Neon

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

Posted on by Jack Drees

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

Courtesy of Neon – © Neon

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Courtesy of Neon – © Neon

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

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

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

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

Posted on by Jack Drees

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks for reading this review! My next review is going to be for “Zootopia 2!” Stay tuned! Also coming soon, I will be sharing my thoughts on “Wake Up Dead Man: A Knives Out Mystery,” “Jay Kelly,” “Bugonia,” “No Other Choice,” and “Fackham Hall.” If you want to see these reviews and more from Scene Before, follow the blog either with an email or WordPress account! Also, check out the official Facebook page! I want to know, did you see “Sentimental Value?” What did you think about it? Or, would you ever want to make a movie based on your family’s history? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

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

Posted on by Jack Drees

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Splitsville (2025): Non-Monogamous Magnificence

Posted on by Jack Drees

“Splitsville” is directed by Michael Angelo Covino (The Climb, The Self Tape), who also has a writing credit and stars in the film as Paul. Joining him in the cast are actors including Dakota Johnson (Fifty Shades of Grey, Madame Web), Adria Arjona (Morbius, Andor), and Kyle Marvin (WeCrashed, The Climb), the latter of whom also wrote the film. This movie showcases the chaos that ensues after Carey is asked by his wife, Ashley, for a divorce. Following the bombshell, Carey runs into his friends, who he finds out are in an open marriage.

Remember how in August “The Naked Gun” was supposed to be a wakeup call to audiences that supporting movies of its nature would allow for more comedies to play in movie theaters? Well, guess what? I missed it when it came out. It is not that I did not think it would be funny, but I would rather watch the previous “Naked Gun” movies first. Plus, there are plenty of other standalone comedies like this one that I thought were a higher priority. “Splitsville” not only looked funny, but also kind of sexy. The concept lends itself to both adjectives being met. I can safely say “Splitsville” is consistently hysterical and often delivers a pinch of sensuality.

Despite this film heavily involving sex and partners, never once does it feel overly pornographic. There are various examples of nudity throughout the film, but each time nudity is shown on screen, it serves a purpose, and never flaunts any private parts. Well, except for one scene in the beginning, but it is more for a laugh than anything else. While characters do have sex in the film, never once does the film feel the need to showcase a graphic scene of said activity. Everything in this film, including the nudity, serves a purpose.

The screenplay for “Splitsville” is well done. Overall, I found it to be layered, unpredictable, and robustly structured. Other than the film at a certain point introducing so many elements at once that it is sometimes difficult to keep up, I cannot name any other glaring issues at the top of my head. I like all the characters, there is plenty of decent comedy, and each element of this film feels necessary. The moment one thing is introduced, even if it is something really small, it ends up playing an integral role that enhances the final product. 

Dakota Johnson is one of the most “interesting” actresses working today. I am not going to pretend I am the biggest fan of hers. Is she capable of giving a good performance? Sure. When given the right script and proper direction, she can deliver a “Daddio,” but sometimes she will give something as flat as “Materialists.” Thankfully, “Splitsville” does her favors, Johnson is quite good in this film as Julie. Unlike her experience of making “Madame Web,” I could tell Johnson, like everyone else in the cast, was having a lot of fun on set. Johnson plays an inviting, sometimes sensual, complicated character. To my pleasant surprise, I thoroughly enjoyed getting to know about Julie’s past. Johnson sings in her role.

And she is not alone when it comes to giving a good performance. Frankly, I do not have a problem with a single person in the entire cast. The film does not have many big names. Sure, Adria Arjona is growing in popularity with the success of “Andor,” but the film is quite low in terms of star power. But what this film lacks in name recognition, it makes up for in talent.

Despite being exposed to their previous work, Michael Angelo Covino and Kyle Marvin are names I did not know much about before this project. That said, watching these two do what they do on and off camera makes me pumped up to see whatever it is they do next. Michael Angelo Covino writes, directs, produces, and stars in this film as Paul. It is clear that his passion for this project is shining through in each frame. His character also has palatable chemistry with Dakota Johnson’s Julie. The two play off each other well.

Kyle Marvin plays this film’s protagonist, Carey. Kyle Marvin is a name that I have heard before, but completely forgot about before writing this review. Marvin previously directed “80 for Brady,” which ended up on my 2023 worst movies of the year list. “Splitsville” seems to showcase much more of Marvin’s abilities as a comedic force. Marvin does a great job at not only bringing humor into each scene but also occasionally balancing his performance when the film gets into some heavier moments.

Also, major shoutout to the young and talented Simon Webster, who gives an outstanding performance as Russ. Webster is given plenty to do, and he delivers in each scene. He is also connected to one of my favorite gags in the film, particularly one involving jet skis. I will not say more for those who have yet to watch the movie, but you will know what I am talking about once you see it.

“Splitsville,” to a degree, lives up to its name. While I cannot confirm that my sides split from laughing so hard, I think the film is still incredibly funny. Almost every joke feels naturally placed. There are only one or two jokes in the film that I thought lacked some sense of realism. Well, as much realism one can have in a comedy that is… These are jokes that may as well have been inserted solely keep a gag going, but even those got a laugh out of me. The movie delivers a surprising amount of tiny chuckles, especially in the first act. That may sound like a bad thing for a comedy film, but said chuckles are consistent, so in actuality, it works. The film also gave me quite a few bigger laughs to balance things out. “Splitsville” is not the funniest film I have seen this year, “Friendship” still takes the cake, but if you are looking for laughs, “Splitsville” has plenty.

A lot of the laughs come from what I would describe as authentic interactions between multiple characters. The film however does resort to extremes at times, and this includes one moment where Carey and Paul get into a fight. Not only do I buy this fight, but to my surprise, I think it is one of the best directed action sequences of the year. Every shot is as fluid as the next. I have seen action movies where the editor ends up cutting a new shot every microsecond and it sometimes looks shoddy. “Splitsville” is not an action movie, but its signature action scene is well shot, well constructed, and to top it off, it made me laugh. There is an incredibly funny gag involving fish and a bathtub. And that is just scratching the surface of this hilarious one-on-one.

In the end, “Splitsville” is fun, unique, and comes with a phenomenal cast. I cannot name a single person involved with this film who does not put in 110 percent. “Splitsville” is not the funniest comedy of the year, but if you are looking for a good laugh, this film will be there to fulfill that need. The past few months have been a solid run for Neon so far, with the release of this film, “Together,” and one of the year’s highlights for me, “The Life of Chuck.” This distributor is on fire right now. I am going to give “Splitsville” a 7/10.

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

Thanks for reading this review! My next review is going to be for “The Long Walk!” Stay tuned! Also coming soon, look forward to my thoughts on “A Big Bold Beautiful Journey,” “Him,” “Eleanor the Great,” “The Lost Bus,” and “One Battle After Another.” 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 “Splitsville?” What did you think about it? Or, what is your favorite comedy of the year so far? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

Together (2025): Real-Life Couple Dave Franco and Alison Brie Display Unreal Chemistry in Michael Shanks’ Creepy Directorial Debut

Posted on by Jack Drees

© NEON

“Together” is directed by Michael Shanks and this is his first feature film. This movie stars Dave Franco (The Disaster Artist, Neighbors), Alison Brie (The Disaster Artist, Freelance), and Damon Herriman (Flesh and Bone, Justified). The film is about a couple who move out of the city and into the country, where new lives and an unnatural force waits for them.

I often talk about my love for the distribution company A24 and its long list of excellent, one of a kind titles. Although if A24 had a close cousin, it would be Neon. I have not caught all of Neon’s films, but most of the ones I have seen are excellent. “Colossal” is one of my favorite films of the 2010s. ”Anora” ended up amongst my top movies of 2024. Neon even made history as the North American distributor for “Parasite,” with the film becoming the first made outside the U.S. to win the Academy Award for Best Picture. While I was not expecting “Together” to be the next Best Picture frontrunner, I was intrigued by the film mostly due to its concept.

The film is, fittingly, titled “Together” because it mainly revolves around a couple who quite literally become attached to each other. Of course, the two love one another, but on top of that, their bodies literally combine at times. The idea is just gross enough to the point where I need to know more. This film has a little bit of what I was expecting through its scare factor, though I am not going to pretend that it made my skin crawl. What I did not see coming is how deep down the rabbit hole the film would take me through its dialogue. I do not want to give much detail away, but when the story gets to a point where the characters discuss Zeus, I was compelled to know how the rest of the movie would go. From a more straightforward perspective, a lot of the back and forth between Dave Franco and Alison Brie is pristine.

Courtesy of 1.21 – © 1.21

Part of why Dave Franco and Alison Brie work so well as Tim and Millie is the fact that the two are a real life couple. I sometimes get nervous when two people who are related in some capacity work on a film together, but Franco and Brie are an exception. This is not their first film together. They were also in “The Little Hours” as well as “The Disaster Artist,” But the difference between those projects and “Together” is that their relationship takes center stage and the supporting cast is incredibly limited. After all, this film is set in the middle of nowhere.

“Together” is a delightfully deranged commentary on how human beings tend to survive based on connection. We are smart, or perhaps more accurately, stupid enough to be able to work and live on our own to some extent. But this film shows humans are ultimately co-dependent. Much of the film is about a couple, and the two seem to work at their best when they are by each other’s side. We see Tim and Millie deal with some unusual obstacles, but we also get to know some of their more traditional setbacks such as an inability to drive or cook. The film is uniquely romantic. It is by no means sweet. But between the leads’ fantastic chemistry and their characters’ commitment to bettering each other even in the most dire of situations, it kind of made me believe that “soul mates” could be real. “Together” is not a movie for all audiences, but if you and your partner like horror and are in the mood for something dark, this is a good date flick.

That said, the film does have problems. Going back to what I said about the scares, the film was not as terrifying as I was expecting it to be. The film has some scares, but they felt tamer than what I thought a film of this caliber would deliver. Personally, if you were to ask me which film from this year I would recommend based on scares alone, I would point you to “Bring Her Back.”

Also, there is a scene set in a school classroom where a young girl draws a picture of two dogs attached to each other and presents it to Millie before she leaves. I get what that picture is referencing, but I thought it did not add much to the movie. Although as the film itself progresses, it does a good job when it comes to callbacks and plot devices.

Despite its flaws, I am more than impressed with the turnout of the final product. There are a multitude of creative concepts and scenes. The film is timed and paced perfectly. Never once did I have the urge to fall asleep. This is Michael Shanks’ first feature film. Shanks has some prior production experience with shorts, but I think he has enormous potential should he continue down the path of making features. You can tell that each filmmaker gives it their all with each project they take on, but Shanks’ passion for filmmaking is clear as crystal with how he handles this movie. The screenplay could be scarier, but I acknowledge my claim is completely subjective. When it comes to the structure, pace, lore, and characterization, this film sings. This is far from my favorite film of the year, but Shanks did for me this year what Takashi Yamazaki did for me back when “Godzilla Minus One” came out. If Shanks has a new movie coming out, I hope to be first in line to see it. I am eager to see how Shanks’ sophomore outing turns out should he continue making features.

Without spoilers, I also like how the film ends. It is a fitting conclusion that references an earlier point in the film. It took me a second to realize what was happening, but when my brain connected the dots, I thought it was a neat way to address what was previously established.

In the end, “Together” is a solid film to watch alone, with the love of your life, or even someone to whom you are physically attached. Again, “Together” is not the scariest film I have seen this year, but it is one that I would say has potential to make certain groups of people think they are watching something that will haunt their nightmares. If you need any reason to watch this movie, it is because of how well written and portrayed the main couple happens to be. Dave Franco and Alison Brie are perfectly cast and I believed every scene between them. “Together” wastes no time and had me intrigued from start to finish. I am going to give “Together” a 7/10.

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

Thanks for reading this review! My next review is going to be for “Oh, Hi!” Stay tuned! Also coming soon, I will be sharing my thoughts on “Weapons,” “Freakier Friday,” “Nobody 2,” and “Honey Don’t!.” 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 “Together?” What did you think about it? Or, is there a real life couple you would like to see star as an on-screen couple in a feature film? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

The Life of Chuck (2024): The Best Fictional Narrative of 2025 Thus Far

Posted on by Jack Drees

“The Life of Chuck” is directed by Mike Flanagan (Doctor Sleep, Ouija: Origin of Evil) and stars Tom Hiddleston (Loki, Kong: Skull Island), Chiwetel Ejiofor (The Lion King, Doctor Strange), Karen Gillan (Guardians of the Galaxy, Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle), Mia Sara (Ferris Bueller’s Day Off, Timecop), Carl Lumbly (M.A.N.T.I.S., Supergirl), Benjamin Pajak (Where It’s Beautiful When it Rhymes, Camp Haedus), Jacob Tremblay (Room, Wonder) and Mark Hamill (Star Wars, The Wild Robot). This film mostly follows its titular character as he navigates multiple chapters of his life.

“The Life of Chuck” is the third film directed by Mike Flanagan based on a Stephen King work. I have not seen his other films, “Doctor Sleep” and “Gerald’s Game,” so I cannot compare this film to those. In fact, as marveled as I was by this film’s awe-inspiring trailer, I ultimately bought a ticket after hearing the many positive reviews this film received from critics and moviegoers alike. Plus I needed a better use of my time than whatever the heck “The Phoenician Scheme” was.

For those keeping track, “Secret Mall Apartment” is my favorite movie of the year so far. For those who have not heard of the film, it is a documentary. However, if I were to name a favorite fictional movie of the year so far, “The Life of Chuck” might be it. This movie has everything in it. Joy. Sadness. Spooks. Nostalgia. Slices of life. You name it. “The Life of Chuck” broke my heart and put it back together. I have not read the short story this film is based on, but I was riveted by what Mike Flanagan and crew have done with their work.

This is a film that in one moment, will shatter you to pieces, and in another, make you want to chase your dreams. Part of this has to do with the film’s structure. Like many stories, the film starts at a bit of a low point. But if you watch a lot of, say, stories structured through the hero’s journey model, you may see people who have nowhere to go but up. The protagonist grows with time. They become someone bigger. This film is the opposite. “The Life of Chuck” essentially starts with the “end times” and goes backwards. The execution of this idea is a stroke of genius. It is almost the film’s way of suggesting that life sucks as you get older. The film starts on a downer note and with each act, each scene, each concept, it delves into something more dream-like. The film still has downer moments in later scenes, but the film starts with what some may call the lowest low and while not everything that happens prior is perfect, it definitely brings more joy than what the film presents at the beginning.

“The Life of Chuck” made me wonder what it could be like to live life backwards. Maybe not in a sense where I, for example, read or write this review in reverse, but I mean this in the sense that we take chunks of our life from day to day and live those out starting later in life. Maybe you start off retired, then have kids, get married, graduate from college, and so on going back to getting that one gift you always wanted as a child. I will be frank, I feel my life has only gotten better as I aged, but I do not know how many people can say the same. People, understandably, as they age, want to be young again. This movie presents a series of moments that make life worth living, but arguably the ones that hit me the hardest are those we see towards the film’s conclusion, when we see our character at their youngest. It reminded me of a certain time in my life and what it felt like to be in that position.

This film made me think and ask tons of questions. I was not expecting to go full “Barbie” and think about dying. I will not go into detail as to why that is. But if you have seen the movie, you will understand what I am getting at here. Judging by what I said, some would argue that “The Life of Chuck” is not the easiest watch. That sentiment has some validity to it, but at the same time, I would still recommend the movie to a lot of people because the heavier material is perfectly balanced with doses of optimism.

That said, the film is not perfect. As much as I praise this film for starting things the way it did, the first act could arguably be trimmed a bit and have little to no effect on the plot. Do not get me wrong, I like the first act. In fact, watching the first act evoked a similar vibe to one of my favorite movies, “Interstellar.” Much like that film, the first act is set on a nearly dead planet earth. The internet is down, TV is down, cars are blocking the streets… The score from John Grush and Taylor Stewart also effectively sets the mood for each scene. The first act does a good job at world building, but it builds something that we barely see and hardly matters to a certain degree. There are a few things that matter in the first act that stand out, but there is plenty of fluff that I thought could be cut. The first act is never bad. I enjoyed what was in front of me. It was just a little long.

One thing that surprisingly worked for me in this film was the narration. When I first heard the narrator’s voice, I was a little hesitant as to how it would benefit the story, but I quickly warmed up to him by act two. He had some good material to work with. By the way, the film is narrated by Nick Offerman, which despite my lack of experience of watching “Parks and Recreation,” even I know he has an objectively soothing voice.

Kind of like “Friendship,” I would be curious to know how “The Life of Chuck” ages for me. I saw this film as a 25 year old and it has gotten me to think about the choices I made while growing up. It also made me reflect on tales and life lessons I learned during that time and it has me wondering how I will evolve. The film seems to tap into the idea of maintaining one’s child-like spirit as they age. As we grow up, the whole world is ahead of us. And while there are many beauties to life that lie ahead, there is a possibility that if we are not careful or go down a certain path, we lose our sense of wonder, our passion for life. There are certain things in life that if we found out about it years in advance, would shake us to the core. Some things are sometimes best kept as a secret. But it is no secret that “The Life of Chuck” left me gobsmacked.

In the end, “The Life of Chuck” is cinema. This is a movie I would honestly recommend to almost anyone. It is not always the happiest film. But it utilizes every emotion in the book to perfection. You will laugh. You will cry. And despite what I just said earlier, I guarantee you will smile too. This is a story that starts off great and maintains my interest throughout. It is one of the best films of 2025. I am going to give “The Life of Chuck” a 9/10.

“The Life of Chuck” is now playing in theaters. Tickets are available now.

Thanks for reading this review! My next review is going to be for the Celine Song’s newest film, “Materialists.” Stay tuned! Also coming soon, I will share my thoughts on “Elio,” “Jurassic World: Rebirth,” and “M3GAN 2.0.” 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 Life of Chuck?” What did you think about it? Or, did you read the short story that inspired this film? Let me know your thoughts on it down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

Anora (2024): A Truly Rad Concept That Fully Embraces Its Chaotic Nature

Posted on by Jack Drees

“Anora” is written and directed by Sean Baker (Red Rocket, The Florida Project) and stars Mikey Madison (Better Things, Once Upon a Time in Hollywood), Mark Eydelshteyn (The Land of Sasha, Pravednik), Yura Borisov (AK-47, Guest from the Future), Karren Karagulian (Red Rocket, The Florida Project), Vache Tovmasyan (Lost & Found in Armenia, Golden School), and Aleksei Serebryakov (Nobody, McMafia). This film follows the relationship between an exotic dancer and the son of an oligarch. Once the son’s parents find out the two have married, they do what they can to declare it invalid.

We are reaching the end of the year, which as far I am concerned, means it is crunch time. There are so many movies coming out that I would like to see, or in cases like “Wicked,” kind of have to see to stay in the conversation. I have so many movies on my radar to the point where I do not know if I have the ability to watch all of them. I have several reviews on the to-do list, including this one. Of the films that are on the lineup, “Anora” is an utmost priority. The biggest reason is because the film won the Palme d’Or at the Cannes Film Festival. Of the last five films that won the Palme d’Or, three were Best Picture nominees at the Oscars, and Bong Joon Ho’s “Parasite” ended up winning the Academy’s coveted title for the year it was nominated. Additionally, I also glimpsed at one of the trailers for the movie and it was one of my favorite trailers I have seen this year. It promised a compelling story with an individualistic flair about two characters who I ultimately looked forward to seeing on screen.

But I was not prepared for what kind of movie this was going to be. I had a suspicion that “Anora” was going to be good. I also had a suspicion that “Anora” was going to be unique. I had a suspicion that “Anora” was going to be an experiential event. But even as the movie unfolded, I was marveled by whatever the heck it was I was seeing. This movie has a pace to it that really should not work, but for whatever reason it does. There is a key scene in the second act that drags itself out so heavily and takes its time, but never once does a single moment of it feel wasted. Why? Because it contains characters that I care about, and even if some of them are not exactly role models, I am nevertheless in a trance as I find out what their next move is going to be.

The stars of this movie are Mikey Madison and Mark Eydelshteyn and whereas you might look at a lot of other movies and find couples to be matches made in Heaven, I’d argue these two are a match made in Hell. I do not mean that as a negative. If anything, these two have some of the best chemistry in an on-screen couple I have come across in recent memory. But as people, these two are not perfect, arguably on purpose. You have Ani (Madison), who works as a stripper in a club, and Vanya (Eydelshteyn), who stays at home playing video games all day. Granted, he and his family can afford it, so it could be worse. But he is a bit of a spoiled brat. But both actors play these imperfect people to a tee and watching them together is exciting. Every moment they are on screen together, I bought into their connection. Sometimes certain absurdities come up between them, but the movie maintains an atmosphere that makes you buy into said absurdities. Individually, I honestly think Mikey Madison is going to be up for several high caliber awards this season. There are still plenty of movies on the way, but if the Academy Awards were tomorrow, Madison might be my pick to win Best Actress.

Screenplay-wise, this film is one of the finest of the year. It contains great dialogue, even from the most minor of characters. I bought into every single character as they were presented on screen. This is a screenplay that at times is about the little things. You have the main dialogue, of course. But when that is not being brought to life, we see little quirks or trademarks come up for certain characters and I fell in love with some of them as they occurred. The script for this film has the style of a Coen Brothers movie like “The Big Lebowski” if it were directed by Quentin Tarantino. Honestly, there is a scene that in terms of pace and line delivery, I would have assumed was straight out of “Pulp Fiction.”

“Anora” is a near perfect film, but if I had to name any problems with it, that would be easy. This movie’s first two acts fire on all cylinders. I was engaged the entire time, and I was immersed into the story and its characters. But the third act, while still good, loses some steam for me. It is kind of like “Speed.” The film is fantastic and some of Keanu Reeves and Sandra Bullock’s best work, but the movie peaks at a certain point in act two. The rest of the movie is good, but not as hypnotic as it previously was. But never once did I feel bored or disengaged to the point where I wanted to leave.

I beg of you, watch “Anora” in a theater. Specifically, if you can, watch it in a crowded auditorium. If you are in New York or Los Angeles, part of me assumes this could be an easy task to accomplish depending on the time, but if you live somewhere else, take as many friends as you can. Ask friends of friends if they want to come. I am of the belief that every movie is better in the theater, and “Anora” is a testament to that. This is one of my favorite theatrical experiences I have had this year, partially because “Anora” just so happens to be one of the funniest movies I have watched this year. I am so happy to have been able to check it out in a nearly sold out screening. I was in an aisle seat and I was doing my best not to fall into said aisle sometimes.

In the end, “Anora” is fantastic! I know this is a rather vague review. But I am leaving it vague on purpose. Because other than seeing one trailer, I went into “Anora” blind. And I think that is the best way to experience this film. Because yes, I drew comparisons to films like “The Big Lebowski” and “Pulp Fiction,” but this is a unique movie with some of the most engaging storytelling I have come across in a long time. It is a great story that highlights class in addition to people doing what they can to get by. The movie almost drags towards the end. The third act is easily the weakest in my opinion. Maybe that’ll change with a rewatch. Who knows? But if you are looking for something original this awards season, “Anora” is worth checking out. It is also responsible for one of my favorite scenes of the year that in a lot of other movies would probably be half as long. But for whatever reason, it goes on for such a long time and I have no complaints about it. I am going to give “Anora” a 9/10.

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

Thanks for reading this review! My final Election Days review is coming up, and it is for “Elvis & Nixon.” The film is a lot of fun and I cannot wait to talk about it. As for new releases, stay tuned for my reviews for “Here,” “Gladiator II,” “Red One,” “A Real Pain,” “Y2K,” “Juror #2,” and “Wicked.” 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 “Anora?” What did you think about it? Or, what is a film that you really enjoyed but would also claim to be at its worst in the third act? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

Ferrari (2023): Adam Driver Shines in a Flick That Cannot Quite Get Into Gear

Posted on by Jack Drees

“Ferrari” is directed by Michael Mann (The Last of the Mohicans, Heat) and stars Adam Driver (Star Wars: The Force Awakens, Marriage Story), Penélope Cruz (Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides, Nine), Shailene Woodley (Divergent, Dumb Money), Sarah Gadon (Enemy, Dracula Untold), Gabriel Leone (Dom, Hidden Truths), Jack O’Connell (Skins, Godless), and Patrick Dempsey (Enchanted, Grey’s Anatomy). This film is a biopic about Enzo Ferrari’s mission to keep his auto company from failing as he puts it in a treacherous territory. A thousand mile race in Italy.

Sport movies have not always been my forte. Then again, sports in general have not always been my forte. But if you guys have been following me for a bit then you’d know that one of my favorite sport films I reviewed on this blog, not to mention one of my favorite sport films that come to mind, is James Mangold’s “Ford v Ferrari.” That film is an adrenaline-fueled race to the finish if there ever was one. And that is cemented by great performances, stunning soundwork, and a narrative that had me on the edge of my seat. It was easily one of the best films of that year and it ended up scoring a couple Jack Awards as well.

But with another awards season on the rise, it is time to recognize one of its fiercest contenders, “Ferrari.” I had little interest in “Ferrari” until I saw the trailer. This looked like a hard-hitting story that would fire on all cylinders and deliver on drama and tension. Adam Driver looked like he was going to dominate the lead role and I was there. That said, I did not know when I would end up seeing it because it comes out in December and there are so many things to which in the span of that time. Plus I have to get my best and worst movies of the year lists out the following month, I am doing work on the next Jack Awards, and it is heavily triggering my average at best multitasking skills. But I had the privilege of checking out a free early screening in Dolby in Boston recently, so I got to see the film long before it hits theaters.

Now, there is a certain thrill that comes with getting to see a movie this early. And the fact that the studio is letting people watch it this long before the release date says a lot about their faith in the project. Having seen “Ferrari,” I am sure it will hit a lot of people the right way. But it doesn’t mean that was the case for yours truly.

“Ferrari” is by no means an awful movie, but if we were to make a comparison, I would easily recommend “Ford v Ferrari” over this new Michael Mann effort. That said, I do not think Michael Mann would be completely insulted with this sentiment. After all, in addition to his efforts here, he is an executive producer on “Ford v Ferrari.” He gets to brag about having both movies on his resume.

My biggest problem with “Ferrari” is the characters. I did not outright hate anyone on this film’s roster, but much of the film involves a series of racers participating in the 1957 Mille Miglia. Ultimately, we end up spending a good amount of time with them, so it disappoints me to say that I failed to find myself attached to any one of them. I know this movie is not called “The Drivers of the Mille Miglia” but when the movie features them as prominently as it does, I hope to find myself endlessly attached to at least one driver. Much of the film is about Enzo Ferrari, and some of it lends itself to fascinating storytelling, whereas other moments tend to fall by the wayside.

That said, even with the character flaws in mind, I will not deny that the film puts the pedal to the metal and brings forth some of the best acting I have seen in a movie this year. Of course the film has recognizable stars like Shailene Woodley, Penelope Cruz, and Patrick Dempsey, all of whom are really good. But the film, to my lack of surprise, is as good as it is because Adam Driver gives it his all in the lead role. I could honestly see him getting an Oscar nomination this year for his efforts. Of Driver’s resume, this performance is one of his more chameleon-esque efforts. And a lot of it not only has to do with his mannerisms, his voice, his presence, part of it has to do with the attention to detail given to him on his costuming and makeup. Much like some of my other favorite actors, Driver has always oozed charisma on screen, even when he is in an inferior “Star Wars” movie. But of Driver’s roles, this is one of the first I remember seeing where he does not completely look like himself. I’ve seen him in a number of films. “Lincoln,” “The Man Who Killed Don Quixote,” “Marriage Story,” “The Last Duel.” He has often maintained a certain look to him that I tend to notice from one role to the next. Even in his better performances, I am reminded of how much I enjoy Driver’s presence once I see his recognizable face. In this film, I don’t necessarily see Driver. I see someone else.

When it comes to the film, Adam Driver is quite literally the driving force in more ways than one. He is really good in the lead role and he is surrounded by competent performances all around. But the story itself failed to garner any ongoing emotion and interest from me. There was a center of the movie per se, but not so much a core. Despite those words being similar, I think there is a difference here. The movie centers around Enzo Ferrari, but it does not give me a core reason to admire anyone on screen. Or at least not one that remained on my mind long after leaving my screening.

Much like “Ford v Ferrari,” the sound in “Ferrari” is quite good. Not as good if you ask me, but it appears to take a different approach. The way I interpreted the sound between its editing and mixing in “Ford v Ferrari” is something equivalent to a fantasy. The movie is based on true events, but when I heard that sound, it almost came off like a hyperactive reality. The sound, not to mention atmosphere, of “Ferrari” feels comparatively grounded. Of course the cars sound audible as anything, but they lack a certain oomph to them that “Ford v Ferrari” gave in its final product. That is not to say they sound bad, it is just different.

In the end, “Ferrari” is two different movies wrapped into one. But neither of them exactly surpass the distinction of average. If anything, “Ferrari” is a painfully average, not to mention disappointing time. Because while I did not do a deep dive into the film’s marketing campaign before going to see it, I can you tell you the trailers are on another level. The trailers are honestly much better than the movie. It’s kind of sad, really. Much “Killers of the Flower Moon,” I will not doubt “Ferrari” will get some attention this awards season. But much like “Killers of the Flower Moon,” “Ferrari” might not be my cup of tea. There are plenty of good things in it, but I honestly find the movie quite forgettable and ultimately lacking in any reason for me to watch it a second time. Maybe I could give it a second chance eventually because some positives stand out, but for now, I am going to give “Ferrari” a high 5/10.

“Ferrari” arrives in theaters everywhere December 25th. Tickets are available now.

Thanks for reading this review! I have plenty more reviews coming in the near future as the year comes to an end! I will be sharing my thoughts on “The Boy and the Heron,” “Dream Scenario,” “Maestro,” “Wonka,” “Migration,” and “Aquaman and the Lost Kingdom.” 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 “Ferrari?” What did you think about it? Or, what is your favorite movie with Adam Driver in it? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

It Lives Inside (2023): A Thumbs-Up Worthy Feature-Length Debut from Bishal Dutta

Posted on by Jack Drees

“It Lives Inside” is directed by Bishal Dutta (Triads, City Nights) and this is his feature-length directorial debut. Dutta has prior experience directing television shows as well as shorts. The film stars Megan Suri (Atypical, Never Have I Ever), Neeru Bawja (Channo Kamli Yaar Di, Jatt & Juliet), Mohana Krishnan (Spinner, I Am Frankie), Vik Sahay (Sean Saves the World, Chuck), Gage Marsh (You Me Her, Big Sky), Beatrice Kitsos), and Betty Gabriel (Counterpart, Get Out). This story centers around an American-Indian teenager who has a falling out with a friend and unleashes an entity who feeds on her loneliness.

Before we go any further, I just want to note that if for any reason this review is of lesser quality than usual, I blame the audience at my movie theater. I ended up watching “It Lives Inside” at the one place I could see it less than an hour from home, because the film tended not to do gangbusters at the box office. And let’s just say the entire back row was filled with teenagers who do not know the first thing about how to behave in a theatrical environment. That said, I ended up going to see “It Lives Inside” after the title appeared a few times on my social media feeds. People in my circles, even if I did not know them personally, seemed to be talking about it quite a bit. So, I wanted to see what the hoopla was about. I was not familiar with the marketing, so I was going in relatively blind.

As for my first impression with the film, it has a wonderful aesthetic to it all. The film looks like a product manufactured in a particular circle of Hell at times. Given how the film falls into the horror genre, that is nice to see. The lighting is often darkened with often fitting color stylization. It kind of reminded me of “The Black Phone” aesthetically at times. Granted, a notable part of the film is set around a school.

I walked out having a decent time with “It Lives Inside,” so I was very surprised to see how audiences viewed the film, at least on Rotten Tomatoes. The aggregator site currently lists “It Lives Inside” at a 48% audience score. It’s not the lowest of the low, but I was a little shocked to find out most audiences who saw it ended up giving it a thumbs down. At the same time though, I can kind of get why. There is a pace to this film that I thought was perfect for what was there, but it is also one that I think some mainstream audience members would not prefer. There are definitely more memorable creatures in the history of cinema. This is also not the most revolutionary plot if you break a few things down. But even with that in mind, I do think the concept itself is executed very well here.

One common complaint I heard from those who gave the movie poor scores is that the film itself is not that scary. The more I think about it, they may be onto something. I don’t think the film is terrifying enough to make your heart beat out of your chest. That said, there are plenty of tense, eerie moments that had me on the edge of my seat at times. “It Lives Inside” may not be the most bone-chilling film out there, but it is one that had my attention the whole time. It is a film that works because of how it builds up everything in its premise. It is a matter of how the obstacles tend to get in the protagonist’s way. Maybe the film does not maximize the effect of its scares, but there is a constant feeling of unease somewhere in the background the entire time. Part of the reason why this film works so well is the relationships between the characters, and when it comes to how they deal with the supernatural horror aspect, it makes for an intriguing watch.

Megan Suri leads the film as Sam, and she is very much the heart and soul of this production. I may not share her background, but despite my differences from her in that light, I found her to be a relatable individual. There is a saying in screenwriting that you should write what you know, and that saying is very much applied to this film and the character of Sam. This is noticeable because the film’s writer and director, Bishal Dutta, has a background much like this character. He was born in India and eventually moved to North America. Dutta’s passion for the material at hand shows in every frame. I cannot see anyone else telling a story like this, unless it is someone of a very similar background.

Sticking with Sam, I found her connections to be genuine and they kept me attached to the film. Her relationship with her mom is a driving force behind some of the film’s events and even though there may be a rivalry between them, I at the very least somewhat understood both sides of the rivalry. I will often criticize certain characters in movies for making stupid decisions, almost in the same way a sports fanatic will bash their team when they make a game-losing move. Sometimes those choices can be unrealistic and far-fetched, therefore affecting my final score. That said, Sam is in her teens, and I think the film does a good job at reflecting how someone in those years would make questionable choices. In a way it made her character human and a fine reflection of that age group. Going back to her rivalry with her mom, one reason why these two do not always get along has to do with a particular choice Sam makes where she goes to hang out with a friend, therefore missing an event that her mom would consider important.

“It Lives Inside” is a film that never goes all the way in terms of delivering a scary good time. There are times where it comes close, but not to a whole percentage. That said, it is a film that as soon it begins, it understands what it is going for. Not once does it lose track of what it is trying to be, what it is trying to encapsulate, and what it is trying to accomplish. By the time we got to the climax, I was invested, and I remained invested afterwards. When it comes to recent horror, the film is not as twisted as “Talk to Me” and it is not as chill-inducing as “Smile.” But much like those films, “It Lives Inside” handles its concept with excellence, and it had me paying attention all the way through.

In the end, “It Lives Inside” is a film that I honestly think could have performed a little better than it did. I have a feeling that if the strikes were not happening right now, this film, like many others that came out recently, would have done better. Granted the audience reactions are not helping, but nevertheless. The job of a horror film is to, well, horrify. While “It Lives Inside” is not nightmare fuel, I think it is a nice addition to the genre. I think when it comes to what the film handles best, it is its characters and relationships. Those two things stand out a lot more than the scares the film has to offer. Then again, if you read the beginning of my review, the scariest thing about this movie to me is not even the movie itself, it is that we as a society are losing movie theater etiquette. But much like a nightmare, I endured through it and I got a good movie out of it. Well done to everyone involved. I am going to give “It Lives Inside” a 7/10.

“It Lives Inside” is now available to stream on various VOD services.

Thanks for reading this review! I have plenty of new reviews coming soon! My next one is for “Dicks: The Musical!” Following that, I will have reviews for “Killers of the Flower Moon,” “Freelance,” and “The Persian Version!” I will also soon be seeing the brand new film “Priscilla,” so I promise you that plenty of new material is on its way. If you want to see all this new material 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 “It Lives Inside?” What did you think about it? Or, what is your favorite horror film you have seen this year? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

How to Blow Up a Pipeline (2022): A Young, Admirable Ensemble Carries This Environment-Centric Feature

Posted on by Jack Drees

“How to Blow Up a Pipeline” is directed by Daniel Goldhaber and stars Ariela Barer (Runaways, Atypical), Kristine Froseth (Looking for Alaska, The Society), Lukas Gage (The White Lotus, Euphoria), Forrest Goodluck (The Republic of Sarah, The Revenant), Sasha Lane (Utopia, Loki), Jayme Lawson (Farewell Amor, The Batman), Marcus Scribner (Black-ish, She-Ra and the Princesses of Power), Jake Weary (Animal Kingdom, Fred: The Movie), and Irene Bedard (Pocahontas, The Mist). This film centers around several environmental activists as they band together to, as the title suggests, blow up a pipeline.

Some of you reading this review may be hearing about this movie for the first time today. I ended up watching this movie for a few reasons. First, the trailer was really good. It had a certain flair to it that individualized the project. Second, to some degree, I care about the environment. I cannot pretend I am perfect, but I try to do my part when it comes to preserving it. Third, the release period seemed limited. It was playing at select theaters with minimal times available. In fact I did a search for showtimes in my area, and found out “How to Blow Up a Pipeline” currently is not playing anywhere near me. It is available to watch at home, but still. I am glad I saw this movie when I did. In a time where I recognize climate change, the world being on fire, and needing to take care of my surroundings more than ever, I thought this movie could be, at least, an important watch. Now that I have seen it, would I recommend it?

After some thought, I would say that question requires an extended debate.

It has been a couple weeks since I watched “How to Blow Up a Pipeline.” I wish I could have gotten this review out earlier but between other movie reviews being in the… You know, pipeline… And other things in life getting in the way, I have waited until now to talk about it. That said, I do not remember everything I saw in this movie. This is a simple movie. This is also on the shorter side. But if I were asked to give any of the characters’ names or their backstories, I would need to do a Google search. This also speaks to something that stood out to me in the movie as I watched it. The best thing about “How to Blow Up a Pipeline” is the chemistry between everyone in the ensemble. While I do not think the individual characters are that memorable, they come off as a well-oiled machine (sorry) when they work together.

To all of the environmentalists out there, I would like to make it clear that I did not necessarily enjoy “How to Blow Up a Pipeline” because of what it says about how we treat our planet. Instead, if I were to give a surface level summary of my experience, I enjoyed the movie because of the characters and how this film’s story effectively highlights the characters’ issues. The shared motivation of the main characters made me ask some perhaps much needed questions. I will get to those later. Yes, the movie heavily involves an oil pipeline, which as a singular concept, is a controversial topic regarding the future of this planet. But as the movie goes on, we see how it affects ordinary people. Granted, this is a work of fiction. But as I watched the movie, it felt raw. I not only felt connected with the main ensemble that were trying to blow up the pipeline, but the supporting characters that have to deal with the pipeline’s effects.

If I did not make myself clear already, I am not a climate change denier. I try to recycle as much as possible. I want good public transportation and I try to utilize it as much as I can. I own a car, but when I bought it, I avoided leaning towards an SUV or truck because of their effects on the environment. Naturally, if this movie was designed to change my mind on the oil industry or my views on environmental preservation, it will not. If anything, one can argue that I might be predisposed to this movie because of my views. But I think this is an important film, even if it is not my favorite I have seen recently. I think as we transition ourselves and evolve, this is something I will think about on one occasion or another. I am glad this movie this movie was made, not just because I was entertained with the journey the characters go through, but why said journey was taking place.

I can see certain people watching this movie and not siding with these characters. That said, movies like this go to show that everyone believes they are the hero of their own story. I have seen movies where I think the protagonist is a buffoon, I do not know how I could ever side with them. Specifically, Paul Thomas Anderson’s “Licorice Pizza.” But part of that has to do with my values and when this character is presented to be as moronic as he is, not once did I get a sense that this moron was charismatic or the least bit justified for his behavior. “How to Blow Up a Pipeline” is a hard sell based on its low budget and not exactly star-studded cast, although they have been in some popular television programs. Another season it is a hard sell is because it picks a side, not to mention a side that is likely to trigger some people. It did not trigger me, but I am not everyone else.

The movie begs to justify destroying things for the sake of sending a message. That is a tough question that I honestly do not know how to answer. Because history has shown that destruction of property or similar acts can be effective in sending a message and bringing change. Look at the Boston Tea Party. But is it worth the trouble? Is it worth the consequences? Not only do we see the oil pipeline destruction motivation play out, but this same message through destruction is being delivered from the very first scene. The first minute of the movie features one of the main characters slashing the tire of a gas guzzler car, while also posting a flyer as to why they did it. That is something that I also have mixed feelings on. It is definitely less harmful in more ways than one, but I do not know if the person on the receiving end is either going to change their mind or react fondly. Sure, destroying things can bring attention. But how far do you go to support a point? It is a question worth asking, but it is hard to say if it is worth answering.

“How to Blow Up a Pipeline” is something I probably would not have watched unless I was doing Scene Before. That said, I do not have any regrets. As a character story, this is captivating. As a thriller, it is intriguing. As an overall movie, it was worth the watch. Is this movie going to open anyone’s minds? It is a possibility. Because even though it is a work of fiction, it tends to base itself within the confines of an issue that feels real. And it is an issue that is likely to only become heavier depending on where we go as a society. The film is not playing in many theaters right now, including the ones near me. And while I cannot give “How to Blow Up a Pipeline” a glowing recommendation, I can say it is superior to many of the movies I have reviewed in recent months, especially the more popular titles everyone is giving their money to.

In the end, “How to Blow Up a Pipeline” was thought-provoking. It was a bit of a surprise because part of me did not know what to expect going in. This is not a project I would watch at home on a Friday night. But it is also a project that I am glad I saw this one time on a Friday night where I had nothing else going on. If you are looking to be entertained, you might get that out of this movie. But I left the film feeling more invested in questioning the deeper meaning behind the characters’ actions more than anything else. Despite the film not being my favorite of the year, I hope it is one that is brought up in conversations throughout the years to come. I am going to give “How to Blow Up a Pipeline” a 7/10.

“How to Blow Up a Pipeline” is now playing in select theatres and is available to buy or rent on digital services.

Thanks for reading this review! Pretty soon I am going to have reviews for “Sisu” and “Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3.” Stay tuned! Also, for those of you who have followed me for some time, I want to address the status of my “Super Mario Bros.” 1993 review. I am working on it. Unfortunately, due to other movies coming out and time constraints, I have no official date as to when the review will be released. Maybe when the 2023 adaptation releases physically. I do not know. If I have an update, I will give one. But for now, that review is being put on hold. Hope you understand. If you want to see this 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 “How to Blow Up a Pipeline?” What did you think about it? Or, what is a movie with an ecocentric message that you enjoyed? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!