Science Fiction | Scene Before

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

“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 17 Days Ago 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 February 22 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 January 19 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!

Bugonia (2025): Bu-Go See Something Else

Posted on December 16 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.

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 November 30 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!

Tron: Ares (2025): Disney’s Threequel Does Not Compute

Posted on November 5 by Jack Drees

Photo by Disney/DISNEY – © 2025 Disney Enterprises, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

“Tron: Ares” is directed by Joachim Rønning (Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Men Tell No Tales, Maleficent: Mistress of Evil) and stars Jared Leto (Morbius, Blade Runner 2049), Greta Lee (Russian Doll, The Morning Show), Evan Peters (Invasion, X-Men: Days of Future Past), Jodie Turner-Smith (A Big Bold Beautiful Journey, The Last Ship), Hasan Minhaj (Patriot Act with Hasan Minhaj, The Daily Show), Arturo Castro (Narcos, Broad City), Gillian Anderson (The X-Files, Sex Education), and Jeff Bridges (The Big Lebowski, True Grit). This is the third film in the “Tron” franchise and is about the rivalry between ENCOM and Dillinger Systems as both corporations attempt to bring digital entities into the real world.

“Tron” is a franchise that I do not think about much these days, but as a teenager, these movies were my jam. When it comes to special effects, both of these films are marvels. I never had a chance to watch “Tron: Legacy” in a theater when I was 11 years old. While I still had not watched the original “Tron” by that time, I am jealous of those who got to watch “Legacy” on the big screen, especially in IMAX 3D.

In preparation for “Tron: Ares,” I went back and watched both “Tron” and “Tron: Legacy.” While neither film is perfect, they both hold up. Sure, the effects in the original might not fly today, but they have such a vintage charm. They have an aesthetic I do not find in many other films, new or old. Between the prior two installments, I was a little more pleased with the look of “Tron,” which I found to be more vivid and appealing in terms of color. As a story, I also found it to be better paced. Not to say that “Tron: Legacy” is bad, but I found Kevin Flynn to be more inviting as a protagonist than Sam.

But the thing about “Tron” and “Tron: Legacy” is that both movies have protagonists whose adventures and character arcs I can fondly appreciate and remember, even if I liked one more than the other. “Tron: Ares,” across the board, has flat characters in comparison. Few, if any, kept my attention. And when one of them did have my attention, their dialogue felt fairly cookie cutter. Am I going to remember Julian Dillinger? Probably not. Elisabeth Dillinger? Don’t think so. Eve Kim? I don’t know. In fact, if I had to name a favorite character in the movie, it would be a monumental undertaking. I would have to get to the point where I would have to name aspects of the film that are not characters as my top dogs.

The best characters in “Tron: Ares” are as follows… Kevin Flynn, played by the legendary Jeff Bridges who is back once again to reprise his role… The Nine Inch Nails… for providing some killer tracks that are not quite on the level of Daft Punk’s “Legacy” music, but manage to hold their own… And of course, the CGI… It is full of detail and eye candy both in the real world and beyond. If I am referring to music and special effects as my favorite characters, it is a telltale sign that “Tron: Ares” is not a good movie. In fact, this is easily the weakest of the three “Tron” movies so far, and maybe ever depending on how well this film does financially. As of publishing this review, the movie’s been out for almost a month and it has not made its budget back.

Just because the movie is weak, does not mean it is lacking in cool moments. But to be honest, I do not know if this movie is best designed for newcomers. On the surface, one could argue “Tron: Ares” is newcomer-friendly due to most of the cast and characters not appearing in the prior two installments. It is to a certain degree, a clean slate. But the movie also noticeably relies on fan service and nostalgia. Admittedly, as someone who has seen the prior two movies, there are select instances where I was shaking in my chair like a rocket ready to blast off.

The more I think about “Tron: Ares” the more it reminds me of “Jurassic World: Dominion.” “Tron: Ares” is significantly more appealing, but the film’s negatives tend to match, partially because both films sell themselves on the hook that its threat is “coming to the real world.” Granted, the dinosaurs in “Jurassic Park” have always been part of the real world, but they have been closed off from towns and cities whereas beings from inside the Grid are exiting their digital society and entering our own. That said, I will give “Tron: Ares” an enormous edge against “Jurassic World: Dominion” because the former actually seems to commit to its idea of digital beings entering the real world, whereas the execution of the dinosaurs entering the real world in the latter feels like an afterthought at times.

Even though I find “Tron: Ares” to not be that good of a film, I do think there are glimmers of decency to be found. While the story of the film itself ends up being a bore, I do think the plot of “Tron: Ares,” which involves companies racing against each other in bringing digital constructs to reality, feels somewhat reminiscent of how tech companies today are heavily pushing artificial intelligence. Part of the similarities are also revealed when the movie exposes a significant flaw regarding the Ares character. The movie not only reminds me of how much these companies seem to be pushing AI, but they will likely go so far to brush away or hide drawbacks that could heavily affect the product or the consumer.

“Tron: Ares” continues to prove that Jared Leto cannot catch a break. He often finds himself in one of two unfortunate situations… Situation one, he is in a movie that does not do well in terms of box office. Situation two, he is in a movie that does not do well in terms of the reviews. He is particularly doing a lot of damage in geek culture. In the past decade, he’s received an off-screen death in the DCEU, bad reviews for his movie in Sony’s Marvel universe, low box office returns on “Blade Runner 2049,” and now, it looks like another science fiction franchise has been met with the curse of Jared Leto. Do not interpret this as me hating on Jared Leto. He is a phenomenal actor and can give a solid performance when cast in the right role. In fact, he is great as Ares. He kind of reminded of a Sheldon Cooper-type. There are one or two scenes from this film where I internally replaced Leto’s face with that of Jim Parsons. To be clear, and this is nothing against Jim Parsons, I am glad they cast Jared Leto instead. It’s best for all parties involved. After Parsons finished “The Big Bang Theory,” I would imagine the last person he’d want to play is a Sheldon Cooper-wannabe.

Whether you see this movie in 2D or 3D is your call. I will defend either choice, but as someone who traditionally does not care for 3D as much as I did when I was 13, 14 years old, I will admit the 3D upcharge for this film is completely justified. Between select sequences where the entire screen is covered in digital effects, to some pretty cool action scenes, this movie makes the extra cost for the glasses worthwhile.

In the end “Tron: Ares” is far and away my least favorite “Tron” installment yet. As far as big budget films go, it is, thankfully, not as insufferable as “A Minecraft Movie.” Though that comparison may not be fair because I had no previous attachment to the “Minecraft” property before going to see the film, whereas with “Tron” I did. Despite the film’s flaws, the attachment did help when it came to the film’s fan service, which was sometimes borderline forced, but at others, it completely flowed. “Tron: Ares” often looks great and sounds great. I just wish it had a screenplay that was just as great. I am going to give “Tron: Ares” a 4/10.

“Tron: Ares” is now playing in theaters. Tickets are available now.

Thanks for reading this review! My next review is going to be for “Bone Lake!” Stay tuned! Also coming soon, I will be sharing my thoughts on “A House of Dynamite,” “The Smashing Machine,” “Shelby Oaks,” “Frankenstein,” and “Good Fortune.” 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 “Tron: Ares?” What did you think about it? Or, what is your favorite “Tron” movie? Let me know 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 August 15 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!

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!

M3GAN 2.0 (2025): Does Not Compute

Posted on July 23 by Jack Drees

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jurassic World: Rebirth (2025): Dinosaur Dullness

Posted on July 15 by Jack Drees

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

	You’re Dating… on Good Fortune (2025): Comedy Ge…
	You’re Dating… on Joy Ride (2023): Four Young Wo…
	You’re Dating… on High Tide (2024): A Refreshing…
	They Will Kill You (… on Pulp Fiction (1994): That Is a…
	They Will Kill You (… on Joker: No Laughing Matter…