Romance

Hamnet (2025): Chloe Zhao’s Latest Vision Breaks Your Heart and Puts it Back Together

Posted on by Jack Drees

“Hamnet” is directed by Chloé Zhao (Eternals, Nomadland) and stars Jessie Buckley (Wild Rose, Men), Paul Mescal (Gladiator II, All of Us Strangers), Emily Watson (Hilary and Jackie, Chernobyl), and Joe Alwyn (The Brutalist, Kinds of Kindness). This film showcases what happens as Agnes and William Shakespeare deal with the loss of their son, inspiring the latter’s play, “Hamlet.”

I was not aware that Chloé Zhao was working on a movie this year, but after seeing “Nomadland” and “Eternals” earlier this decade, I found her directorial efforts to be delivered with a sense of grace. There is something wholesome and calming with how her work is executed. Maybe it is because of the stories she chooses to tell. “Nomadland” is in a sense an inviting tale about real people. “Eternals” may be a Marvel movie with tons of CGI and fast-paced action, but it has a set of likable characters. I found Sprite’s arc in particular to be quite compelling. When I saw the marketing for “Hamnet,” I was less interested in the concept of the story as opposed to who was telling it. When I saw Chloé Zhao’s name pop up in the trailer, I was onboard. Is this film worth the hype? I would say so.

“Hamnet” is not my favorite film of the year. Though I have fiddled with at the least, making it an honorable mention on my best list this year. Spoiler alert, it is probably not going to make the list. I think select scenes throughout the film lack memorability compared to others. A number of factors play into this claim, because I found the atmosphere to be inviting. I thought the story, while it may not be the most thrilling, to be moving. But most of all, this film may have, collectively, the best acting I have seen in a film this year. The cast may not be the most recognizable, but every performer here is on their A-game. The chemistry between Jessie Buckley and Paul Mescal as Agnes and William Shakespeare is unbelievable, and the drama that is hankered in from their families also make for some compelling scenes.

The child actors were also incredible, and not just by the standards of “child actors.” They are so good that they honestly rival the grown-ups. In fact, as I watched this movie, I got the sense that just about every scene was presented in somewhat of a child-like spirit. It is a weird way to describe this movie, but every scene feels energetic. Even ones that are clearly drawn out. If a scene goes on for a while, it is supplemented by a satisfying dramatic effect. Part of this spirit is likely enhanced by the film’s location choices. Every place on camera looks gorgeous and I would not mind escaping into each one if I had the chance. Speaking of child-like spirit, I really enjoyed getting to see specific scenes from Hamnet’s youth. Seeing him swordfight with his dad emitted oodles of joy.

Before going to see “Hamnet,” I was told by friends who had already seen it that Jessie Buckley gave what may have been the best performance of the year. This set the bar really high for me. But even I was not prepared for the acting chops Buckley was bound to unleash. She is given so much to do in this film. You see her character, Agnes Shakespeare (left) through multiple portions of her life. You see her when she finds love, becomes a parent, deals with tragedy. Of course, she is no ordinary woman, as the film reveals she is a healer. Yes, there is quite a fantastical element to this story. After all, it is based on a fictional book. This is not my first film featuring Buckley that I have seen, but much like my previous review, “The Secret Agent,” this film does for Buckley what “The Secret Agent” did for Wagner Moura. It took someone I have seen in other movies and liked in other movies, but now that I have seen them in this one, it essentially put their name on the map for me. Buckley previously starred in Alex Garland’s “Men.” I barely remember that movie but I do remember Buckley giving her all in each scene. “Hamnet,” however, is a different animal entirely. I think this performance will be studied for quite a long time.

Of course, this is also a film about William Shakespeare (right), played brilliantly by Paul Mescal, and his portion of the story is not only compelling, but it sometimes paints him as a loving, but also imperfect father. I would not go as far as to say Shakespeare is a jerk. In fact, I often get a calming vibe from his character. But there is a fantastic scene between Agnes and William where the two argue and Agnes reminds her husband that he misses important life moments. The scene plays out in a way where I feel bad for both people.

There are many great films in recent years that do a good job at not just telling a marvelous story, but honoring storytellers while doing so. A lot of these have noticeably been about movies themselves, as seen in projects like “Babylon” and “The Fabelmans.” But “Hamnet” proves that there is room to pay tribute to the stage. The film sort of takes elements from “The Disaster Artist,” where a sequence of events happen, granted such events that happen in this story follow a significantly different structure. Then, instead of showing a movie at the end, “Hamnet” has a scene where a large crowd gathers to watch a play. The film reinforces a motto that I hear a lot when it comes to storytelling, specifically to write about and tell the stories you know. Seeing William Shakespeare tell the story of “Hamlet” really hits emotionally given the background the film offers through every moment leading up to said scene. In fact, there are multiple moments, especially towards the end, where the film plays out as if it was trying to make one tear up.

There is one music choice I was not expecting at the end of the film, but as soon as I recognized the song, it only made the scene hit that much harder. I am not saying the scene would not have hit without it, because that part of the movie by itself is as heavy as it is fulfilling, but the music choice was a bonus. If you know the name of this film’s composer, Max Richter, and one particular piece he crafted, you are in for a treat.

In the end, “Hamnet” is a beautifully done movie. Upon walking out, I debated as to whether this was my favorite Chloé Zhao film. Given time to marinate, I would probably give “Eternals” the edge at this point. But that does not mean I cannot appreciate her efforts here. The acting is some of the best I have ever seen, and I would not be surprised if this film dominates the SAG Awards. The film has brilliant cinematography, it is decently paced, and also finds time to both break your heart, then suddenly put it back in one piece. The film is definitely not for everyone, but I think if you are in the right mood, this movie could hit you where you live. I am going to give “Hamnet” a 7/10.

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

Photo by 20th Century Studios/20TH CENTURY STUDIOS – © 2025 20th Century Studios. All Rights Reserved.

Thanks for reading this review! My next review is going to be for “Avatar: Fire and Ash!” Stay tuned! Also coming soon, stay tuned for my thoughts on “Is This Thing On?” and “Marty Supreme.” 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 “Hamnet?” What did you think about it? Or, have you ever read the “Hamnet” book? What did you think about that? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

Wicked: For Good (2025): Can This Second Half Follow the Yellow Brick Road?

Posted on by Jack Drees

© Universal Pictures

“Wicked: For Good” is directed by Jon M. Chu, who also directed the prior “Wicked” installment. This film stars Cynthia Erivo (Genius, Widows), Ariana Grande-Butera (Victorious, Scream Queens), Jonathan Bailey (Jurassic World: Rebirth, Bridgerton), Ethan Slater (Lost on a Mountain in Maine, Gen V), Bowen Yang (Awkwafina is Nora from Queens, Saturday Night Live), Michelle Yeoh (Everything Everywhere All at Once, Transformers: Rise of the Beasts), and Jeff Goldblum (Jurassic Park, Independence Day). This film is the second in a two-part adaptation of the “Wicked” musical, which itself is based on a book of the same name. In this story, we see our main characters from the first film return as they embrace their identities of Wicked Witch of the West and Glinda the Good.

© Universal Studios. All Rights Reserved.

If you read my review for “Wicked” over the past year, you would notice that I have not offered the fondest of opinions regarding the film. While I acknowledge the film is by no means broken, I found it to be mostly slow. I thought a lot of the musical numbers were not doing it for me. And I thought some of the film’s technical aspects such as the color grading needed improvement. That said, I know that movie has its fans. I will even say there are things I liked about it. While most of the music failed to impress me, signature songs like “Popular” and “Flying Gravity” were well executed. Cynthia Erivo and Ariana Grande are excellent as the main duo. And even though I thought the film could have been more aesthetically pleasing in certain regards, I was impressed by the production design.

I was quite nervous for this sequel, because I acknowledge that I probably pooped on a lot of people’s parties when it comes to my opinion on the first film. A lot of people I know really dug it. Those people were also looking forward to this one. The film was a shining star over the past awards season, but I wish I aligned with those who praised it. Given how I am a Movie Reviewing Moron of the people, I used one of my A-List reservations to see this film opening weekend.

Having now seen the film, I cannot say “Wicked: For Good” surprised me in any way. I expected to not like the film, and that is exactly what happened. Of course, I go into every movie wanting it to be good. But in the case of “Wicked: For Good,” it did not do it for me.

© Universal Studios. All Rights Reserved.

Believe it or not, there are plenty of positives in “Wicked: For Good.” Many of the things that I found to work in the first film also work here. Then again, this should not be a big surprise given how both titles were shot back to back. That said, much like the original film, the sequel wowed in terms of its production design. Oz feels just as grand as I recall it feeling a year ago. I thought the music was great, and in some ways, it was an improvement over the first part. There were bits of the first film where it felt like the characters were singing almost unnecessarily. In this sequel, every song seemed to have a purpose. They either fit the moment or enhanced a character’s arc. During my review for the first film, I pointed out that the music became so loud at my screening to the point where I almost had a headache. At the risk of torturing myself, I ended up seeing “Wicked: For Good” at the exact same theater and auditorium, which is a Dolby Cinema at an AMC location. I do not know if they turned the volume down in that theater, but I found the soundtrack much more comfortable to listen to than the one from the original. Speaking of sound, the sound editing was top notch. For example, I like the attention to detail the movie gives whenever Glinda is in her bubble. You can hear a little blockage coming through whenever she talks because the camera’s point of view is from the outside of the vehicle.

Another point of praise I would have to give is that most of the cast does a good job with the material they are given. Of course, Cynthia Erivo and Ariana Grande, who had dynamite chemistry in the first film, work well together this time around, that is during whichever moments allow the two to be on screen together.

© PHOTO BY: UNIVERSAL PICTURES – © 2025 UNIVERSAL STUDIOS. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

I am not going to pretend that I found the first film’s screenplay to be phenomenal, but there was at least a novelty to it even though it was based on both a play and a book. This film’s script is consistent with the first film in certain ways. Therefore, like the first film, I found a lot of the fantastical vocabulary to be rather annoying. I get that this film is not directly set on earth, but a lot of the diction dropped by select characters including “thrillifying,” “obsessulated,” and most especially “clock tick” felt too over the top. Every time a character in this film said the words “clock tick,” it felt tacked on. It did not feel authentic, even for Oz. It came off as a fantasy version of “Mean Girls” where instead of people trying make fetch happen, they were trying to make “clock tick” happen.

When I reviewed “Wicked” last year, I pointed out that there was a pink and green tint attached in my presentation. That was not the case this time. I can only make an assumption, but maybe the projector had a filter that should have been removed. I do not know if it was a 3D filter because the screen did not look that dark. Point is, the screen looked normal during “Wicked: For Good.” Shoutout to the staff at the AMC Liberty Tree Mall 20 for the upkeep. I found “Wicked: For Good” to look much better than the original “Wicked” did during my initial watch. The sequel’s viewing experience fully allowed me to see the film the way Jon M. Chu intended. Sadly, I do not know if his vision satisfied me all that much. “Wicked: For Good,” like its predecessor, feels lacking in color. Again, the set design is great. I will even say a quite a bit of the framing is pretty good. But I think the color grading could have been pinched up a little bit, and a lot of the shots seem to lack personality. I hate saying this, because I have a soft spot for these movies, but these “Wicked” films look like select MCU films. They look slapped together and almost done on the fly. Like the original, “Wicked: For Good” has some decent shots, but it is also packed with a lot of shots that look gray, digital, and lifeless.

© PHOTO BY: UNIVERSAL PICTURES – © 2025 UNIVERSAL STUDIOS. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

Overall, I found this film to engage me more than the original did. That said, this film will definitely be enhanced by watching the original, as much as I do not recommend doing so. I found “For Good” to start off with a bang. It quickly establishes the Wicked Witch as a threat amongst Oz, or at least a threat in people’s minds. That said, despite establishing Elphaba as a threat to Oz’s population, I can say that this film feels uneventful by the conclusion. Does this film have a beginning, middle, and end? Yes. But by the time the film is over, I had little attachment to any of the characters. Not Elphaba. Not Glinda. Not a single soul in the cast. This is a film that is supposed to cap off the story and instead of going out with an emotional bang, it closes things off with a dull whimper. I get that “Wicked” in essence paints the story told in “The Wizard of Oz” as an anti-Elphaba propaganda piece, but the way that the film showcases some of the events from “The Wizard of Oz” lacks something the classic tale had. Sure, “The Wizard of Oz” is a formulaic hero’s journey, but like a lot of formulaic hero’s journeys, it had stakes. As I watched parts of “Wicked: For Good,” I almost did not care about a single character in the cast. The film barely paints the Wizard as a threat, even if Elphaba most definitely sees him that way. The closest thing to an unforgivable act I can say he pulled off is him capturing a bunch of animals, which, okay, that is not something reasonable people do. Not to mention, such an action piggybacks off of material from the first film. But even that plot point feels like it barely gets any spotlight. It comes off as an afterthought.

Do things happen in “Wicked: For Good?” Sure. Do characters develop in “Wicked: For Good?” Sure. We see some characters change more than others, but there is some character development to be had. That said, by the film’s conclusion, I felt like nothing really mattered that much. There was not much in the film that left a significant impact on me.

There is quite a bit in this film that I do not like. I did say there are plenty of positives, but I utter such a sentiment with as much generosity as I can provide. That said, if there is one reason why you should watch this movie, especially on the big screen, I think I might be able to pull one out of my sleeve. The soundtrack to “Wicked: For Good” is not as solid as the original. In fact, the parts of the soundtrack I found to be the most memorable are throwbacks to songs from the original movie. There are some good songs, but not anything on the level of say “Defying Gravity,” except for one number. That number being “No Good Deed Goes Unpunished.” There are so many fantastic elements that make this sequence worth writing home about. I almost want to shout out Cynthia Erivo for her ability to carry a tune in this scene like it is nothing. But then I remember that this sequence contains some incredibly dazzling showcases of visual effects. And while I do think the film could have been improved from a color perspective, I thought the overall aesthetic of this scene was perfect at times. Despite a lot of pizzazz going on in the frame, several shots feel kind of dry and rugged. It kind of matched the tension of the film at the time. It came at one of this film’s closest moments to what somebody could call a tipping point. The soundwork in this scene is great, and this was most definitely a treat to hear in Dolby. After seeing these two “Wicked” films, I would be totally fine if I never had any chance to watch them a second time. But I will not lie, part of me could see myself going on YouTube and either watching this clip again for fun, or listening to this song through my headphones.

I have not seen the “Wicked” play. Yes, I know, “No Good Deed Goes Unpunished” is not a song that is original to this film’s soundtrack. That said, I like the way the song is utilized in this film. It satisfies both the eyes and ears. One thing I also like is that in the moments that follow, we have a crowd of people singing a similar sounding song called “March of the Witch Hunters” that changes the core lyrics ever so slightly. It is executed rather chillingly.

Speaking of singing, watching Jeff Goldblum try to sing in this movie is something else. Do not get me wrong, Jeff Goldblum as the Wizard, like many of his other roles, is charismatic. But the guy cannot sing. He can change your apartment, he can change the world, but he cannot sing. He tries. He puts some effort into his material, and even as he fails he still has a sense of star power. Although when the film has Goldblum singing, he comes off like a reserved, yet somewhat noticeably drunk dad who drags his family into the basement so he can try out his new karaoke machine for the first time. I love Jeff Goldblum, but this is not his best work. If I were to judge Goldblum for his performance in the first “Wicked” I would say his performance was perfectly acceptable. But when this movie asks him to sing, which is one of the most important parts of making a musical, that is where the corniness ensues.

In the end, the “Wicked” movies are 0 for 2. I do not mind musicals. I enjoy fantasy movies. To quote that one kid from “A Christmas Story,” “I like ‘The Wizard of Oz.'” If there is one adjective that I could use to describe these movies, it would be “consistent.” The films are consistently boring, consistently colorless, and consistently annoying. I never latched onto the universe that these two movies were trying to sell me. It has simply never once appealed to me. When I reviewed the first “Wicked,” I said it failed on the most important thing a part one is supposed to do, which is get me excited for this film, part two. Wait, sorry, I mean for “For Good…” The title card in the original says “Part One,” why does this one not say “Part Two?” Kind of weird. Anyway, now that I have seen “Wicked: For Good,” it fails at something of equal importance, which is getting me to care about the cast of characters. I like the actors in the film, and I think like the last movie, Ariana Grande easily gives the best performance. But their characters, like the story, rarely, if ever, engage me by the film’s conclusion. I am going to give “Wicked: For Good” a 4/10.

“Wicked: For Good” is now playing in theaters everywhere. Tickets are available now.

Thanks for reading this review! My next review is going to be for “Sentimental Value!” Stay tuned! Also coming soon, I will be sharing my thoughts on “Zootopia 2,” “Wake Up Dead Man: A Knives Out Mystery,” “Jay Kelly,” and “Bugonia.” If you want to see these reviews and more from Scene Before, follow the blog either with an email or WordPress account! Also, check out the official Facebook page! I want to know, did you see “Wicked: For Good?” What did you think about it? Or, which of the two “Wicked” movies is superior? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

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

Posted on by Jack Drees

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

© Universal Studios. All Rights Reserved.

Thanks for reading this review! My next review is going to be for “Wicked: For Good!” Stay tuned! Also coming soon, I will be sharing my thoughts on “Sentimental Value,” “Zootopia 2,” and “Wake Up Dead Man: A Knives Out Mystery.” If you want to see these reviews and more from Scene Before, follow the blog either with an email or WordPress account! Also, check out the official Facebook page! I want to know, did you see “Eternity?” What did you think about it? Or, if you could choose to spend the afterlife in one place, real or imaginary, where would it be and why? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

Good Fortune (2025): Comedy Gets its Wings

Posted on by Jack Drees

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A Big Bold Beautiful Journey (2025): Colin Farrell and Margot Robbie Deal with the World’s Strangest GPS

Posted on by Jack Drees

© Sony Pictures

“A Big Bold Beautiful Journey” is directed by Kogonada (Pachinko, After Yang) and stars Margot Robbie (The Wolf of Wall Street, Suicide Squad), Colin Farrell (The Banshees of Inisherin, Total Recall), Kevin Kline (Cyrano de Bergerac, Bob’s Burgers), and Phoebe Waller-Bridge (Fleabag, Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade). This film is about two people who meet at a wedding and eventually go on a journey that leads both of them to revisiting their pasts.

The trailers for “A Big Bold Beautiful Journey” did very little to excite me. I had the feeling the flick was going to either be too corny, overly sappy, or uneventful. In some ways, the final product falls in line with those expectations, but not exactly in the way that I thought they would. I am here to tell you that this movie is much better than I could have imagined, even if it is not perfect.

“A Big Bold Beautiful Journey” is not my kind of movie. When it comes to the many genres moviegoing has to offer, romantic dramas, in fact, even romantic comedies, are typically at the bottom of the list for me. I have nothing against the concept of romance, but as stereotypical of a guy thing as it is to say, I like my action. If I were not as open-minded about movies, chances are I would probably buy a ticket to “A Big Bold Beautiful Journey” solely to impress a date. That said, I do not live in that reality, and I took my single behind and put it in a Dolby Cinema chair. Because who needs a date when you have shaking recliners?

© Sony Pictures

Few things are as pleasing as a tremendous surprise, and “A Big Bold Beautiful Journey” was in fact, a surprise. This film immersed me from the very beginning and refused to let me leave. They say not to judge a book by its cover, but this film proves that it is not about the destination, it is, in fact, about the big bold beautiful journey.

The film finds itself in this peculiarly fulfilling middle ground where it does not quite feel real, but there is a certain level of belief that I am willing to suspend in what is ultimately a grounded world. Yes, much of the film features a self-aware GPS that takes its characters to places that make them think about their lives. But the film is ultimately about the human condition. The experiences that shape us. The places that make us. The people that define us. It is about the unpredictable mess that is life. Judging by everything I am telling you, it sounds like I am hyping this up to be the movie of the year. That would be a bit of an overexaggeration, but I do appreciate how much the movie made me think.

© Sony Pictures

I buy both of the leads in their respective roles. You have Colin Farrell as David… A reserved, hopeless romantic, trying to make it from one day to the next. Then there is Margot Robbie as Sarah, who has a bit more experience when it comes to the dating scene. Together you have a star-studded pair in a film that sounds too crazy to work, but somehow it does.

I am not going to pretend that everything works. One can make the argument that the film is too convenient. It is a film that relies heavily on something happening at the right place at the right time, or at the wrong place at the wrong time. I mentioned I am able to suspend my disbelief to a certain degree, but I think that is something I think not every viewer is going to do. The movie often feels fantastical and I see how select viewers would find that to be a turnoff. In fact, one thing that turned me off at times were the moments we spend at a rental car facility. That’s when we see a cashier and a mechanic played by Phoebe Waller-Bridge and Kevin Kline, who are honestly not as whimsical and charming as this movie wants me to think they are. Also, this film maybe has one of the most obvious product placements of any film I’ve seen in 2025, with its inclusion of Burger King.

Yes, I know “War of the Worlds” is a big Amazon commercial, but would you really call that a movie?

The restaurant ends up playing a somewhat substantial role in the plot as both lead characters go there, bond, share what they have in common, and once the leads are done there, that’s where the real fun begins for them. Nothing ignites romance like Whoppers!

Years ago, I reviewed a movie, if you want to call it that, by the name of “Superintelligence,” and this film reminds me of that one, as the protagonist’s journey is heavily guided by a computer, but there is a key point that this film gets right that “Superintelligence” does not. As I watched the film’s protagonist, David, I got the sense that he was often hesitant or second-guessing himself at each point of his journey. Despite some of his actions being determined by a computer, it often feels like he is presented with constantly engaging dilemmas. Should he go where the computer is taking him or should he go elsewhere? Should he perhaps go home?… As I watched the film, I wanted to know how these dilemmas were resolved.

You may be under the impression that the film’s biggest selling point would be one of it’s stars, like Colin Farrell. He is a great actor, but no. You might think it is Margot Robbie. Despite being a straight white male, she did not sell me either. Instead, what got me in the door was this film’s composer, Joe Hisaishi.

Some of you might be wondering who the heck I am talking about. And I would understand that reaction because this is Hisaishi’s first Hollywood feature he’s ever composed. That said, if you have watched Japanese film, or every film from anime director Hayao Miyazaki, you have heard his music, and each piece is often as inviting as his last. His compositions in this film are not exactly the most booming or epic pieces, nor do they need to be. Just about each one comes with a cozy vibe. Hisaishi delivers the goods here with several soothing tunes.

One last note, the GPS in this film is voiced by Jodie Turner-Smith. The role does not require a lot of pizazz or physical work. It is ultimately just a voiceover, but Turner-Smith gives it her all. The two most prominent characters are those of David and Sarah, but if this film had one character just below them in terms of importance, it would probably be the GPS, and Jodie Turner-Smith does her best to allow the character to ooze personality. It puts the film in the right direction.

…

I said, it puts the film in the right dire–(some dude tackles me to the ground and slaps me in the face)

© Sony Pictures

In the end, “A Big Bold Beautiful Journey” is surprisingly solid. Margot Robbie and Colin Farrell have enough star power to keep an entire solar system running by themselves, but together, they have solid chemistry. I buy these two as they revisit various points of their lives. I thought they were cute together. Is this a film I plan to watch again anytime soon? Not immediately, but this is not a bad flick by any means. It is also a decent pick for a date movie. I am going to give “A Big Bold Beautiful Journey” a 7/10.

“A Big Bold Beautiful Journey” is available to rent or buy on VOD.

Photo by Universal Pictures – © 2025 Universal Studios

Thanks for reading this review! My next review is going to be for “Him!” Stay tuned! Also coming soon, look forward to my thoughts on “Eleanor the Great,” “The Lost Bus,” “One Battle After Another,” “If I Had Legs I’d Kick You,” “Tron: Ares,” and “Bone Lake.” If you want to see these reviews and more from Scene Before, follow the blog either with an email or WordPress account! Also, check out the official Facebook page! I want to know, did you see “A Big Bold Beautiful Journey?” What did you think about it? Or, what two actors would you like to see play a couple on screen together? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

Oh, Hi! (2025): A Surprisingly Relatable Romcom That Features Multiple Relationship Extremes

Posted on by Jack Drees

“Oh, Hi!” is directed by Sophie Brooks and stars Molly Gordon (The Bear, Animal Kingdom), Logan Lerman (Fury, The Hunters), Geraldine Viswanathan (Thunderbolts*, Blockers), and John Reynolds (Search Party, Stranger Things). This film is about a couple who go on their first romantic getaway, only for it to go awry in an unexpected way.

I saw “Oh, Hi!” as part of a double feature. I do not usually partake in double features. In fact, when many people were participating in the infamous “Barbie” and “Oppenheimer” trend back in 2023, I saw “Oppenheimer” opening weekend, but waited on “Barbie” for a couple weeks. That said, because of my schedule over one particular weekend, I saw “Oh, Hi!” just minutes after finishing Micahel Shanks’ solid directorial debut “Together.” As I was waiting to watch both movies, I was thinking “Oh, Hi!” could be a nice palette cleanser after some body horror shenanigans, kind of like “Barbie” would have been had I watched it right after “Oppenheimer…” Boy was I wrong.

I often watch movies with my grandma, and this is one I am kind of glad we did not watch together. For the record, the film is quite good. But keep in mind, it is a dark comedy that is probably best watched with, or without, certain people.

I skipped most of the marketing for “Oh, Hi!”, other than catching a random spot on social media every once in a while, so when this film got to the core of the story, I was rather surprised by where it was going. Conceptually, this is a great idea for a movie. The thought of trapping someone to a bed to test romantic compatibility is undoubtedly dark, but the movie handles this narrative with excellence.

This sounds unbelievably stereotypical as a straight white male, but romcoms are not my first choice when it comes to movies. It does not mean they are impossible to enjoy, because “Oh, Hi!” is a blast. It is a romcom worthy of its title. The film is romantic and comedic. I very much felt the spark between its two leads while also having plenty of laughs. This is neither the most romantic or funny movie I have seen, but when it comes to both of those adjectives, I would be lying to say they do not apply to this film. The movie does not hold back on its story either. It is a story that is not only relatable, but does everything to keep you engaged. As the film reached its final ten, fifteen minutes, I was on the edge of my seat.

Much of what makes “Oh, Hi!” work so well is the cast. At the top you have Molly Gordon and Logan Lerman as Iris and Isaac, a completely admirable couple, if you want to call them that. Right below them is Geraldine Viswanathan and John Reynolds as Max (right) and Kenny (left). I was pleasantly surprised to find David Cross make an appearance in the film. He does not play a significant role in the story, but he is charming and funny. In fact, everyone in the film is charming and funny. They all play off each other perfectly. Props to casting, each actor feels well placed in their role.

There is a saying that every story is only as good as its villain. The antagonist of “Oh, Hi!” is by no means evil. There are no world-ending matters in a movie like this.

In fact, while Isaac (left) is most likely “the” antagonist of this film, it does not suggest that Iris (right) is a perfect individual herself. She ends up making some nearly indefensible, dark decisions despite her best intentions. That said, it does not change the fact that both characters are likable.

What makes Isaac in particular likable is his relatability. The film seems to address a common issue that people have in relationships, particularly commitment. The idea of committing to being with someone else for the rest of your life is one of the most daunting decisions you can make. The idea of taking steps in a relationship is scary. The idea of getting married is scary. The idea of being with someone else every day is scary. Nobody knows what the future has in store.

That said, having seen “Oh, Hi!”, I recognize that Isaac is kind of a fool. The way he addresses that he is not looking to be in relationship is so out of the blue to the point where he comes off as a jerk. And if he is not a jerk, he is most certainly stupid. While Isaac is relatable, it is no surprise the script does not always take his side. That said, it is also easy to root for him, especially considering he is tied to a bed for much of the runtime. The movie even points out despite Iris’ best intentions, she is technically kidnapping Isaac. His character is a solid representation of someone who would prefer to keep things casual, and is possibly afraid of taking things to the next level.

Overall, the relationship between Iris and Isaac is beautifully complex. The two seem to like each other and happen to be cute together. But they seem to have different goals in mind. One is in it for the romance, the other seems to be enjoying a short-lived fling. The film may as well be hinting that Isaac cares more about sex than anything else. The two seem to have failed to communicate their wants and needs before taking things further, therefore leading to the movie’s main incident. Either that, or it is possible that Isaac did what he could to impress Iris just to get into bed with her. The movie leaves a little room for interpretation and I appreciate that. If anything that matches the real-life complication of relationships.

Again, the end of this film is fantastic. I think a number of you could predict what happens towards the conclusion as the movie goes along, but it feels earned. The moments leading up to it are sometimes goofy, even for a romantic comedy like this one. But I can forgive it somewhat. If you are looking for a super funny film to watch with a great lead couple, then give “Oh, Hi!” a chance. It deserves some love.

In the end, “Oh, Hi!” came out of nowhere for me, but I ended up loving it. It is a romcom that is by no means disposable. It is a film that made me laugh, and then think. “Oh, Hi!” features an incredible cast of characters, well-written dialogue, and an ending that is truly satisfying. Romcoms are not my genre, but this one in particular stands out to me. I am going to give “Oh, Hi!” an 8/10.

“Oh, Hi!” is now playing in theaters and is also available to rent or buy on VOD.

Thanks for reading this review! My next review is going to be for “Weapons.” Stay tuned! Also coming soon, I will be sharing my thoughts on “Freakier Friday,” “Nobody 2,” and “Honey Don’t!”. If you want to see these reviews and more from Scene Before, follow the blog either with an email or WordPress account! Also, check out the official Facebook page! I want to know, did you see “Oh, Hi!”? What did you think about it? Or, what is a movie you really enjoyed from a genre you typically could not give two craps about? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

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

Posted on by Jack Drees

© NEON

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

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

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

Courtesy of 1.21 – © 1.21

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks for reading this review! My next review is going to be for “Oh, Hi!” Stay tuned! Also coming soon, I will be sharing my thoughts on “Weapons,” “Freakier Friday,” “Nobody 2,” and “Honey Don’t!.” If you want to see these reviews and more from Scene Before, follow the blog either with an email or WordPress account! Also, check out the official Facebook page! I want to know, did you see “Together?” What did you think about it? Or, is there a real life couple you would like to see star as an on-screen couple in a feature film? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

Materialists (2025): Love and Money Blend Together in This Middle of the Road Romance

Posted on by Jack Drees

Courtesy of A24 – © A24

“Materialists” is directed by Celine Song, the director behind one of 2023’s best films, “Past Lives.” This film stars Dakota Johnson (Fifty Shades of Grey, Madame Web), Chris Evans (Captain America: The First Avenger, Lightyear), and Pedro Pascal (The Last of Us, The Mandalorian). This film is about a matchmaker from New York City who finds herself in a personal conflict between her ex and a new love interest.

One movie I am mad at myself for skipping while it was in theaters was “Past Lives.” I did not review the film, but I was able to catch it by the end of 2023. I adored it so much that it ended up among my best movies of the year. The chemistry between the three leads was impeccable. Each role was perfectly cast and I was hooked from scene one. I thought the film was cute and heartfelt. Naturally, when I first saw the trailer for “Materialists,” I did not get excited by the film because big Hollywood stars like Chris Evans or Pedro Pascal would be in it. Although I do like those two actors. But what sold me was finding out that this was Celine Song’s next film following “Past Lives.”

I missed “Past Lives” in the theater but ended up loving it. Unfortunately, I had the opposite experience watching “Materialists.” Honestly, I was rather disappointed watching Song’s latest outing on the big screen.

What makes this effort somewhat sad is the fact that not only did the film’s director carry some weight, but as someone who lives in the U.S., and not South Korea, the actors have a ton more star power than Song’s previous project. You have Dakota Johnson, whose resume is hit and miss, but nevertheless prolific. Then there’s Pedro Pascal, who has had a large hand in the geek culture spheres in recent years between “Game of Thrones,” “The Mandalorian,” and “The Last of Us.” Also, there’s Chris Evans… Captain America himself! Need I say more? It would be one thing to see a disappointing Celine Song movie, but to have these well known actors in the mix makes it worse.

And honestly, I wish I could say that all the actors do a good job in this film despite the… (sigh) material. But I thought Dakota Johnson, while not horrible in this film, is sometimes stiff. Every other line out of her character, Lucy, feels flat. Watching Dakota Johnson in this film is like playing roulette. Every time there is a line out of her, I had no clue if it was going to be delivered decently or poorly. The gap separating the quality of her lines feels significant. Dakota Johnson can give good performances. Just go watch “Daddio.” But not only is Johnson sub-par in this film, I got the impression at times she was playing the same character she’s played in other films like “Madame Web” or “The High Note.” Despite the range of her line delivery in this film, I am starting to think Johnson herself has limited range as a performer.

That said, I thought the film’s two main male leads were okay in their roles. Pascal is a well built, rich, successful man. Or, as he is sometimes referred to throughout the film, a unicorn. I thought Pascal was perfectly cast. I never met Pedro Pascal myself, but from what I imagine, he must be a charming, handsome person.

Chris Evans on the other hand is a little less perfect of a human being. He self-admittedly has anger issues, he struggles with maintaining a steady career path as well as his financial stability. But despite his problems he seems like a decent guy. I liked Evans’ performance. He felt down to earth and inviting. Not preppy, not over the top. Just a genuine guy.

“Materialists” is a fairly grounded narrative. But unfortunately the script is where its tonal inconsistencies lie. Much of the film’s dialogue is quite good. Parts of it made me think about life. But there are quite a few cheesy lines that do not feel like they belong in a movie like this. I am not denying that people have said something cheesy at some point in their life. But the rate in which it happens in this film does not feel authentic.

There is a message in “Materialists” that makes for a good story. While a lot of people date and eventually marry for love, there are some people who want more out of a relationship. They want the partner to be attractive, have money, have a nice place and so on. As the film progressed, and this should be no surprise given the title, the film successfully presented itself as an allegory about how certain people find others’ possessions more attractive than the person they are dating. I will not go into spoilers, but there is a line towards the end of the film that could almost double as the film’s slogan. The film suggests that some people are simply attracted to success. Yes, someone could be the nicest person on earth. But for some people, they would be turned off if they found out the person they were dating happened to be poor.

Given this film’s message, I found it interesting how Lucy was written. Lucy works with a dating agency. Customers, some of whom are clearly desperate for a relationship, give this company good money to find a partner. The film asks questions as to whether love can be bought or if it is simply something you have to find yourself. The film shows the potential dangers of trying to follow a perhaps unachievable dream but also reveals how one can find life unappealing if they were to give their dreams up and settle.

The film does not shy away from highlighting appealing and thought-provoking topics. I just wish that the package that contains such topics was a little more appetizing. I wish it had better dialogue. I wish I liked some of the acting better. And I wish it were a little more tonally consistent. The film is shot well, has good music, and contains a couple decent scenes, but for me, I wanted more. I guess I am a bit of a materialist myself.

In the end, I do not think the “Materialists” and I are that great of a match. There are plenty of other fish in the sea, thankfully. Maybe the film will find its audience somewhere else. Honestly, I found this film disappointing. It is decently framed, the production design is nice, and some of the acting is okay. But there are plenty of elements that bog the film down between the tonal inconsistencies, Dakota Johnson’s sometimes stiff performance, and the cheesy dialogue. I still think Celine Song has a promising future as a filmmaker. I just hope her next project is much better than this one. I am going to give “Materialists” a 5/10.

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

Thanks for reading this review! Pretty soon, I will be sharing my thoughts on Pixar’s latest film, “Elio.” Stay tuned! Also, you can look forward to reading my reviews of “Jurassic World: Rebirth,” “M3GAN 2.0,” and “F1: The Movie.” 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 “Materialists?” What did you think about it? Or, have you seen Celine Song’s directorial debut, “Past Lives?” If you did, tell me your thoughts on that! Leave your comments down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

The Ballad of Wallis Island (2025): This Quirky British Comedy Hits the Right Notes

Posted on by Jack Drees

© Courtesy of Focus Features

“The Ballad of Wallis Island” is directed by James Griffiths and is based on a short film he helmed by the name of “The One and Only Herb McGwyer Plays Wallis Island.” Frankly, I am glad they went with a different title. Saying that out loud is kind of a mouthful. Nevertheless, the film stars Tom Basden (Plebs, The Wrong Mans), Tim Key (See How They Run, Mickey 17), and Carey Mulligan (Promising Young Woman, Maestro). This film is set on island and follows a quirky lottery winner who successfully brings two formerly coupled musicians to said island, so they could perform for an audience. That audience being himself.

Alistair Heap/Focus Features ©2/Alistair Heap/Focus Features ©2 – © 2025 Focus Features, LLC. All Rights Reserved.

“The Ballad of Wallis Island” snuck up on me last minute. If you have read my reviews before, you may know that I often go to see movies with my mom and grandma, so I have to find some sort of equalizer for the three of us. “The Ballad of Wallis Island,” which was not playing in a ton of places in my area, is the latest example. Having not seen any trailers, I was sold by this film’s basic premise alone. This film sounded bonkers, and having seen it, it is. But I was also surprised by how raw it feels at times. “The Ballad of Wallis Island” immersed me in its environment and I did not want to leave. Not only was I captivated by this film’s serene location, but I was constantly engaged with its characters.

Tim Key and Tom Basden play off each other very well in their off and on relationship. And speaking of Tom Basden, I thought he and Carey Mulligan made for a cute former couple. Every cast member is great in this film. I have no complaints. No one feels out of place.

In the world of Screenwriting 101, it is often best to write characters who stand out because of their problems. For example, in some of the Tobey Maguire “Spider-Man” movies, we see Peter Parker in situations where he must fight tooth and nail to make a quick buck and pay rent, making him easy to root for. The protagonist in “The Ballad of Wallis Island” appears to have much better luck, and financial stability, than Parker. We find out early on in the film that Charles wins the lottery. Not many people can say that. Winning the lottery is one of the least relatable and most envy-inducing events that one can experience.

Amazingly, I was able to find some relatability in Charles. The character lives on an island, which again, is not exactly relatable, but it also presents a problem that even some “normal” people run into, like limited communication. I also felt bad for the character, as it is also established he lost his wife, so he lives by himself. Tim Key does a really good job at delivering Charles’ eccentric charm and wit. We quickly learn he is a master of puns. There is an early one involving a famous actress that had me in stitches.

“The Ballad of Wallis Island” is a fine line between the impractical and the buyable. This movie goes out there in terms of its concepts but somehow manages to make each one work. This film has everything from Charles’ lottery backstory, to getting two people who dissolved their band as well their partnership to somehow reunite on an island and play together again, to letting this reunion not only respark their interest in each other, but as well the idea of doing bigger and better things. The breakdown of this movie is like an extended sitcom episode, where people are precisely where they need to be at the most convenient, but nevertheless understandable times.

“The Ballad of Wallis Island” has plenty of laughs. Aside from the recently mentioned out there situations and admirable puns delivered by this film’s lead, I thought Tom Basden, who plays Herb McGwyer, did an excellent job handling his character’s bewilderment in a series of situations. There is a problem McGwyer runs into early on in the film regarding his phone, and I found the solution to not only be fitting, but also amusing. The film’s humor also comes from Charles’ lack of connections. While is not entirely lonely on his island, he is not close to friends or family. There is a funny scene where we see Charles and Herb playing tennis. Again, going back to that fine line between impractical and buyable, we find out Charles usually plays tennis, a sport usually played by multiple people, by himself. Therefore, we find out he has a killer serve.

On occasion, “The Ballad of Wallis Island” sort of reminds me of “The Banshees of Inisherin.” And no, nobody’s fingers come off in this film. But both films take place on islands, center around quirky leads, and feature limited casts. I think “Banshees” is the superior movie, but both films do a great job when it comes to implementing stories about music. “The Ballad of Wallis Island” seems to be slightly more music-centered than “Banshees,” so if that is something you are looking for, this film seems to have you covered. That said, despite this film being about music, I cannot say I walked out of it thinking I would need to buy the soundtrack or listen to the songs again on YouTube. The songs were not bad. Maybe with a rewatch that could change. When it comes to the context of each song, I cannot say there are any that were not used wisely. The songs were good, but to me that is probably the highest praise I can give to them. None of them floored me or left me gobsmacked. That said, I cannot say I outright hated any of them, so there is that.

Without spoiling anything, I really enjoyed the film’s conclusion. It ends on a solid, upbeat note. In fact, this whole movie, even with its characters having their own ups and downs, is a consistent delight. This is a solid flick to watch if you want a dose of joy. It is funny, charming, and lots of fun. Additionally it is sentimental, and I can see a story like this triggering the feels for select viewers. Would I watch it on a Friday night? I do not know if it is my first choice if I am by myself. But I could see it being an okay date movie perhaps.

Courtesy of Focus Features © 20/Courtesy of Focus Features © 20 – ©  2025 Focus Features, LLC. All RIghts Reserved.

In the end, “The Ballad of Wallis Island” is a thumbs up. It is not my favorite film of the year so far, but it is one I do not regret watching. It is a solid British comedy with a likable cast that rides a fine line between fantasy and reality. The film has its fair share of laughs. I am not sure if the humor will be for everyone, but I would say it was for me. I am going to give “The Ballad of Wallis Island” a 7/10.

“The Ballad of Wallis Island” is now playing in theaters and is available to rent or buy on VOD.

Thanks for reading this review! My next review is going to be for a film that I am very excited to talk about. It is on a story I have heard a bit about ever since I was a kid. The review is for a documentary called “Secret Mall Apartment.” Stay tuned! Also coming soon, look forward to my thoughts on “A Minecraft Movie,” “Sinners,” “Thunderbolts*,” and “The Ruse.” 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 Ballad of Wallis Island?” What did you think about it? Or, what is a movie that you feel is a perfect balance between reality and fantasy? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

Love Me (2024): Kristen Stewart and Steven Yeun Engage in Robotic Romance

Posted on by Jack Drees

“Love Me” is a feature-length directorial debut from Sam and Andy Zuchero and stars Kristen Stewart (Twilight, Spencer) and Steven Yeun (Minari, The Walking Dead) in a film where a buoy and a satellite form a relationship following the end of humanity.

“Love Me” is the last new release I saw in January, and if you have been keeping track, I have been lamenting this month as it was unfolding. Thankfully, the month so far has been a tad better than I expected. And by that I mean, still bad for movies, but not outright horrible. That said, the annual monthly dumpster fire for film is not over yet, we still have to determine whether “Love Me” will join the rejects of January, or the one shining light known as “The Colors Within.” That film honestly made me forget about the problems of the world for a little bit.

Thankfully, “Love Me” is worth seeing, and it is quite a thinker. This is a film that I liked while watching it, and continue to appreciate more after the car ride home.

Like many other films, “Love Me” is its comparisons. While “Love Me” is not entirely animated, I cannot help but compare this film at times to “Wall-E” and “The Wild Robot.” This film, like those, is set in the future, and primarily centers around artificially intelligent characters. It also highlights humanity’s resistance to maintaining the earth. Although unlike those films, our focus on human characters is never seen in the present, it is always in the past.

The film centers around two robots, a buoy sitting in the middle of earth’s waters, and a satellite up in space looking down on the planet. The two meet, with the buoy seeming to continuously maintain a sense of curiosity. The robot is asking questions about anything that comes to mind. She learns about life, humanity, the Internet, and it results in a very creative relationship, if you can call it that, between the two core characters.

The film stars Kristen Stewart and Steven Yeun. That said, if you are looking forward to seeing them physically, you may not see as much of their actual selves as you would expect.

That said, their physical selves do have a good amount of screentime, but they are not there from the beginning. They show up later on and serve the robots’ stories. Both of them do a good job in the film as this lovey dovey couple who have a vlog. The couple also serves as a foundation for the buoy’s desires to be human. The buoy gets an impression on what it is like to live as a human just by watching these two engage in certain activities. We see the buoy in a sense trying to simulate those activities through digital animation. The animation clearly does not look high-tech. It is not up to the level of Pixar if you want a cinematic example. If anything, it looks like it is out of a “Sims” game. That seems to be the artistic intention, but still.

Despite the seemingly intentional schlocky animation, I will not deny that the film is pleasing to the eye. The color palette is often dazzling, especially during the scenes where we see the buoy floating in the water. The film is often bright, well lit, and there are also several shots involving the sun that look particularly great.

The film very much highlights the joys of being human, while also recognizing that maybe we are not perfect. Sticking with the human characters, who we come to know as Deja and Liam, I notice that never once do they leave their home, nor do their simulated counterparts. It seems to highlight the shift humanity is experiencing right now with shopping, watching media, and the shrinkage of social lives. We seem to be getting more sheltered and less adventurous. We find out the couple’s “date night” vlog is literally just them staying home, cooking, and watching television. It is not to say that staying home cannot be considered a date night. But I am under the impression the film is suggesting that in the future, we will see a significant increase in date nights at home.

Going back to “Wall-E,” one thing that the film tries to convince its audience is that two robots can fall in love. In a way, “Love Me” seems to be the anti-”Wall-E.” Because it is very much about a flawed relationship. It shows the struggles two robots have with such a concept. Likely because they are not programmed to love in the way that it would come naturally to a human. They are programmed to do other things. If that’s the case, you almost have to suspend your disbelief when watching this film. That said, this story also falls in line with the idea of artificial intelligence’s continued evolution to the point where it could one day become more human than human. We see the film’s protagonist, who we come to know as Me, establish itself as a “lifeform,” even though we know the character was manufactured.

If I had to list any negatives during the movie, I would say that the story does take a bit of time to get into gear. I think if I had to name a weakest part of the film, it would be the first ten minutes or so. The film also kind of reminds me a bit of “Ron’s Gone Wrong” because the robot voices happen to be very repetitive. This is especially noticeable with the satellite. When the satellite, who we come to know as Iam, literally pronounced “I am,” says a certain word or phrase, it often sounds exactly the same as it does previously. Much like the movie’s digital animations that turned me off, this appears to be an artistic intention. It perhaps highlights how computerized the bot’s voice sounds, but it still got on my nerves a little bit.

Despite these negatives, I still recommend the movie. There is not a lot that has come out in January that I think you should rush out in see, but “Love Me” is definitely worth your time.

© thelove.me

In the end, “Love Me” is a movie with a small cast, but a big impact. Not only is this a movie that I can see myself watching again, but there is a possibility that I will appreciate it to a greater degree the more times I watch it. It is a film that highlights what it means to be human, while also recognizing the issues we as a species are dealing with, and potentially creating. I have not heard a ton of word of mouth on this movie, so hopefully I can spread some for those checking this post out. I highly recommend “Love Me” and I am going to give it a 7/10.

“Love Me” is now playing in theaters. Tickets are available now.

Thanks for reading this review! My next review is going to be for “One of Them Days!” Stay tuned! But before we get to that, Scene Before is on the cusp of 800 posts, and I intend to celebrate with yet another look at my Blu-ray collection. I have been waiting to do this post for a long time. I am glad I am finally getting around to it once again. If you want to see these posts 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 “Love Me?” What did you think about it? Or, given the theme of romance and with Valentine’s Day coming up, is there a movie that you plan to watch on Valentine’s Day this year? For me, every other year, I’ve been watching “Deadpool.” On top of coming out around the holiday, it is a solid love story with superb action scenes. Leave your comments down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!