Paramount

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

Posted on by Jack Drees

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Smurfs (2025): One of the Smurfing Worst Animated Movies Ever Made

Posted on by Jack Drees

“Smurfs” is directed by Chris Miller (Madagascar, Shrek the Third) and stars Rihanna (Home, Ocean’s 8), James Corden (The Emoji Movie, Cats), Nick Offerman (Parks and Recreation, The Founder), JP Karliak (X-Men ’97, New Looney Tunes), Daniel Levy (Schitt’s Creek, Happiest Season), Amy Sedaris (The Mandalorian, Clerks III), Natasha Lyonne (American Pie, Poker Face), Sandra Oh (Killing Eve, Grey’s Anatomy), Jimmy Kimmel (Jimmy Kimmel Live!, Win Ben Stein’s Money), Octavia Spencer (Hidden Figures, Gifted), Nick Kroll (Big Mouth, Sausage Party), Hannah Waddingham (The Garfield Movie, Ted Lasso), Alex Winter (Bill & Ted’s Excellent Adventure, Grand Piano), Maya Erskine (PEN15, Blue Eye Samurai), Kurt Russell (The Thing, Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2), and John Goodman (Revenge of the Nerds, The Big Lebowski). This film centers around its titular blue creatures who go on a mission to save Papa Smurf from evil wizards Razamel and Gargamel.

I hate using the term “kids movie,” mainly because it sounds like an insult towards certain people who watch those kinds of flicks. It is kind of like the term “chick flick,” as if a guy cannot watch films like “Easy A” and have a good time. That film is a blast, and I, a straight white male, fully endorse it. That said, having now seen “Smurfs,” I do not think it is a movie for anybody. Not even children.

This is not to suggest the film is inappropriate for kids. But if you were to ask me to recommend a movie for children, “Smurfs” would be the one I would recommend as a punishment. Forget the time out corner! Forget the extra chores! Forget the soap! Putting on “Smurfs” is the ultimate tool for any disciplinarian!

I saw “Smurfs” in a nearly full theater containing tons of families. Almost nobody uttered a sound during the film. Not the parents, not the children, no one. I actually chuckled once, but being the dark soul that I am, my chuckle was towards the fact that a particular character opted to sacrifice themself. One could argue that part of why I was laughing at this joke was that I wanted the characters to die so the movie could end.

It reminded me of “Borderlands” when Claptrap repeatedly gets shot. Spoiler alert, he ends up surviving! But at the time, that scene gave me a dose of optimism, because it hinted there was a chance that the film’s most annoying character could be left out of the picture.

In the case of “Smurfs,” my singular chuckle was not directed at the film’s most annoying character, but my point stands.

“Smurfs” is chock-full of well-known talent. You have Nick Offerman, John Goodman, Natasha Lyonne, Sandra Oh, even Kurt Russell! These are skilled actors, but there is not much for them to do in this film other than read some of the most predictable, unfunny lines in Hollywood movie history. There are a few lines in this film where I was trying to predict what line would succeed it, what joke would flourish as a result. It goes for the obvious joke time and time and time and time again. It is so annoying and makes for something absolutely uninspired. With these recently mentioned big name actors, you might wonder who has top billing. It is none of these people! Shocking, I know. Instead, that honor goes to Rihanna.

Courtesy of Paramount Pictures – © Paramount Pictures

I am not surprised that Rihanna has top billing. She has an impact on popular culture. That said, her music is not for me. I cannot name a single song of hers that I genuinely love. But this movie is Rihanna’s not just in the sense that she plays one of the core characters, but it is also hers through the music. Several of Rihanna’s hits make it into the soundtrack. If you are a fan of Rihanna, you will probably have more fun listening to these songs by themselves. That said, Rihanna does have an original song featured in the film, particularly during the credits, but at times, it is almost headache-inducing. By the end of this film, I truly wanted Rihanna, to “please, stop the flipping music.”

Paramount Animation/Paramount Animation – © Smurfs™ & © PEYO – 2025 Lic. Lafig B./IMPS © 2025 Par. Pics.

When it comes to finding a main character, it seems to clearly identify James Corden’s No Name Smurf (left) as the protagonist, but again, Rihanna’s Smurfette has such a notable presence to the point where she almost steals the spotlight. You might as well call this movie an 89 minute Rihanna music video featuring the Smurfs. I had trouble figuring out what this movie was trying to be. Is it a musical? Is it a comedy? Is it an adventure? Is it the latest attempt at the multiverse craze? The people behind the movie do not seem to know who exactly they are making it for. “Smurfs” is a family-friendly property, so the crew definitely had children in mind. Although one difference between “Smurfs” and another film from this year I frankly disliked, “A Minecraft Movie,” is that the kids at my screening seemed to be into it, whereas “Smurfs” was a misfire for all audiences, including yours truly.

If I had to pick a movie that “Smurfs” reminds me of, my immediate answer is “The Emoji Movie.” Will kids like this movie? Theoretically. Will adults like this movie? Probably not. Is it colorful and polished? Yes. Does have an everyday “nobody” protagonist? You betcha! Does it have generic sounding songs that have had their time on top 40 radio that get stuck in your head once you leave the theater? Absolutely! If you ever read my expletive-riddled review for “The Emoji Movie,” you may remember me comparing that pile of excrement to films like “The LEGO Movie,” “Wreck-it Ralph,” and “Inside Out,” suggesting that “The Emoji Movie” is a remix of those flicks, but significantly worse. “Smurfs” is basically a reskin of “The Emoji Movie.” Sadly, “The Emoji Movie” lingered so much in my mind that I could not think of any good films to compare “Smurfs” to while I was watching it. At one point, “The LEGO Movie” came to mind because No Name Smurf kind of reminded me of Emmet, whose standout quality is being incredibly pedestrian and everyday, but this film, arguably on purpose, felt like a spiritual sequel to “The Emoji Movie.”

Heck, James Corden is in both films! James Corden seems to be at the top of the list called “Actors to hire if you Have no faith in your project.” Between this film, “The Emoji Movie,” “Cats,” “Gulliver’s Travels,” “Superintelligence,” and “Cinderella,” Corden has built quite the resume of films that made me question my position as a movie person.

Did I mention that both movies reference arguably the most famous line from “Casablanca?” Because they do! And I would argue that “Smurfs” somehow trumps “The Emoji Movie” in terms of how poorly executed the delivery of that line was.

Yes, this movie has tons of stars in it. But they are all given a script that feels more akin to something that would go straight to Paramount+. I guarantee, if Rihanna, and perhaps some of these other actors were not in this film, this would be a streaming exclusive.

That said, there is one segment that I admire in this movie. Without spoilers, it involves a multiversal trip. I thought it was kind of creative. Unfortunately, it only lasts for a minute or two, and then the movie goes back to its regularly scheduled so-called programming. I could see this segment being something that one of the film’s animators would be proud to have on their demo reel. It is the greatest spark of creativity in what is ultimately a dumpster fire that lacks any and all imagination. The film is not consistent with its style. One moment it is fully animated. In another it is live-action. And there’s tons of weird blending between the two styles that sometimes make no sense whatsoever.

The film also reminded me of the equally unimaginative 2011 film “The Smurfs.” Not just because the film features the same characters, but the story beats are kind of similar because all the Smurfs end up leaving Smurf Village and end up in the real world. But perhaps more importantly, both films are not funny and absolutely boring! For an 89 minute movie to be boring is a true feat. It is one thing if the movie is two and a half-hours, but this movie flies at a TikTok pace and still manages to make me, and perhaps the children around me, want to fall asleep. The Smurfs in this movie may be blue, but by the time it was over, it had me turning red.

In the end, “Smurfs” is smurfing bad! It sounds like the obvious comment to make at this time, but if anything it is only fitting after watching this predictable 89 minute brain cell eradicator. “Smurfs” is easily the worst film I have seen so far this year. The film’s full of cringeworthy sequences that feel more like they are designed to show off Rihanna’s singing voice rather than tell a compelling narrative. The movie’s script is riddled with jokes that feel dated. And if they are not dated, they likely will be in five years. There is a sibling rivalry subplot between the film’s villains that ends up being a bore. The film surprisingly has enough time to introduce Kurt Russell’s character. By the time we got to his part of the film, my first thought was “Wait, now? Why are we doing this?” I like me some Kurt Russell, but his presence in the film feels out of the blue. No pun intended. If you want a good movie to take your child to, get tickets for “Elio” or if they’re a little older, take them to see “Superman.” I think the film will grab their attention, and possibly stick with them even as they get older. Do not waste your money on “Smurfs.” I am going to give “Smurfs” a 1/10.

You might make an argument that me not liking this film is irrelevant because it caters more towards children than it does adults. I do not know. I think the many silent children in my theater would have something to say to you. And also this brings up another thing, if the children in my theater, or other children who watched this film for that matter, did like it, I wonder what they will think of it in ten years. Will they feel the same way? Again, this is why I always bring up Pixar as animation’s current gold standard, because they are making films that refuse to insult children’s intelligence. Kids like them. Adults like them. Everyone likes them. Heck, I, a 25 year old man, watched “Cars” recently, which I first checked out when I was six years old. It is still worth watching as an adult. The film looks fantastic, features likable characters, and with my older age, I appreciated the film’s commentary on convenience and how that changes society. It did a great job at that by highlighting the unfortunate impact an Interstate had on the small town of Radiator Springs. Sure, “Smurfs” tries to implement a lesson about being yourself, but it feels surface level and is not enough to save the film from being dull and unfunny. Please avoid this movie at all costs, you will thank me later.

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

Courtesy of 1.21 – © 1.21

Thanks for reading this review! My next review is going to be for the brand new horror film, “Together.” Stay tuned! Also, I will eventually be sharing my thoughts on “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 “Smurfs?” What did you think about it? Or, what is the best piece of “Smurfs” media out there? I need to know because these recent movies do not seem to be doing it for me. If anyone has a recommendation, please send it my way. Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

Friendship (2024): The Funniest Comedy of the 2020s

Posted on by Jack Drees

“Friendship” is written and directed by Andrew DeYoung and this is his feature-length directorial debut. This film stars Tim Robinson (Chip ‘n Dale: Rescue Rangers, Detroiters), Kate Mara (Fantastic Four, House of Cards), Jack Dylan Grazer (Shazam, It), and Paul Rudd (The 40 Year-Old-Virgin, Dinner for Schmucks). This film is about a suburban dad who attempts to develop and maintain a friendship with his neighbor.

If there is one genre that I wish had better treatment at the movies, that would be comedy. There are not many cases where comedy films are marketed for the cinema anymore. Do not get me wrong, like all other kinds of movies, the comedy genre can have their duds. Just ask anyone who made “Jack and Jill” over a decade ago. But comedies are not only one of my favorite kinds of films to watch, but if done right, they can play well in front of a large audience in a theater. Maybe they do not have the explosions of an action film or have the financially safe mass appeal of a family-oriented animation, but nothing is better than a ton of people laughing at the same time.

To quote Ron Burgundy, “It’s just science.”

The film of discussion today, “Friendship,” is not the most prominent comedy of all time. It is from the consistently growing distributor A24. While it does have some notable names like Paul Rudd and Kate Mara, its star power could arguably be bigger. But for me, the on-screen talent did not sell me. If there was something that got me in the door, it would be the positive press the film has racked up since its September 2024 premiere at the Toronto International Film Festival. Based on the reviews I saw in advance, I had a feeling “Friendship” was going to be good. But I was not prepared for just how good this film was. This cinematic experience blew my socks off.

“Friendship” might be the funniest comedy I have seen in years. I say that knowing that I have reviewed a couple comedies this decade that I adore like “Joy Ride” and “Bottoms.” I particularly remember issuing high praise to those two movies. But I cannot say I laughed as hard during those two films as I did with this latest one. When it comes to “Friendship,” I genuinely do not recall laughing as hard as I did at a comedy film, maybe since first watching “The Hangover” with my dad as a teen.

I recall having big laughs during select films I have seen in the past ten years like “Avengers: Infinity War,” “Once Upon a Time in Hollywood,” “Anora,” or “The Mitchells vs. the Machines.” But one can argue that those are films featuring comedy as opposed to being pure comedies. If you were to ask me what genre “Friendship” is, comedy would be the answer. And I would imagine I am not alone in this particular claim.

I saw this film in an auditorium that could fit 35 people. Most of the seats were taken. I honestly wish it could have been hundreds, because this is the kind of film that reminds me of why I love the moviegoing experience. There are multiple times in this film where I reflect on certain parts and imagine hundreds of people in the same room laughing their butts off. Seeing this film with an audience is a feeling unlike any other. I would guess if I did see “Friendship” in an auditorium with hundreds more people sitting around me, the laughter would be nonstop.

As someone who has seen a lot of comedies, the jokes from one movie to the next can feel been there done that. The jokes in “Friendship” sometimes feel cliche, but if you have been following Scene Before for a long time, you may have noticed me say that I do not mind cliches as long as they are done well. I am going to try to be as secretive as possible here, but when this movie gets to a gag involving a glass door, my sides were in orbit.

There are very few complaints I have about the film. Although one that comes to mind is simply based on personal experience. Around the first quarter of the film, there is a scene that takes place on a news set that feels a tad played up. I get that it might have been done that way to make the story flow, but I work on a morning news team and while it is a tense environment, there is an exchange between Austin and a news anchor that feels a bit overplayed. I did not buy it. Granted, this is a comedy movie so suspension of disbelief is inevitable in some places, but as someone who works in a newsroom, this scene was too over the top.

I also appreciate how the movie handles its characters. I am not going to pretend that I agree or root for the film’s protagonist, Craig Waterman (left), 100 percent of the time. But even when that is the case, I still appreciate the way he was executed. I saw Waterman, who is excellently portrayed by Tim Robinson, as a stereotype for someone going through a mid-life crisis. At various points we see Craig become jealous of Austin’s car, his social circle, as well as him having cool-sounding interests.

In fact, you can almost say Paul Rudd’s character, Austin (right), is in a somewhat similar boat. Going back to that car of his, having seen it myself, it is a pretty sweet ride. Some would say the chicks dig it. But throughout the film, we see a pattern. Austin possesses select objects or hangs with certain people to compensate for getting older. There is one particular reveal regarding Austin that comes out of nowhere, and not only does it make sense for who the character is, but I was laughing up a storm as the reveal came into frame.

I said before that comedies are one of my favorite kinds of films to watch. This is partially because they are so accessible no matter my mood. I could get home from a long day of work and put one on to pass the time. It could be bright and sunny out and I need a colorful-looking flick to match the mood. I could be up for a quick laugh with someone I know. I refuse to turn off my brain during movies, but comedies are as close as I get to turning my brain off because if the movie makes me die laughing, I can forgive some of its other flaws. “Friendship,” like another recent comedy I enjoyed, “Joy Ride,” not only made me laugh, but also made me appreciate its depth when it came to the script. I would like to watch this film in 10, 20, 30 years.. I am only 25 right now, but I am curious to see how this film ages for me as I get closer to the points where the main characters reside.

In the end, “Friendship” is peak comedy. I love to laugh, and this movie made me do what I love to the point where I thought I was almost rolling on the floor. Not only is it funny, but it is also a decent commentary on the work that goes into maintaining friendships and how it is important to remember to be appreciative for what you have. “Friendship” is one of the funniest movies I have ever seen. Period. End of sentence. End of review. I am going to give “Friendship” a 9/10.

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

Courtesy of Lionsgate – © Lionsgate

Thanks for reading this review! My next review is going to be for the brand new “John Wick” spinoff, “Ballerina.” Stay tuned! Also, look forward to finding out my thoughts on “The Phoenician Scheme,” “The Life of Chuck,” “Materialists,” and “Elio.” 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 “Friendship?” What did you think about it? Or, what is the funniest movie you have ever seen? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

Mission: Impossible – The Final Reckoning (2025): A Wild, Overstuffed Finale That Demands the Biggest Screen Possible

Posted on by Jack Drees

“Mission: Impossible – The Final Reckoning” is directed by Christopher McQuarrie, who also directed the three “Mission: Impossible” installments leading up to this one. This film stars Tom Cruise (Top Gun, Risky Business), Hayley Atwell (Captain America: The First Avenger, Cinderella), Ving Rhames (The Wild Robot, The Garfield Movie), Simon Pegg (Run Fatboy Run, Hot Fuzz), Henry Czerny (Revenge, Ready or Not), and Angela Bassett (Black Panther, Akeelah and the Bee). This film is the eighth installment to the Tom Cruise-starring “Mission: Impossible” franchise and once again centers around Ethan Hunt and his team in a race against time to keep the artificial intelligence known as the Entity from destorying mankind.

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

After nearly three full decades and seven installments leading up to this one, I think it is safe to say “Mission: Impossible” has become a reputable franchise. Not every installment has worked for me. The second film is overly goofy despite one or two okay scenes. Other than that, I had a ball watching the franchise over the years. Tom Cruise not only shines as his character, Ethan Hunt, but his commitment to making the best movie possible alongside his fellow filmmakers is deserving of my respect.

This is the latest “Mission: Impossible” project directed by Christopher McQuarrie. The bad news is that this is probably his weakest installment yet. But I feel the same way about the McQuarrie-directed “Mission: Impossible” installments that I do when it comes to Pixar movies. Even a weak “Mission: Impossible” installment directed by Christopher McQuarrie, like a weak Pixar film, is typically a swell time. And a swell time this is.

Am I disappointed by the outcome of “Mission: Impossible – The Final Reckoning?” I would not necessarily say that. But I should note that my expectations for this film were, perhaps, unfairly high. The track record for this franchise has been excellent, especially in recent years. Per usual, a lot of the action and stunts done in the film were done for real, on location. Based on the marketing, this was also supposedly the last time that we would see a film in this particular franchise. After all, Tom Cruise is getting up there in age. There was a lot riding on “Mission: Impossible – The Final Reckoning.” Having seen the film, I can say it is, overall, good, but not fantastic. That said, there were plenty of “fantastic” things in what is ultimately a “good” film.

If you are familiar with the “Mission: Impossible” movies, chances are you know about all the bonkers stuntwork that goes into them. If I had one critique with the stuntwork in this film, it is that the main stunt sequences in this film are semi-borrowed from “Mission: Impossible – Rogue Nation.” You may remember that film having a scene where Ethan Hunt hangs on the side of a plane. You may also recall that film having an underwater scene as well. Variations of those two concepts make their way into “Mission: Impossible – The Final Reckoning.” That said, the sequences in this eighth film are done on a much bigger scale than they are in the fifth film. The two sequences, which take place in a submarine and around a canyon respectively, are worth the price of admission. If there is any reason not only to watch “Mission: Impossible – The Final Reckoning,” but to get off your couch and watch it in a theater, these two scenes make for a compelling argument.

In fact, if I had to be honest, the sequence around the canyon is maybe the franchise’s best. To me, this film felt like watching “Revenge of the Sith,” which deep down, might be a personal favorite “Star Wars” installment, even though its flaws do stand out. For example, even though I had a blast watching every minute of this film as it went by, I truthfully think the pacing could be a smidge better. The film completely caught my attention, but I should note that I was watching it in IMAX. The true test would be to see what it is like to watch this movie at home. I would be curious to see how that goes because I had a great time watching this film in the theater despite it feeling overstuffed. In fact, much like “Revenge of the Sith,” I will likely remember this film most for its franchise-best climax. This is a film where you are not only concerned that its protagonist might not make it out alive, but you have to wonder if the actors had their hearts beating out of their chests while filming.

Speaking of not making it, “Mission: Impossible” is truly a film where the mission at times feels, well, impossible. That is easy for me to say as someone watching this in an auditorium. But not only does the mission itself reek of enormous stakes, the film does a great job at presenting the worst case scenario. Both through its visuals, and the thoughts racing through my head while watching everything play out. The film is also quite timely with its interpretation of artificial intelligence. We got glimmers of the AI, also known as “the entity,” in the previous installment, but here we get a better, more terrifying glimpse.

There are a lot of “Mission: Impossible” movies out, and for some viewers, they might not know every little detail about them or have seen all the movies. This film contains tons of flashbacks to previous films. The flashbacks did not bother me, but there were a lot more in this film than I was expecting. I get why they are there. You want to remind viewers where things have gone in this series. But I would be curious down the line to see if there would be any attempts at making a future cut of this film where the flashbacks are reduced. I would be curious to know how that turns out.

If I had any other complaints about the film, I do think the villain could have been written better. Esai Morales does a decent job playing Gabriel, but he feels like he belongs in a different film at times. Though admittedly, I did find some of his Saturday morning cartoon-like quips and expressions to be quite entertaining. While not perfect, it works sometimes. In “Mission: Impossible” speak, if I had to give him a score between the number 1 to Philip Seymour Hoffman, Morales’ character winds up somewhere in the middle of that scale. He is not perfect, but at times he oozes charisma.

And speaking of charisma, Hayley Atwell continues to prove she is a welcome addition to the franchise as Grace (left). While her character could be improved with a little more depth, watching her in these past two films convinces me that if she were to do another film like this as the lead, I would pay to see it in a heartbeat. Even in the film’s darker moments, she was able to provide a sense of fun. If I cannot have Rebecca Ferguson in this film, Hayley Atwell is more than a fine alternative.

The marketing for this film has pushed it as a big, epic finale. And in a way, it feels like it. Not only do the stunts come off as the most ambitious in the franchise, but the film concludes on a note that is satisfying. But if I had to be honest, if they announced a ninth film, I would not be mad. Other than the second one, I have enjoyed all of the “Mission: Impossible” movies, so chances are I might enjoy another one. That said, now that we are supposedly at the end, I look forward to finding out what Tom Cruise has lined up next in his career. I know he and Christopher McQuarrie have talked about projects like “Top Gun 3” but I am also excited to see what other originals he will take on in the coming years. Heck, I would like to see that one movie where he supposedly goes into space. But if he comes back to “Mission: Impossible,” I will be waiting with a smile on my face. If not, it has been a great run, and this is a solid end to a wonderful franchise.

Paramount Pictures and Skydance/Paramount Pictures and Skydance – © 2025 Paramount Pictures. All Rights Reserved.

In the end, “Mission: Impossible – The Final Reckoning” is far from a perfect film, but I cannot deny that there are a few things in it that would be considered perfect if they were judged by themselves. The underwater scene, the plane scene, the editing, the camerawork. All of it is very exciting and jaw-dropping. Like usual, returning cast members Simon Pegg and Ving Rhames offer their own hints of charisma. If you have never watched any of the other films in the franchise, there are some points where you might have questions while checking out this one, but the story does its best to answer them. This film can definitely be enjoyed by itself, but I would say at minimum, it would be best to check out “Dead Reckoning” before watching this. After all, this film, while not specifically titled as such, is a part two to that one. Tom Cruise and Christopher McQuarrie, again, deliver another thrilling action flick that despite it being great, is ultimately their worst in this franchise. Note my specific use of “their,” I still think John Woo’s “Mission: Impossible II” is an abomination. Nevertheless, this is a triumph that many filmmakers would kill to make. I am going to give “Mission: Impossible – The Final Reckoning” a 7/10.

“Mission: Impossible – The Final Reckoning” is now playing in theaters everywhere. Tickets are available now.

Thanks for reading this review! My next review is going to be for another action sequel, “The Accountant 2.” Stay tuned! Also look forward to my reviews for “Bring Her Back,” “Friendship,” and “Ballerina.” If you want to know my thoughts on the previous “Mission: Impossible” films, good news, I reviewed all of them. Click the following links to know more about my thoughts regarding “Mission: Impossible,” “Mission: Impossible II,” “Mission: Impossible III,” “Mission: Impossible – Ghost Protocol,” “Mission: Impossible – Rogue Nation,” “Mission: Impossible – Fallout,” and “Mission: Impossible – Dead Reckoning Part One.” Yes, I still call it that. 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 “Mission: Impossible – The Final Reckoning?” What did you think about it? Or, now that the series might be over, how would you rank the “Mission: Impossible” films from worst to best? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

Novocaine (2025): A Painless Watch

Posted on by Jack Drees

“Novocaine” is directed by Dan Berk and Robert Olsen (Body, Significant Other) and stars Jack Quaid (Logan Lucky, The Boys), Amber Midthunder (Prey, Legion), Raymond Nicholson (Panic, Smile 2), Betty Gabriel (Counterpart, Jack Ryan), Matt Walsh (Life of the Party, Veep), and Jacob Batalon (Tarot, Spider-Man: Homecoming). This film is about a man named Nathan Caine, who may look and sound like an average guy with an everyday job. Only thing, he is unable to feel pain… Nathan must utilize this power in order to save the girl of his dreams.

I first saw the trailer for “Novocaine” at the tail end of 2024. It played during my screening of “Nosferatu,” and if you know my thoughts on that movie, you would probably pray that my experience of watching the “Novocaine” trailer made up for the middle of the road boringness that followed. Thankfully, it did. “Novocaine” looked like a lot of fun. I am no stranger to the action genre. The trailer for “Novocaine” definitely had some familiar traits, but it seemed to have its own flair. I ended up laughing a few times during the trailer, and yes, those moments where I laughed during the trailer, were equally as funny when I watched the final film.

Is “Novocaine” the funniest movie I have ever seen? No. In fact, I can say that if you are looking for comedy, you are going to get that, but you will also get some other things as well. If you are not a fan of violence, gore, and blood, then you might want to sit this movie out. But if you can handle those things, which I was able to, “Novocaine” is for you.

In all seriousness, if you are looking for a visceral, over the top action flick, “Novocaine” is a solid option. Its tone reminds me of “Nobody” combined with a superhero movie. “Novocaine” does not reinvent the wheel in terms of its structure or storyline, but it undoubtedly centers around a character I enjoyed getting to know more about. This movie is something of a “Superman” parody. In fact, when it comes to his personality, Jack Quaid’s line delivery and overall presence had a Clark Kent vibe. He is kind of dorky, but also likable. Nathan Caine does not have super powers. He cannot fly, he cannot spew heat vision, he cannot throw people across the planet, none of that. But his pain tolerance is much higher than that of a normal person. “Novocaine” is like if someone decided to tell a story making fun of Superman’s lack of weakness. Except in this case, the movie establishes that Nathan’s resistance to pain is based on real world science. The movie tells the audience that Nathan has congenital insensitivity to pain with anhidrosis, or CIPA. On that note, Nathan is not exactly invincible. The movie makes it clear that Nathan does receive pain, but he does not necessarily feel it. Regardless of whether this movie sticks to the roots of reality or tunnels of fantasy, I thought it successfully made me care about Nathan. In some ways this is a monumental achievement. I sometimes say it is much easier to make a character interesting because of their flaws… Because of the pain they face. While there is not a ton of physical pain that comes Nathan’s way, the narrative presents him with some notable challenges, whether it means maintaining a social life, saving people, or saving himself.

“Novocaine” is one of those films with a little bit of everything. A little bit of comedy, a little bit of action, a little bit of romance. Luckily, this film manages to blend all of these elements together to provide something that never feels tonally inconsistent. Whenever it switches gears, it always feels natural. When it comes to the action genre, I am not going to pretend there is a lot here that I have not seen, minus the painlessness gimmick. But the movie has fun with its premise and it ultimately works because not only do I like the premise, but I also dig the characters navigating themselves through said premise. Going back to the comedy and action, it also really helps that much of the comedy finds its way into the action sequences. There are some really funny moments that link directly to Nathan’s painlessness as well as the pain of others.

I will say one thing though, this is not a dealbreaker, but I find it weird how this film came out in March. Marketing-wise, it is one of the worst months they could have picked. For one thing, the film is set around Christmas, and there is also a robbery scene where a bunch of people wearing Santa outfits show up. Why March? Maybe it is still snowing in some places, but it definitely is not Christmas. Although having seen the film myself, I do not know for sure if “Novocaine” is going to be considered a Christmas classic down the line. I think it is a film that can be watched at any time of year. It is kind of like “Die Hard,” although in the case of “Die Hard,” watching it probably feels a little more special around Christmas. That said, I do not think “Novocaine” is going to have as much cultural significance as “Die Hard.”

If I have any other detractors for the film, there would not be a ton that stand out. Although the weakest part of the story is the one involving a couple police officers. They are essential to the film, but as far as characters go, I will not deny that as I look back, they are the most forgettable part of the cast. I cannot say I hated them though. Maybe others will feel differently. Compared to everyone else in the film, including the baddies Nathan comes across in his adventures, the cops did not have as much personality or charm. Again, I do not think they are poorly written. But if I had to name a weakest part of the cast, it would be them.

I also love seeing Jacob Batalon in this film. I love that he is getting more work. I especially love that he is getting work in something that is ten times better than “Tarot.” While I was not a huge fan of the way his character was written in “Spider-Man: Homecoming,” I think he played the part well and nailed the same role in the Marvel films that followed. Batalon kind of plays a similar supporting role in “Novocaine” with his character of Roscoe. Although in this case, he is playing someone a little more grown up. He is kind of nerdy, and is essentially Nathan’s best friend. He also happens to be the only person in Nathan’s social circles, at least until he meets his love interest, Sherry (Amber Midthunder). Additionally, the film establishes that the two have never met in person. I honestly kind of buy into this because I will admit, a lot of my best friends are people I have talked to exclusively online. We do not live nearby, so we do not have the means or time to meet each other, but we still try to keep in touch quite a bit. Maybe we will meet one day, but only time will tell. Nevertheless, I like this modern dynamic between the two. Not only do I surprisingly buy into it, but it also makes sense considering the personalities of both sides. The two spend a good amount of their time together playing video games. Who needs to go outside when you have an internet connection and a keyboard?

In the end, “Novocaine” is a ton of fun. I think this is a film that will satisfy action junkies, as well as some people maybe not as into the genre. That is as long as you are okay with a little blood and gore. Jack Quaid is solid in the lead role. Amber Midthunder plays an admirable love interest. This movie takes a cool concept and goes to town with it. I give it a recommendation. I am going to give “Novocaine” a 7/10.

“Novocaine” is now available to rent or buy on VOD and is available on Paramount+ for all subscribers.

Thanks for reading this review! If you enjoyed this review, I have more coming! Stay tuned for my thoughts on “The Ballad of Wallis Island,” “Secret Mall Apartment,” “A Minecraft Movie,” “Sinners,” “Thunderbolts*,” and “Rust.” 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 “Novocaine?” What did you think about it? Or, is there a movie set around Christmas, or another spiritual holiday close to it on the calendar that you enjoy watching outside of the holiday season? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

Sonic the Hedgehog 3 (2024): Colorful Spectacle and Obnoxious Dialogue Overshadows Stakes in This Threequel

Posted on by Jack Drees

“Sonic the Hedgehog 3” is directed by Jeff Fowler, who also directed the previous “Sonic the Hedgehog” movies. This film stars Jim Carrey (Batman Forever, The Mask), Ben Schwartz (Parks and Recreation, The Afterparty), Krysten Ritter (Veronica Mars, Gilmore Girls), Shemar Moore (S.W.A.T., Criminal Minds), Colleen O’Shaughnessey (Digimon, Naruto), James Marsden (X-Men, Superman Returns), Tika Sumpter (Mixed-ish, Ride Along), Idris Elba (Pacific Rim, The Suicide Squad), and Keanu Reeves (The Matrix, John Wick). This film follows Sonic and his team as they face a new enemy, Shadow the Hedgehog. When the team realizes the potential dangers of Shadow’s power, they choose to band together with an unlikely ally to stop him.

Video game adaptations have had an iffy history at best. Yes, on the television side you have hits like “The Last of Us” and “Arcane,” but as far as movies go, there is not a single title I imagine most people would consider to be a masterpiece. Sure, the 1995 “Mortal Kombat” had some charm to it. It is definitely not a horrible movie. Same goes with 2023’s “The Super Mario Bros. Movie” which I have no plans to watch ever again, but I would be lying to you if I said it was inferior to 1993’s “Super Mario Bros.” adaptation.

The “Sonic the Hedgehog” movies have made for an interesting franchise. And I do believe “interesting” is the best word to use in this case. Because neither of the two movies I have seen up to this point have been bad. I thought the first one in particular is quite fun and offers replay value. It has a simple but effective story. Ben Schwartz is a great pick to voice Sonic. Jim Carrey as Robotnik may go down as some of the best casting of the decade. The climax is really fun. Overall, it is a good time for all ages. Then we get to “Sonic the Hedgehog 2,” which maintains some of the positives of the original. You have good visual effects, nice sound design, and a pretty cool third act. But the film also drags because there is an abysmally irritating wedding subplot that makes no sense. There were other things to make up for it. I even gave the film a 6/10 in my review. But that score was pretty generous if you asked me. For the record, I bought the original “Sonic the Hedgehog” and watched it at home after checking it out in the cinema. The same cannot be said for the sequel.

They say you are only as good as your last project. And while I had a positive experience with “Sonic the Hedgehog 2,” I still found it disappointing. So my expectations for “Sonic the Hedgehog 3,” while they were not sitting right at rock bottom, were also not that high. But those expectations shot up with a pretty solid marketing campaign. I thought by the end it gave away a little too much, but the trailers were funny and promised something a little darker than the other two installments. I was ultimately onboard.

So what did I think? Eh, the movie’s fine.

“Sonic the Hedgehog 3” is in fact a step up from “Sonic the Hedgehog 2.” But the movie is also nowhere near as good as the original “Sonic the Hedgehog.” Though if I had to name a positive for not only this movie, but all three movies so far, it is that they maintain a sense of consistency. They all feel like they belong in the same universe and work well off each other. As a trilogy, the “Sonic the Hedgehog” movies are not quite as good as say “Lord of the Rings.” But just like “Lord of the Rings,” the movies feel perfectly interconnected. Coincidentally, both of these trilogies are done through a singular vision. All the “Lord of the Rings” movies were directed by Peter Jackson, and all the “Sonic the Hedgehog” installments were helmed by Jeff Fowler. If there is anyone who is perhaps responsible for “Sonic’s” consistency, Fowler is perhaps the most likely candidiate. They even got the same writers for all three movies. Pat Casey and Josh Miller wrote the first movie together. The two ended up coming back for the sequels along with John Whittington.

This leads me to perhaps the most robust assertion I could perhaps make about “Sonic the Hedgehog 3.” If you really liked “Sonic the Hedgehog” and its sequel, you are going to like “Sonic the Hedgehog 3.” If you find those first two movies to be bad, then chances are you will feel the same way about this latest installment. As for me, I made it clear I liked the first two movies. I did not love either of them, in fact, I would even say “Sonic the Hedgehog 2” is barely passable, so to have the third one find itself on the lower end of my positive scale comes as almost no surprise whatsoever.

One of my complaints about the second movie was the dialogue. For the record, the dialogue in the second film feels similar to the first. But every other minute Sonic is spewing out some random pop culture joke or some semblance of words that come close to such a thing and not many of them land. This film seems to maintain my dialogue distaste. There is a lot of obnoxious chit chat and a lot of the lines feel overly cartoony. Yes, I know this film has animated characters. But even for something like this, it comes off as overblown. That said, the film does still get the occasional laugh from our hero characters.

However, the biggest laughs in the film, perhaps unsurprisingly, come from Jim Carrey. Jim Carrey is back in this film doing double duty. Not only is he back for his third portrayal of Doctor Ivo Robotnik, but he is also playing his grandfather, Professor Gerald Robotnik. Seeing Jim Carrey play both of these characters at the same time makes for a weird, wacky, and fun experience like no other. I think Carrey is the best part of these movies. I say that even though I do think his material in the second film hindered his performance a bit. As for this third film, it is nice to see Carrey getting some funny, ludicrous material to work with. Every time he was on screen, I had a grin on my face.

This film also introduces a new hedgehog character, Shadow. Keanu Reeves plays the role, which I think is a great choice. Having heard the character’s voice in certain video games, this is fairly decent match. Also when it comes to Shadow’s design, Reeves’ voice seems to mesh well with the character. But as much as I liked the trailers for this film, my one worry was that Shadow would sound too much like Keanu Reeves was playing himself. I felt a lot of John Wick-isms in his execution. I like “John Wick,” but one problem I have with celebrity voice casting is that the celebrities sound so much like themselves that they fail to blend in with their character. Having seen Shadow, I can say there are scenes where Keanu clearly sounds like he is playing himself, but by no means is he phoning it in. I saw a little bit of Keanu in the performance, yet simultaneously, I saw all Shadow if that makes any sense.

Also to a certain degree, I liked seeing Shadow’s backstory. While I am one to complain about this movie being a bit obnoxious at times, I think Shadow’s backstory occasionally makes for some solid visual storytelling. There is even some decent dialogue. The film also develops a nice little commonality between Sonic and Shadow, particularly how the two were able to find humans with whom they became best friends sometime after their arrival to earth. We saw this previously with Sonic and Tom Wachowski, AKA “Donut Lord.” Shadow seems to develop a similar connection with a young girl named Maria.

If I were a young kid watching this movie, I would probably have a great time with it. There is a lot of action, adventure, and humor. This would probably be a frequent watch in my house if I were 9 or 10 years old. As a 25 year old, I am trying to think about what this movie teaches our children. Sure, it is over the top and zany to no end. But I think it delivers positive lessons. Shadow’s presence in the movie makes me think lots of children will be introduced to the potential negatives of animal testing. On the hero’s side of the spectrum, the film also showcases the importance of teamwork and the complications of making the right choice.

Photo by [Paramount Pictures and Sega of A, Inc.]/Paramount Pictures and – © 2024 Par. Pics & SEGA

I talked about how I think “Sonic 3” is a step up from “Sonic 2,” and there is another improvement regarding this film I have not mentioned yet, the humans. For one thing, the humans’ involvement in “Sonic 3” raise far fewer questions as to the logistics of the plot. There are some moments of the movie in general that I thought were a bit far-fetched, but still. We also tend to focus more on Sonic and his crew this time around as opposed to the humans. Granted, Tom and Maddie do play a significant role in the film. Though their use throughout the runtime is much more pleasing compared to the last film. This film is also noticeably tighter than “Sonic the Hedgehog 2.” Though it should come as no surprise considering “Sonic 3” is 13 minutes shorter. But they seemed to have trimmed out the fluff so to speak. In terms of plot, characters, and overall details, the film is definitely more complicated than this franchise’s kickstarter. But by no means does the film feel terribly overstuffed or boring. There is never a dull moment in “Sonic the Hedgehog 3.” There are slower moments, there are cheesy moments. However not once did I want to fall asleep watching this movie.

I said before that one of my complaints about this movie is that it is a little overly cartoony. And if you watch cartoons, you would know that the characters from one episode to the next behave very similarly to how they do in the last. That makes sense for consistency’s sake. You can even say the same thing in other television shows done in live-action, but it is especially noticeable in cartoons. I watched this movie and I noticed not only are Sonic, Tails, and Knuckles very similar to how they behave in the second movie, Knuckles in particular almost feels too similar. Sure, we learn that apparently he has picked up some pop culture knowledge. We see him make a “Pokemon” joke early on in the film. Even with that in mind, Knuckles still sounds like a fish out of water when it comes to concepts with which many earthlings would happen to understand. I do not know exactly how long this movie takes place after “Sonic 2,” but if Knuckles is still behaving the way he is, the timejump cannot be that far. At least for logic’s sake I hope that is the case.

Throughout the review we have talked about just how consistent this property has been. This has resulted in positives like Jim Carrey continuing to kill it as Robotnik and some action-packed third acts. But it has also resulted in negatives like a lack of character development or nonsensical scenes. There is one more consistency that if this franchise were to continue for some time, I hope gets addressed. By the end of this film, I left feeling the stakes in this franchise are minimal. I am not going to dive into detail, but the “Sonic the Hedgehog” franchise somewhat feels like the “Fast & Furious” franchise for a younger audience. Yes, both are action-packed films involving speed and globetrotting missions. But the further we get into the franchise, the more I am convinced that several characters are perhaps either invincible or lucky.

I understand that the “Sonic” franchise is a hit with younger viewers and the people behind it would therefore not want to make it too dark. But this franchise keeps adding new faces that it just makes you wonder when the heck it is going to suddenly get rid of one of them. “Sonic the Hedgehog” is a decent moneymaker for Paramount. As good as it may be now to have all the movies feel the same, it also risks running the franchise into the ground and having it feel bland. We have seen this problem with the Michael Bay-directed “Transformers” franchise, another popular product of Paramount. While the movies tend to have slight differences, they for the most part come off as carbon copies of one another. Despite my complaint, if Jeff Fowler and the same writing team were to come back for “Sonic the Hedgehog 4,” I would be onboard. They have a proven track record, even if it is not the greatest. Although I think it would be fun to see someone put their own creative spin into the franchise.

Also, one more consistency to bring up, this film has some extra material during the credits. There is a mid-credits scene and a post-credits scene. Stick around for both of them.

In the end, “Sonic the Hedgehog 3” is not a bad movie. In fact, by the standards of video game movies, it is one of the better ones. Despite that, the movie is still not a masterpiece by any stretch of the imagination. I think it is a step up from the last “Sonic” outing, but still not good enough to rival the original. Also, as far as video game movies go, I think it is slightly more watchable than “The Super Mario Bros. Movie.” This feels more like a movie compared to that film, which literally just comes off as an hour and a half of nonstop easter eggs and references just for the sake of forced nostalgia within a generic storyline. The voicework in this film, per usual, is top notch. The human characters are a noticeable improvement compared to the previous installment. Shadow is a nice addition to the franchise. But the jokes are off and on, the dialogue is a little too obnoxious, and I know this is a movie about a talking hedgehog, but even with that in mind, there are things in this film that feel a tad far-fetched. If you like the last two movies, this is definitely for you. If not, maybe go see something else. I am going to give “Sonic the Hedgehog 3” a 6/10.

“Sonic the Hedgehog 3” is now playing in theaters everywhere. Tickets are available now!

Thanks for reading this review! Stay tuned for my thoughts on films including “Flow,” “Nosferatu,” “Babygirl,” and “A Complete Unknown.” 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 “Sonic the Hedgehog 3?” What did you think about it? Or, what is your favorite of the “Sonic the Hedgehog” movies so far? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

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

Posted on by Jack Drees

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

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

Ehh…

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Gladiator II (2024): This Is Why I am Here… 24 Years Later

Posted on by Jack Drees

“Gladiator II” is directed by Ridley Scott (Blade Runner, Alien) and stars Paul Mescal (Normal People, Aftersun), Pedro Pascal (The Mandalorian, The Unbearable Weight of Massive Talent), Joseph Quinn (A Quiet Place: Day One), Fred Hechinger (Thelma, Eighth Grade), Lior Raz (Hit & Run, Fauda and Segev), Derek Jacobi (Last Tango in Halifax, Vicious), Connie Nielsen (Wonder Woman, Nobody), and Denzel Washington (The Equalizer, The Siege). This film is the sequel to the 2000 film “Gladiator” and this time follows Lucius, a slave who seeks revenge against General Acacius after his army invades his home. Doing what he can to avoid death, Lucius must survive in the Colosseum while his mentor plans to overthrow twin emperors Geta and Caracalla.

To this day I have only seen the original “Gladiator” once. As for the one time I saw it, I found my experience to be quite positive. In fact, it is one of Ridley Scott’s better films. When “Gladiator II” was announced, a couple thoughts ran across my mind. My first thought was “Why?” Not just because it is the latest in an endless barrage of sequels, but of all the stories people could have done, “Gladiator” is not one that I would have imagined needed to be continued. In fact, if you remember how the first film ends, it made me question if the franchise would have to defy logic in order to keep going. But in the case of the “Gladiator” franchise, whereas I previously imagined the name pertaining to one person, particularly Maximus from the first film. This sequel proves that “Gladiator” is more than just Maximus. The “Gladiator” name is more of an idea than anything else. Because this time we are focused on Lucius, who also appeared in the original film in the form of an eight year old boy.

If anybody remembers “Star Wars: The Force Awakens,” chances are you or someone you know has said the movie is a copy paste of the 1977 franchise original. For the record, “The Force Awakens” is still my favorite film of 2015, partially because while it gets back to basics, it utilizes those basics really well. The film does a great job fleshing out its characters while also delivering action and flying sequences that are much more epic to look at than what we got in the 70s. “Gladiator II” is in a somewhat similar boat. For the record, I do not think the first “Gladiator” is as good as both of those “Star Wars” installments, but I do recognize the Academy Award Best Picture winner for its technical achievements, stellar action scenes, and killer lead performance from Russell Crowe.

Structurally, “Gladiator II” is much like the original, where the film is about a slave fighting for their own freedom. A lot of the steps and challenges our protagonist has to face is similar to the ones Maximus faces in the 2000 predecessor.

That said, while I was invested in Lucius’ journey in this second film, I think Maximus’ journey in the first installment is more compelling. Part of it is because the journey, despite some differences, is like watching the first movie all over again. I would not call it the Dollar Tree version of that journey. It has more pizzazz than that, maybe Five Below would be a halfway decent retail equivalent to use in this case. Part of why I was not as compelled by this sequel compared to the original may be because of Paul Mescal’s performance.

For the record, do not think I am dissing on Paul Mescal as an actor. Mescal does not just a good, but a great job in this film. His performance is commendable and he fits the role he is given. But the thing about Maximus from the first movie, I almost cannot see anyone other than Russell Crowe playing him. On the other hand, I can probably imagine a few other people filling Lucius’ shoes. In fact, not only can I imagine it, I have concrete evidence to prove it! We have already seen Lucius in the first “Gladiator” as a young boy! And that actor did not even come back for this sequel. The guy was not even asked if he wanted to return in the first place! I know Paul Mescal is like a decade younger than Spencer Treat Clark, but still, age comes after everyone in Hollywood these days.

While Mescal’s portrayal as the film’s lead is no Russell Crowe, if the Oscars were tomorrow, I think one performer in “Gladiator II” would have my vote for Best Supporting Actor, and that is Denzel Washington. One thing I noticed about some of the performances in “Gladiator II” is that they would sometimes be delivered with some hyperactivity. Sometimes it works, sometimes it does not. In the case of Denzel Washington, it not only works, kind of like Russell Crowe in the original “Gladiator,” I cannot see anyone else playing Washington’s character. And the more I watched him through the movie, the crazier he became. There are some things this character does in this movie that elevate his already commanding presence in certain scenes. I would like all of you reading this to find out what some of those things are yourselves. No spoilers. But Washington easily gives one of my favorite performances of the year.

Other than Washington, perhaps the biggest highlight of “Gladiator II” should come as no surprise, the action. The action takes a lot of what is good in the original and puts its own spin on it. It is brutal, smoothly shot, and sometimes tries to fit as much information onto the screen as possible. I knew the action in this film was going to be exciting as soon as it began. There is a sequence in the first few minutes that almost looked like a fun third person video game.

As for the fights in the Colosseum, those do not disappoint. That said, if you are looking for historical accuracy, that is where this movie may not be for you. I am not going to spoil the sequence in the arena that caught me off guard, but if you like your movies to be representative of practical events in history, you may not be a fan of this sequence. That said, I was a fan. A big one at that.

That is not the only historical liberty this movie takes. There is a moment where we see one of the characters reading a newspaper. Only problem, the printing press had not been invented until 1200 years after this film takes place. The more I think about “Gladiator II” and the glorious experience it gave me, I recognize that some of my positives regarding the film require me to bend logic and what I know about history. If I watch this film at home, chances are I could have a different opinion, a different mood perhaps. But from the second row in a crowded auditorium, I was onboard even during the more flawed moments. If anything, I will use the “Tenet” philosophy… “Don’t try to understand it, feel it.” And felt it I freaking did.

In the end, “Gladiator II” is a thrilling, captivating movie that takes you on an exciting ride through ancient Rome. It is not Ridley Scott’s best movie, but much like the original he directed more than two decades ago, the movie nails its atmosphere and delivers a completely riveting experience. The movie is chock full of different kinds of performances ranging from grounded to hyperactive to downright demented. I believed in all of them. Despite what I said about Paul Mescal, do not get me wrong, he truthfully kills it in the film. I cannot wait to see what he does next. As far as action goes, the movie has some cool kills and bloody finishes, but as far as this year for cinema goes, “Dune: Part Two” is still significantly superior in that department. But if you are looking for a fun time at the cinema, this is a solid option. I am going to give “Gladiator II” a 7/10.

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

Thanks for reading this review! Some of you reading this post might be asking if I took part in the Glicked, Wickedator, Wickedglad double feature whatchumacallit. To answer that, I can tell you I did watch both “Gladiator II” and “Wicked,” but not back to back, but I did see “Wicked.” That review is going to wait awhile. As for my next review, that is going to be for the brand new holiday-themed action flick “Red One,” starring Dwayne Johnson and Chris Evans. You can also expect reviews soon for “A Real Pain,” “Y2K,” “Juror #2,” and THEN you will see my review for “Wicked.” Hope that is not too terribly long of a wait. 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 “Gladiator II?” What did you think about it? Or, which of the “Gladiator” films do you prefer? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

Transformers One (2024): One of the Most Human Transformers Stories Yet, Despite There Being No Humans in the Movie

Posted on by Jack Drees

“Transformers One” is directed by Josh Cooley (Toy Story 4, Inside Out) and stars Chris Hemsworth (Thor, Rush), Brian Tyree Henry (Eternals, Godzilla vs. Kong), Scarlett Johansson (Iron Man 2, Don Jon) Keegan-Michael Key (Toy Story 4, Keanu), Steve Buscemi (Reservoir Dogs, Miracle Workers), Laurence Fishburne (The Matrix, Man of Steel), and Jon Hamm (Mad Men, Baby Driver). This film is about the origins of robots Orion Pax and D-16, who eventually become Optimus Prime and Megatron. As a team, these two and several others are given the powers and capabilities to change their planet, Cybertron, forever.

I was born at the tail end of the 1990s, so I was alive at a time when Transformers was continuously shrinking in relevancy. Then a big bang happened in 2007 when the franchise’s first Michael Bay-directed film came out. That is when I first heard about the property, that is when I also started watching it. I had little to no experience with any of the toys beforehand. And no, I have not gone back to watch any of the “Transformers” material from the 20th century. I am somewhat familiar with it. I am aware of “Transformers: The Movie” killing off all the Autobots and that scarring several viewers. But I have not seen the movie myself. But even with my lack of experience of older “Transformers” material, I can confirm that my biggest problem with a number of the live-action “Transformers” films of this era is that they do not feel as character-based as they could be. Not to mention, despite having “Transformers” in the name, the movies are more about the humans than anyone else. Admittedly, I like the first Michael Bay “Transformers” film. I had some fun with “Dark of the Moon.” “Bumblebee” was fantastic. And while it is not the most memorable of the bunch, “Rise of the Beasts” definitely has its moments.

That said, “Transformers One” removes the humans and makes the movie about its titular robots, which is refreshing. The movie is entirely set on Cybertron and features zero scenes on earth. Despite these differences, this movie arguably has the most human story I have witnessed from the “Transformers” franchise yet. It is very much an underdog story about rising up, questioning authority, and embracing the power of friendship.

The main friendship we see is that of Orion Pax (lower right) and D-16 (upper right), played by Chris Hemsworth and Brian Tyree Henry. I bought every moment of their connection. The two come off as genuine friends. They have some admirable moments where they bond, they stand up for each other, exchange items. The two are best buds. Both of their respective actors do a great job in this film, which relieves me. After all, this is yet another animated project featuring a cast of mostly celebrity voice actors whose names and faces are known in popular live-action projects. These people may as well have been used as a selling point to adults who would be weary about taking their kids to a film like this. Granted, some of these actors have voiceover experience. Scarlett Johansson was in “The SpongeBob SquarePants Movie” as well as “Sing 2.” Keegan-Michael Key has several voiceover credits including “Toy Story 4,” the 2019 “Lion King,” “Migration,” and “IF.” He’s doing well for himself in the voiceover department. Everyone does a good job here and the story serves them well.

This movie is perfectly paced. Every action scene had my attention. The character moments are admirable. The humor stuck the landing. It is not the funniest movie I have seen in years, but it had quite a few laughs. The best part about the movie, it follows a paramount rule of show business, which is to leave the audience wanting more. By the end of this film, I was happy with what I got, but there was a point where I wanted to see where these characters would take their adventures next. I remember when I saw “Transformers: Age of Extinction,” which finished on a note where certain ends were not tied together, and I did not really care as much as I could have. This film has a balance in its journey and conclusion where I was satisfied by what was in front of me, but it also left me eagerly hoping to find out what is next.

The film also has a nice polish to its animation. In this age, having bad animation in a major motion picture is kind of a surprise nowadays. But this film, like some others I have been seeing recently, has an individualistic look to it. I cannot say its style offers the diversity of the “Spider-Verse” franchise. But “Transformers One” is stylized just enough to have an identity of its own. The way the movie plays around with some of its shots are fast-paced and immersive. Cybertron itself is sometimes a sight to to behold. This movie is based on toys, so of course the color palette is eye-popping.

Despite my recent positives, I have problems with the movie. For one thing, the storyline is a bit predictable. Sure, as someone who knows about “Transformers,” and the way certain characters are, I know how some characters will wind up by the end of the film. That is not my biggest problem. But there is one other character in the film who as soon as I saw him in the beginning and the way he was written, it was not that hard for me to speculate where exactly this character would be taken. Again, this is a character who has been used in the franchise previously, including one of the Michael Bay movies, all of which I have seen. But I am willing to bet if this was my first “Transformers” anything, I would have nevertheless found this character’s path to be utterly predictable. Maybe unless I was a young child because I have not seen enough movies.

Speaking of young children, I do think that “Transformers One” is a fine family film. Although I would not necessarily say this movie is entirely kid-friendly. At least for all ages that is. There are a couple instances of violence, granted, it is cartoon violence, that kind of push the line as for what you can see in a modern PG movie. Heck, even some of the language pushes the line. There are no f-bombs or s-words here, but Bumblebee repeatedly refers to himself as “Badassatron.” If I had kids I would not prevent them from watching this movie. Heck, part of me would want to put this on for them before “Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom,” which is rated PG and came out just before PG-13 was ever slapped onto a film. If my future children watch “Transformers One” say when they are 7 or 8, I have no problem with it. Ask me again if I become a father, but still… “Transformers One” is a good movie with solid action, a good story, and despite some moments that go a bit far, the movie manages to have positive lessons for its viewers to take with them. I would question taking a certain type of four year old for example to see “Transformers One” in the theater, but if they are a little older, things should be fine. Parents, if you are reading this, I say this as someone who is not a parent, so maybe I am just a moron, but use your own judgment. Despite being one of this year’s most attractive and colorful films, “Transformers One” might not be as well-rounded for all ages as say “Inside Out 2.”

In the end, “Transformers One” is an incredible time. Some people might be rejoicing right now and saying that this may be the first great “Transformers” movie in ages, or maybe even ever. For the record, I disagree. I think Michael Bay’s first “Transformers” is good. His third movie is good. Travis Knight’s “Bumblebee” might be my favorite of the live-action ones they have done. “Transformers One” is honestly up there with “Bumblebee” for me. If it were not for being one of this year’s more predictable narratives at times, that would probably be the one significant thing that could make a movie like this better. But “Transformers One” handles its material with excellence. It is great for both adults and kids. It might not be suitable for all kids, but I am sure many kids will enjoy this just fine. I am going to give “Transformers One” an 8/10.

“Transformers One” is now playing in theatres everywhere. Tickets are available now.

Thanks for reading this review! If you enjoyed this review, I have another animated movie to talk about soon, and that is “The Wild Robot!” That review will be available soon. Also coming up, stay tuned for my thoughts on “Joker: Folie a Deux…” The most divisive movie in ages. My goodness… That review is going to be fun. …Probably. 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 “Transformers One?” What did you think about it? Or, what is a movie about friendship that you enjoyed? Let me know down below! Scene before is your click to the flicks!

A Quiet Place: Day One (2024): The Most Thrilling Quiet Place Film Yet

Posted on by Jack Drees

“A Quiet Place: Day One” is written and directed by Michael Sarnoski (Pig, The Testimony) and stars Lupita Nyong’o (Star Wars: The Force Awakens, 12 Years a Slave), Joseph Quinn (Stranger Things, Dickensian), Alex Wolff (Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle, Hereditary), and Djimon Hounsou (Guardians of the Galaxy, Gladiator). This film is a prequel set in the “Quiet Place” universe and it is set during the first day a bunch of supersonic-hearing creatures known as the Death Angels touch down on earth. With the stakes getting higher as she goes, it is up to to a young woman named Sam to navigate around New York City and do all she can to survive this unfamiliar situation.

I love New York City. Honestly, if you were to ask me what my favorite place in the world happens to be, chances are that New York City could take the cake. It is rich in history, has a solid transit system, there are plenty of things to do, and there’s lots of great food everywhere you look from many different walks of life.

By the way, if you and I are in New York City, do not even dare suggest we go eat at the Times Square Olive Garden. I’ve got Olive Garden at home, and as an Italian, there are so many other places I’d rather spend my time and money. Now with my brief snobbery out of the way, let’s talk about how this links to “A Quiet Place: Day One.” This movie just so happens to be set in New York City. And I think for a story like this, it is the perfect location. Because as much as I love New York City, one common complaint I found from venturing certain parts of the city, especially around midtown, is the noise. There’s lots of people, lots of honking, lots of background chatter. If you are looking for quiet parts of NYC, they definitely exist. I’ve been in a couple. But if you go in the busier or more active parts of the city, do not expect an oasis of serenity. Now with these creatures coming down to earth, this presents New York’s absolute epitome of a threat because it is near impossible to be quiet there.

That said, in the back of my mind, I was a tad hesitant when they were making a “Quiet Place” prequel. For starters, “A Quiet Place Part II” was a step down from the original for me, so I was somewhat worried that this could suffer from also being a lesser product. But on top of that, John Krasinski is not directing this time around. Not only has Krasinski proven to be a great actor-turned-director in recent years, but this franchise is practically his baby. He has done a ton of work in front of the camera, and even more behind the camera. Yet at the same time, the more I think about it, maybe this is exactly what this property needed. A fresh idea from a fresh face. Sure, Krasinski is still involved, given how he has a story by credit. But this film is also written and directed by Michael Sarnoski, who previously helmed “Pig” starring Nicolas Cage. Honestly, maybe this whole shakeup behind the screens and shift in the timeline was worth it, because I have to say this is my favorite “Quiet Place” movie yet. It brings something new to the franchise we have not seen yet, but it does so without steering too far away from what makes the other movies enjoyable.

Now, I will admit, the first “Quiet Place” has a feel to it that can best be described as groundbreaking. It is a very simple story with concepts that feel familiar, but the execution comes off like nothing I have ever seen. Not only was it a movie that was able to immerse me in a world of complete silence, but as an audience member, the film prompted me to remain silent myself. Not that I fail to do that during my moviegoing adventures, but as someone who gets a popcorn and soda whenever I go to the movies, I could not help but slowly dissolve said popcorn with my tongue or take small sips of said soda when the opportunities presented themselves. This is a feeling that returned with “A Quiet Place Part II,” and I could say the same happened here at times. But of the three movies released in this franchise so far, I think this is the one that probably emitted such a feeling the least. For one thing, it takes some time to get into the nitty gritty. This film is fantastically paced, but nevertheless, it takes some time for the action to go down. Also, this is a prequel film set when this whole universe’s primary inciting incident first occurs. So, we see that people are not even close to adapting to the environment we see in the other films.

The “Quiet Place” franchise is a case in point as to the whole show don’t tell philosophy of filmmaking, and “A Quiet Place: Day One” continues that trend. Not only did just about every line of the minimally spoken script come off as essential to the story, but this film’s cast all do a good job at delivering said lines. Lupita Nyong’o is one of the finest actresses working today, and this is yet another win on her resume. She puts on quite a marvelous performance as the character of Sam. But like a lot of good movies with great performances, the script certainly does her favors. Nyong’o’s character is well written. We find out she has late-stage cancer, has a therapy cat, and the movie does a good job at getting you to feel sympathy for her. You really want to see her succeed, even if part of her end goal involves simply getting to eat pizza in the city, particularly at Patsy’s, a joint in Harlem.

In several franchises, there is often a tendency, for better or worse, to make the films that follow the previous ones bigger in scale. There’s often the saying, bigger is better, which if you have read my review for “The Matrix Reloaded,” that is not entirely true. Of the three “Quiet Place” movies, “A Quiet Place: Day One” certainly feels the biggest of them all. In fact, if you look at the numbers, they just go onto support my case. “A Quiet Place: Day One” cost $67 million to make. That is $6 million more than “A Quiet Place Part II.” Of course, this prequel has a decent number of actors in its cast compared to the original, which cost $17 million. After all, people gotta eat.

Each of these movies are all tied together by one key motivation for the characters, and that is to survive against the Death Angels. That has not changed in this film, and honestly, what makes this adventure so riveting is knowing that our heroes, or even innocent civilians, have to adapt to their new environment. In the other “Quiet Place” movies, our characters are caught somewhere in the middle of their respective life-altering event. Seeing such an event play out from the very beginning only makes me wonder if these characters, who for the most part, we do not see in the other movies, make it from point A to B. They do not have the experience necessary to deal with these creatures, so it makes the journey perhaps a little more intense. I love the chemistry we see between Sam and Eric. They make for a good duo. There was one key scene in the middle of the film between these two that is going to stick with me for a long time. It is a simple moment of bonding, but it is done so well.

While I still consider the first film to be the scariest of the franchise, partially because of its novelty, I would have to say “A Quiet Place: Day One” is probably the best character piece of this series. It fleshes out its human characters perfectly, and gives you plenty of background for them, especially for the lead. For these reasons in particular, I can see myself watching this film a second and third time down the road. This is one of my favorite films of the year, and for all I know, it could end up being my favorite horror title of the year if things go in a certain direction.

In the end, “A Quiet Place: Day One” is scary, exciting, and a win for the franchise that I frankly was not expecting. I did not know if this movie was going to be any good going into it. The trailers were not bad, but they did not fully win me over either. The feel of this film was a lot different than I was expecting it to be going in, but little did I know that such a different feel is something that would pay off magnificently. The biggest compliment I can give “A Quiet Place: Day One” is that after the film, it made me want pizza.

And yes, I did get pizza afterwards. I drove quite a distance from my theater to the restaurant, but it was worth it, because it was delicious. I am going to give “A Quiet Place: Day One” an 8/10.

“A Quiet Place: Day One” is now playing in theaters and is also available to rent or buy on VOD.

Thanks for reading this review! If you want to see more reviews like this, believe me when I tell you I have more coming. I will soon be sharing my thoughts on “MaXXXine,” “Twisters,” “Deadpool & Wolverine,” “Kinds of Kindness,” “The Instigators,” and “Sing Sing.” If you want to see these reviews and more from Scene Before, follow the blog either with an email or WordPress account! Also, check out the official Facebook page! I want to know, did you see “A Quiet Place: Day One?” What did you think about it? Or, what is your favorite of the “Quiet Place” movies? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!