Thriller

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

Posted on by Jack Drees

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Ruse (2024): Veronica Cartwright Carries… Whatever This Is

Posted on by Jack Drees

© Mena Films, Inc

“The Ruse” is written and directed by Stevan Mena (Brutal Massacre: A Comedy, Malevolence) and stars Madelyn Dundon (Getting Grace, Lucky Louie), Veronica Cartwright (The Birds, Alien), Michael Stegar (90210, The Chosen), and Drew Moerlein (Blue Bloods, NCIS: New Orleans). This film is about a caregiver who fears for her life after she is assigned to an elderly patient at a remote seaside home.

© Mena Films, Inc

I will be honest, last May was surprisingly uneventful for film, at least for me. Yes, there are some big titles that I was looking forward to seeing like “Mission: Impossible – The Final Reckoning” and “Thunderbolts*,” but there are plenty of films from other recognizable IPs that I am not nearly as excited about like “Final Destination: Bloodlines,” “The Karate Kid: Legends,” or “Lilo & Stitch.” In the cases of these films, I am either behind on the franchise or I just do not care about seeing more of the property. This is where smaller films like “The Ruse” come in, which honestly, I went into blind. It is always refreshing to see a little film come out of nowhere and intrigue me. “Secret Mall Apartment” came out of nowhere for me earlier this year and blew my socks off. Hopefully “The Ruse” would be the next example of that.

Unfortunately, it is not.

The film is not all bad, but by the time it is over, I left feeling less than satisfied. Arguably my most consistent problem is that I found not a single moment of the film scary. This movie tends to present itself as something out of the horror genre. But when it comes to the scares, the film appears to be trying too hard during select moments to the point where said scares are not as compelling as they could be. Unsurprisingly, this film has its fair share of cheap jumpscares. I honestly found these more annoying than scary, and the more they happened, the angrier I got. Although if I had any compliment in this department, I will note that some of the buildup to the scares is not bad. But when it comes to the payoff, none of it sticks the landing.

© Mena Films, Inc

The best part of this film, without a doubt, is Veronica Cartwright. If “Thelma” deals with old age with a positive spin, then “The Ruse” is most definitely the opposite. Cartwright plays an older, retired, house-ridden woman who had a notable career in music. One can argue that Cartwright’s role is borderline stereotypical, but I also think people would find it relatable. Chances are you have seen some variation of Cartwright’s character in real life. And if you have not yet, you probably will at some point. Cartwright gives a compelling performance that far outshines anybody else in the film. Her performance is so good that it makes everyone else look insignificant.

As for the other actors, I cannot say any of them are incompetent, but the script does not do them many favors. If the dialogue is not cookie cutter, it is either expositional or unmemorable. The same can be said for the direction. Not many of the actors in this film happen to be household names. I am sure whatever comes up for this cast next will likely be bigger and better than this.

To be completely honest, whenever Veronica Cartwright is not on screen, the film becomes ten times more boring and forgettable. Cartwright is the only character that truly interested me to the point where I wanted to know more about her. I enjoyed getting to know her backstory, her mannerisms stood out, and while the film itself is not scary, she at least added a pinch of eeriness at certain points that needed them. Everyone else in this film feels wooden or lacking in personality. I cannot name a single quote from this film off the top of my head, but I will say Cartwright is given a good line here and there that either gives us a little hint into her as a character or is just plain fun to hear coming out of her mouth.

© Mena Films, Inc

There is a saying that a bad ending can ruin a good movie. In the case of “The Ruse,” I am not going to pretend the film was Shakespeare, but it had its moments. To be quite honest, I was, to my surprise, consistently engaged with almost everything that was going on. Not all of it was perfect, but I was always onboard. Then of course, the ending ruined everything. If anything, the final ten minutes of this movie had chunks of decent buildup to it, even if some of it was a little dull. But as I reflect on this film, it seems more concerned with building things and setting them up as opposed to satisfyingly paying them off.

This film’s climax honestly has a tone to it that feels like it belongs in a second act. Without giving much away, the end of this film was definitely trying to be clever, but I on the other hand was definitely trying not to be bored. The film already had a preposterous vibe that became increasingly noticeable before it got to the ending, but this crap was the icing on the cake. When I left the auditorium, I left feeling empty and unfulfilled. This movie did not have much to write home about to begin with, but this? Come on.

I said at the beginning of this review that I went into “The Ruse” blind, and I think that may have affected my experience just a bit. Throughout “The Ruse”, I mainly interpreted it as a horror flick. But if you watch the trailer, which I did while writing this review, it refers to the film as “a terrifying whodunnit.” Granted, that can fall into the line of horror, but even when the film dives into its mystery aspect, it never once engages me. If anything it comes with a hint of predictability and the supporting characters that find themselves involved in said mystery are not interesting enough to bring it to a level where I find myself engaged. I have seen decent horror movies and I have seen decent mysteries. “The Ruse” is neither of those things.

© Mena Films, Inc

In the end, “The Ruse” is one of the most forgettable movies of the year. Other than Veronica Cartwright, there is no real standout in this film other than the ludicrously paced final ten minutes that left me wanting something better than what I got. It is not the most unforgivable abomination in cinematic history, but it is by no means something I can recommend. There are barely any things I enjoy in this film, and there are a few negatives that stand out quite a bit. I wish the people behind the film luck with their future projects. I just hope they are a step up from whatever this is. I am going to give “The Ruse” a 4/10.

“The Ruse” is neither available to watch at home or in theaters as of this review’s publication.

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

Thanks for reading this review! Look forward to my thoughts on films including “Mission: Impossible – The Final Reckoning,” “The Accountant 2,” “Bring Her Back,” “Friendship,” and “Ballerina!” If you want to see my reviews for these films 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 Ruse?” What did you think about it? Or, as stupid as this question sounds on paper, I will give this a shot… What is the most forgettable movie you have seen this year? For all I know, your answer might actually be inaccurate. Maybe you saw something so uninteresting that it fizzled out of your noggin. Whatever your answer is, let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

Sinners (2025): Michael B. Jordan Pulls Double Duty in This Solid Vampire Flick

Posted on by Jack Drees

“Sinners” is directed by Ryan Coogler (Creed, Black Panther) and stars Michael B. Jordan (Creed, Black Panther), Hailee Steinfeld (Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse, Hawkeye), Miles Caton, Jack O’Connell (Back to Black, Skins), Wunmi Mosaku (Moses Jones, Vera), Jayme Lawson (How to Blow Up a Pipeline, The Batman), Omar Miller (Ballers, CSI: Miami), and Delroy Lindo (Da 5 Bloods, The Good Fight). This film is about two criminal twin brothers who start over in their hometown, only to discover that a greater evil is about to welcome them back.

Courtesy of Warner Bros. – © Warner Bros.

I have been eager to see “Sinners” since the first trailer dropped last year. It did not explain a ton, but like a lot of good first trailers, it gave “enough” to sell me. And that is putting things lightly. Because I thought it was very well put together. The film had a lot to like behind the scenes. Michael B. Jordan playing two roles… Other great cast members like Hailee Steinfeld in the supporting roles… Ryan Coogler in the director’s chair… Things were lining up perfectly. And to later find out that the film was shot on IMAX cameras, I could not be more in if I tried. The hype I had for this film was through the roof. So was it worth the excitement? To a certain degree, yes.

This might shock some of you, “Sinners” is not necessarily my favorite film of the year so far. If I had to be honest, I think it had some minor pacing issues and I cannot say I walked out of the theater remembering every single character’s name. I was engaged with the film, but I have seen better this year when it comes to the story. It is hard to say the film is overrated though. I can totally see why other people would consider it to be a masterpiece. I do want to watch the film again at some point, and I genuinely think it would benefit from a second viewing.

That said, I think when it comes to pure experiences, there are few that compare to “Sinners.” For the record, I saw this film in IMAX 70mm, meaning I was able to experience “Sinners” in the most definitive way possible, with the finest detail and clearest sound, so there were definitely some enhancements. Regardless of however you see “Sinners,” do so on the biggest screen you can.

This film is shot entirely on 65mm film, some of it in IMAX. Every frame of this film looks immaculate. Several shots might as well be a painting. This movie also makes history, as it is also the first film shot in IMAX by a woman. Autumn Durald Arkapaw is behind the camera for this project and there is so much to love about how she handled the end product. Many of the exterior shots in particular are going to linger in my mind throughout the year.

Much like another one of Ryan Coogler’s films, “Black Panther,” “Sinners” is a great time. Also like “Black Panther,” this is a film perhaps best suited for Ryan Coogler’s voice. This is a film that I, a straight white male, would probably sully if I were to write or direct it myself. There is a sense of pride in each scene, each shot, each line, and that is because of Coogler’s touch. He clearly knows what he is doing. If you remember “Black Panther,” one of my favorite moments from that film is this one action scene in a casino where the camera navigates between levels to get a solid view of different things that are going down. I thought it was a flawless one take scene, but without going into detail, there is a one take scene during this film that might surpass that moment if you ask me when it comes to execution.

Not too surprisingly, I am quite impressed with the film’s cast. Of course, you have a talented actor in Michael B. Jordan who plays not just one, but two roles. He does a good job here. Both of his characters have charisma. Despite some differences, the two twins genuinely feel like the same person at times. That might have been the point because watching these two reminded me of my own interactions with twins in real life. Mainly because as much as I have built a bond with some of them, I will admit, despite them wearing different outfits and letting off slightly different mannerisms, it is occasionally hard to tell which one is which unless you are digging for certain features.

From mainstay talent to young talent, this film is also the acting debut of Miles Caton. After seeing this film, I am convinced that Caton is going to have a great career. Now he is at the helm of a terrific director, so part of his on-screen talent may be owed to Ryan Coogler. Even so, seeing what I have seen of him in this movie, it shocks me that this is his first role. If anything I would figure he would have a few under his belt. Maybe they were never documented on his IMDb page, I do not know.

While I cannot see it winning an Academy Award, the standout performance for me in this film is Hailee Steinfeld as Mary. I think of all the characters in this movie, she is the one written in the sense that allows for the most range. If you have seen the trailer, you can probably get a sense of where this character is going, where the narrative takes her. But when it gets to “that” point, it is satisfying. I have seen Hailee Steinfeld in other projects, but this is arguably the most fun she has been on screen. It is not my favorite role of Steinfeld’s, but if I were to determine which role of hers appears to be the most fun, I think it comes down to “Sinners” and “The Edge of Seventeen.”

“Sinners” is a vampire movie, and it is a good vampire movie at that. But it kind of gives you a little bit more than just vampires. It takes on concepts such as brotherly connections, music, and then it goes ahead and plops in vampires as a bonus. And when it gets to the vampires, it is a treat. The film has its scary moments. It has its fun moments. The action during the vampire-centered scenes is very well done. This is a film that if you are to see it, try do so on the big screen. The music in the film is also attention-grabbing from the foot-tappable soundtrack to Ludwig Göransson’s admirable score.

If I had anything else to say, and I hate to say this, but I will be real, I am going to remember this film more for its second half than its first. For me, this film took a bit to get going, and I do mean a bit. But when it gets into gear, it goes at lightspeed. That said, the entire film is worth watching. Check it out.

In the end, “Sinners” is a thumbs up. It is another solid outing from director Ryan Coogler. If the Oscars were tomorrow, I could totally see “Sinners” getting some awards attention, especially in the technical categories like film editing and cinematography. But again, I do want to emphasize that this film is one that starts off okay but gets better as it goes. I do not want to confuse anybody. I never said this film was bad, but the second half is much more inviting to me than the first. I might be alone in this statement. I have talked to friends who say that this film is peak cinema. If anything, I think it is a fine movie. I would watch it again. And I will say this again, maybe it would benefit from a second watch. I am going to give “Sinners” a 7/10.

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

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

Thanks for reading this review! My next review is going to be for Marvel’s latest project, “Thunderbolts*!” Stay tuned! Also coming soon, look forward to my thoughts on “Rust,” “The Ruse,” “Mission: Impossible – The Final Reckoning,” and “The Accountant 2.” If you want to see my thoughts on these films 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 “Sinners?” What did you think about it? Or, what is your favorite film directed by Ryan Coogler? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

Novocaine (2025): A Painless Watch

Posted on by Jack Drees

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Luckiest Man in America (2024): A Decent Adaptation of Arguably the Most Exciting Game Show Episodes of All Time

Posted on by Jack Drees

“The Luckiest Man in America” is directed by Samir Oliveros (Bad Lucky Goat, Cactus Blossom) and stars Paul Walter Hauser (Inside Out 2, Cobra Kai), Walton Goggins (Justified, The Shield), Shamier Anderson (Wyonna Earp, John Wick: Chapter 4), Brian Geraghty (Chicago P.D., Boardwalk Empire), Patti Harrison (Shrill, Together Together), Haley Bennett (The Girl on the Train, Hillbilly Elegy), Damian Young, (Amateur, Ozark), Lilli Kay (Your Honor, Yellowstone), James Wolk (Mad Men, Zoo), Shaunette Renée Wilson (Billions, The Resident), David Rysdahl (Nine Days, Fargo), Ricky Russert (I, Tonya, Banshee), David Strathairn (The Bourne Ultimatum, Good Night, and Good Luck), Johnny Knoxville (Jackass, Action Point), and Maisie Williams (Game of Thrones, Doctor Who). This film is inspired by true events and centers around a “Press Your Luck” contestant who has figured out the secret to winning as much money as possible.

I have had a habit of balancing several random hobbies and interests, no matter how atypical. Of course, with this being a movie blog, it would come as no surprise that I love movies. Ever since I was a kid, I loved riding elevators for fun. I still do. So you have a “normal” hobby, and a “less normal” hobby. I also have another interest that I would personally put in between those two when it comes to normalcy, specifically game shows.

As someone who loves movies and game shows, part of me thought for years that the subject matter for “The Luckiest Man in America” would make for a compelling film. For those not aware, the story is based on Michael Larson’s two-episode appearance on “Press Your Luck” in 1984, at which point he broke the record as the biggest winner in game show history. It also took the “luck” out of “Press Your Luck,” as those working on the show came to realize Larson figured out the board’s predetermined patterns and used his knowledge to win a six figure total.

I was really looking forward to this film. My excitement for this project was similar to how I would feel going into a project from one of my favorite directors like Steven Spielberg. I am happy to confirm the film is quite enjoyable, but if you want the best version of the story, this movie is not it. It is good, but not great.

This is not to say you should avoid this movie. In fact, if it is playing near you, which it absolutely likely is not as of this publication, I recommend you give it a shot. By itself, this is a fascinating story and I think it has the potential of winning a lot of viewers over. I think you will have a good time. But just know that there are better options out there regarding the same subject matter that I would more highly recommend.

If you remember my review for “80 for Brady,” which is set during Super Bowl 51, I said the football game by itself is far more compelling than the movie that features it. Similarly, I highly recommend you check out Michael Larson’s “Press Your Luck” episodes on your own time. They are available on YouTube, or they might eventually air as a rerun on BUZZR or something. There is also a solid documentary on the matter called “Big Bucks: The Press Your Luck Scandal.” It does a great job at diving into Larson’s tendencies during the game, as well as his relationships with people on set and his loved ones.

“The Luckiest Man in America” bridges a weird gap to the point where parts of it come off as played up and Hollywoodized. Yet at the same time, the film spends a lot of time on a Hollywood game show set, specifically the one for “Press Your Luck,” that seems to lack the electricity of the original show in the 80s. I remember watching the broadcasts these movies are based on and the crowd was somtimes unhinged, literally losing their minds like animals. It was like Black Friday except in this case the crowd of people was rooting for a stranger to get their hands on a big TV before they did.

Although as someone who has been in live audiences for various TV programs, including two game shows, I did enjoy how hard the film leaned into the list of instructions the audience was given during their visit to the set. They are cued on when to clap, when to boo, as well as when to laugh. If you have ever been in a live audience for a TV show it is a lot of fun, but sometimes you realize that some of what you end up doing is part of a script. The movie even shows a moment where they have to redo a key moment of the game because Michael ended up swearing on camera.

The film is based on real events, but it ends up changing a surprising amount of what has been televised. Some of these include small changes like sounding off the “Price is Right” fail horn whenever someone hits a Whammy or the order in which the contestants answer the trivia questions. There is also a more sizable change involving the Home Player Spin, which was a special event featured in the actual taping in which Larson appeared, but they changed it to play more to the drama of the film and the characters involved.

I have no problem with adapting something for the screen and changing the source material. In fact, one of my problems with the 2019 remake of “The Lion King” is that the film is too similar to the 1994 original. Although a lot of the changes brought to “The Luckiest Man in America” felt out of left field considering this production is based in reality. This is not based on a book, not a video game, nor a TV show. …Okay, well it is kind of based on a TV show. But the point is, I would be down for these changes if they made the story better, but some of the drama added to the film felt forced and fabricated. The film eventually spirals into hints of ridiculousness. Sometimes it is entertaining, but it is still ridiculous. “Once Upon a Time in Hollywood” proves that you can change something that is true and still have it be great. Unfortunately, “The Luckiest Man in America” is not quite on that level.

The film does have a lot to rave about though. The Press Your Luck set, while not entirely the same as the original from the 80s, is about as dead of a ringer as you can get. Props to the design team. The set came out fantastic. At times, the film definitely feels small, but when it is on the “Press Your Luck” set, it is larger than life.

My compliments on the film’s look also extends to the characters. Their fashion choices match the ones we see on the show’s episodes. Paul Walter Hauser looks a lot like Michael Larson himself. I thought the hair and makeup department did a good job at styling him to fully resemble the infamous contestant. If I had any knocks when it comes to the looks, I would say the biggest one would be towards the star of “Press Your Luck,” Peter Tomarkan. For the record, this is not a diss towards Walton Goggins. He did a fine job in his role and I thought he was a solid choice to play the host. But the way his hair was styled looked incredibly artificial. I know on-screen talent like game show hosts are often dolled up to look a certain way on camera, but Goggins looked like an action figure at times. His look was a bit overdone.

Although going back to Paul Walter Hauser, his transformation into Michael is immaculate. If you watch the real Michael Larson, chances are you could find him eccentric at times. He has the personality of a curious, young boy in the body of a grown man. He is expressive and oftentimes giddy. The film clearly paints Larson as a dreamer and does an effective job at representing him as an overzealous “Press Your Luck” fan.

In fact, Larson’s competitors, Ed and Janie are also fun to watch. They also match their real counterparts in terms of their delivery and style. Ed (Brian Geragthy) is over the top and full of enthusiasm. On the other hand, Janie (Patti Harrison) is a little more reserved, but will occasionally pipe up every once in a while. In service to the film’s narrative, Ed sometimes becomes Michael’s voice of encouragement, while Janie channels the heebie jeebies. She is sometimes annoyed by Michael, although the movie makes it clear he means no harm towards her or anyone else in his path. The film even tries to go for the emotions regarding Michael’s family, particularly his spouse and daughter.

I will also compliment John Carroll Kirby’s score. It is very wacky, very 80s. Sometimes it gets a little overly obnoxious, though not to the annoying degree that I experienced watching “Challengers.” That said, I did watch this film alongside my grandparents, and my grandmother in particular thought the score could have been turned down a notch or two at a certain point.

In the end, I do recommend “The Luckiest Man in America,” but again, if you want a better version of this story, just go watch the actual “Press Your Luck” episodes or “Big Bucks: The Press Your Luck Scandal.” They are both available on YouTube. The film runs at a breakneck pace and provides a unique spin on a true story. It is chock full of solid acting, especially from Paul Walter Hauser. Even if you are not familiar with the material featured in this movie, I would say it is still a decent watch. I am going to give “The Luckiest Man in America” a 7/10.

On a sidenote, I never reviewed this, but I try to endorse this project whenever possible… If you want a great piece of media based on a true game show scandal, go watch the miniseries “Quiz.” It is based on Charles Ingram’s fraudulent run to the top prize on the British version of “Who Wants to Be a Millionaire,” as well as select events that play out before and after. I give it the highest of recommendations. I would say you should even phone your friends about it.

As of this writing, “The Luckiest Man in America” is not playing in theaters, nor is it available on any streaming platforms.

Thanks for reading this review! If you want to hear me talk a little bit more about game shows, please check out my recent post I did regarding how unexcited I am for the upcoming season of “Who Wants to Be a Millionaire?“. It is not often that I have a chance to talk about television. But when it comes to this subject matter, I had to get this off my chest. This post involves topics I have been thinking about for quite some time so I had to scribble those topics down and discuss them. As for upcoming reviews, you can soon see my thoughts on “The Penguin Lessons,” “Novocaine,” “The Ballad of Wallis Island,” “Secret Mall Apartment,” “A Minecraft Movie,” “Sinners,” and “Thunderbolts*.” 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 Luckiest Man in America?” What did you think about it? Or, have you ever watched “Press Your Luck?” What do you think of the program? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

Locked (2025): A Hilarious, Torturous Thriller That Dives Into Humanity’s Entitlement

Posted on by Jack Drees

© The Avenue

“Locked” is directed by David Yarovesky (Nightbooks, Brightburn) and stars Bill Skarsgård (IT, Boy Kills World) and Anthony Hopkins (Thor, The Silence of the Lambs) in a film where a carjacker gets trapped inside of a luxury SUV owned by a mysterious man who wants to teach him a lesson about his lifestyle.

It has been hard to find time to go to the cinema in March, so any opportunity I can get to do so, I will take in a heartbeat.

Well, except for “Snow White.” I am honestly not interested in any more Disney live-action remakes for the time being. Additional apologies to “Lilo & Stitch” as well. I think I will be giving my money to the new “Mission: Impossible” the weekend that film comes out.

Thankfully, in March’s second half, the trailer for “Locked” sold me and got me to buy a ticket shortly afterwards.

Not only does “Locked” have solid talent on display like Bill Skarsgård and Anthony Hopkins, but the film looked like it would have fun with its simple concept. Essentially, a man named Eddie enters someone else’s unlocked car, and when he tries to get out, he is stuck and must deal with the unfamiliar surroundings as well as the virtual presence of an utterly hilarious geezer named William. Sounds simple, right? It might. Yet the film goes balls to the wall with its execution between a couple of powerhouse lead performances, and its implementations of one obstacle after another, no matter how convenient or absurd.

I did some research while writing this review and found out that “Locked” is the latest adaptation of a 2019 Argentinian film called “4×4.” I did see that title during the credits, but I was surprised to know that this was the fourth iteration of a film that was finished less than a decade ago. Apparently the film also has a Brazilian remake, as well as another in the Telugu language. To be fair, the premise works in several environments.

For the record, “Locked” was technically shot in Canada, but the English-language film has done much of its marketing in the United States, and uses well known Hollywood stars. Therefore, when connecting this movie to the United States, it works perfectly not only because we are a car-centric country. Not only because we sometimes put significant value on cars. But in regard to this movie’s deeper meaning, it also helps that the United States may be one of the most individualistic countries on the planet. While the movie is about someone being trapped in a car, if you look deeper, the movie is a dive into humanity’s selfishness.

Take Eddie for example. The movie taps into some addiction complications Eddie has. Early on, we see he does not have enough cash to pay for an important vehicle repair. Granted, cars can be pricey to maintain, but we also see that some of his other investments such as drugs and gambling could be getting in the way of more important aspects of his life. Additionally, he has a daughter who he seems to care about, but is not perfect when it comes to supporting her or being there for her. I do not have kids, but in one of my favorite movies, “Interstellar,” there is a line from Cooper that I think about sometimes where he suggests the reason why he is still around is to be a memory to his children. In comparison to Cooper, Eddie is not a role model by any means. He is far from a perfect protagonist, but I like him as a character despite his issues, he clearly loves the people in his life. That is despite him showing barriers that keep him from showing that love.

At the same time, we see Eddie questioning William, and how he got to live a luxury lifestyle. After all, Eddie entered a clearly expensive vehicle, so it is not surprising to see him ask William if he had a head start of some kind. Meanwhile, the film reveals that the two have different educational backgrounds. William has book smarts, Eddie has street smarts. William spent time in the classroom, Eddie was self taught. There is clearly a sense of snobbery when we dig deeper into William’s point of view. The movie shows that entitlement, a quality that both of these characters possess, does not necessarily come from having it all. Entitlement is not specific towards one class of people. Humans, at their core, want everything. And at the point where we do have everything, we do not necessarily have the urge to settle down.

The film mainly takes place in a car that is almost always in park. Yet pacing-wise, the narrative gets into gear to the point where several cops would be following it in a high speed chase. “Locked” is heavy on language, and by the midpoint, violence. This movie dials things up to an 11 by that point. Every random gag, no matter how unnecessary, landed for me. I do not want to reveal every single one, but there is one constant back and forth that had me dying in the beginning where William would call out Eddie for his vulgarity and lack of manners. When it comes to his delivery, Anthony Hopkins at first sounds like a sweet, reserved old man. As the film progresses, we see further hints of aggressiveness within his character. The more of a loose cannon Anthony Hopkins becomes, the more fun the film gets.

The film is quite a short watch. Granted if I had another positive to add, it is that every minute of the runtime is either essential to the story, or at the very least, downright entertaining. On that note, I will say the film does end somewhat abruptly. Is it a fitting ending? Sure. Is it a satisfying ending? One could say that. But I think the movie would have benefitted from being a minute longer and letting the actual end scene play out just a little. Even so, the film does end on a decent note and fulfills all the important arcs. That is perhaps my one gripe with an otherwise near-perfect film.

In the end, “Locked” is an exhilarating joyride. Even when the movie stays in the same place, the overall pace is fast and furious. Unsurprisingly, Anthony Hopkins is on fire with his role. The same can also be said for the film’s lead, Bill Skarsgård, which is also not surprising because that whole family is loaded with talent. I have been impressed with Skarsgard’s script choices lately. Sure he has done mainstream titles like “IT,” which was fantastic. The sequel, not as much, but it was still enjoyable. But he has had an impressive run in recent years with smaller films like “Barbarian” and “Boy Kills World.” “Locked” is yet another small wonder for this talented actor. I hope he continues to land roles as captivating as this one. The film made laugh, and then think. It is a great time overall. I am going to give “Locked” a 9/10.

“Locked” is now available for preorder on VOD and will be available to stream starting April 22nd.

Thanks for reading this review! If you enjoyed this review, I have plenty more on the way! My next review is going to be a first for me. For the first time in Scene Before history, I will be sharing my thoughts on a concert movie, specifically “Hans Zimmer & Friends: Diamond in the Desert.” I very rarely watch concert movies, but I love Hans Zimmer’s scores, so I jumped at the chance to check this film out in theaters last month. Also, stay tuned for my thoughts on “The Luckiest Man in America,” “The Penguin Lessons,” “Novocaine,” “The Ballad of Wallis Island,” “Secret Mall Apartment,” and “A Minecraft Movie.” If you want to see these reviews and more from Scene Before, follow the blog either with an email or WordPress account! Also, check out the official Facebook page! I want to know, did you see “Locked?” What did you think about it? Or, have you ever been trapped somewhere? If you dare, let me know your crazy stories down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

Babygirl (2024): “That’s Magic.” – Nicole Kidman

Posted on by Jack Drees

“Babygirl” is written and directed by Halina Reijn (Bodies Bodies Bodies, Instinct) and stars Nicole Kidman (Being the Ricardos, The Northman), Harris Dickinson (Beach Rats, Trust), Sophie Wilde (Everything Now, Boy Swallows Universe), and Antonio Banderas (Shrek 2, The Mask of Zorro). This film is about a CEO who puts her career and family on the line when she has an affair with a much younger intern.

I saw “Babygirl” at an AMC Theatres location. If you have been to an AMC in the past few years, you may know that Nicole Kidman has served as a bit of a mascot for the brand. I am not completely in love with this, as her spots make up part of the reason why the previews at AMC are so neverendingly long. Honestly, I would be happy if they get rid of the AMC spots containing Kidman altogether. Some see these spots as an anthem, but I find them to be an annoyance. Amazingly, during my screening of “Babygirl,” they did not play one of the Nicole Kidman spots on top of the other 26 or so minutes of theatre promotion and trailers and such. I was a bit perplexed. As much as I hate those ads, I think seeing one of them play before this film in particular would have set the mood.

That said, it does not change the fact that I was rather excited for “Babygirl.” The trailers I have seen for the film are well produced, and allowed me to have high expectations for what was to come. I had a sense of what the movie was about before going in. I think if anything, the trailers did a great job at letting the audience know what the vibe was going to be. The marketing looked fun, compelling, and perhaps most importantly, sexy. After all, desire plays a major part in this film’s narrative, particularly when it comes to the state of our protagonist, Romy.

“Babygirl” is going to end up being one of the more memorable movie experiences I have had this year. It is not my favorite movie of the year, but it is an experiential event. And it all starts at the beginning of the film when we see Romy’s major problem. The film impressively highlights Romy’s lack of desires with her husband (Banderas) and her struggle to fulfill herself in her sex life. We see this part of the story flesh itself out over time and it unleashes some great acting from both Kidman and Banderas. The two perfectly portray a couple who happen to be on a bit of a decline.

“Babygirl” delivers the vibes I was hoping I would get out of “Challengers.” A lot of people love “Challengers,” but I was not one of them. “Babygirl” is easily the steamiest film I have seen this year. This is a film that I would recommend watching, but I would think twice before putting it on when your parents, or especially your grandparents are in the same room. I think this could make for a hot movie to set the mood on date night. This is especially noticeable with the fiery chemistry between Nicole Kidman’s Romy and Harris Dickinson’s Samuel. Their boss/intern connection eventually develops into something not as necessarily safe for work. Several scenes between these two do much more than satisfy. They also beautifully fit within the context of the story. They help us get to know each of the characters. They remind the audience of Romy’s internal struggle. Both actors are completely believable as said scenes play out. Harris Dickinson was not on my radar previously. Although he had a role in 2022’s “See How They Run,” which I gave a positive review. Dickinson is not just good in this movie, I cannot see anyone else playing his specific character. I left this film wanting to see more of his work. If there is another Harris Dickinson movie coming out, consider me interested.

Now judging by what has been said so far, you might think that I will remember this movie for its eroticism. While that is definitely this movie’s top selling point, the film is layered when it comes to fleshing out its protagonist. I must reiterate, Nicole Kidman is a knockout in this film. She gives a powerful performance that I hope gets plenty of buzz in the coming months. But I love how this film manages to make its main character a CEO. We see Romy in a position of power at work. At home, she is busy raising a family and pleasing her husband to the point where she forgets to take care of herself. Additionally, this film is set around the holidays, which is traditionally a hectic time of year. Romy is busy being this wise, helpful presence in other people’s lives that when all of a sudden Samuel enters her own life, she cannot help but submit to him. I mentioned this film is steamy, but sex is just a selling point. As a character piece, “Babygirl” sings.

Though in more ways than one, “Babygirl” is easy on the eyes. The film has a clean look to it. The color palette looks like something out of an insurance commercial, but I mean that as a compliment. The film is certainly picturesque with some vibrant locations and sets. The camerawork is also very good. The shot choices consistently deliver on immersion. Select shots go on for extended periods of time, allowing me to take in and digest the actions of said shots. There is also one shot in the film that starts in the air and slowly navigates down to several of the characters as they walk through a yard. It is a breathtaking series of images.

Again this movie is set around the holidays, and it does maintain a joyful look to it, even if a good portion of it is spent inside a corporate office. In a sense, kind of like the holidays, the movie has a vibe that meets somewhere in the middle of noticeable stress and occasional happiness. Every moment in this film maintains a brisk pace and there are scenes I practically leapt into the screen. There is one scene at a rave that is arguably worth the price of admission. Although fair warning, if you have trouble with flashing lights, I recommend maybe sitting this movie out. For all I know, “Babygirl” could become a Christmas tradition for some people. Maybe not with the family. But I think if you are either by yourself or with your partner, this could make for a great watch around the holidays. While the films have their notable differences, I think “Babygirl” could even serve as part of a double feature with “Eyes Wide Shut.” After all, both films are associated with sexuality, feature Nicole Kidman, and are set around Christmas! It’s perfect! Also, as the Movie Reviewing Moron, I do not endorse watching “Eyes Wide Shut” with the family either. That’s a no-no.

Courtesy of A24 – © A24

In the end, “Babygirl” is 2024’s sexiest movie. Nicole Kidman gives a standout performance as Romy. The rest of the cast is also quite solid. Harris Dickinson also notably plays his role to perfection. The film is a great balance between vibes and characterization. I do recommend this film under the right circumstances. Again, do not watch if your parents or grandparents are in the room. Same goes if you have kids. But if you are in the right place at the right time, “Babygirl” is a must see. I am going to give “Babygirl” an 8/10.

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

Thanks for reading this review! My next review is going to be for “A Complete Unknown,” the brand new movie starring Timothée Chalamet as Bob Dylan. If you want to see this review and more from Scene Before, follow the blog either with an email or WordPress account! Also, check out the official Facebook page! I want to know, did you see “Babygirl?” What did you think about it? Or, what movie do you watch every year around the holidays? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

Kraven the Hunter (2024): Sony… PLEASE. STOP.

Posted on by Jack Drees

“Kraven the Hunter” is directed by J.C. Chandor (A Most Violent Year, Margin Call) and stars Aaron Taylor-Johnson (Godzilla, Avengers: Age of Ultron), Ariana DeBose (West Side Story, Wish), Fred Hechinger (The White Lotus, Gladiator II), Alessandro Nivola (Amsterdam, Jurassic Park III), Christopher Abbott (Girls, The Sinner), and Russell Crowe (Thor: Love and Thunder, Gladiator). This film is about Sergei Kravinoff, AKA Kraven the Hunter, and explores his complex relationship with his father in addition to how he uses his hunting skills to find targets and seek revenge.

© Sony Pictures Entertainment

Have you guys ever heard the saying “Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me,”? That phrase could almost apply to my experience with the Sony Spider-Man Universe. Note the use of the word almost. I say this because I basically go to see Sony’s Spider-Man villain standalone films out of obligation. Very rarely do I look forward to these movies. I think the closest I got to actually looking forward to one of these movies was “Morbius,” which ended up being my worst film of 2022. Although now that I think about it, I was intrigued by at least one trailer for “Venom: Let There be Carnage” before it came out. At least there is that.

For those playing catchup, let me give you the rundown so far on my thoughts on all the movies in the Sony Spider-Man universe… First “Venom” movie… Terrible! A lot of people seem to think it is okay. I think it is one of the most bland, boring, and horribly polished comic book movies ever made. Second “Venom” movie… Actually, pretty good. I thought the action was fun, it ups the one good thing about the original movie, specifically the humor. And it contains maybe the greatest PG-13 f-bomb in cinematic history. “Morbius…” A big fat joke! Other than Jared Leto’s performance and parts of the first act, there is nothing redeeming about this film. Oh yeah, let’s not forget that the marketing lied to its audience and the film may be responsible for the most tacked on and abysmal end credits scenes of all time. “Madame Web…” somehow WORSE than “Morbius!” Not even big name actors can save this abomination! Also, for some reason, this schlock saw the light of day despite being written by the same team who wrote “Morbius.” Bad dialogue, okay at best action, horrible camerawork, and another case of deceptive marketing. Genuinely one of the worst films I have ever seen, and if you think I am saying this for dramatic effect, I have some magic beans to sell you. And lastly, “Venom: The Last Dance…” Safe to say, I was immensely bored. Other than the chemistry between Eddie and the titular character on top of one admirable motivation between them, I thought this threequel was a waste of time. Add on a whole Area 51 subplot that nearly put me to sleep, then you have a recipe for, surprisingly, the second best Sony Spider-Man Universe movie. How sad.

Thus far, the Sony Spider-Man Universe, or whatever you want to call it at this point, is one for five. People say the recently finished DCEU sucks compared to the MCU? Oh, boy oh boy, this universe WISHES it were the DCEU! That universe has cinematic bangers like “Wonder Woman” and “The Suicide Squad!” The DCEU even spawned the incredible TV series “Peacemaker!” While definitely inconsistent, when that cinematic universe fired on all cylinders, it was on the right track. But “Kraven the Hunter” had something attached to it that the other movies did not… An R rating! Yeah! That “Morbius” nonsense? That is for babies! Now it is daddy’s turn! If “Deadpool” can get away with an R, so can “Kraven!”

Having seen the movie, it may be able to get away with an R, but it certainly is not getting away from my infinite rage. This is yet another epic fail for Sony’s Spider-Man Universe. Though am I really surprised?

Sony, how many times do we have to do this same old song and dance before it becomes stale? I think this is a great question.

…If I were an imbecile!

This whole Sony Spider-Man Barrel of Monkeys was already stale from the first of these wannabe “Spider-Man” flicks. I ask this question specifically to you guys. Genuinely! What on earth are you doing?! What is it going to take for this saga of nonsense to end?! I understand that the rights to “Spider-Man” are your most valuable asset, but if you keep making movies like these, then this whole property is going to be a joke. Tom Holland is not going to be playing the character forever. The “Spider-Verse” series can only go on for so long. You can only do so many crossovers involving the three live-action Spider-Men before they stop acting. The solution is not to continue making cheap, boring anti-hero movies featuring villains as the main character. Movies like “Kraven the Hunter” justify cases where movies like “Batgirl” get scrapped by the studio for a tax write-off.

Honestly, if someone popped me the question as to which movie I would want to watch more, and I had to pick between the first “Venom” and “Kraven the Hunter,” I might go with “Venom!” At least in “Venom,” you had some occasional funny lines and some decent chemistry between the two main characters. Aaron Taylor-Johnson is clearly giving the lead role his all here. But he does not have a great script to back him up. While Aaron Taylor-Johnson is playing the lead role, he is not even the most high profile actor on the roster. The film also features Russell Crowe, and I think it is safe to say that I was not entertained by his completely one-dimensional so-called character. Crowe plays Kraven’s father, and not only is he unworthy of even a Dollar Tree card on Father’s Day, but he has incredibly repetitive, cliche dialogue. The movie clearly establishes him as far from the finest father figure. That seems to be the point at times. But I cared so little about the story and characters of this film to the point where Crowe’s character comes off as a joke.

Then you have Ariana DeBose, who is one of the most dynamic, lively, energetic talents working today. The woman in the past couple years deservedly won an Academy Award for “West Side Story.” She was also pretty good in other films following that, even if they did not get the best reviews. Unpopular opinion, I really liked “Wish…” I said what I said. DeBose, to my shock and amazement, plays one of the most forgettable core characters of a comic book film I have ever seen. If you were to ask me what the purpose of this character was in a few years from now, I will probably refer to her as the boring tarot card lady or something, because while her presence serves the story, it does so in maybe the dullest way possible. Shoutout to Sony for making two movies in the same year that somehow made me give me even less of a crap about tarot cards than I already do. Anybody remember the film “Tarot” from earlier this year? No? If you are loyal to this blog you will hear about it again soon on the top 10 worst movies of 2024 list once I get finished with that. You know, kind of like this atrocity some like to call a comic book movie.

Going back to what I said about “Madame Web” and how a big name cast could not save the film from being bad. I think “Kraven the Hunter” somehow takes that inferiority to another level. Because yes, Dakota Johnson and Sydney Sweeney have been in big projects. Some good, some bad. That is the classic life of an actor, but they are both lucky enough to achieve their level of fame. Sweeney has been nominated for a couple Primetime Emmys so congrats to her. That said, “Kraven the Hunter” is much more excruciating to think about because while “Madame Web’s” Sweeney has gotten some awards attention, “Kraven” has multiple actors who have actually have prestigious awards on their mantle.

© Sony Pictures Entertainment

Again, you have Russell Crowe who has an extended career, an Academy Award, a BAFTA Award, and two Golden Globes. Circling back to Ariana DeBose, it was like watching Uma Thurman as Poison Ivy in “Batman & Robin,” but worse. Because while Thurman was nominated for an Academy Award for her role in “Pulp Fiction,” a couple years before that flopbuster came out, DeBose actually WON her Academy Award. I do not think DeBose’s performance is Razzie-worthy. There is nothing extreme about it that makes it stand out as one of the worst performances of all time. The best word I can use to describe it would be “tiring.” I guess that is one reason to watch this movie again. If I am really tired and want to catch some z’s, “Kraven the Hunter” might make for solid background noise.

I will be fair to Crowe, however. As infuriating as his character is to watch, I must admit he makes the most of a crappy script with his chops. Crowe does his best with the material to the point where I almost cannot imagine anyone else in his role. So… Yay?…

Courtesy of Sony Pictures – © 2024 CTMG, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

Another actor I enjoyed watching in this hot mess? Aaron Taylor-Johnson. No, it is not because of his abs. He legit does an okay job as the lead. Again, his character is not written well. But I buy him in the role. He is not perfect, but he definitely has an inkling of charisma. I just wish such charisma were saved for something that would not be a waste of my time and money. That is another consistency with these Sony movies. As much as I do not like “Venom,” I still think Tom Hardy is well cast as the lead role. Same goes for Jared Leto in “Morbius.”

For those of you who saw the first eight minutes of the movie when it dropped online, you would know it starts off with, admittedly, a halfway decent action sequence. That adjective might as well be used to describe a good amount of the action in this film. The action does not reinvent the wheel. There are a couple cuts that I thought were a little too quick, but for the most part, the action is one of the better parts of the movie. “Kraven the Hunter” sometimes finds its footing in some places, but when it comes to structure, that is definitely not one of those places. Sure, the movie starts off with a decent action scene that could likely hook viewers into the story. But then we get to the part of the film that dives into Kraven’s origins. The timing of this transition feels abrupt and out of place. Given the length of these moments and how long it deviates from what we already saw in Kraven’s adulthood, I would have preferred for the final cut of the film to start with Kraven’s origins. It would allow me to more easily know and understand the characters that way if we were to get to an action sequence like the one we see at the beginning, I would probably care a little more about the people in the scene and possibly the sequence itself.

I will give props to Sony for not hiring Mark Sazama and Burk Sharpless to write this film. Although to be fair, they were probably already busy figuring out how to beat the odds and make a worse screenplay for “Madame Web” than they did for “Morbius.” Spoiler alert, they did. Instead, this film has three writers. You have Richard Wenk, known for writing the “Equalizer” movies starring Denzel Washington. I have not watched those films, but I have heard good things. His resume contains some other notable work, but oddly enough, I cannot give my opinion on any of his titles because I never watched any of them. As for the other two writers, you have Art Marcum and Matt Holloway. These are two of the four writers responsible for one of the better Marvel Cinematic Universe films, “Iron Man.” Although the rest of their resume is not particularly great. There is “Men in Black: International,” which I actually liked. But there are also a lot of people who would challenge my unpopular opinion. They just did “Uncharted,” which has a couple cool action scenes, but the screenplay has nothing that stands out about it. The film itself is rather unmemorable. Then we travel back in time to my least favorite movie of theirs, “Transformers: The Last Knight.” My biggest problem with the film is with the headache-inducing use of IMAX technology that honestly leaves no one but Michael Bay to blame. But if I had another notable problem, it is that the film’s script repeats the problems of the previous movies, but somehow delivers maybe the least engaging journey the franchise has given yet. Going back even further to a movie I did not see, these two even did “Punisher: War Zone,” which was not only poorly reviewed, but with more than $10 million total, it made less money at the box office than any other movie based on Marvel Comics. Part of me is convinced that Sony could be having a streak of bad luck, but then I look at the resumes of the people they hire and I think either their options are limited, they are choosing the wrong people, or they have better options out there and do not want to spend more money on them. I have no clue.

Courtesy of Sony Pictures – © 2024 CTMG, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

In all seriousness though, this trio of writers managed to join forces to create one of the most snore-inducing films of the year. I do not think there is any way to sugarcoat this. It is also full of Academy Award-level lines like “I’m a hunter.” In addition to Russell Crowe repeatedly telling his boys, and therefore the audience, that their mother died and she was weak. As I watched this movie and came to realize the director and cast handled their material, I honestly thought “Kraven the Hunter” has a feel that is kind of similar to “The Room.” I say kind of because unlike “The Room,” the chances of me ever watching “Kraven the Hunter” again are pretty slim. But this is a movie that I can honestly watch, acknowledge how bad it is, and sometimes burst out laughing for the wrong reasons. If you want a more genre-related example, I will go back to the recently mentioned “Batman & Robin.” It definitely makes me laugh, but the humor sometimes feels accidental.

You know the Island of Misfit Toys from “Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer?” If there were ever a place I could associate with this universe, that would be it. I assume most inhabitants, or in this case, filmmakers, actors, producers, crew, etc., that make it up are kind, but compared to the toys Santa delivers to kids on Christmas, which in this case would be Disney’s MCU and Warner Brothers’ DCEU, Sony’s got its own little private island full of outcasts. I have not gone back to watch a single Sony Spider-Man Enigmaverse movie since seeing them in the theater, other than “Venom: Let There be Carnage” when it was airing one time on cable. It is like that scene from “Toy Story 2” where Andy picks up Woody and says he does not want to play with him anymore, except in this case, the toy is fresh out of the box and has barely been used.

This is why I ask Sony not to sell the rights to “Spider-Man…” I really want to see them pump out that third “Spider-Verse” movie. Instead I would like Sony to stop with these standalone villain spinoffs. These are not movies, these are corporate products designed by people trying to fill a release slot and keep the rights just a while longer. “Kraven the Hunter” is the latest example of this. If you are looking for Spider-Man connections in this film, all you are getting are secondary characters who appear in various Spider-Man properties who are poorly executed, and one scene where a ton of spiders are on screen. It is not even a good scene! Spider-Man is not in this movie. Peter Parker is not in this movie. Although the Rhino is in this movie. This time around is better than how the character was presented in “The Amazing Spider-Man 2,” but that does not really say much.

Speaking of which, let’s talk about the CGI… This movie is chock-full of distractingly noticeable visuals. Going back to Rhino, that is one example. You can definitely tell he has fake skin, but I would not even consider that the worst CGI in this film. This film has multiple scenes containing animals, including a lion I thought looked somewhat artificial, but at most I would consider to be tolerable. The animals that stood out to me the most in terms of how offputting they looked are the buffalo. And there are a lot of them in this movie. There is this scene where this buffalo is holding steady in front of Kraven. They are in the middle of a field. When that buffalo is staying still, all that allows me to do is take in as much detail as possible to realize that the creature looks like something out of a video game. When Kraven is looking at this buffalo, he comes off like he is staring at a picture instead of something live.

Sony, please. Just stop! I have had it up to here at this point! This year is the 100th anniversary of Columbia Pictures. When it comes to celebrating it, this, “Venom: The Last Dance,” and “Madame Web” were clearly not the best ways to do it on the Marvel front. I am thankful they brought all the old “Spider-Man” movies back to theaters. I went back to watch “Spider-Man 2” and “Spider-Man 3” in the theater this year. If for whatever reason Sony decides to do some anniversary screening for “Kraven the Hunter,” I am going to give it a hard pass.

© Sony Pictures Entertainment

In the end, “Kraven the Hunter” sucks. Plain and simple. It is a poorly structured, badly edited, laughably acted, shoddily directed misfire that I would not recommend to anyone. I will honestly watch “Venom: The Last Dance” three more times before turning this movie on again. Yes, there are positives. The action is okay. Aaron Taylor-Johnson is a good choice to play Kraven. And even though Russell Crowe plays an unlikable character, he at least acts like he is giving two squirts of urine about his role. “Kraven the Hunter” is not a movie. It is a series of scenes spliced together by a corporation to continue preserving franchise rights. If this is the last movie we see in the Sony Spider-Man Insert Clever Name Here, good riddance. I am going to give “Kraven the Hunter” a 2/10.

“Kraven the Hunter” is now playing in theaters. Tickets are available now.

Thanks for reading this review! My next reviews are going to be for “Lord of the Rings: The War of the Rohirrim,” “Sonic the Hedgehog 3,” and “Flow.” 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 “Kraven the Hunter?” What did you think about it? Or, what are your 2024 comic book movies ranked? What a terrible question that must be… That is like ranking your children, and you are choosing your favorite child based on which one you find the least irritating. I will admit, I did not even see “The Crow” this year. I think I dodged a bullet with that one. That said, there were plenty of awful comic book films this year to make up for whatever that one would end up being. If you have a ranking, list your top movies down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

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

Posted on by Jack Drees

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

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

Ehh…

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Juror #2 (2024): Nicholas Hoult Dominates the Screen in Clint Eastwood’s Latest Flick

Posted on by Jack Drees

“Juror #2” is directed by Clint Eastwood (Million Dollar Baby, Gran Torino) and stars Nicholas Hoult (The Menu, The Garfield Movie), Toni Collette (Hereditary, The Way Way Back), J.K. Simmons (Spider-Man, Saturday Night), Chris Messina (I.S.S., The Mindy Project), Zoey Deutch (The Suite Life on Deck, The Politician), Cedric Yarborough (Speechless, The Goldbergs), and Kiefer Sutherland (Flatliners, Designated Survivor). This film is about a family man who struggles with a moral dilemma while serving as a juror on a high-profile murder trial.

© Warner Brothers

As a hardcore moviegoer, I am always intrigued when I know I have the opportunity to take part in a unique experience. Over the past number of years, I have seen various Christopher Nolan movies in IMAX 70mm. I went to a free screening of the 2020 film “Emma.” at a theater just outside of Boston because the film’s star and director, Anya Taylor-Joy and Autumn de Wilde, were there as part of their press tour. During a vacation in Los Angeles, I ended up watching “Turning Red” at the El Capitan Theatre on Hollywood Boulevard just days into its 2022 release. With the film dropping on Disney+ at the same time, the El Capitan was one of the few ways I could actually see the film in a cinema. The film was playing in select locations in California and New York, and I was lucky enough to be close to one of them.

Similar to that last example, “Juror #2” continuously played in a limited number of theaters since its early November release. I was lucky enough to catch a screening at one of these theaters on the fourth week of its run. I say this not just because of the limited availability, but because the film is so good that it makes me wish more theaters were playing it.

Unfortunately, after just a little more than a month, it looks like the movie’s theatrical run has come to an end. Even in markets like New York and Los Angeles, there are no showtimes to be found. The film is however available for home viewing, and while it is not guaranteed you will get the definitive experience, you certainly will get a great film. This is one of the most engaging movies I have watched all year. It is not short on edge of your seat moments and stellar characterization. The film is helmed by Clint Eastwood, and it amazes me to know that he is 94 years old and still making movies as excellent as this.

Nicholas Hoult plays the film’s lead, Justin Kemp, and he kills it. I do not think Hoult is going to win an Oscar this season, but if he does, or at least gets nominated, I think he has the film’s scribe, Jonathan Abrams, to thank to a certain degree for giving him such delicious material to work with. Hoult is given quite a bit to do in this film, and he handles all of it very well. He plays a complicated character who loses not even a single ounce of admirability as he goes on.

This film puts Justin Kemp, in a place where you can easily see his internal struggle. He runs into a scenario that I could imagine most people with a sense of decency would never want to face. The film presents his journey in such a way that makes me like his character the entire time, even though I know he kind of has a dark side. I do not mean this in a bad boy or admirable jerk or lovable idiot kind of sense. Kemp is genuinely a good guy who must deal with the consequences that are given to him. He is not perfect, but the movie gives you enough background to like him despite his flaws.

Hoult easily outshines everyone in the supporting cast, who are by no means doing a bad job, but Hoult is in a league of his own. That said I think Amy Aquino is likable as Judge Thelma Hollub. She plays the part well. The same can be said for Toni Collette, Chris Messina, and Kiefer Sutherland (above) as Faith Killebrew, Eric Resnick, and Larry Lasker respectively. Some of the supporting jurors get their moment to shine when it is relevant to the story. A few of those moments stood out. I also enjoyed seeing one juror who was written in such a way where the movie presents her to be brainwashed by cliches of the true crime genre. That said if I had one complaint, and it is a minor gripe if anything, this film for the most part feels grounded, that character is almost a cartoon in certain moments. I do not dislike her, but tonally, she almost feels like she is in a different project.

While Hoult’s chances this awards season are still up for debate, I have to say “Juror #2” has some of the cleanest editing I have seen in a film all year. The film is essentially linear, though it also contains perfectly placed flashbacks and each moment is timed perfectly to generate a proper reaction. There are quite a few moments where this movie had my eyes glued to the screen and a lot of it has to do with how long it took me to process each moment.

The film also ends on a perfect note. I will not spoil it because as far as I am concerned, Warner Brothers for some reason wants no one on earth to see this film. But as if the final 10, 20 minutes are already engaging enough, the film throws in an appropriate final note. One could argue that this final note is predictable. I would not judge you for saying that, but I would say it is fitting, so I would not use the “predictable” complaint here. I would rather have a predictable ending that makes sense as opposed to an out of left field ending that has no place in the narrative whatsoever. To me, this final note is done in such a way where I like it more for its overall execution as opposed to the fact that someone thought to insert it in the film to begin with. I think such a sentiment can fit for the rest of the film. The film itself is not entirely predictable. It has parts that you can tell a certain thing is probably going to happen, but every action in this film is done in what can almost be described as the finest way possible.

With Clint Eastwood being 94 years old, there is a possibility that “Juror #2” could be his last film. If that is the case, I would like to say that this is a much better way to cap things off than the middle of the road 2021 film “Cry Macho.” But also, I hope that by some miracle, “Juror #2” comes back to theaters so more people can see it on the big screen. This is a film that if it were released in a wider capacity, probably would have generated more discussion about the legal system, moral dilemmas, and been a water-cooler conversation piece. I wish the movie to have some success at home, but like a lot of movies that go to theaters, I wish it had more time and accessibility. Sure, it is probably going to rack up solid word of mouth. But I wish it had a bigger release that way people watching it at home are more likely to have faith that it is going to be worth their time. And for the case of “Juror #2,” it is definitely worth your time.

In the end, there are a number of reasons to watch “Juror #2.” It is a spectacularly written, well-paced, thought provoking thriller. Nicholas Hoult, again, probably is not going to win that many awards this season, but I would not be mad if he gets one or two nominations because he plays one of the most complicated characters I have seen in any film this year. The film’s supporting cost from Toni Collette to Chris Messina to even J.K. Simmons all play their roles nicely. If this is Clint Eastwood’s swan song, it is a great note to end on. But there is a saying that you are only as good as your last project. The quality of this project only makes me curious to know if he has another one just as good up his sleeve. I am going to give “Juror #2” an 8/10.

In fact, going back to “Cry Macho,” “Juror #2” has now made more money at the box office in a handful of theaters than “Cry Macho” did during its entire run. For the record, “Cry Macho” made $16.5 million whereas “Juror #2” has racked up $19.9 million. Both failed to make their budget back, but I honestly would have liked to know what the case would have been if “Juror #2” were playing more in rural areas and the suburbs. Granted, there are external factors affecting “Cry Macho’s” release including a simultaneous drop on HBO Max and continued questioning over safety when it comes to COVID-19. But even so, for this film to make as much money as it did given the circumstances is not bad. I just wish there were more ways to see it.

“Juror #2” is now available on VOD and is available on Max for all subscribers on December 20th.

Thanks for reading this review! My next review is going to be for one of the most popular movies out right now, “Wicked.” I had a chance to see it opening weekend, so I will let you know my thoughts on the phenomenon. Also coming soon, stay tuned for my thoughts on “Smile 2,” “Nightbitch,” “Kraven the Hunter,” and “The Lord of the Rings: The War of the Rohirrim.” If you want to see these reviews and more from Scene Before, follow the blog either with an email or WordPress account! Also, check out the official Facebook page! I want to know, did you see “Juror #2?” What did you think about it? Or, what is your favorite Clint Eastwood film? There are plenty to choose from, so let me know which one you think is best down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!