” The film had some engaging sequences. The other films as far as I am concerned are dinosaur fodder, but I will admit when I watched “Jurassic World” in the theater a decade ago, it was a cool experience, especially in IMAX 3D. But having watched it at home, I think the film as a story and character piece is mediocre at best.

I went into “Jurassic World: Rebirth” with little expectations. After all, the odds were against this film being good based on the data I have provided thus far. Plus, I thought the last film, “Jurassic World: Dominion,” is one of the most abysmal blockbusters of all time. They say you are only as good as your last project.

Photo by Universal Pictures and Amblin Entertainment – © Universal Studios. All Rights Reserved.

I saw “Jurassic World: Rebirth” with a friend. Upon walking out of the film, I told my friend that I thought it was one of the weaker installments. Because that is the truth. I thought compared to the original, this was a waste of time. It is really hard to establish myself as a “Jurassic Park” fan when there is only one outright memorable installment. Yes, the second film has its moments. But other than those two, I have no desire to go back to watch any of the “Jurassic Park” movies, including this one.

There are positives to this film, and thankfully, as a narrative, it is slightly more entertaining than whatever the heck “Jurassic World: Dominion” turned out to be. It certainly helps that this movie chooses to focus more on dinosaurs than it does locusts. The biggest positive I can give to this film is that it is scary. The previous film had only one dinosaur sequence that had me scared for the characters. This latest film improves upon that. Part of that has to do with the direction from Gareth Edwards.

While Gareth Edwards may not be my favorite director working today, he is a name I respect. He can bring a lot to a big budget project. I love how he demonstrates the scale of titans in his work between establishing the titular character in 2014’s “Godzilla” and the AT-ATs in “Rogue One: A Star Wars Story.” Unsurprisingly, there was a sense of wonder to be had with the dinosaurs on screen. There is one particular sequence involving two dinosaurs with long tails in the middle of the grass that honestly took me back to the original “Jurassic Park” when Alan Grant takes off his sunglasses and marvels over the sight of a living dinosaur. There is also some okay dinosaur action… When said action actually happens.

Photo by Universal Pictures and Amblin Entertainment – © Universal Studios. All Rights Reserved.

Gareth Edwards does a good job at handling the action sequences in this film, but much like his “Godzilla” movie, my big problem with it is that I thought the film’s action does not become truly exciting until the film’s second half. There is some action in the first half, but it is honestly kind of a bore. You could argue that the crew wanted to spend time establishing the human characters, and there are snippets where you get to know the film’s cast. But I am honestly not going to remember most of these people. Yes, some of them are played by well known, award-winning actors, but I failed to connect with their respective characters. If you want a better monster movie that perfectly balances characterization with monster action, I hate doing this because Edwards did not direct this installment, but I highly recommend “Godzilla Minus One.”

When it comes to story, “Jurassic World: Rebirth” seems to have an identity crisis. While many movies have a plots and b plots, this movie has a couple different plots that feel like they distract from each other for the most part. The movie spends so much time establishing one set of characters only to suddenly introduce another set who quite frankly do not feel like they belong in this particular narrative.

Photo by Universal Pictures and Amblin Entertainment – © Universal Studios. All Rights Reserved.

But maybe the screenplay will utilize these plots to their full potential and unleash some memorable characters and line delivery! Ha! I wish. Some of the dialogue is cliche. The film seems to have attempts at humor that do not stick the landing. Some lines sound like they are out of a bad Michael Bay movie. And as I said before, the characters could have been better. Even the main ones feel relatively shallow. Do I like Scarlett Johansson? Yes. A lot actually. I think she is talented. I could tell she wanted to be in this film and she looked like she was having fun. But I wish I had more of a reason to care about her character of Zora Bennett.

These are not even the biggest faults of the screenplay. For some time after watching the movie, I thought this was a bad “Jurassic Park” installment. But the more I think about it, the angrier I get based on one particular complaint I have. For reasons I do not understand, the film establishes early on that public interest in dinosaurs has waned since the last movie. I’m sorry, what?!

How is that possible?! Look! Dinosaurs might just be one of the most consistently amazing concepts in history. Think about it! These are magnificent creatures from ages ago who dominated the planet until all of sudden they were taken out by space junk! They’re humungous! They’re boisterous! They come in many different shapes, sizes, types, and colors! Some of them will probably rejoice in the thought of straight up annihilating you! How on earth do dinosaurs become tiresome to the general public? In fact, let’s talk about this franchise alone! Four of these movies made more than a billion dollars! Yes, if you read my review for “Dominion” I thought that film accomplished the unthinkable feat of making dinosaurs boring. But that does not mean dinosaurs as a concept is boring. They were boring in a certain context. Ask ANY young boy living today if they like dinosaurs. I guarantee all of them would answer with a “yes.”

One could argue that the idea of the general public being bored by dinosaurs was written based on the ongoing consensus of the recent “Jurassic Park” installments. The films do not appear to be impressing audiences as much the previous ones did. But even if that is true, it does not change the fact that dinosaurs are still exciting. I live 20 minutes away from Boston, so we have the Museum of Science, and just about every time I go, I cannot help but look at the giant t-rex exhibit.

Saying that public interest in dinosaurs has deteriorated is like assuming that people today are no longer interested in other animals. We still go to zoos! We still go to aquariums! We still have pets! We still go on YouTube and watch cat videos every once in a while! But sure, the general public thinks dinosaurs are boring.

Now I would defend this idea for one reason, which is that dinosaurs spent so much time terrorizing the planet to the point where so many people were afraid to so much as look at one again. After all, they were unleashed into our world between “Fallen Kingdom” and “Dominion.” I do not recall “Jurassic World: Rebirth” making such a point clear, so I continue to question the film’s logic.

By the way, this film is written by David Koepp! The writer for the original “Jurassic Park!” Oh how the mighty have fallen. It is not like he has a perfect resume. After all, in recent years he did “You Should Have Left” and “Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny,” but I cannot recall being as infuriated by one of his screenplays as much as I am with this one.

Photo by Universal Pictures and Amblin Entertainment – © Universal Studios. All Rights Reserved.

Also, going back to what I said about the film’s wonder factor and how it reminded me of a certain scene from the original “Jurassic Park,” some of “Rebirth’s” highest points are those that are borderline nostalgia bait. While Alexandre Desplat is doing the score this time around instead of John Williams, the best musical beats are, unsurprisingly, those that clearly springboard off of John Williams’ original music. Do not get me wrong, these are iconic tunes. But the film does not really individualize itself from a musical perspective. There is, admittedly, a pretty fun chase scene in the climax of the film that feels at least partially inspired by the kitchen scene from the original movie. I will not go into spoilers, but the very end of the film reminded me of the original as well. As I watched it play out, I got the sense the filmmakers were trying to pay tribute to the original’s ending.

That said, if anything, this film makes me want to go back and watch the original “Jurassic Park.” Not necessarily because this film was fun, though there are one or two moments that stand out, but because it spent so much time reminding me of the original’s superiority.

I have nothing against dinosaur movies, and “Jurassic Park” is a franchise with potential. But unfortunately that potential is repeatedly shattered from one bad movie to the next. My interest in dinosaurs has definitely not waned. But my interest in this franchise definitely has.

© Universal

In the end, “Jurassic World: Rebirth” is further proof that this franchise needs to be wiped out by an asteroid. This is one of the worst films of 2025. I honestly think if they continue to make these movies they are going to achieve a fate similar to the “Transformers” franchise when it was under the helm of Michael Bay. These movies have had their moment in the sun, but I think audiences are going to open their eyes and either ask for the filmmakers to aim higher or decide to stop going to these films altogether. Then again, these are literally the only relevant dinosaur movies on the market, so maybe not. This franchise should be exciting but for whatever reason, each movie finds a way to spiral into awfulness. I am going to give “Jurassic World: Rebirth” a 3/10.

“Jurassic World: Rebirth” is now playing in theaters. Tickets are available now.

Photo Credit: Universal Pictures – © 2025 Universal Studios. All Rights Reserved.

Thanks for reading this review! My next review is going to be for “M3GAN 2.0.” Stay tuned! Also, coming soon, look forward to my thoughts on “F1: The Movie” and “Superman.” Blockbuster season is kicking into gear so I hope you are ready to hear what I think about the hottest movies of the summer. Hopefully these movies will end up better than “Jurassic World: Rebirth.” 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 “Jurassic World: Rebirth?” What did you think about it? Or, what is your favorite “Jurassic Park” movie? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

The Phoenician Scheme (2025): One of Wes Anderson’s Weakest Films Yet

Posted on by Jack Drees

© Focus Features

“The Phoenician Scheme” is directed by Wes Anderson (The Grand Budapest Hotel, The French Dispatch) and stars Benicio del Toro (Sicario, Star Wars: The Last Jedi), Mia Threapleton (The Buccaneers, I Am…), Michael Cera (Juno, Scott Pilgrim vs. the World), Riz Ahmed (Rogue One: A Star Wars Story, Sound of Metal), Tom Hanks (Toy Story, Cast Away), Bryan Cranston (Godzilla, Breaking Bad), Mathieu Amalric (Quantum of Solace, The Grand Budapest Hotel), Richard Ayoade (The Bad Guys, The Watch), Jeffrey Wright (Asteroid City, What If…?), Scarlett Johansson (Black Widow, Sing), Benedict Cumberbatch (The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug, Doctor Strange), Rupert Friend (Hitman: Agent 47, Homeland), and Hope Davis (Asteroid City, Greenland). This film is about Zsa-zsa Korda, a wealthy businessman who appoints his daughter as the heir to his estate. During his search for a new enterprise, the two become the target of assassins, terrorists, and tycoons.

Courtesy of TPS Productions/Focus Features – © 2025

Even noticeably solid directors have at least one dud on their resume. Steven Spielberg has “Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull.” Joel Schumacher has “Batman & Robin.” Meanwhile, for Wes Anderson, his dud would be his most recent film, “Asteroid City,” which despite its technical mastery and somewhat intriguing concept, had uninteresting characters, boring scenes, and a lackluster ending. I like Wes Anderson. Just read my reviews for “Isle of Dogs” and “The French Dispatch.”

There is a saying that you are only as good as your last project, so with “Asteroid City” somewhat fresh in my mind, I went into “The Phoenician Scheme” with moderate at best expectations. When the movie started, I was pleasantly surprised. Unfortunately, that feeling fizzled real fast.

Courtesy of TPS Productions/Focus Features – © 2025

“The Phoenician Scheme” has a fantastic hook. The movie starts with a plane crash, which apparently is one of several our protagonist has gone through. In that same scene, not even thirty seconds in, someone’s head gets blown off and flies out into the sky. Very exciting stuff! Having a solid beginning can lead to promise down the road. First impressions matter, and this movie impressed me right off the bat. But I would say that this scene is where the movie peaked. Because what follows is a complete and utter disappointment of a snoozefest some like to call a motion picture.

It did not take long for me after finishing “The Phoenician Scheme” to declare that it might be my least favorite of Wes Anderson’s filmography. I still have yet to see “The Royal Tenenbaums” and “The Darjeeling Limited,” but from his work that I have seen so far, this is probably the one that I can say is the weakest. And that is sad, because I was not a huge fan of “Asteroid City.” Much like “Asteroid City,” there are things to like in “The Phoenician Scheme,” but the film itself underwhelmed me. I knew what I was getting out of this film to a certain degree given its director. If you like Wes Anderson’s quirky style, good news, it can be found here. But I simply wish there was a little more substance to accompany it.

Most of my positives regarding “The Phoenician Scheme” have to do with the film’s technical aspects. This film, to my lack of surprise, has stunning production design. The color choices of all the surroundings are meticulously chosen and easy on the eyes. Everything in the frame feels organized. The film makes the most of its 4:3 aspect ratio that Wes Anderson has previously used in films like “The French Dispatch” or “The Grand Budapest Hotel.” Despite its consistent vibrance, the film has an old timey feel to it. Even with the score sometimes, which is another tour de force from Alexandre Desplat. The music commands your attention and is up there with “Isle of Dogs” as one of my favorites in a Wes Anderson film.

Courtesy of TPS Productions/Focus Features – © 2025

Watching “The Phoenician Scheme” is like going to an art museum but you are consistently bored or unamused by every single exhibit. Yes, this film looks extravagant and is obviously well done, but is it worth my time? Judging by my repeated urge to fall asleep in the auditorium, I do not think so. As easy on the eyes and ears as “The Phoenician Scheme” is, I wish I could have used those eyes and ears to see and hear something much more valuable.

As a director, Wes Anderson is undeniably quirky. Part of his quirkiness shines through the performances he gets out of his actors. Like some of his other films, his unique way of getting actors to deliver dialogue tends to stand out. There is something about their lines, at least to me, that lacks realism, but nevertheless tends to work in the environment of his films. Watching “The Phoenician Scheme” however, the dialogue comes off as stiff and stilted. Every line feels as if the characters are reading off their finest essays rather than speaking off the cuff or acting like genuine human beings. Seriously! Every other line in this film feels disappointingly robotic!

To make matters worse, this film, like some of Wes Anderson’s previous work, has a stacked, talented cast. If you were to ask a friend who their favorite actor is, chances are their pick is in this movie! Everyone from Benecio del Toro to Tom Hanks to Scarlett Johansson to Benedict Cumberbatch to Bryan Cranston! This movie is kind of like “Amsterdam” with a pinch more polish!

Courtesy of TPS Productions/Focus Features – © 2025

The worst offender among the cast for me is Michael Cera, seen above doing his best Adam Conover cosplay. For the record, I like Michael Cera. I am a big “Scott Pilgrim vs. the World” fan. And his performance here somewhat reminded me of his performance in that film. They are not the same on the surface, but when it comes to direction and vision, they feel like they strictly belong in their respective universes. That sounds like a good thing, but in the case of “The Phoenician Scheme,” I was bewildered as to some of the choices they made regarding Cera’s character of Bjørn. Cera unleashes a voice for his character that got on my nerves real fast. The more he talked, the more I wanted to melt my brain.

That said, this film is also shaping up to Mia Threapleton’s (right) big break. For those who do not know, Mia Threapleton is Kate Winslet’s daughter. She was in a few projects before this film, but this is my first time seeing her in a role. She did a great job as Sister Liesl. And I do not mean that by nepotism standards. I got the impression that she could potentially have a career as successful as her mother. She is very talented.

I am by no means a Wes Anderson newbie. I have an understanding that he tends to stylize his dialogue, frame objects or people in the most still-like manner possible, and beautify the background so much to the point where it becomes a character of it own. Anderson is a noticeably a visionary director. He is an auteur. But if anything this is a film that so is overwhelmingly packed with Wes Anderson’s style that he prioritized it before characterization and pacing. As I watched this film, I barely felt anything. I did not care much about the characters, even if they are conceptually interesting. The story occasionally reeked of convolution. Overall, I left this film unsatisfied.

Courtesy of TPS Productions/Focus Features – © 2025

In the end, “The Phoenician Scheme” is a complete bore. One can argue that this film feels like something that only Wes Anderson can do. But if that is the case, that is disappointing because what this film ended up being was a slow, albeit pretty looking espionage story that I won’t even remember in the next year. If you want to watch a good Wes Anderson movie go back and watch “Rushmore.” Go watch “Fantastic Mr. Fox.” Heck, even his earliest feature film, “Bottle Rocket,” was quite fun. If this was my first Wes Anderson film, chances are I would not be looking forward to what he has up his sleeve next. I am going to give “The Phoenician Scheme” a 3/10.

“The Phoenician Scheme” is now playing in theaters. Tickets are available now.

Thanks for reading this review! My next review is going to be for “The Life of Chuck!” Stay tuned! Also coming soon, look forward to my thoughts on “Materialists” and “Elio.” If you want to see 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 Phoenician Scheme?” What did you think about it? Or, what is a bad film from a filmmaker whose work you traditionally like? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!