Sci-fi

Bugonia (2025): Bu-Go See Something Else

Posted on by Jack Drees

Courtesy of Focus Features – © Focus Features

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

Yorgos Lanthimos… We meet again.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Courtesy of Neon – © Neon

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

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!

The Fantastic Four: First Steps (2025): Marvel’s First Family Finally Gets the Big Screen Treatment They Deserve

Posted on by Jack Drees

“The Fantastic Four: First Steps” is directed by Matt Shakman (WandaVision, It’s Always Sunny in Philadelphia) and stars Pedro Pascal (The Mandalorian, The Last of Us), Vanessa Kirby (Mission: Impossible – Fallout, The Crown), Ebon Moss-Bachrach (Andor, The Bear), Joseph Quinn (A Quiet Place: Day One, Stranger Things), Julia Garner (Wolf Man, Ozark), Sarah Niles (Catastrophe, Ted Lasso), Mark Gatiss (Mission: Impossible – Dead Reckoning Part One, The Father), Natasha Lyonne (American Pie, Poker Face), Paul Walter Hauser (The Luckiest Man in America, Inside Out 2), and Ralph Ineson (The Witch, Nosferatu). This film is the latest entry to the Marvel Cinematic Universe and centers around a family of superheroes who must defend earth from the space God Galactus.

Photo by Marvel Studios/MARVEL STUDIOS – © 2025 20th Century Studios / © and ™ 2025 MARVEL.

This movie felt like a long time coming. Remember that sizzle reel Marvel had promoting all the movies coming out in the 2020s, trying to get people back to the cinema following the closures prompted by the COVID-19 pandemic? If you did not see it, I highly recommend checking it out, it is perfectly edited. But if you have seen it, you may recall at the end came this giant “4,” letting fans know that a Marvel Studios attempt at “Fantastic Four” was finally on its way. Only question was, when would we actually see this film come to life? The answer, long before Mahershala Ali gets his own “Blade” movie. That said, while the idea of a Marvel Studios-produced “Fantastic Four” was intriguing, the property comes with some baggage that has likely lowered expectations for future projects.

“Fantastic Four” is one of Marvel’s most celebrated franchises, and much like “Spider-Man,” the property has been adapted for the big screen multiple times. Although unlike “Spider-Man,” “Fantastic Four” has never been a surefire hit. Sure, some people have nostalgia for the 2000s “Fantastic Four” movies, but overall, they do not have the best track record critically. Having seen them, I cannot exactly say those films are good myself. The 2015 film, which some dub as “Fant4stic,” is not the worst comic book movie I have ever seen, but it is undoubtedly soulless and reeks of corporate desperation. On a positive note, if you can call it that, at least that film got released…

…Unlike that discarded project from 1994.

Now that the Walt Disney Company, and therefore Marvel Studios, maintains the rights to the “Fantastic Four” property, I was curious to see what Kevin Feige and crew were going to do with it. This is where “The Fantastic Four: First Steps” comes in. While not everyone appears to agree with me, I love the film’s marketing. The film promises a retro-futuristic ride with a family trying to save their world. I was hoping the movie would be as epic as its trailers had me assume it would be, and I am glad to report it most certainly is.

One thing about the Marvel Cinematic Universe that is both a blessing and a curse is that most of the movies feel the same as the next. This results in a tonal consistency from one project to the next. But it also sometimes leaves little room for variety and outside the box thinking. “The Fantastic Four: First Steps” has some familiarities from Marvel’s other projects, but it comes off as one of the most individualistic entries to the MCU. It sometimes has a “Guardians of the Galaxy” feel due to the film taking place in space, but “Fantastic Four” ultimately feels like its own movie because it is set in a universe outside most of Marvel’s projects. As an added benefit, the film lessens the need for homework or to connect itself to other properties or characters.

Speaking of that “Guardians of the Galaxy” vibe, the film’s space scenes are visually awe-inspiring and full of color. Although whereas “Guardians of the Galaxy” reminds me a bit of “Star Wars,” there are ways that “The Fantastic Four: First Steps” reminds me more of “Star Trek.” The sets sometimes feel like something out of Gene Roddenberry’s mind. Compared to “Guardians,” “Fantastic Four” feels less action-centered. Plus, the film carries this vibe of setting the stage for tomorrow. Much like DC’s “Superman,” “Fantastic Four” maintains a sense of hope. It leans into the idea of persevering even through the impossible. It celebrates brawn, but also brains. The film at one point leans into this seemingly impossible plan on Reed Richards’ mind, all in the hope of saving mankind. If this film were set on Earth-616, which seems to have quite a bit in common with our own universe, I would probably be more critical of Richards’ plan. But the movie is instead set on Earth 828, which likely opens the doors for more creativity and imagination. Therefore, as silly as Richards’ plan sounds, I was so sucked into this film that part of me was going along for the ride.

Photo by Marvel Studios/MARVEL STUDIOS – © 2025 20th Century Studios / © and ™ 2025 MARVEL

Speaking of Reed Richards, Pedro Pascal is in way too many projects! …Is what I might say if he did not do a good job as this film’s lead. Pascal has been busy lately between this film, “Eddington,” “Materialists,” among other projects. But there is a reason why he is getting so much work. He never fails to impress. First off, I am super happy to see Pascal redeem himself in the comic book movie sub-genre after the colossal disappointment that is “Wonder Woman 1984.” Second, Pascal is charming as Mister Fantastic. He is never over the top, but I bought into Pascal’s constant drive, and sometimes his disappointment. There is a scene in the middle of the film where Richards faces a large crowd and lets out his brutally honest thoughts, and I could truly feel his pain with each word that came out of his mouth.

Photo by Marvel Studios/MARVEL STUDIOS – © 2025 20th Century Studios / © and ™ 2025 MARVEL.

While not my favorite character in the film, its heart and soul for me is Sue Storm, or the Invisible Woman. I liked Vanessa Kirby leading up to “The Fantastic Four: First Steps,” but this might be the first film where I can say I truly love her. Kirby gives such a powerful performance. I got a sense that she wants what is best for other people, especially her family. I also like how the film utilizes her powers, even if the action in this movie is minimal. More on that in a second.

Photo by Marvel Studios/MARVEL STUDIOS – © 2025 20th Century Studios / © and ™ 2025 MARVEL.

Joseph Quinn puts on a good portrayal of Johnny Storm. Whereas Reed and Sue feel grounded, Johnny’s placement in the film shows him to be upbeat and hyperactive. Of the family, he comes off as the comic relief. Throughout the film I also could not help but notice Joseph Quinn and think he looked like a younger Chris Evans. Of course, if you know your Marvel history, Evans played Johnny Storm in the 2000s “Fantastic Four” movies. As for which performance is better, Quinn excels by miles, perhaps unfairly, given how he had much better material to work with as opposed to having every other line out of his mouth showcase his womanizing tendencies.

Photo by Marvel Studios/MARVEL STUDIOS – © 2025 20th Century Studios / © and ™ 2025 MARVEL

I would have to watch the film a second time to confirm how I really feel, but I think the Thing might be my favorite hero in the film. Ebon-Moss Bachrach unleashes a heap of charisma as one giant pile of CGI rocks. The special effects look pristine and there is not a moment where they took me out of the movie. Ultimately, if I had to choose one member of the Fantastic Four to meet for lunch somewhere, it would easily be The Thing. Ben Grimm is a genuinely likable guy who appears to be great with children. He has fun with everything that comes with his superhero life.

The action in “The Fantastic Four: First Steps” is really good, but if you are looking for nonstop, chaotic sequences, this is where “Superman” will serve you better. When it comes to the action in “The Fantastic Four: First Steps,” what we get is great, but it left me wanting more. The best thing I can say about the action is that each sequence had a logical and meaningful place in the story. Never once did I feel that I was watching an action sequence that was overdone just for the sake of showing off flashy effects.

On that note, while some Marvel projects as of late have some problematic special effects, I cannot think of one scene in “The Fanatastic Four: First Steps” where the effects were bad. I thought everything looked polished and maintained a sense of verisimilitude.

The climax in “The Fantastic Four: First Steps” undoubtedly comes with a sense of finality, but it also in a sense feels much smaller than some of the other films in the MCU. Despite my appreciation for the film unveiling Reed Richards’ smarts, I wish we could have gotten a tiny bit more of a showcase of his superpowers. I do not hate the climax, but I could understand people watching it and thinking “Man, that was short,” or, “Wow, that could have used more sparkle.” But for me, I appreciated it because it put the characters first. You have Galactus with an easy to understand motivation. Then you also have a family of superheroes thinking on their feet, while trying to protect the planet and their circle.

Speaking of Galactus, he looks terrific. He is quite literally a massive improvement over whatever the heck the crew behind “Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer” conjured up. Unlike that film, Galactus is a tall space god, not a giant cloud. And his motivation is nothing more than to consume worlds. Sometimes you do not need to go higher than that. The film makes such a simple idea so compelling. Ralph Ineson does a good job with the role.

Photo by Marvel Studios/20TH CENTURY STUDIOS/MARVEL STUDIOS – © 2025 20th Century Studios / © and ™ 2025 MARVEL.

On that note, speaking of villains, I thought Julia Garner was well cast as the Silver Surfer. To my surprise, the film does such a marvelous job at humanizing her. I did not know what to expect from the trailers. It did not show a ton of her character, but I was pleasantly delighted to see how the movie handles her. Also, props to the effects team for bringing her to life. She looks attractively glossy but also menacing when she needs to be.

Part of why I was so sucked into this movie was its narrative. Also like “Superman,” “The Fantastic Four: First Steps” skips over the origin story. The film does explain it, but it does not spend much time showing it. What the film is really about is the team, most especially Reed Richards and Sue Storm, preparing for the birth of their child. Only thing is, there is a whole galactic event that could prevent such a thing from going smoothly. The characters are presented with an incredible dilemma that seems tough to take in once it is given to them. However, it is one that depending on what choice is made, other people could interpret as self-centered. I love this dilemma. It kind of reminds me of that scene in “Spider-Man” where the title character is faced with a choice to save Mary Jane or the people onboard the Roosevelt Island tram, but this stakes here are so much higher. There are many more lives that these characters have to worry about. For those not in the know I will not spoil how this dilemma gets resolved, but I imagine some of you could probably predict how it unfolds.

For years, I thought Marvel ate DC for breakfast when it comes to their film slate. This is evident in so many regards including story, characters, humor, tonal consistency, and world-building. But while select titles like “Avengers: Infinity War” and “Endgame” have moved me with their original scores, DC has always slayed when it comes to its music. I am not the biggest fan of “Wonder Woman 1984,” but I play that film’s tracks on a highly consistent basis. That said, Michael Giacchino may have delivered the best score in a Marvel Studios film, not to mention a contender for my favorite score of the decade so far.

Photo by Marvel Studios/MARVEL STUDIOS – © 2025 20th Century Studios / © and ™ 2025 MARVEL

As mentioned before, “The Fantastic Four: First Steps” heavily dives into the realm of retro-futurism, and the music compliments that vibe to perfection. By itself, it is an epic superhero theme. When you break it down even further, it combines the magnificence of old school orchestras but every other millisecond you will hear a sound that evokes a sense of moving forward. As I hear this film’s main theme, I both imagine myself wanting to hear it at Carnegie Hall while also thinking about what it would be like to get down to it at the club. This is my favorite Michael Giacchino score since “Rogue One: A Star Wars Story,” and that says something considering how boisterously epic that music gets at times, especially towards the climax.

“The Fantastic Four: First Steps” might be my favorite comic book movie of the year. Is it a perfect film? No. If anything, I think it would benefit from a smidge more action. That said, I have no problem with the action scenes we have. Each one is essential to the story and feels special. Nothing feels overdone. Even the big final fight feels smaller for Marvel standards, but that does not mean it is bad. The fight successfully ties up loose ends established throughout the film, and finishes in a fashion that leaves me more than satisfied. Much like “Thunderbolts*,” another Marvel title released earlier this year, “The Fantastic Four: First Steps” is a film that I will remember fondly because of how well utilized its main ensemble turned out to be. If the characters do not work, then the movie does not work. Thankfully, the characters are phenomenally written and truly feel like a family.

By the way, the film contains two scenes during the credits. The second one is more of a “fun scene.” It does not really add much to the film other than referencing something that was highlighted earlier. You will not miss much if you skip it. But make it your mission to stay in your seat for the first one. DO NOT get up when the credits roll. If you are at risk of being late for your table at Seasons 52, then so be it! Do not miss the mid-credits scene!

Photo by Marvel Studios/MARVEL STUDIOS – © 2025 20th Century Studios / © and ™ 2025 MARVEL

In the end, I cannot wait to watch “The Fantastic Four: First Steps” a second time. This film is legitimately some of the most fun I have had at the movies this year. It is a film that never lets its characters escape from conflict. Every single scene had me engaged. While his motivation is not complicated, Galactus quite literally stands tall with such a commanding screen presence. “The Fantastic Four: First Steps” is an exceptional start to phase 6, and it only has me beaming for whatever Marvel has up its sleeves next. It is by far the best “Fantastic Four” movie without “Incredibles” in the title. I am going to give “The Fantastic Four: First Steps” an 8/10.

“The Fantastic Four: First Steps” is now playing in theaters. Tickets are available now.

Thanks for reading this review! My next review is going to be for “The Bad Guys 2!” Stay tuned! Also coming soon, look forward to my reviews for “Smurfs,” “Together,” “Oh, Hi!,” “Weapons,” “Freakier Friday,” and “Nobody 2.” If you want to see these reviews and more from Scene Before, follow the blog either with an email or WordPress account! Also, check out the official Facebook page! I want to know, did you see “The Fantastic Four: First Steps?” What did you think about it? Or, what are your thoughts on the other “Fantastic Four” movies we have gotten? Do you have a favorite “Fantastic Four” movie? I am willing to bet most people would agree that this latest one is the best of the bunch, but it is the Internet. Crazy things can happen. Leave your comments down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

Superman (2025): The DC Universe Begins with a Big Bang

Posted on by Jack Drees

“Superman” is directed by James Gunn (Guardians of the Galaxy, The Suicide Squad) and stars David Corenswet (Twisters, Pearl), Rachel Brosnahan (The Marvelous Mrs. Maisel, House of Cards), Nicholas Hoult (The Menu, Juror #2), Edi Gathegi (Into the Badlands, Twilight), Anthony Carrigan (The Forgotten, Gotham), Nathan Fillion (The Rookie, Firefly), and Isabella Merced (Transformers: The Last Knight, Dora and the Lost City of Gold). This film centers around the titular hero as he takes on Lex Luthor while trying to win back the general public’s trust.

It’s finally here. A brand spankin’ new cinematic universe. Just like DC’s last attempt at one of these ongoing sagas, we are kicking things off with Superman, this time around played by David Corenswet. When the DC Universe was announced, I was excited about it. Yes, I was enjoying the DCEU, but demand for it to continue has clearly diminished with one unsuccessful project after another, so I get why this new universe is happening. What really sold me is who would be involved. There was Peter Safran, a producer behind many of Warner Bros.’ recent films, including some DC fare. And alongside him on the more creative side was James Gunn, the director of this very film.

While Gunn is not my favorite filmmaker working today, he has a respectable knack for the craft. I thought he was perfect to shepherd something like this partially because of his love for comic books, as well as his experience with adapting them into films like Marvel’s “Guardians of the Galaxy.” Plus, with the release of “The Suicide Squad” in 2021, he is responsible for making my favorite DC movie ever. And I say this as someone who has seen every DCEU movie. Every Christopher Reeve “Superman” movie.” Every Christopher Nolan “Batman” movie. Even “The LEGO Batman Movie.” Not to mention “V for Vendetta!” There was a point where “Superman” was my most anticipated film of the year. That has changed having seen the more recent marketing, which was not horrible, but kind of lost steam for me the more I knew about the film. There were undoubtedly plenty of creative marketing stunts in recent weeks, but if we are just talking about trailers, that is where I feel the batting average starts to weaken. But who knows? Maybe I could walk out of the movie having a blast.

A lot was riding on this film between a new cinematic universe, trying to get general audiences onboard, as well as making a relatable story about a god. James Gunn and Peter Safran can take a moment to breathe a sigh of relief. This film is excellent.

Is “Superman” my favorite comic book film of the year? No. I prefer “Thunderbolts*” over “Superman,” but there is no denying that the latter is a blast. That said, there is something that separates “Superman” from a lot of recent comic book movies, even some of the better ones. With this being a brand new cinematic universe, there is no homework to be done to prepare for this movie. “Superman” is not the first entry to the DC Universe. It is the first film installment, but the current cinematic universe started earlier this year on HBO Max with the animated series “Creature Commandos.” Even so, one can go into “Superman” knowing nothing about the DC Universe, the comics, or any other piece of media related to the character and have a good time. It likely helps if you are more attached to that stuff, but it is not necessary.

While “Superman” may not be my favorite comic book film of the year, there is a serious possibility that this is likely the best “Superman” movie ever. It is definitely a more generalized interpretation of the character than “Man of Steel” but it is more pleasing to the palate. Despite my praise for “Man of Steel” and what would be my favorite “Superman” film if it were not for this latest one coming out, “Superman: The Movie,” there are parts of both stories that drag. Meanwhile, in this film, the pacing is quite literally perfect. The film is not exactly an origin story, though it does introduce Superman’s birthparents as well as Ma and Pa Kent. Instead it starts off with Superman losing a battle for the first time. We are not even two minutes into the movie, and it has already made a literal god compelling and relatable with what may be his lowest low as a hero. And it does not even stop there. Because if you stick around for the rest of the film, Superman has to deal with issues that are not only relevant, but incredibly human.

“Superman” astoundingly links to multiple prominent real world issues. Whether it has to do nations or groups of people fighting each other, hostile world leaders, the downsides of social media, or having your life forever changed by false information. The film is also likely an allegory on immigration. After all, Superman is not from Earth. So, despite him living there, he is technically an illegal alien. The rivalry between Superman and Lex Luthor sees the latter irritated by the former because in a sense he, an outsider, is being prominently celebrated to the point where Lex, an Earthling, envies him. This film does an amazing job of putting pressures on a popular figure like Superman. He knows how to be a hero in a general sense, but he is not as super in other areas such as dealing with social media controversy or handling the press. Although I will say, as well as that last concept is, it is a tad unexpected considering Clark Kent works for a news outlet, but still.

When I think about “Superman” my mind often goes to about how hard the character must be to write, and this film does an amazing job in terms of its script. I was genuinely surprised by how hooked I was by James Gunn’s vision from start to finish. But the pressure must have been equally as high for David Corenswet. Some of you who have not seen this movie yet are probably wondering who Corenswet is, but if you watch the film, I think he would be responsible for putting a smile on your face. When it comes to the movie variants of Supes, I do not think a single performer has ever been bad. That said, as much respect as I have for Henry Cavill as Superman in the DCEU, I think Corenswet’s character channels more joy, and he works well that way. Part of this is due to how he was written and directed, but when I look at Corenswet and hear him speak, it allows for an incredibly welcoming presence. While this Superman is very much Corenswet’s own thing, his interpretation somewhat reminded me of what I enjoy about Christopher Reeve’s take on the character. He is a likable role model, albeit flawed in certain ways.

We learn that there is so much more to Superman behind the big fat “S.” Going back to what I said about his handling of controversy, there is a fantastic scene early on in the film where the pressures of an interview are getting to him. Lois Lane is asking him a bunch of questions and he ends up saying things that he then realizes he probably did not want to say. We see that Supes is strong on the outside, but he might not always be the best at hiding his emotions. This is not to say he is a wuss. If anything, it means he avoids falling into the trap of toxic masculinity, but he also is not afraid to showcase how he really feels.

The surprise star of the show? Krypto the Superdog. I genuinely did not expect to like this character as much as I did. First off, I am not a dog person. I am allergic to dogs and my sensitive ears are not exactly the best things to have when a dog happens to be near me and starts barking up a storm. But Krypto is perfectly utilized here. He is not exactly a “good boy.” Though I can see one making a valid argument suggesting he actually is, considering he is loyal to his master. To my surprise, Krypto’s action scenes brought out some of my biggest laughs during the film.

The thing I perhaps loved most about this movie is its nature to embrace the silly and fantastical. Of course, with this being a James Gunn film, there is a scene where Superman takes on a kaiju in the middle of Metropolis. The film skips over Superman’s origin story and introduces other DC heroes like Hawkgirl, Metamorpho, Green Lantern, and the fantastically portrayed Mr. Terrific. James Gunn knows how to inject charisma into characters who may seem like they belong in the background, and Mr. Terrific is one such example. He is most certainly as terrific as his name suggests. I almost cannot see anyone else but Edi Gathegi in his shoes. Every line out of him is given with such pizazz. I would love to have lunch with Mr. Terrific if I was given the chance.

The film kind of reminds me of a Studio Ghibli title like “Ponyo.” One of my favorite things about that film is that even the adults seem to embrace things some in “the real world” would consider to be out there or of the land of make believe. I found it fascinating how Lois Lane, who by the way is excellently portrayed by Rachel Brosnahan, simply accepts the idea that she is flying an intuitive, advanced super vehicle.

That said, with this being a comic book movie, we have the return of one of the most overused jokes in the sub-genre. Specifically, this film has a gag that has something to do with a specific name. This is a joke as common as a Dunkin’ location in New England. It is not always a bad joke, it is just overdone. This time around, it revolves around the group of heroes trying to determine what exactly to call their team. The jokes are passable and by no means offensive. But they sometimes lack originality, especially coming off of “Thunderbolts*” which handled this cliché surprisingly well.

Speaking of humor, that is something that James Gunn is no stranger to in his movies. If you are coming to “Superman” to laugh, I am not saying you won’t, but the laughs in this film are not as strong as say “Guardians of the Galaxy” or “The Suicide Squad.” Then again, laughter is not exactly the most important item on the to-do list of making a “Superman” movie. That said, it is nice to have. The script, while definitely lighthearted, sucks me in to the point where I am more excited to see Lex Luthor lose his mind.

On that note, Nicholas Hoult is irreplaceable as Lex Luthor. They say a movie is only as good as its villain. And I will remember Hoult’s interpretation of the iconic villain for a very long time. Hoult has proven himself to be a solid actor in previous projects like “The Menu” and “Juror #2.” Meanwhile in “Superman,” Hoult unleashes a side of himself I am not used to seeing. His take on Lex Luthor is almost hyperactive nightmare fuel. While Lex Luthor may look like someone who can take a punch at times, he is beyond intimidating. His methods of trying to kill Superman sometimes teeter into Saturday morning cartoon territory, but James Gunn made me buy much of the movie’s over the top tendencies and choices.

With this being the first movie of its cinematic universe, “Superman” spends a little time teasing what is ahead, and I am interested to see what is next. Of course, I am a bit predisposed to these kinds of projects, but I probably would not be as excited for what lies ahead if I was not enjoying what was already in front of me. “Superman” may not be the best movie of the year, but it is unbelievably fun. It would have been a colossal disappointment if this movie failed because you only have one chance to make a first impression. I cannot wait to see what the DCU delivers from here on out.

In the end, “Superman” is a super fun time! Is it James Gunn’s best comic book movie? No. But it is also far from his worst. It is miles better than “Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2.” “Superman” is one of the most joy-filled movies of the year. It is packed with well written, phenomenally cast characters. The film never denies that “Superman” is a godly creature, but also spends lots of time humanizing him. I loved getting to know Clark Kent, as well as his alter ego. The story may be relevant, but it is delivered in such an otherworldly vibe. I was under the impression I was watching James Gunn flip comic book pages right in front of a projector lens. While I thought the score from John Murphy and David Fleming score could have used more memorable original bits and pieces, I thought the nods to John Williams’ music added a nice touch at times. Kind of like “Jurassic World: Rebirth,” I get why Williams’ music made into the final cut. He knows how to craft an epic theme. The film is off and on in the comedy department, but when it lands, it is smooth as butter. Go see this film with a group of people, everyone is guaranteed to have a great time. I am going to give “Superman” an 8/10.

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

Thanks for reading this review! My next review is going to be for the brand new action movie “Guns Up.” Stay tuned! Also coming soon, I will be sharing my thoughts on “The Fantastic Four: First Steps,” “The Bad Guys 2,” “Smurfs,” “Together,” and “Oh, Hi!.” If you want to see these review, and more from Scene Before, follow the blog either with an email or WordPress account! Also, check out the official Facebook page! I want to know, did you see “Superman?” What did you think about it? Or, what are some things you are looking forward to seeing in the DCU going forward? Is there anything that has not been revealed yet that you would like to see? Personally, “Peacemaker” season 2 cannot come fast enough. Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

M3GAN 2.0 (2025): Does Not Compute

Posted on by Jack Drees

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jurassic World: Rebirth (2025): Dinosaur Dullness

Posted on by Jack Drees

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

© Universal

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

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

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

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

Elio (2025): One of Pixar’s Zaniest, Poppiest Films Yet

Posted on by Jack Drees

Photo by Pixar/PIXAR – © 2025 Disney/Pixar. All Rights Reserved.

“Elio” is directed by Madeline Sharafian (We Bare Bears, Burrow), Domee Shi (Turning Red, Bao), and Adrian Molina (Coco, Monsters University). This film stars Yonas Kibreab (Sweet Tooth, Obi-Wan Kenobi), Zoe Saldaña (Guardians of the Galaxy, Avatar), Remy Edgerly (Pretzel and the Puppies, T.O.T.S.), Brandon Moon, Brad Garrett (Everybody Loves Raymond, Ratatouille), and Jameela Jamil (The Good Place, She-Hulk). This film is about a young boy who gets abducted by aliens and must survive against a warlord while befriending and helping those he meets along the way.

Photo by Pixar/PIXAR – © 2025 Disney/Pixar. All Rights Reserved.

I have a love/hate relationship with the Disney brand. They own a lot of properties I enjoy and are responsible for some killer titles. Not a day goes by where I do not think about “The Lion King.” But I will also call them out for their greedy business practices as well as their lack of originality in recent years. However, one part of Disney that has failed to let me down for the most part is Pixar. The studio has a strong blend of exceptional originals and solid sequels. While their more recent fare has not been as great as “Toy Story” or as satisfying as “Ratatouille” or as incredible as… Well, “The Incredibles,” Pixar still has a special place in my heart and I will continue to support them. To this day, the only film of theirs I disliked is “Elemental.” That said, everyone makes mistakes.

Even with my love for Pixar, I was nervous going into “Elio.” The biggest culprit for me is that the marketing has been middle of the road at best. I have most certainly been exposed to the campaign considering it has been going on for multiple years. But none of the trailers have wowed me. At the same time, this is not the first instance for me where a Pixar film’s marketing campaign underwhelmed me. Even films I enjoyed like “Inside Out” or “Finding Dory” had trailers that made their respective films look average at best. Maybe “Elio” would end up like them and pull off a pleasant surprise. Thankfully, it did.

“Elio” is one of Pixar’s weaker films. But as I continue to say, bad Pixar is still better than a lot of movies. And there are some fantastic elements that make “Elio” worth watching, especially in a movie theater. I had the privilege of checking out “Elio” in one of AMC’s Dolby Cinema auditoriums, which allowed the film’s technical strengths to stand out. Rob Simonsen’s score is bonkers and is packed with the spirit of adventure. The color palette, particularly when the film spends time in space, is awe-inspiring. There is a pod sequence towards the climax that had me on the edge of my seat at times. Like some of Pixar’s other films, the sound design is larger than life and incredibly immersive. I did not see the film in 3D. And as someone who wears glasses, I try to avoid 3D in most cases, but I do think “Elio” is a film that could justify a 3D upcharge. It looks beautiful, poppy, and dynamic.

But of course, some would argue that characters are more important of an aspect when it comes to judging a film. When it comes to judging Elio as a character, he is kind of an enigma. 

Photo by Pixar/PIXAR – © 2024 Disney/Pixar. All Rights Reserved.

For the record, I like Elio as a character. But I wonder what kind of impression he would leave on younger viewers. Elio is kind of a weirdo, a bit of an outcast. There is nothing wrong with that per se. If anything, he reminds me of myself when I was an adolescent. He is hyper-obsessed with space to the point where he literally wants to be abducted by aliens. That said, there are some moments where Elio’s uniqueness is so out there that it makes me wonder if a parent could ultimately regret introducing their child to this film at a certain point of their life. Kids emulate what they see on screen. Literally as I finished this film and headed towards the restroom I heard a young boy shouting “Chicken jockey,” in reference to “A Minecraft Movie.” I get that the ideas of space travel and aliens are exciting, but I would be a smidge concerned if some children hope to be abducted after seeing this film.

The film never mentions it outright, but based on Elio’s mannerisms, I would not be surprised if he has autism. If that is the case, I like the film’s interpretation. One sign of this happens to be Elio’s unusual fascination for space, which yes, that could be considered normal. But his obsession in particular feels rather extreme. On top of that, he is also interested in ham radios. How many children in the 2020s can say they know what a ham radio is? The film does not outright mock this particular interest, even though it shines a bright light on said interest at times. In fact, the way the film ends up utilizing it is kind of clever.

Photo by Pixar/PIXAR – © 2025 Disney/Pixar. All Rights Reserved.

Going back to how Elio does not have many friends on Earth, it is partially because he is what his peers would deem to be “the weird kid.” Therefore it almost feels appropriate that he ends up befriending space aliens. If anything, the movie suggests to its audience that there is nothing wrong with being weird, and if anything, it should be embraced. In fact, if you think you are a bit weird yourself, there may be someone out there waiting to weird out alongside you.

I can also see this film serving as a positive influence in terms of helping young people follow their dreams. I could see it inspiring younger people to want to go to space or at the very least, pursue some kind of career having to with space or astronomy, perhaps even other branches of STEM.

I am not saying the character of Elio is a terrible influence. If anything he is simply imperfect. In fact, the movie does its best to show why people should avoid being too “normal,” which I thought was clever. The movie presents a case as to why Elio wants to be abducted, and in some ways it does make sense. He lost his parents, he does not have a ton of friends, and he has trouble communicating with or relating to others. While the concept itself is a bit out there, it is clever. And despite Elio being an iffy influence, his motivation is cleaner for a family-friendly feature than say turning to suicide or drugs or alcohol. Although I will say at one point Elio does try a drink in space that looks like something you’d get poolside at a galactic resort, plus it was handed to him by someone he barely knows. Whatever, sometimes you have to live a little.

The film also has a lesson that I think is great for both children as well as parents and guardians. The lesson specifically regards traditions, and how someone’s life is not written in the eyes of their guardian. One can argue that this feels familiar given how it was a lesson that was highlighted in “Elemental” a couple years back. But if you know my thoughts about that film, you might imagine I think this idea was executed better in “Elio.” If so, you would be correct.

I also thought the ending was a bit odd. The film itself ends on a satisfying note. But there is a soundbite that plays in the movie’s final minute that feels well-intentioned, but I honestly think it could have been left on the cutting room floor. I think the movie would have made a greater impact by ending with a lack of dialogue and simply letting the music, sound, and visuals do the talking. Also, Elio’s “ultimate choice” in the film so to speak feels a bit forced. One could argue it plays into his character development and the film’s overall lesson, but I do not buy him making that choice by the time the film ends based on everything we know about him.

One more standout about the film that I would be ticked with myself for missing, Brad Garrett as Lord Grigon. I think Brad Garrett can do no wrong no matter the role he takes. His one of a kind voice and charisma makes him a standout in whatever he does. The same can be said here, although unlike his previous work as the saintly Gusteau in “Ratatouille,” he is a bit of a psychopath who essentially wants to conquer other beings. I had so much fun watching Brad Garrett flex his muscles here. I am not the biggest fan of “insert celebrity here” playing voiceover roles to get people in the doors, but Garrett gives a performance that has me failing to imagine anyone else in his character’s shoes. Garrett has such an expressive presence and he gives it his all. While Lord Grigon may not be my favorite Pixar antagonist, he is well written, especially when it comes to scenes regarding him and his son. Honestly, the entire cast in this movie works. There is not a bad voice on the lineup. Though Brad Garrett to me is the standout.

In the end, “Elio” is far from the best Pixar movie, but if you were to check it out sometime this summer, I think you will end up having a blast. It is the classic Pixar formula. Make a film that both kids and adults can enjoy, and that is the case here. All the story elements are well-realized. The characters are likable, even if I wonder what kind of impact some of them will have on younger audiences. Keep in mind, the film is PG, not G. Make sure to guide your children! The animation, per usual, is breathtaking. The score is flipping fantastic and makes me want to go on an adventure. Also, having seen this in Dolby, I think parts of the film can be incorporated into a fun ride at Disney World or something. The film is a lot of fun. It is not quite the galactic masterpiece that “Wall-E” turned out to be, but it is a great ride. I am going to give “Elio” a 7/10.

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

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

Thanks for reading this review! My next review is going to be for the brand new blockbuster “Jurassic World: Rebirth.” Stay tuned! Also, look forward to my reviews for “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 “Elio?” What did you think about it? Or, what is your favorite Pixar movie? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

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

Posted on by Jack Drees

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks for reading this review! My next review is going to be for the Celine Song’s newest film, “Materialists.” Stay tuned! Also coming soon, I will share my thoughts on “Elio,” “Jurassic World: Rebirth,” and “M3GAN 2.0.” If you want to see these reviews and more from Scene Before, follow the blog either with an email or WordPress account! Also, check out the official Facebook page! I want to know, did you see “The Life of Chuck?” What did you think about it? Or, did you read the short story that inspired this film? Let me know your thoughts on it down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

Thunderbolts* (2025): Familiar Marvel Characters Take Center Stage in an Unexpectedly Powerful Story

Posted on by Jack Drees

Photo by Marvel Studios/MARVEL STUDIOS – © 2025 MARVEL.

“Thunderbolts*” is directed by Jake Schreier (Paper Towns, Beef) and stars Florence Pugh (Oppenheimer, Midsommar), Sebastian Stan (The Apprentice, A Different Man), Wyatt Russell (Monarch: Legacy of Monsters, Black Mirror), Olga Kurylenko (Quantum of Solace, Magic City), Lewis Pullman (Top Gun: Maverick, Salem’s Lot), Geraldine Viswanathan (Blockers, Miracle Workers), Chris Bauer (The Deuce, True Blood), Wendell Pierce (Suits, The Wire), David Harbour (Violent Night, Stranger Things), Hannah John-Kamen (Brave New World, Killjoys), and Julia Louis-Dreyfus (Seinfeld, Enough Said). This film is about a group of antiheroes who work together on a mission where they must face the darkness of their pasts.

Photo by Marvel Studios/MARVEL STUDIOS – © 2025 MARVEL.

Before we get into my thoughts on “Thunderbolts*,” I would like to take a few moments to discuss my current feelings about the Marvel Cinematic Universe.

Every time there is a new Marvel Studios project out, I imagine that group as if they were a see-saw. The past couple years or so, I have come across a multitude of extremes. “The MCU is dead!”, “The MCU is back!”, “The MCU is dead again!”, “The MCU is back again!” Personally, the MCU is long from dead. And it always has been. There have been missteps along the way, sure. But many filmmakers would kill to have a project as successful as many of those coming out of Marvel. Yes, 2023 was a lesser year for the studio. Yes, “The Marvels” bombed… Yes, “Ant-Man and the Wasp: Quantumania” underperformed… But in the same year, we also had “Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3,” which was super successful. Marvel was down, but not out.

Then in 2024, Marvel churned out the highest-grossing R rated title of all time with “Deadpool & Wolverine.” And “Agatha All Along” also did well on the TV side.

Flash forward to 2025, things are not off to the best of starts. Sure, maybe “Daredevil: Born Again” is well received. But movie-wise, “Captain America: Brave New World” got old really fast. The box office was somewhat respectable, but it was low by Marvel standards. It probably would have been higher if the film did not have a 48% on Rotten Tomatoes. As for my thoughts on the film, I would say it is mediocre. It is the first Marvel film since “Endgame” I did not enjoy. That is honestly not a bad streak.

Photo by Marvel Studios/MARVEL STUDIOS – © MARVEL 2025

Now that much of the discourse of “Thunderbolts*” is finding its way online, I am not going to claim the MCU is back. Again, it never died. But I would say the MCU is in a great position right now because “Thunderbolts*” is an incredible time.

There is a sense of homogeneity from one Marvel movie to the next. While this film manages to maintain some of the cliches from prior Marvel projects, “Thunderbolts*” is undoubtedly unique when it comes to the span of the MCU. While the film features familiar characters, they have arguably never been this well written.

Photo by Marvel Studios/MARVEL STUDIOS – © 2025 MARVEL. All Rights Reserved.

Well, maybe except Bucky. He has been around for a bit. His role in “Captain America: The Winter Soldier” is rather compelling at times.

“Thunderbolts*” goes beyond being a great comic book movie, which is not necessarily a detractor by itself, and gives one of 2025’s deepest narratives yet. This film is about a bunch of nobodies who are tasked to complete a mission together. Basically the Thunderbolts are Marvel’s version of the Suicide Squad. With there being two “Suicide Squad” movies, I would put “Thunderbolts*” in between them. It is nowhere near as bad as the 2016 one, but not quite as enjoyable as the 2021 sequel directed by James Gunn.

What makes “Thunderbolts*” in particular so compelling is its handling of the core characters. Again, these are nobodies. But in some cases, them being nobody is what makes them relatable. I think a lot of people will relate to characters like Yelena because the movie dives into her struggles of having no one by her side. After all, her sister died. She has been away from her parents for some time. She does not have a partner. The movie dives into various obstacles people can have with their mental health. This film came out in 2025, and knowing some of the things going on in the world, it feels like a movie some people will need right now. I can only imagine the conversation this would have gotten had this come out some time in 2020, or 2021, back when COVID-19 started to spread around the world. “Thunderbolts*” is playing a key role in kickstarting this year’s blockbuster season. It is undoubtedly a film that a ton of people are going to see. I imagine a lot of viewers are expecting to have fun. That is a core expectation of many of these tentpole releases. Having seen the film, I can say it is in fact, quite fun. But I also walked out of this film thinking about the people in my life, my social circles, and wonders as to what my future could present should I navigate in a certain direction. Maybe some people could see this film as a bit of a downer, but I think there is enough balance throughout the story to where it could wind up being some of the most fun one can have at the movies this year.

Photo by Marvel Studios/Marvel Studios – © 2025 MARVEL. All Rights Reserved.

On that note, the humor in “Thunderbolts*” works very well. Just about every joke landed for me. The highlight for me throughout the film, in terms of comedy, is easily David Harbour. This comes as no surprise because I found him to be the standout of “Black Widow,” mainly because of his execution of that film’s more comedic moments. Neither of these films are quite “Guardians of the Galaxy” funny, but that is a tall mountain to climb.

In fact, if I had a critique for the humor, it would be that some of the jokes feel like rewrites of what we have gotten in other Marvel projects. This might not be a surprise because there are so many projects already out, but after so many of them, you are bound to follow a formula or repeat something that was done before. One joke that finds its way into the script is the characters talking about how dumb a particular name is. As someone who likes these movies, I have noticed an arguable overuse of this kind of joke. But rarely does it fail for me, and “Thunderbolts*” is not an exception to the rule. Not only did I find this film’s “name jokes” funny, but they also play a key role in the story down the line.

I am an MCU fanboy. I make an effort to see all the films as soon as they come out. But it does not mean I am ignorant of any drawbacks that come my way. And this movie has some. One that comes to mind is Julia Louis-Dreyfus as Valentina. I do not have anything against how the character was written, but if anything, I felt like Louis-Dreyfus was playing herself. Maybe this is due to watching a lot of “Seinfeld,” but when I look at Valentina and listen to her speak, I cannot help but picture a boss lady variant of Elaine.

Another flaw has to do with the pacing. That is if you can call it a flaw. The film has an entertaining first half, but eventually, things pick up fast and furious to the point where the latter half outshines the former. “Thunderbolts*” is a great film, but I am going to remember it more for the second half than the first, which was fun nevertheless.

Knowing the MCU’s track record as of late, this next flaw should not be a shock. Some of the CGI could be a smidge better. Granted, a lot of the CGI in the film is great, and collectively, the effects are much better than say “Black Widow” or “Thor: Love and Thunder.” But some of the computerized effects looked kind of obvious. Although even those that did seem obvious sometimes looked polished or buyable enough to the point where I could be forgiving of their presence.

While the CGI may not be perfect, one technical aspect that pleasantly surprised me was the color grading of the film. With some occasionally obvious effects aside, I cannot say I have seen an MCU film that looks utterly incompetent. Though a common problem I find with some of these movies is through the color palette. Sometimes the colors do not quite match the mood of the film. “Captain America: Civil War” comes to mind. While it is a more serious MCU installment, I thought the colors were a bit too gloomy and dark for what the film turned out to be, especially with the airport throwdown. The color grading in “Thunderbolts*” was also on the gloomier side, but it felt natural for the story that was being told, as well as the vibe that was lingering in the background. The colors were consistent and amazingly did not take away from the more fun moments of the film. The film was always fun, but in the back of my mind, it was also a bit of a downer when it dove into some of the characters’ struggles.

Another common MCU problem that fails to find its way here is the film’s villain. I am not going to dive into a ton of details regarding the character, but not only were they well written, but I thought they fit perfectly into the mental health motif. There is a climactic sequence involving said character that like several others in the MCU, is heavy on the special effects, but it winds up becoming a one of a kind battle that I do not recall ever seeing in this series of films. This is not my favorite MCU climax, but it is safe to say it is up there with some of the best.

Many of the characters in this film have appeared in other MCU projects. Thankfully, I can claim that you do not need to see those other films to understand what is going on in this one. While the film does reference a couple major events in the MCU that have been documented in other stories, I think an MCU first-timer can go into this film with no experience and have a good time with it. This story feels fresh, which is amazing to say considering the amount of familiar faces that make up the cast both on the film and TV sides.

Although for those who did see “Captain America: Brave New World,” there is one major event involving Bucky that is referenced in the film. It is resolved in a cop out-like manner. If you were looking forward to knowing more about that event, you get more. But not a ton. As much as I enjoyed this movie, this sort of shows the haphazardness of the MCU and how supposedly big setups in previous projects can be met with little payoff. Granted, the setup paid off. But perhaps barely.

If I had any other notes regarding the film, I will note that this is the first MCU appearance of Geraldine Viswanathan, and I thought she did a good job. At one point, her character kind of puts things into perspective for the younger people living in this universe, particularly how some of the major events such as the Battle of New York might come off as something that would now be covered in a history class. I thought that was a nice touch. For those who do not know Geraldine Viswanathan, she is a super talented young actress. This is not her best work. If anything, I recommend checking out the TBS series “Miracle Workers” if you want to get a true sense of Viswanathan’s comedy chops. But I am glad to see her make her way into the MCU.

By the way, there are two extra scenes during the credits. And without giving anything away, I got a big, fat laugh while watching the mid-credits scene. There is some line delivery in the clip that simply amounts to perfection.

Marvel Studios/MARVEL STUDIOS – © 2025 MARVEL. All Rights Reserved.

In the end, I would give “Thunderbolts*” two big thumbs up. This was a phenomenal time at the movies. Florence Pugh overdelivers in her lead role. David Harbour is comedy gold. Sebastian Stan is stellar as usual. And Lewis Pullman does a great job playing another supporting character named “Bob” following his efforts in “Top Gun: Maverick.” I am looking forward to seeing what the next few months bring in terms of blockbusters. If this year’s upcoming tentpoles are as good as “Thunderbolts*,” then the summer movie season is gonna rock. I am going to give “Thunderbolts*” an 8/10.

“Thunderbolts*” is now playing in theatres everywhere. Tickets are available now.

Thanks for reading this review! My next review is going to be for “Rust.” Yes, that one. The movie was not playing in too many theaters, but I was at the right place at the right time, and managed to check it out a few weeks ago. Look forward to my official thoughts coming soon. Also on the pipeline, I have reviews coming for “The Ruse,” “Mission: Impossible – The Final Reckoning,” “The Accountant 2,” “Bring Her Back,” and “Friendship.” If you want to read 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 “Thunderbolts*?” What did you think about it? Or, with this being the last MCU movie in phase 5, what did you think of this phase overall? Do you have a favorite film or TV show? Personally, my favorite project was “Deadpool & Wolverine” by a clear mile. Let me know your faves down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

Mickey 17 (2025): More Robert Pattinsons Means More Fun in Bong Joon Ho’s Latest Movie

Posted on by Jack Drees

“Mickey 17” is directed by Bong Joon Ho (Parasite, Okja) and stars Robert Pattinson (The Batman, Tenet), Naomi Ackie (Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker, Master of None), Steven Yeun (The Walking Dead, Minari), Toni Collette (Knives Out, Hereditary), and Mark Ruffalo (The Avengers, Dark Waters). This film is set during a group’s mission to colonize a planet and mainly follows the journey of a disposable employee who we see living his 17th life.

I have waited desperately for the day I could watch “Mickey 17.” As a science fiction fanatic, this film looked like my jam. It had a clever concept, intriguing cast, and it was helmed by Bong Joon Ho, whose previous film became the Academy’s first Best Picture recipient not made specifically in the United States. I have a feeling that if this film were in the hands of, say a first time director, it might still sell me, but Bong Joon Ho’s involvement basically put me over the edge.

Is “Mickey 17” likely going to follow in the footsteps of “Parasite” and win Best Picture next year? It is still too early to say, but I would assume that to be a “no.” Although if the Academy Awards were tomorrow, I could see the film at least being nominated. That said, it is not for everyone. The film has heavy commentary, but also happens to cross a line to where it can be silly. If Bong Joon Ho did not direct this movie, I would have been convinced that this was a Taika Waititi film in the style of “Jojo Rabbit,” which seamlessly blends comedy and drama despite the movie sometimes falling into an extreme on one side or the other.

The movie has Robert Pattinson playing a character who we get to see repeatedly die, sometimes in brutal ways. That is something to put on the more comedic side of the spectrum. Yet on the dramatic side, the movie uses this disposable character as a foundation for highlighting the human condition.

Going back to comedy, this movie also has Mark Ruffalo and Toni Collette playing a couple who tend to be more concerned with blood spilling on their carpet as opposed to having someone die on said carpet. At the same time, on the dramatic end, the narrative also shows how people with prominence or power can affect the way people think.

There are multiple adjectives I could use to describe “Mickey 17.” Fun, brisk, grand, ambitious… I was not expecting “horny” to be one of those adjectives. At times, the vibe of this film reminded me of the 2021 flick “Voyagers,” which like this film, is mainly set in a spaceship with a decent amount of characters. The films have their differences, one of them being that “Mickey 17” is much more watchable. Although one similarity the two movies have is that they feature characters or storylines that have something to do with sexuality and urges. The movie features a sizzling connection between Robert Pattinson’s Mickey variants and a security agent named Nasha (Ackie) for example. This movie is about a group’s journey to colonize a new planet, and the individual at the forefront of this mission is politician Kenneth Marshall (Ruffalo) who early on, gives this dramatic speech to an audience encouraging them to “spread their seed” upon their arrival.

This is Bong Joon Ho’s first feature film following the Oscar Best Picture winner “Parasite.” While the film itself is not on the same level as “Parasite,” there are some scenes from “Mickey 17” that made me shake in the same way I did watching the former. “Mickey 17” has a halfway decent amount of unpredictability, but nothing as out of left field as “Parasite.” The structure of the film feels familiar, but it is done in a way where certain moments feel fresh or one of a kind. Much like “Parasite,” “Mickey 17” does a good job at handling commentary. Sometimes it is a little on the nose, but it is still decently delivered. For example, there is a scene early on where we notice a massive sea of supporters for Kenneth Marshall, a politician this movie clearly paints as the antagonist, and a fair amount of those supporters are wearing red hats. Sound familiar? If not, then maybe this movie will have to try harder and make commentary great again.

I can get by the not so subtle commentary because despite it being played up, it does feel reminiscent of current times. In fact, it only feels more on the nose by coincidence considering who was elected President in the U.S. before this film came out. The true test however is to see how the film ages with the world’s political landscapes. That said, society is not perfect. So odds are this film could age decently.

Tonally, “Mickey 17” is an enigma. It is certainly unconventional, but I kind of love it. That said, I could see some people comparing this film to a Saturday morning cartoon at certain points. Aside from that, there is not a ton else that bothers me in the film aside from the fact that some of the effects look fake. The exterior of the spaceship looks like something out of a TV series. That bothered me in the marketing for this movie. When I saw that spaceship for the first time, I thought I was watching an animation. That gripe remains in the final product. Many of the effects in this film look okay, but that spaceship stood out to me. I will not doubt that a lot of work was put into the CGI, but the film’s budget is at least $118 million. It could definitely be more expensive, but for that much money, I sometimes expected something a little more polished.

I am curious to know how this film will do with general audiences. For science fiction nerds like myself, this film is a complete and total blast. I think some casual moviegoers will be riveted by the film’s spectacle, and they will also enjoy seeing Robert Pattinson give it his all in two roles. Bong Joon Ho has had a prominent boost in the past number of years, and “Mickey 17” will likely garner certain people’s attention in my country, the U.S., since the film is in English, unlike his previous outing. But I am not sure if this film is going to have the spark to bring everyone together. Plus, again, I will mention that Mark Ruffalo is essentially playing a Donald Trump wannabe. Should word of that spread around just enough, I can imagine more people wanting to give their hard earned money to something else that will feel more like an escape. Although if I am being honest with you, this film is kind of an escape. The film took me to space, and I found it to be a fine journey. I give the movie a recommendation.

In the end, “Mickey 17” is an experience that is going to stick with me for a long time. This movie is grounded yet wonderfully odd. It is full of tiny, admirable quirks. The performances are to die for. Everyone is great in this film. Mark Ruffalo, Robert Pattinson of course. But if I had to name a favorite, I would have to say Toni Collette takes the cake. By the end of the film, I loved her simply because of how fiendish this film makes her out to be. She is very well directed. “Mickey 17” is another win for Bong Joon Ho and I am going to give it a 7/10.

“Mickey 17” is now playing in theaters and is available to rent or buy on VOD.

Thanks for reading this review! I keep beating a dead horse, but I apologize if I am behind on my reviews. The truth is, I am most definitely behind. I have been busy. I am still catching up on posting about the movies I watched while making the 7th Annual Jack Awards. A ceremony which by the way, you should totally check out. Here are some of the reviews you can expect going forward, and I have seen all these movies by the way. Coming soon, you can read my thoughts on “Locked,” “Hans Zimmer & Friends: Diamond in the Desert,” “The Luckiest Man in America,” “The Penguin Lessons,” “Novocaine,” “The Ballad of Wallis Island,” “Secret Mall Apartment,” and “A Minecraft Movie.”

I cannot wait for you to see my reviews on all these movies. No, seriously. I have been putting these off for quite some time so I cannot wait any longer. And you can be notified about these reviews as soon as they drop. Please follow Scene Before either with an email or WordPress account, and be sure to check out the official Facebook page! I want to know, did you see “Mickey 17?” What did you think about it? Or, what is your favorite Bong Joon Ho film? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!