Sci-fi

Dune: Part Three Sells Out Limited IMAX 70mm Screenings Months Before Release – The Eventification of Moviegoing

Posted on by Jack Drees

Hey everyone, Jack Drees here! My most anticipated movie of 2026 is Christopher Nolan’s “The Odyssey,” based on Homer’s epic poem of the same name. You may remember nearly 9 months ago, tickets went on sale for some of the movie’s IMAX 70mm screenings. And by sheer luck, I managed to grab a ticket for the first show in Fort Lauderdale, Florida when the movie opens this July.

Naturally, Warner Brothers must have seen this and decided to follow suit with another film I am looking forward to… “Dune: Part Three.” Around noon on the east coast, which is where I live, a list of theaters were selling tickets for the movie. I had very little notice to buy tickets, but I was scrolling on Instagram and saw a couple posts suggesting that tickets were going to go on sale in a half hour. Not next week, not the next day, but literally the next half hour. So, I go through the list of theaters and make a game plan… Opening multiple tabs, having different devices out… I was ready. After checking a couple websites, I go to IMAX’s official site and click on a link that brings me to the AMC Lincoln Square 13 in New York, New York… And lone behold… Tickets went on sale minutes before their scheduled time at 12 p.m.. So, I click on the 7 p.m. show for Friday, December 18th.

For the first time in my life, I had to go through multiple seat selections just to get something that will take me to the landing page. It took me three tries, and knowing how many seats were sold already, I am shocked the count was not higher. And if someone can get Hans Zimmer on the phone to play some victory music, that would be amazing! Why? Because I got my tickets! …And so did everyone else in the world, apparently. Less than a half hour after I buy the tickets, I check the “view” tab on my screening, and it says the show sold out. And so did other showtimes! Keep in mind, I bought tickets for Friday. There was also a show being held the day before that I had no idea about. When I checked AMC’s site originally, I did not see a listing for it. Not that I am complaining. Friday is still quite early in the release schedule and I am sure the crowd going to see it Friday will be just as enthusiastic as the crowd going the night before.

My theater is not alone. For this push, 19 IMAX theaters were selling tickets. Only two are located outside of North America. More than seven hours after tickets went on sale, most of these theaters say they “sold out” on IMAX’s website. All of these theaters were selling one show per day from opening Thursday to the following Sunday. Since buying my tickets, more showtimes have been added, and those are already selling too.

Though my ticket-buying experience makes me wonder if we are seeing a shift in how movie tickets are sold. Between “Dune: Part Three” and “The Odyssey,” buying movie tickets, in certain regards anyway, is starting to feel like buying concert tickets. The concept may not be resemblant to every concert, but these past couple of instances of buying tickets felt like the cinephile’s equivalent to scoring seats for Taylor Swift’s The Eras Tour a few years back. Between how early the tickets are going on sale, the specific venues that are allowing tickets to sell immediately, the fact that people like me are fighting to get the seat they want, as well as the price… These are not only hottest tickets in town, but buying one almost guarantees jealousy from others who did not acquire theirs in time. That is, if you choose to keep the ticket. There are already some users online selling them for several times their original price. Morons.

I bought two tickets for my screening at the AMC Lincoln Square 13. Each ticket cost me $30.49. It would have cost me more if my AMC Stubs memberships did not cover my convenience fees. Sadly, this film is excluded from my A-List reservations, but in actuality, I do not mind it that much. If anything, it saves me the trouble from having one less slot I can use for the next 8 months. For the record, the price is not that much different from what I would pay now for an IMAX movie at the same location. Not to give AMC any ideas, but I am a tad surprised the cost is not higher.

The reason why I say that is because not only is Lincoln Square home to one of the biggest IMAX screens in the country, but due to it being in New York City, I would expect the price to be more than some of the other markets selling tickets early. Yet to my surprise, there are a few less populated areas that are selling the same experience, but charging more money for it.

I was going through X, and found a couple of people posting about the prices some of these theaters were charging…

Including one in Nashville, Tennessee…

As well as another located about 35 miles away from Atlanta, Georgia…

I should also note, both of these are Regal locations. I am noticing a trend here…

In fact, since the theaters have added more showtimes, it has only given me a smidge more material to work with for this post. I checked a 10:45 p.m. showtime for the Regal in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania. This theater probably would have been my backup if I could not get into Lincoln Square as the distance is somewhat drivable from home, and the fact that I have always wanted to check out the King of Prussia Mall. Though I likely saved myself a hassle, as tickets are $50 a pop.

Meanwhile, a Cinemark that is somewhat drivable from home, located in Rochester, NY, is also listing early showtimes. Having checked an 11 p.m. show on opening Thursday, they do not seem to be showcasing the same level of greed as Regal, considering how tickets are half the price at $25.

The pricing for this event does appear to be a bit out of control, especially when you consider that a ticket for an evening IMAX show set around the same timeframe for both Nashville and the Mall of Georgia is typically around $30 for adults. If I were to go see “The Super Mario Galaxy Movie” this week during the evening, that is how much I would pay just for a single ticket prior to fees. As much as I do not mind the trend of premium screenings selling tickets early, I do think there is a limit on how high one of these screenings should be priced. $40 for a movie ticket in 2026 feels like overkill. $50 is just outrageous.

I have paid 50 bucks for a movie ticket before, but I felt that price was somewhat justified as the director of said movie showed up to introduce the screening and stay after to do a Q&A. By the way, the screening was for the 25th anniversary of “Dogma,” and getting to see Kevin Smith before and after was a complete blast. This was a standard 2D screening, but it had a unique luxury on top of it.

I have a feeling that should we continue to do events like these, theaters could end up taking advantage of their customers and make them spend more money than perhaps one realistically should on something as simple as a movie. And that is important to note. I have no problem spending a good chunk of money to see a comedy show or a baseball game, because you are witnessing the event live. Movies are on a screen, therefore you are not watching real people. It does not make as much sense to charge $10 more than what a typical ticket would cost around an identical timeframe in the same auditorium, even if the detail on the screen is going to be incredibly lifelike.

Interesting enough, if I were to see “The Super Mario Galaxy Movie” this week during the evening at Lincoln Square’s IMAX, where fate decided I should have a “Dune: Part Three” ticket waiting for me, I would be paying $30.49 for the adult tier. That is the same price as a single ticket for “Dune: Part Three.” It gives me the sense that Regal is jacking up the price on purpose… Again, going back to the eventification of moviegoing, this shows that even if a movie theater charges a higher price, someone will pay it just to be in the building. In fact, my backup option if Lincoln Square sold out was to buy a ticket at the Regal in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania. But knowing myself as an IMAX fanboy, there is a good chance I would have paid whatever the ticket cost just to get my hands on it.

The $30.49 ticket price packs quite a bit into it. In addition to being part of one of the first audiences to experience “Dune: Part Three,” we are watching it in IMAX 70mm, one of clearest formats of all time. Any instance in which I can see something on one of the clearest formats of all time, I will most definitely take. There are very few theaters in the world with capable, working equipment to make this possible. The film is also shot on IMAX technology, including IMAX film. The screen is one of the largest in the country. There will be no trailers before the movie starts, which for AMC is almost unheard of. For my commitment, the theater is giving me a collectible filmstrip. The theater is giving a lot for 30 bucks. I would not pay that much for a movie each and every day, but I would for something like this.

Going back to what I said earlier about the “Dogma” screening and how cool it was to see Kevin Smith there, if we really want to eventize these screenings even further, here is an idea… Have the stars show up. Granted, these are 19 locations in different parts of the world, so it may not be possible for this to happen. But in theory, it would be cool to be welcomed to “Dune: Part Three” on opening weekend by Zendaya or Denis Villeneuve or Robert Pattinson. It is almost like a reward for buying tickets early.

Between “The Odyssey” and “Dune: Part Three,” movies are truly becoming much bigger events for yours truly then they have ever been. Granted, I have gone to press screenings and premieres in my area. I have been to screenings where celebrities show up. But these two movies have gotten me to consider crossing state lines just to watch them. I am flying to Florida in July. FLORIDA. IN JULY. Just to watch a movie. I think air conditioning is going to be my best friend when that time arrives. These are more than adventures to catch flicks. These are practically turning into vacations. Heck, since I am seeing “Dune: Part Three” a week before Christmas, I am already debating on what time would be best to visit Rockefeller Center to check out the big Christmas tree.

Could I watch these movies closer to home? Perhaps. In fact, I live 10 minutes away from the largest IMAX in New England, located at Jordan’s Furniture in Reading, Massachusetts, which is an amazing place to see a movie. …But it is not currently 70mm capable. If I waited months to buy tickets there, I would not be mad at myself. In fact, I would be excited. That theater is amazing and it would be fun to see something as hotly anticipated as “Dune: Part Three” there. But this screening is getting me more excited by the minute. It feels electric just knowing that I am going to be in a room with a group of people who are likely just as committed to seeing this film as me.

To add even further excitement… Unless Disney decides to change their mind, “Avengers: Doomsday,” which could end up making $2 billion at the box office, even without IMAX screens, releases the exact same day as “Dune: Part Three,” thus inspiring the term “Dunesday.” If both Warner Brothers and Disney are committed to this event, it is possible that we could witness the biggest moviegoing weekend in history. Now that I have my ticket for “Dune: Part Three” it makes me wonder when exactly I should plan to buy a ticket for “Avengers: Doomsday.” Should I do a screening the same day hours before? Should I do it the day before? It would let me easily avoid spoilers. Should I watch that film closer to home? I still have not figured out how I am getting to New York, so we shall see what happens. Part of me thinks deep down that “Dunesday” could end up hurting both “Dune” and “Avengers.” But after seeing the response “Dune: Part Three” is getting months before release with these ticket sales and the first trailer, I think this less diverse edition of “Barbenheimer” could pay off for both parties.

“Dune” and “Dune: Part Two” are movies that have given me some fond memories upon watching them, so it is no surprise that I am looking forward to “Dune: Part Three,” no matter how I see it. That said, I am thrilled to experience the film the way the director intended. Judging from what has been shown so far and the track record of the previous installments, I would not be surprised if this ends up being a Best Picture nominee at the next Academy Awards. Until then, if anybody else already has their “Dune: Part Three” tickets, congratulations! Maybe I will see you at Lincoln Square. Much like Paul Atreides’ promise at the end of “Dune: Part Two,” I am sure that IMAX and Warner Brothers are going to lead me to paradise this December. I cannot wait.

Thanks for reading this post! As a reminder, be sure to check out my latest episode of Movie Requests! This is a brand new series where I take movie suggestions from celebrities and talk about them. The latest episode features “Clerks” actor Jason Mewes. Check it out, give it a like, and if you want to see more videos in the series, consider subscribing to my YouTube channel!

My next review is coming later this week, and it is going to be for “Ready or Not 2: Here I Come.” I love the first “Ready or Not” to death, so it should not be a surprise that I eagerly awaited the sequel. I will share my thoughts on it soon. If you want to see more from Scene Before, follow the blog either with an email or WordPress account! Also, check out the official Facebook page! I want to know, did you get tickets for “Dune: Part Three?” Where and when are you seeing it? And how much did you have to pay? Also, if you are a scalper, please find something better to do with your time. Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

Project Hail Mary (2026): A Spectacular, Awe-Inspiring Adaptation of Andy Weir’s Hit Novel

Posted on by Jack Drees

“Project Hail Mary” is directed by Phil Lord and Christopher Miller (Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs, The LEGO Movie) and stars Ryan Gosling (La La Land, Blade Runner 2049), Sandra Hüller (Anatomy of a Fall, Zone of Interest), James Ortiz (Cryptid, The Woodsman), and Lionel Boyce (Loiter Squad, The Bear). This film is based on a novel by Andy Weir, who also wrote the book “The Martian,” which has since been adapted into a hit movie starring Matt Damon. “Project Hail Mary” follows a middle school teacher-turned-astronaut by the name of Ryland Grace who is put on a mission to stop a mysterious substance from destroying the earth’s sun.

I am not that much of a reader. Although there have been rare occasions where a movie would come out and I would read the book sometime before seeing it. I did this years ago for “The Martian,” by Andy Weir, which has become one of my favorite reads. The movie, while not as good as the book, is utterly amazing. Much like the book, I found the movie to be extremely funny and endlessly engaging. As someone who found myself to be a fan of Andy Weir’s writing style, I thought I would give the “Project Hail Mary” book a shot. I barely finished it before I saw the movie, but I really liked the book. It maintains the humor that Weir mastered in “The Martian,” while delivering something more complicated and adventurous. I think “The Martian” is the superior read, but both books are winners.

The hype train was real going into “Project Hail Mary.” Not just because it was based on a well received book… Not only because I happen to concur with those who say the book is great… Not just because I am a sci-fi junkie… Not just because it stars Ryan Gosling… Not just because it is directed by Phil Lord and Christopher Miller… But the trailers and the footage leading up to the movie, for the most part, looked incredible. The effects were pure eye candy. The sets looked great. The camerawork looked awe-inspiring. The film was even shot in true IMAX… Granted, it is technically digital. But still.

Maybe I am overexaggerating my excitement a bit. If there is any movie this year I would have been looking forward to more than any other, it would be “The Odyssey,” but “Project Hail Mary” was up there based on everything that I have seen, heard, and read prior to checking it out, including the overwhelmingly positive reviews.

Ladies and gentlemen, believe the hype. Actually… No. The hype might actually be too small.

“Project Hail Mary” is the best movie I have watched in years.

It has not been since “Godzilla Minus One” that I walked out of a movie buzzing so excessively.

As previously mentioned, I have read the book. I thoroughly enjoyed the book. I thought the way Weir told the story was unique. I think I prefer the movie. If you told me that Steven Spielberg directed this film, I would believe you. I said this some time ago with “Arco,” but I meant that more as a statement on the film’s style rather than its quality. This not only reminds me of some of Spielberg’s past movies, but it is just as watchable as some of his greatest hits. My dad, who for the record did not read the book, saw the movie with me. He had a great time. He said the movie reminded him of “Close Encounters of the Third Kind.” To me, “Project Hail Mary” feels like “E.T.” for a new generation. Only this time around, not as much of the story is set on earth.

Honestly, there are a number of filmmakers whose work I could compare this to, and I mean that as a positive. This film reminds me of some of my favorite projects said filmmakers have done. In addition to this film delivering Spielberg vibes, it comes off as what would happen if a Christopher Nolan epic had a baby with a James Gunn adventure. It has the scope and ambition of one of Nolan’s blockbusters and the humor and fun of Gunn.

This movie is a pure bundle of joy. I should not be surprised, as this movie is done by Phil Lord and Christopher Miller, who have produced some of my favorite films of the past decade like “The Mitchells vs. the Machines” and the “Spider-Verse” movies.

They have also done “The LEGO Movie,” which is so much better than it should be. If I ever have a conservations with people discussing my personal favorite films of all time, I am proud to say “The LEGO Movie” and “Project Hail Mary” will both likely be part of said conversations.

No, seriously, who is Ryan Gosling’s agent? Because his resume, especially over the past ten years, is filled with banger after banger after banger, with this film being the latest example. “La La Land” is extravagant and otherworldly. “Blade Runner 2049” was amazing despite not doing so hot at the box office. “First Man” was moving. “Barbie” was not just a good movie, but Gosling practically stole the show. When I think of the best actors working today without an Oscar, Gosling is somewhere close to the best of the best. After seeing “Project Hail Mary,” I am convinced that not only is Gosling capable of being nominated, but also of winning an Oscar next year. Granted, it is only spring. The Oscars are practically a year from now. But I have a feeling that Gosling’s performance can sit well with people through the coming months as he is given lots to do and handles all of it with excellence.

It also helps that he plays such a likable character. There is a line in this film where Ryan Gosling’s character, Ryland Grace, says he puts the “not” in astronaut. As corny as that may sound, that line solidifies his entire journey. I do not want to spoil everything that happens in this movie, but the narrative constantly unfolds bits and pieces of the character as it goes along through its clever non-linear format. Much of the film is set in space, but there are portions that take place on earth, and those portions are surprisingly engaging. Grace is a middle school teacher, which only adds to his likability. Remember “Interstellar?” Arguably the biggest drive Cooper has in that film that allows him to try to save earth are his children. Grace does not have any kids, but his middle school class, while temporary, almost comes off as a set of children he never had.

In a multitude of other possible movies, Grace would be the star of the show. But one character constantly steals the spotlight, and that is Rocky. Much of the film features these two in close quarters as they learn about each other, their worlds, their backstories on how they found each other, to the point where they end up working together not only to save earth, but Rocky’s own planet.

Remember the Grogu craze when “The Mandalorian” came out? It felt like for months that Grogu fever, and by extension, merchandise, was everywhere. Heck, I own a pair of Grogu socks that are worn out, but I cannot get rid of them. They’re comfortable, and I like the design. There is a fine line that a film rides with a “merchandisable” character, which I would say Rocky just so happens to be. For me, to get me to buy a character’s merchandise, I would prefer to realize I like said character before wasting my money. Thankfully for this film, Rocky is a riot. Having read the book, I had no clue how they were going to portray him in the movie, but I was actually surprised with how much I loved his first moments on screen. He is adorable, but also rather smart. Rocky is a winning combination. James Ortiz does an excellent job on the voice. Given how Rocky is an alien, the communication styles vary significantly between him and Grace, but I enjoyed getting to see how the movie showcases both characters as they learn how to communicate back and forth.

Rocky also has the best line in the movie, and without giving any context to the situation, all I will say is that it involves a guy named Mark. You will know it when you hear it.

I said before that this film reminded me a lot of “E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial” and I could sum up the basic reasons… Both films heavily feature bonds between a human and an alien. Both have inspiring musical scores. Both have characters who want to do what they can to get home. But the real reason why I find this to be “E.T.” for the next generation is that the film is an incredibly emotional experience. I did not cry during “Project Hail Mary,” but I would not be surprised to be sitting during this film again and seeing other people wiping tears off their faces. This film has everything that reminds me of why I love the movies. Well-realized characters with their own quirks… A great story that enlightens the soul… Stunning visuals and audio that excite on every level.

Some could argue that I am rather predisposed to liking “Project Hail Mary.” Not only did I read the book and like it, but if you know me well, you would know that sci-fi is my preferred genre. It does not mean every science fiction tale is great. I have seen a few “Star Wars” movies I would rather forget. In fact, having read the book, I recognize that not everything from the source material is going to find its way into the film. It is too long, and I think the general audiences can only take so much technical and scientific jargon. Are there things from the book that I am disappointed are not in the movie? Yes. There is a pinch of backstory involving Stratt towards the book’s end that moved me. But these are two separate things. I am not going to let the dismissal of that material affect my verdict of the film, because as a general movie, regardless of what it was based on, this was one of the most unbelievable experiences I have ever had.

“Project Hail Mary” presents a universal problem, as a mysterious creature is causing the sun to die. On the surface, one would think this film is about saving the world. And in a way, it is. But as soon as Rocky is brought into the picture, the film basically gets to the point where both he and Grace think bigger. The journey these two go on together as friends is truly something. I could honestly watch a weekly sitcom starring these two. But the film, as fun and joyous as it is, is simultaneously sad. You have this protagonist who minute by minute is trying to remember every little thing about himself. He finds out he is alone. He is tasked with mankind’s most important mission, and his only escape appears to be Rocky. And you might think he has people back on earth to save. Sure, he has the people he knows from his school. But he has no lover, no pets. Nobody. All he has is himself, the children he will likely only see for portions of his life, and Rocky. But the film manages to balance the sadness with more optimistic moments, hilarious lines, and a satisfying ending. This is the kind of movie that I can see a lot of people going to multiple times, bringing new people with each go. Heck, I am already thinking about who I would bring for a second viewing. If you are still reading this and have not seen this movie, please stop what you are doing and go check it out. Do not pirate the film. Go to a theater. See it on a big screen. Do it as soon as you possibly can.

In the end, I cannot stop thinking about “Project Hail Mary.” I read the book before checking out this movie, but I have to say I enjoyed the movie more than I did the book. There are certain scenes in this film that honestly play out ten times better as visuals rather than text. I have a pretty active imagination, but even I have to say some of these scenes were better than how I interpreted them. Ryan Gosling gives the performance of a lifetime. James Ortiz is fantastically cast as the voice of Rocky. Sandra Hüller does a great job as Stratt. Overall, the cast brings their A-game. The musical score is riveting. The cinematography is easy on the eyes. Phil Lord and Christopher Miller deliver a spectacle for the ages. Everything in the story from the beginning to end had me hooked. It is a longer film at two hours and thirty-six minutes, but it is never boring! Please go see this movie. It will make you laugh. It may even make you cry. Amazon does not have a long history as a film distribution company, but this is easily my favorite film they have put out thus far. If you are reading this review around its publication, do not wait for Prime, if there is a prime time to go see “Project Hail Mary,” it is now. I am going to give “Project Hail Mary” a 10/10.

“Project Hail Mary” is now playing in theaters everywhere. Tickets are available now.

Thanks for reading this review! I want to remind everyone that in honor of Scene Before’s 10th anniversary, I started a new series called Movie Requests and if you would like, you can now check out my latest episode, where “Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back” star Jason Mewes requests I talk about “House Party.” And if you want to see future episodes, please consider subscribing to my YouTube channel that way you can see them as soon as they drop!

My next review is going to be for “Ready or Not 2: Here I Come!” Also, coming soon, I will be sharing my thoughts on “They Will Kill You,” “You’re Dating a Narcissist!,” “The Super Mario Galaxy Movie,” and “The Drama.” 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 “Project Hail Mary?” What did you think about it? Or, did you read the “Project Hail Mary” book? What did you think about that? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

Hoppers (2026): A Dam Good Animation

Posted on by Jack Drees

“Hoppers” is directed by Daniel Chong (We Bare Bears, We Baby Bears) and stars Piper Curda (A.N.T. Farm, Teen Beach 2), Bobby Moynihan (Saturday Night Live, The Secret Life of Pets), Jon Hamm (Mad Men, Keeping Up with the Joneses), Kathy Najimy (King of the Hill, WALL-E), and Dave Franco (Together, The Disaster Artist). This film is about a young girl named Mabel who uses a new technology to allow her consciousness to hop into a robotic beaver. Despite discouragement from those working on the tech, Mabel uses her newfound beaverhood as an opportunity to save a glade from being replaced by a freeway.

You ever hear the saying “Just another Tuesday?” Well, that phrase applies to Pixar. Specifically, when it comes to describing their ability to pump out one solid movie after another. Not every one is perfect, but the studio has unleashed a ton of hits over the years, including a couple all-timers like “The Incredibles” or “Inside Out.”

Watching a new Pixar movie always feels like an event, because while they are not the only group dedicated to making animations, I always see Pixar as the gold standard. It has come to the point where I find inferior Pixar projects to be better than most movies. Do I think “Elio” is a masterpiece? No. But did I enjoy it and take something from it? Absolutely. Even with “Elemental” turning out to be lackluster, I continue to find myself onboard Pixar’s train for whatever they have in store.

As much as I look forward to seeing what Pixar brings to the table with franchise extensions including “Toy Story 5” and “Incredibles 3,” I am often more engaged when I find out about one of their original projects, including “Hoppers.” That said, while the movie did look fun and hilarious based on what I saw in the marketing, I will admit that the movie did turn me off slightly even while watching the trailers, as they admit how much their concept sounds like “Avatar.” Although in fairness, if you break down “Avatar,” it has ripped off quite a few other films like “Pocahontas” and “Dances with Wolves.”

Despite the film’s self-admitted ripping off of sorts, there is plenty in it to enjoy. In fact, I think it is just about as enjoyable as the first “Avatar.” Much like how I think “Avatar” is not James Cameron’s best work, I would have to say the same is true for “Hoppers.” Nevertheless, both movies are worth watching. These two stories just so happen to play around with similar ideas beyond just having someone take on the form of another living thing. They both highlight how humanity tends to mistreat other creatures, intentionally or not. “Hoppers” also taps into the idea that humans often fail to realize that they are not the center of the universe. As humans we are taught to appreciate nature, but in the past couple hundred years we have become so reliant on convenience and industrialization to the point that we forget to care for other animals.

I saw this film with a couple friends, and one of those friends said this film is Pixar’s closest cousin to “Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom.” I would partially agree with them as, like that film when put next to others in its franchise, is not exactly the best one. But also, like “Temple of Doom,” there are some surprisingly dark moments. There is a particular death that comes in this film. Wow. Characters die in a movie. What a spoiler. But without specifying, there is one death involving a clap that caught me by total surprise. You will know it when you see it. If you saw the trailer, you would know that a good chunk of the movie is dedicated to other creatures trying to “squish” humans for everything they have done. That said, the trailers make this film look totally lighthearted. It was a bit darker than I anticipated. There are some segments involving the animals’ aspirations that lead to some eerie visuals or concepts. I do not want to spoil much, but the end of the movie has some “facial expressions” if you will, that I cannot stop thinking about.

Speaking of things I cannot stop thinking about, I like the film’s protagonist, Mabel. She comes off as smart, though a bit rebellious. Yet she is not necessarily pushy. The movie does a great job at creating someone whose passion for nature is as strong as her desire to preserve it. While this film is not as emotionally charging, there are some sentimental moments between Mabel and her Grandma Tanaka that felt reminiscent of watching earlier moments of “Up.” Much like that Pixar classic, “Hoppers” works so well because not only is Mabel doing what she’s doing for herself, she is thinking of the people in her life each step of the way. She is an individual who clearly wants something to go her way, but oftentimes cares enough about others during her journey to see said thing play out.

Story-wise, this film reminds me of a lot of other movies, including some of Pixar’s own like “Up,” “Ratatoullie,” or “A Bug’s Life.” This film is not exactly the same as all of these, but it borrows a lot of elements from their stories like large insect casts, the “humans are dangerous” cliche, or the general appreciation of nature. “Hoppers” is far from Pixar’s best film. To me, it is mid-tier Pixar, which is still better than a lot of movies. I would probably put it in the same boat as “Onward” or “Inside Out 2.” Yet “Hoppers” borrows a lot of traits from some of Pixar’s most memorable stories and creates a fun remix out of them.

In some ways, I think you would be forgiven if “Hoppers” also reminded you of a recent DreamWorks film, specifically “The Wild Robot.” For one thing, both films, on a technicality, primarily feature “robots” as their main characters. These “robots” if you will, are their respective universe’s fish out of water. Both Roz and Mabel have to adapt to the ways of the wild. They take on completely different adventures and carry completely different motivations, but on the surface, both films would seem like distinct cousins if watched back to back. This is especially true when you consider both films suggest that humans the reason why the world is changing for the worse.

Overall, “Hoppers” is a hoot. It is quite funny, wonderfully ridiculous, and like a lot of other Pixar fare, beautifully animated. The studio has only gotten better at making their films look as crisp as can be through the years and “Hoppers” is just the latest example.

In the end, I recommend “Hoppers.” This is not going to end up being my favorite film of the year, but it is one that I think is fun for all ages. It does get a bit dark, but it is not the first film of its kind to do so. The mostly star-studded voice cast brings their A-game. The story is a lot of fun, but also important. For the younger viewers, the film offers positive lessons about environmental preservation and not messing with nature. The film is fast-paced, never boring, and an overall good time. I am going to give “Hoppers” a 7/10.

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

Thanks for reading this review! If you like this review, I have more coming including for “Project Hail Mary,” “Ready or Not 2: Here I Come,” “They Will Kill You,” “You’re Dating a Narcissist!,” and “The Super Mario Galaxy Movie.”

Also, if you have not done so already, please check out my latest episode of Movie Requests featuring special guest Jason Mewes, who asked me to review “House Party.” If you enjoy the episode, leave a like on YouTube, and subscribe to my channel so you can stay tuned for more episodes as they drop!

If you want to see more from Scene Before, follow the blog either with an email or WordPress account! Also, check out the official Facebook page! I want to know, did you see “Hoppers?” What did you think about it? Or, if you could experience life as another living creature? What would it be and why? For me, I would pick a mayfly. Their lives are short, but they sound interesting, as they only tend to live one or two days as soon as they become adults. Let me know which creature you’d want to be down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

Arco (2025): Back to the Future – Reimagined for the 2020s

Posted on by Jack Drees

Before we begin this review of “Arco,” I would just like to remind everyone that “Movie Requests” begins this Saturday, February 28th! “Movie Requests” is my upcoming film review series where I ask prominent people to request films for me to talk about, and I give my thoughts on their suggestion. A new promo is out now for the first episode, featuring Bryce Dallas Howard! You can watch it by clicking the video below!

And if you want to see the new episode when it drops, please subscribe to my YouTube channel! Otherwise, if you are following Scene Before with an email or WordPress account, you can be notified shortly after the video is uploaded! Now, on with the review!

“Arco” is directed by Ugo Bienvenu and Gilles Cazaux and stars Swann Arlaud (By the Grace of God, Anatomy of a Fall), Alma Jodorowsky (Blue is the Warmest Colour, Kids in Love), Margot Ringard Oldra (Fortune de France, Along Came Love), Oscar Tresanini (La rebelle, les aventures de la jeune George Sand, Mini-Court), Vincent Macaigne (Diary of a Fleeting Affair, Cicadas), Louis Garrel (Little Women, A Faithful Man), William Lebghil (Soda, Some Like it Veiled), and Oxmo Puccino (In Your Dreams, Athena). This film is set in the future and follows a young girl who sees a boy fall from the sky, only to find out this boy has the ability to travel through time. The two do what they can to help each other, while trying to get the boy back to his own time.

Just an FYI before we get on with the rest of this review. This is a French movie. Nevertheless, I watched the movie in English. I bring this up because when I review movies, I always attempt to watch them in their original language to get the most authentic experience possible. Even so, I watched the film in English as the film did not appear to be playing anywhere near me in French. Just know that I will not have any concrete thoughts on the film’s original cast. That said, the cast of the English version of the film did a good job. I do not really have any complaints. If you watch the film in English, and chances are you will if you live in the U.S. like me, I think you will have a solid experience.

“Arco” is one of those films where I went in nearly as blind as possible. I knew about the film a couple months before its release. Having followed Natalie Portman on Instagram, I was made aware that she was in the English version. I have also been made aware about the film receiving noticeably positive reviews. Having seen the film myself, those positive reviews were justified. This is not my favorite animated film of 2025. But it is a finely crafted remix on a familiar time travel concept.

Some people believe that they do not make movies like they used to. While everyone’s definition of this phrase may vary, “Arco” feels like an answer to that philosophy for those looking for something like they got in the 1980s. “Arco” is essentially “Back to the Future” for a new generation. Not only because the plot heavily involves time travel and someone’s intentions to get back to their specific time following a mishap. But the film also captures a specific kind of wonder that movies like “Back to the Future” can easily evoke. During my earliest viewings of “Back to the Future,” which has now become one of my all time favorite films, I was always marveled by everything that went into the climax of that film between the actors’ line delivery, the sound mix, the lightning effects, and Alan Silvestri’s iconic score. If I watched “Arco” as a child, perhaps even as a teenager, it could have inspired me to pursue filmmaking or animation. It is a film that comes with a concept that not only sounds clever, but plays really well on screen. Even the method of time travel feels like a sibling of “Back to the Future.” If you have seen “Back to the Future,” you may recall Doc saying he turned a Delorean into a time machine to “do it with some style.” Much like that 1985 classic, there is a sense of style brought to the time travel in “Arco,” where we see characters utilize such a fantastical concept through rainbows. I cannot come up with many cooler ways to travel through time more magical than that.

This film is the feature-length debut from Ugo Bienvenu, and I think anyone’s efforts should be commended should they direct a feature film for the first time. Although Bienvenu’s in particular had me perplexed, because throughout the film, I was under the impression I was watching the work of a longtime veteran. The 2D animation style feels very Studio Ghibli-like with some of the film’s occasionally vivid landscapes, strong colors, and cozy locations. If you told me that this film were being directed by Hayao Miyazaki, chances are I could believe you. If this film were live-action, based on all the 1980s movies talk from before, you could have convinced me Steven Spielberg put something like this together. That said, if you want to get technical, Steven Spielberg has done an animated film before, specifically “The Adventures of Tin-Tin,” but these films do not quite feel the same. I enjoyed that movie, but still.

As a story, “Arco” is incredibly tight. Clocking in just short of an hour and a half, “Arco” delivers a simple concept met with brilliant execution. I stared at the screen in awe of the vision that was on display. Unlike some time travel stories, which are set close to the time the story comes out, this film takes place, as of this review’s publication date, entirely in the future. This allows us not only to play around with the idea of people traveling through time, but simultaneously tap into the continued evolution of technology and the earth’s climate. In the case of addressing climate change, I found “Arco” to come off as less obvious in its messaging than “The Wild Robot” and “Flow” did when those two films came out in 2024. Maybe that is just a me thing. I would not be surprised to find out that some viewers feel different when it comes to that matter. That said, the film not only does a good job at entertaining, but also serves as a reminder to take care of the planet.

Much like “Back to the Future,” “Arco” is a film that I can see playing really well with families. In fact, I think some parents may be more comfortable showing “Arco” to their children considering it has significantly less foul language. The film may be animated, which some adults may find to be a turnoff, but “Arco” often feels more Pixar or Studio Ghibli-like rather than something out of the more obnoxious Illumination. The movie is bright and colorful. Heck, any movie heavily involving rainbows should be. But there is a perfect balance that makes the film feel grounded yet imaginative. The film is likely going to entertain younger viewers while also delivering important messages. “Arco” seems to indicate that no matter what time you live in, everyone has their own problems. Nobody’s perfect.

That said, having seen a lot of movies, it is tough to argue that “Arco” is, by definition, original. If anything, the film reminds me a lot of “Colossal,” which puts a completely unique spin on the classic monster movie. In fact, that movie was even described by its own director to be “the cheapest ‘Godzilla’ movie ever.” Despite maintaining a noticeable degree of freshness, “Arco” does a good job at reminding me of some of the great movies I watched in the past that appeal to multiple age groups like “E.T.” or “Spirited Away.” It makes me want to go back and revisit those movies. Yet at the same time, I can see “Arco” having some replay value sometime in the future. It is hard to say that “Arco” is my favorite animated film of 2025, but it is one that gives me great joy the more I think about it.

In the end, “Arco” is a swell time travel flick that brings some originality to the table while also delivering vibes that are familiar from some of the most beloved films of all time. I keep comparing “Arco” to “Back to the Future,” partially because both movies involve time travel, but because they both handle such a concept in a somewhat similar fashion. Not just in terms of structure, but also quality. Is “Arco” as good as “Back to the Future?” Honestly, no. “Arco’s” technical aspects could arguably age better, but as a story, “Back to the Future” is superior. That said, if you are looking for something that delivers on entertainment and commentary, “Arco” is a solid pick. I am going to give “Arco” a 7/10.

“Arco” is now playing in select theaters, and as of this publication, is available to preorder on VOD.

Thanks for reading this review! My next review is going to be for “Solo Mio.” Stay tuned! Also, coming soon, look forward to my thoughts on “GOAT” and “EPIC: Elvis Presley in Concert.” 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! And one last reminder, please subscribe to my YouTube channel to catch my latest videos, including the upcoming series “Movie Requests,” which begins this Saturday, February 28th! I want to know, did you see “Arco?” What did you think about it? Or, what is your favorite animated film of 2025? For me, I would have to go with “Scarlet.” I thought it a was clever, fantastical concept done with excellence! Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

All You Need Is Kill (2025): Groundhog Day – Anime Style!

Posted on by Jack Drees

“All You Need is Kill” is directed by Ken’ichirô Akimoto and co-directed by Yukinori Nakamura, making this their first official directing credits. This film stars Natsuki Nanae (Demon Slayer: Kimetsu no Yaiba – The Movie: Mugen Train, Goodbye, Don Glees!), Ai Makami (Kokuho, Chastity High), Mô Chûgakusei, and Kana Hanazawa (Suzume, The Night is Short, Walk on Girl). This film is based on a light novel of the same name, which also inspired the 2014 live-action film “Edge of Tomorrow.” The film follows a young woman who has relive the same day over and over while dealing with an alien invasion. She crosses paths with a young man, and together, they fight to break the cycle.

I saw the trailer for “All You Need Is Kill” last month and was genuinely shocked I had not heard this movie was going to be coming out. Granted, I should not be too shocked, given how I have not read the light novel or the manga series. That said, I did recall the name “All You Need Is Kill” as soon as it popped up, and that is because I am a fan of “Edge of Tomorrow.” For those who do not know, “Edge of Tomorrow” is a film starring Tom Cruise as an American public relations officer who is forced into battle against aliens by his superiors. He quickly comes to realize that each time he dies, he reverts back to a specific point in his life that he has to relive over and over.

When I first saw “Edge of Tomorrow,” I thought of it as “Groundhog Day” with a sci-fi twist. While that is technically accurate, the film was actually inspired by “All You Need Is Kill,” which was written by a Japanese author and made with a Japanese mindset, so “Edge of Tomorrow” is in a sense, the Americanized version of “All You Need is Kill.”

…Although, now that I think about it… “Groundhog Day” did release before all of these… So, there is that.

As a fan of “Edge of Tomorrow,” I was looking forward to seeing what could be done with a movie that would likely end up feeling closer to the source material that inspired it. Now that I have seen “All You Need is Kill,” I have to say the film is quite solid. It is definitely worth watching if you are looking for a dazzling spectacle in addition to an admirable character piece.

While the characters in “All You Need Is Kill” are identical to those in the light novel, one difference that should be noted is that the roles in the story’s center are reversed. Instead of centering around Keiji, who this time around serves as a supporting character, the film’s protagonist is Rita. I have no problems with this change, mainly because I found both characters to be well written and each one seems to the serve the other in a way that benefits the story overall.

Both of these main characters have excellent chemistry and are not only fun to watch as a team, but it is nice to see how each character allows the other to realize what they are missing. One thing I noticed throughout the movie is Rita’s tendency to become overly emotional and cry on certain occasions. I have no idea how such a thing would play out for certain viewers, but I thought it was a great way to balance Rita out from Keiji, who tends to be a bit more reserved with his presence. By the end of the movie, this allows for some really good dialogue between the two.

I also really like seeing Rita learn how exactly her time loop works. Throughout the movie, we see Rita wake up in the same time and place, and do almost the exact same things each time, but she learns something during each go. She remembers what other characters say, whether they are directed specifically towards her or simply uttered in the background. Each time she dies, she tries a different move to avoid perishing, only to realize that she sometimes ends up doing so moments later in another way.

While the film is not a comedy, the constant cycle of death does allow for a funny moment or two. Every time Rita dies, she is reverted back to her bedroom where she is woken up by the sound of her alarm clock. When this happens, another character in the background yells from the other room, telling Rita her alarm is sounding off. At one point, Rita becomes so familiar with the same old song and dance that she tells the other character to shut up before they could finish reminding her about the alarm. Moments like that, and a couple others, did get a chuckle out of me.

The other standout to me in this film is the animation, which is almost ironic the more I think about it. Because this is a film where characters die on repeat, and yet, it is absolutely gorgeous and picturesque. The alien creatures in this film are presented in a vibrant color palette. They are incredibly easy on the eyes, almost to the point where it works in their favor. If I were in battle against them, I would be so distracted by their glitz to the point where I would die instantly. If you ever watch certain movies, you would notice that the villains would present themselves in a darker costume or a more “negative” color. Look at the “Star Wars” villains over the years like Darth Vader or Kylo Ren. This is not the case with “All You Need Is Kill.” While the aliens may look pretty, there is more to them than meets the eye.

This film is not even an hour and a half. Yet by no means is it rushed. I think the runtime is almost perfect given the story that has been told. I have no complaints about the pacing at all. In fact, it might be one of the best things about this film. It is, no pun intended, all killer, no filler. We come to realize the main character dies hundreds of times. The film does not show each death, but it makes time for ones that are arguably more important to the story and allow the final product to have a more compelling impact. The film gets to the point with each and every scene. Not every scene is presented in a TikTok-pace, but there are no moments that overly draw themselves out. This movie hits the Goldilocks zone in terms of engagement.

In the end, “All You Need Is Kill” is a fun movie. Rita and Keiji are an admirable duo and their journey throughout the film makes for quite the story. The animation is well done and emits a weird sense of peace in what is ultimately a dark world. The musical score in this film is also really good. I have no idea if I will listen to it down the line, but I dug it while watching the movie. Also, the soundwork is amazing. Every time the aliens make noise, it is not only easy on the ears, but also rather ominous. Technically, the film is a beast. I am going to give “All You Need Is Kill” a 7/10.

Again, I did not read the light novel, nor have I read the manga. The best comparison I have to this film is “Edge of Tomorrow.” In preparation for “All You Need Is Kill,” I rewatched “Edge of Tomorrow,” and I think both stories are equally engaging. The styles, while different, each serve their movie’s vibe perfectly. I think “Edge of Tomorrow” is an immersive ride that puts you in the middle of a futuristic war. Its darker color palette tends to serve its tone well. I also like William Cage as a character. That said, I also think “All You Need Is Kill” stands out for its more unique technical presentation and I find it to be the superior character piece. I am not saying one film trumps the other. If anything, both are great for their own reasons. I think certain things stand out in one film more than the other, but if it were a Friday night and I were to pick between either movie to watch, it would be like going to Ben & Jerry’s for ice cream and having to choose between Ameri’Cone Dream or chocolate chip cookie dough. Both choices, in the end, are winners, for their own reasons.

“All You Need Is Kill” is now playing in theaters everywhere. Tickets are available now.

Thanks for reading this review! My next reviews are going to be for “Song Sung Blue,” “Mercy,” and “Send Help.” Stay tuned!

Also, if you missed it, be sure to check out the teaser trailer for Celebrity Movie Requests, the all new series where I review movies requested by your favorite stars, coming to Scene Before, and my YouTube channel! And while you are here, please watch the trailer, give it a like, and subscribe to my YouTube channel, hit the notification bell, that way you are up to date on the latest info Celebrity Movie Requests has to offer! If you want to see all of this and more from Scene Before, follow the blog either with an email or WordPress account! Also, check out the official Facebook page! I want to know, did you see “All You Need Is Kill?” What did you think about it? Have you read any of the prior source material? Is it good? And lastly, if you have seen “Edge of Tomorrow,” tell me your thoughts on that movie! Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

Avatar: Fire and Ash (2025): James Cameron’s Third Smurf Theme Park Ride

Posted on by Jack Drees

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

“Avatar: Fire and Ash” is directed by James Cameron (The Terminator, Titanic) and stars Sam Worthington (Clash of the Titans, Man on a Ledge), Zoe Saldaña (Guardians of the Galaxy, Star Trek), Sigourney Weaver (Alien, Ghostbusters), Stephen Lang (Don’t Breathe, Public Enemies), Oona Chaplin (The Longest Ride, Game of Thrones), and Kate Winslet (Titanic, The Reader). This is the third installment in the “Avatar” franchise and once again follows the Sully family as they deal with grief and cross paths with an unfamiliar Na’Vi tribe, the Ash people.

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

After the 13 year wait between the first two “Avatar” movies, it is clear that the hype for this franchise has not died down. Say what you want about the “Avatar” property, but when you have a first film that ends up being the biggest theatrical release of all time, and a second film that also ends up making a couple billion bucks at the box office, it is a sign that things are not over yet. That is where “Avatar: Fire and Ash” comes in. One big difference going into this film is that the wait for it was much shorter than the wait for “Avatar: The Way of Water.” However, that wait may have played a small part into the shrinkage of hype I had for “Avatar: Fire and Ash.”

Another part that played into my low expectations was the result of the last movie. For those who missed my “Avatar: The Way of Water” review, I found the film to be middle of the road at best. It was a step down from the original “Avatar,” which was not revolutionary in terms of structure or story, but at the time, it was technically impressive. It arguably upped the standard for how 3D should look after the first film blew audiences away back in 2009. The CGI makes fantasy come alive. The color palette is incredibly easy on the eyes. So, it is unfortunate that all of this technical splendor was in the same place as a watered down, formulaic, boring script.

I went into “Avatar: Fire and Ash” with about as open of a mind as I could offer. The film, in some ways, met my expectations. Each frame looks dazzling and packs itself with glamour. The style is, unsurprisingly, pleasing. The substance, to my shock, improved somewhat slightly from the last film. Granted, it does require some significant suspension of one’s disbelief. For example, Quaritch is back. Because it is not “Avatar” without Quaritch for whatever reason. By itself, the idea of bringing Quaritch back peeves me because it lessens the stakes of this franchise. But they already revived in him in the second movie, so it is perhaps only necessary keep up the tradition in the third.

That said, once the movie leaps past this logical barrier with this character, it actually gives him some good material to work with. I liked seeing Quaritch, the big bad in the previous two movies, sort of cater to the savagery of the Ash people by presenting them with weaponry. Of all the Na’Vi that have been introduced throughout the three movies, the Ash people are by far the wildest and most untamed.

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

I never reviewed the first “Avatar,” but if you recall my review for the second, you may know despite my negative opinion regarding the film, I did appreciate it from a technical perspective. The third film is no exception to the rule. Like the past two films, the 3D will dilate your eyes. Like the past two films, the sound editing will energize your ears. It is something that in a sense you have to see and hear to believe. But it would be a lot more exciting if this were not a third installment showcasing tricks we have seen a couple times already.

In fact, “Avatar” is starting to remind me of what has happened in the past decade with Michael Bay’s “Transformers” movies. Like those movies or not, each and every one seems to follow a noticeably similar story and formula. This “Avatar” movie, like the previous ones, introduces a new group of Na’Vi, tries to explain why humans may be monsters, and has big climactic battles with birds flying all over the screen. It is not to say that some of what I described is not enticing, but there is less of a sense of novelty this time around compared to my experiences in 2009 and 2022. Maybe the 13 year gap had something to do with it, but still.

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

One thing that was featured in the second movie that reappears here is the high frame rate. For those who do not know, most movies are shot and presented in 24 frames per second. “Avatar: Fire and Ash” is a rare exception, as it is shot and presented in 48… Some of the time… “Avatar: Fire and Ash” has some scenes, particularly the more action-centric ones, in 48 frames per second, while the slower, more dialogue-driven scenes are in 24. This kind of reminds me of some filmmakers in recent decades shooting their projects in IMAX, where in the final product, the aspect ratio switches in select scenes. Only in most cases when that happens, the switch does not tend to feel as jarring. Maybe I am just used to that technique, which when it does happen, I often find myself marveled by it. Including this year during “Sinners” and “The Fantastic Four: First Steps.”

I found the switch between the two frame rates to be incredibly distracting. I remember when the movie started and we see the opening logos and there is a scene where characters are flying in the air. All of it is in 48 frames per second. So, when the movie decides to suddenly switch to 24, it felt somewhat jolty. For a movie that prides itself for its immersion factor, this is something that immediately took me out of it.

As I watched “Avatar: Fire and Ash” I immediately thought about Martin Scorsese’s comments about Marvel movies, specifically about them being theme park rides. This sentiment is one I would personally give to the “Avatar” movies at this point. It is really weird to say because I think James Cameron can tell a good story. I love the first two “Terminators.” I love “True Lies.” While I find “Titanic” to be overrated, I do like the chemistry between Jack and Rose. These “Avatar” movies, while they do make a lot of money, feel incredibly cookie cutter and predictable by now. Not to mention, its casts do not stand out as much as the ones in Cameron’s other movies. I do not think it is a bad thing for a franchise to have similar movies. It makes it easy to tell you are watching separate things in the same universe. But I also think there is a little room for variety. Sure, instead of introducing Water Na’Vi, this movie is introducing Ash Na’Vi, but the nuts and bolts of the story feel almost entirely identical to what’s been told before.

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

Sigourney Weaver once again makes an appearance in this film, and her character, Kiri, stood out to me for a couple reasons. First off, if you pay close enough attention, the film does have an Easter egg to Ripley from the “Alien” franchise, specifically one of her most iconic lines. Second, like the last film, Weaver herself, who is in her 70s, has a tremendous age gap with her teenage character. I am not going to pretend that “The Way of Water” hid this age gap the entire time, but I thought “Fire and Ash” did an inferior job at keeping it hidden. Weaver’s voice sometimes sounds too wise and deep for a 14 year old. I sometimes found this performance to be a tad distracting. I love Weaver. I think she is a phenomenal actress. But the more I watched this film, the more I felt Cameron should have cast someone who was younger to play her character. Perhaps someone unknown.

It may sound like I hate “Avatar: Fire and Ash.” But the truth is that I liked the film more than the last one, which I thought was mediocre. As much as I think the film feels like it plays the hits, it sometimes plays them well. I thought the characterization was also better this time around. Again, once this film finishes jumping the shark with Quaritch’s death in 2022’s outing, I like the direction in which they took him. I also thought this film gave some fascinating material for Spider. I thought the way he was handled in “The Way of Water” was rather questionable, but I like some of the ways he was developed in this film, particularly in regard to his overall connection with the Na’Vi. There is also a gripping scene in the second half of the film where his character serves as a crucial subject of the film’s larger message. We see Jake Sully trying to determine the best of two difficult choices, both of which involve Spider’s character. I thought the scene was excellently dramatized and may be one of the better character moments this franchise has offered.

Speaking of the Sully family, I thought they were another positive in this film. I found myself to care more about the children this time around than I did in the previous outing. I thought them dealing with the loss of one of their own gave each member some substance, including Neytiri, who establishes her opposition for humanity. But if you were to ask me what stood out to me in this film as a positive, I would find it difficult to come up with immediate, definitive answers. There are things I liked, but nothing that I truly loved. Part of me wants to say the CGI and the 3D are great, but “Avatar” can only offer the same thing so many times before it feels less fresh than it did before. If we get an “Avatar 4,” I am slightly more onboard for that than I was for this film. But I am still worried about this franchise becoming an old dog that can no longer learn new tricks. But, what do I know? This franchise makes buttloads of money, and people keep watching them. That is how the business works.

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

In the end, if you were to ask me if you should go see “Avatar: Fire and Ash,” chances are I would answer yes. That said, it may be a specific yes. I would say to go see the movie, but I would not commit to seeing it at night. Settle for a matinee showtime when it is cheaper. “Avatar: Fire and Ash” sometimes feels like more of the same, but sometimes the repetitive parts work. I also thought the characterization was improved from the second movie. I found myself bored with that experience at times. With a three hour and 17 minute runtime, “Avatar: Fire and Ash” may be five minutes longer than “The Way of Water,” but this threequel comes with a much more engaging, faster pace. I cannot say I found a moment during the film where I wanted to drift off to sleep. In terms of the storytelling, I was surprisingly hooked. “Fire and Ash” does a not great, but good job with that. That said, if they are going to do the high frame rate in “Avatar 4,” I hope the film stays at 48 frames per second the whole time. I think 24 frames per second looks cooler. It makes things look more dramatic. But that is just me. Regardless of how many frames this film handles in a second, the switches honestly jarred me. If anything, it made the high frame rate come off as more of a gimmick. I will give this “Avatar” installment, as well as the others, props for the stunning 3D, which I often find gimmicky in other projects. But the high frame rate? Forget about it. I do not think it needed to be there. I do not give this film the highest of recommendations, but in no way am I going to disapprove of it either. I am going to give “Avatar: Fire and Ash” a 6/10.

“Avatar: Fire and Ash” is now playing in theaters everywhere. Tickets are available now.

Photo by Courtesy of Searchlight Pictures – © Searchlight Pictures

Thanks for reading this review! My next reviews are going to be for “Is This Thing On?” and “Marty Supreme.” Stay tuned! Also coming soon, I will be unveiling my picks for my best and worst movies of 2025! I enjoy doing both lists. It has become an annual tradition. It is always fun to keep up with it. If you want to see these upcoming posts and more from Scene Before, follow the blog either with an email or WordPress account! Also, check out the official Facebook page! I want to know, did you see “Avatar: Fire and Ash?” What did you think about it? Or, what is your favorite of the “Avatar” movies? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

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!