Thriller

Ballerina (2025): Yeah! I’m Thinking I Dig This Spinoff!

Posted on by Jack Drees

“Ballerina” is directed by Len Wiseman (Live Free or Die Hard, Total Recall) and stars Ana de Armas (Blade Runner 2049, Knives Out), Anjelica Huston (The Addams Family, Prizzi’s Honor), Gabriel Byrne (Hereditary, In Treatment), Lance Reddick (Bosch, The Wire), Norman Reedus (The Walking Dead, The Boondock Saints), Ian McShane (Deadwood, Kung Fu Panda), and Keanu Reeves (Point Break, The Matrix). This film is about a woman who trains as an assassin and seeks revenge following the death of her father.

Yeah, I’m thinking the “John Wick” franchise is back! But this time, it is not Wick’s film. He is in it, but the star of the show this time around is Ana de Armas as Eve Macarro. This marks the franchise’s first film spinoff. On the television side, there is also “The Continental,” which I have admittedly yet to see. But every time I watch a proper “John Wick” film, I am reminded of how much potential this franchise has when it comes to its lore. There are tons of stories that could be told within the walls of the many Continental hotels. With “Ballerina” being the franchise’s first film spinoff, does it compare to the proper movies? Honestly, it is worthy of the “John Wick” name.

“Ballerina” is better than I thought it would be. And I feel stupid for saying that. For the record, I was looking forward to this film for multiple reasons. First off, none of the “John Wick” movies have let me down so far. In fact, I find every movie in this franchise to be better than the one that came before. Not all of them are perfect. Some of them are much better with the action than the story. But the franchise is well-rounded from movie to movie. Second, Ana de Armas is in the lead role. This is the actress’s first appearance in this franchise, but I have been dying to see her in this role ever since I first heard about it. I have been hoping de Armas could take on a role like this since watching her in “No Time to Die.” She easily stole the show with her short but sweet appearance. Yes, you could argue in terms of the action genre that maybe she got a big spotlight in Netflix’s “The Gray Man,” but that movie was so mediocre that I almost forgot that it existed. Plus de Armas did not play the main character, unlike Ryan Gosling. “Ballerina” is a much larger showcase of what de Armas can do in these types of films. On top of that, she is an actress who I project could rack up a ton of Oscar noms if given the right roles. While “Ballerina” may not be Academy Award-winning in every regard, it did win me over with Ana de Armas’ presence.

Before we continue with the positives regarding Ana de Armas’ role, I must note that I also went into this film a tad worried despite my excitement. While I was excited to see Keanu Reeves as John Wick again, I was also wondering why he was in this film. What was his purpose? I will not spoil much, but he is in a lot more of the film than the marketing led me to believe. And it was fun to see him on screen once again. I will take any dose of Keanu Reeves I can get. He is breathtaking.

This is also the first film in the franchise where Chad Stahelski does not have a directing credit. That credit instead goes to Len Wiseman. Stahelski’s lack of directorial power specifically does not worry me. If anything it gives the opportunity for someone to bring in a fresh take on the property. That said, the film’s action sequences are often stylistically consistent with the previous movies. Whether they are done on massive, colorfully lit set pieces… Run on extensive, smooth shots… Or involve constant running and gunning, these look like something Chad Stahelski would come up with. Partially because he did. Well, sort of. While the action sequences are the product of Wiseman himself, Stahelski did have a helping hand with enhancing those sequences through reshoots. I think whatever they did may have been worth it because this movie cost $90 million to make, and every dollar looks like it has flown onto the screen. I have to go back to watch the other movies to verify, but this may be the most vibrant and colorful the “John Wick” franchise has ever looked. That might be odd to say considering the film is fairly dramatic and bloody. But if I were to buy myself an OLED TV, “Ballerina” would make for a great test movie.

I said I would go back to Ana de Armas, and now is the time. There are few compliments one can give an actor as positive as “I cannot see anyone else playing their role.” That happens to be the case for Ana de Armas as Eve Macarro. And that says something, because the same character was portrayed by Unity Phelan in “John Wick: Chapter 3 – Parabellum.” For the record, Phelan has very limited acting credits, so I have no problem with de Armas replacing her. De Armas does not disappoint here. She continues to prove she is an action star.

Not only does de Armas handle the choreography given to her with perfection, but she always maintains an aura of toughness and determination. She may be small, she may be pretty sometimes, but she can pack a punch. I also liked getting to know about a bit of her backstory. She seems to have developed her recently mentioned toughness and determination partially because of how hard she was pushed as a ballet dancer. Her childhood also was not perfect in more ways than one. 

There are a couple great action films out right now, both of which are part of major franchises. Since May, you had “Mission: Impossible – The Final Reckoning,” and a couple weeks later came “Ballerina.” If you had to ask me which of these two films I recommend you watch first, my mind would go to “Mission: Impossible – The Final Reckoning.” But “Ballerina” is not far behind. Do not sleep on it. In fact, “Ballerina” actually outshines “The Final Reckoning” in some ways. For starters, the pacing in “Ballerina” is significantly better. There is never a boring moment in either movie. But you can sometimes feel the weight of “The Final Reckoning” whereas “Ballerina” is a consistently thrilling ride. Speaking of consistency, the film never shifts much in tone. At times “The Final Reckoning” gets into Saturday morning cartoon territory with its dialogue and villain. Even with some hyperbolic action and funnier moments, the overall vibe of “Ballerina” maintained a sense of grit.

Courtesy of Lionsgate – © 2025 Lionsgate

That said, the film is, as I said earlier, not going to win every Academy Award. I will give props to the technical side like the production and costume design, the cinematography, as well as the film editing. This film undeniably looks grand, even if the scale seems to take a dip from the previous couple of “John Wick” movies. But there are times where the story lacked hints of engagement. The dialogue, while not bad, is not the best I ever heard. It is also not as emotionally investing as it could be. At times the film tries to go for the emotions, but I did not care for the supporting cast enough to feel those emotions.

But this film already has so much going for it to the point where I can forgive its faults. In true “John Wick” fashion, “Ballerina” shows how you do action shots and choreography. Never once did I look at a scene and wonder who was fighting who or feel jarred by how many takes the editor could splice together in a span of 10 seconds. There are also some cool action scenes involving objects as unusual as dinner plates. Once again, while it is not Keanu Reeves’ movie, he is great in it. He handles all of his material with excellence. He does not phone it in. And Ana de Armas puts on a performance that is arguably better than what this movie deserves. I left “Ballerina” not only wanting to see more of Ana de Armas in action roles, but also more of her in this specific role. Despite the screenplay’s faults, this character has potential. I did like what we got of her backstory, I will give the movie that. Maybe that could be expanded in later films or you can give her something better in the present to work with. “Ballerina” is a solid start for Eve Macarro, unless you technically count “Chapter 3.” Hopefully if she comes back, the crew can find a way to keep up the good work.

Courtesy of Lionsgate – © 2025 Lionsgate

In the end, as far as the “John Wick” franchise goes, “Ballerina” is a weaker installment. It might even be the weakest. But like I often say about Pixar movies, even lower tier “John Wick” is still good. Per usual, the action is world class. The production design is astounding. The camerawork and lighting are top notch. The climax is wildly entertaining. There is a lot to enjoy about this film. I have no clue how many people are going to go see this film in the long run. I have my doubts it will be remembered as a “success.” But if you are an action junkie, there is a lot to like here. I would definitely watch it a second time. I am going to give “Ballerina” a 7/10.

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

Courtesy of TPS Productions/Focus Features – © 2025

Thanks for reading this review! My next review is going to be for Wes Anderson’s latest film, “The Phoenician Scheme.” Stay tuned! Also coming soon, I will share my thoughts on “The Life of Chuck,” “Materialists,” and “Elio.” 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 “Ballerina?” What did you think about it? Or, is there a rising action star who caught your eye in recent years? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

Bring Her Back (2025): Another Clever, Scary Outing from the Philippou Brothers

Posted on by Jack Drees

“Bring Her Back” is directed by Danny and Michael Philippou, the directing duo behind “Talk to Me.” This film stars Billy Barratt (Kraven the Hunter, Responsible Child), Sora Wong, Jonah Wren Phillips (Human Error, How to Make Gravy), and Sally Hawkins (The Shape of Water, Paddington). This film centers around Andy and Piper, a brother and sister who are placed under the care of an eccentric woman and find themselves part of a terrifying ritual.

I ended up going to see “Bring Her Back” mainly because of the films that were out in one particular weekend, it piqued my curiosity the most. Note my choice of words. I never said I was looking forward to this film. But I cannot say I was dreading it either. If anything, I was going to see “Bring Her Back” because of my past experience. If I saw any trailers for “Bring Her Back,” they likely flew over my head. That said, I saw “Talk to Me” one time a couple years back. I thought it was a respectable effort by filmmaking brothers Michael and Danny Philippou. While the film had its fans, I cannot say I thought it was perfect. Though I liked it enough to give it a thumbs up. There is a saying that you are only as good as your last project. The Philippou brothers’ last project got me in the door. So, how is their latest outing?

Out-freaking-standing, and I cannot emphasize my enthusiasm enough.

“Bring Her Back” is easily one of the best films of the year. It is a movie that is not quite committed to one genre. I have called it a horror film, and knowing what “Talk to Me” turned out to be, I was kind of expecting “Bring Her Back” to be in the same boat as that movie. While the film is creepy, I will say that one could easily put “Bring Her Back” in the category of psychological thriller. One can simply say it is a drama. Regardless of whatever genre you call it, it handles all of its mini-genres with excellence.

What makes “Bring Her Back” so great is my attachment to the core characters. We come to find out that they all have something in common. Specifically, they are all grieving over someone they lost. While it is traditional for people to grieve over someone’s death, these deaths are unlikely scenarios. For the two younger characters, Andy and Cathy, we see early on in the film that they lose their dad. Shortly after, they meet a new foster parent (Sally Hawkins), whose young daughter died after drowning in a pool. The movie made me feel bad for all three of these people, even if something seems off about one of them.

When these three people first met, it did not take long for me to develop a pit in my stomach. I knew we were in for a ride with Sally Hawkins from the moment I saw her. First off, like some of her previous projects, Hawkins does not phone it in whatsoever when it comes to her performance. She has so much range packed into one character. At one moment she is kind of a creep, then lovable, then flamboyant. Whatever she happens to be as Laura, Hawkins nails it. That said, even when she is those last two adjectives, there is a sense of creepiness to her that remains consistent.

There are some things Hawkins does throughout the runtime that not only made me hate her, but made me want to straight up punch her in the face. She is everything you can want in a solid antagonist. While I will give praise to Hawkins for her performance, I will not deny that her character is sometimes straight up unlikable despite her occasionally having a chill or “cool mom” vibe. And me loathing her is a good thing. All it got me to do is get behind the kids through their journey as it plays out. As wacky as this movie gets at times, I was able to buy into Laura’s motivation. I could see where she was coming from even if I ultimately thought she was a psychotic lunatic.

I would not call this a complaint, but this is more or less something I noticed through my experience of watching the film. Keep in mind, I found “Bring Her Back” to be quite scary. But I cannot say that there are many jaw-dropping individual scares in the film. If anything, I found the film to maintain a consistent eeriness. Going back to how this film balances itself between multiple genres, this is another example to support that case. The scariest part of this film is not any particular scene, but it is the everlasting sense that Laura is going to do something bonkers. And she ends up doing some bonkers things.

Structurally, “Bring Her Back” does not miss a beat. It has a great hook that gets you to care about the two younger kids. You have all the adventures these kids encounter alongside their new foster parent, and as the film gets to the climax, it means business. Again, Sally Hawkins is a fantastic performer. But by the end of the movie I would not have minded seeing her character splatter into bits. There is never a boring moment in this film. The story is captivating. The characters are well written, everything ends on a solid note, and the entire film has a pretty good soundtrack. There are some tunes that slide their way into the film that are perfectly placed.

Sally Hawkins is not the only standout amongst the cast, though she is by far the biggest name. That said, I must give credit to all the younger cast members as well. Billy Barratt does a solid job in the film as Andy. I thought he was on the money when it came to channeling his character’s apprehension in a variety of situations. Jonah Wren Phillips is not given as much to do as Oliver compared to some of the other characters, but what he ends up doing stands out. There is one particular scene in the film that involves him chewing an unusual object that will linger in my mind beyond the end of the year. And lastly, Sora Wong as Piper is adorable. This is Sora Wong’s first role and I am very pleased by how it turned out. I think she is going to have a great career ahead of her. I can totally tell how masterful the Philippou Brothers are as directors based on the efforts of the talent. Each actor feels perfectly in sync with the others around them and not a single performance feels off.

In the end, “Bring Her Back” is top tier filmmaking. I cannot believe we have been blessed with cinema as compelling as this. When I walked out of “Talk to Me,” I did so having had a good time with it. Flash forward a couple years later to “Bring Her Back,” I am genuinely onboard for whatever the Philippous can produce. I keep bringing up Sally Hawkins as a selling point, partially because she is a recognizable name. But everyone else in this film does a great job too. I have to give the entire cast credit for their work. If you like good storytelling, look no further, because I am going to give “Bring Her Back” an 8/10.

“Bring Her Back” is now playing in theaters. Tickets are available now.

Thanks for reading this review! My next review is going to be for the brand new comedy “Friendship.” I have been looking forward to seeing and talking about this movie. And I finally get to discuss it in the coming days. Stay tuned! Also look forward to my reviews for “Ballerina,” “The Phoenician Scheme,” and “The Life of Chuck.” 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 “Bring Her Back?” What did you think about it? Or, which film did you like better? “Talk to Me” or “Bring Her Back?” Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

The Accountant 2 (2025): Ben Affleck and Jon Bernthal Shine in Two Hours of Punches and Booms

Posted on by Jack Drees

“The Accountant 2” is directed by Gavin O’Connor, who also directed this film’s 2016 predecessor. This film stars Ben Affleck (Justice League, The Way Back), Jon Bernthal (The Walking Dead, The Punisher), Cynthia Addai-Robinson (Spartacus, Arrow), Daniella Pineda (Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom, The Originals), and J.K. Simmons (Spider-Man, Whiplash). This film once again follows Christian Wolff who teams up with his brother, Braxton, to find mysterious assassins.

Before going to see “The Accountant 2” I made an effort to rewatch the original. If you remember my amateurish review you would know that I connected to the film at the time. This was mostly due to how the protagonist was written and executed. Ben Affleck plays an individual who has high functioning autism. I have grown up having many of the traits and quirks that we see from various stages of this character’s life such as his lack of urge to socialize with others. I also thought the film does a good job at providing a humanized portrayal of autism as opposed to a more stereotypical, robotic interpretation.

Is “The Accountant 2” as good as the first one? No, it is not. But is it still worth watching? Perhaps. My biggest problem with this film is that it feels less story-driven and a little more action driven. It’s like the writers listened to Elvis Presley’s “A Little Less Conversation” and suddenly thought, “We’ve cracked the code!”

Now I have no problem with good action. And to be honest, this movie has some good action. However, the action scenes sometimes lack the oomph of those in the original. Part of it is because the story here is rather convoluted. I am not going to pretend the story in the original riveted me all the way through. The movie relied way too much on flashbacks towards the end to the point of utter boredom. But this sequel at times feels overstuffed.

While the film may be slightly above average, one great thing about it is the chemistry between Christian (Affleck) and Braxton (Bernthal). The film spends lots of time putting these two in the same place, and every scene between them is worth the price of admission. There is a fantastic scene where Bernthal says he wants a dog and Affleck says everything possible to confirm that he is a cat person. The delivery between these two is on point each and every time.

Going back to how I relate to the characters in this franchise, I almost see Christian and Braxton as a personal representation of a conflict that has been circling in my mind nonstop throughout my young adult life. While these two bond as brothers, they have their differences. One key difference between these two is their individual wants in life. We see Braxton as a lone wolf, which I have always been throughout most of my life. If he puts his mind to something, he does it. He works on his own terms. But then we find out a little bit about Christian, who would like to have a partner he can check in on every once in a while. In this way, Christian, is a little more than meets the eye. You would not expect someone of his mannerisms to be interested in a relationship, but I buy his desire. As I watched this film I thought these character differences represented my personal yin and yang. Do I love being alone? Quite a bit, actually. But do I want someone to check in on? A part of me thinks about it every day.

Speaking of conflicts, I have a conflicting opinion regarding Christian Wolff in this film. Starting with the positives, I genuinely think Ben Affleck put a lot of effort into his performance and he is a standout as the character. Although some of the choices that were made in regard to the character threw me off. I get that Wolff has autism, but he comes off as a robot in this film, especially in comparison to the original. If anything, Wolff is sometimes a lackluster stereotype for people on the spectrum. For some reason, some of his line delivery and choice of words lack authenticity. I would not say that this film paints autism in the worst light, but sometimes his performance, particularly through his onslaught of stoicism, is overly emphasized. Sure, in the original, Wolff may be a bit robotic, but he also has a heart as well as feelings. In this sequel, he sounds more like the T-800. Sure, Affleck is not entirely robotic. When paired with Bernthal in this film, the two seem like genuine brothers. But if I were to judge Affleck by himself, he is sometimes soulless. Again, this is not an incompetent performance. I just think a little more depth and pizzazz could have been added to it.

“The Accountant 2” is not a movie I can see myself renting or buying to watch on my own schedule. To me, it is a cable movie. It is a movie that I would watch on a Sunday at home and eventually rely on for background noise. Now whether this movie will ever end up on cable is another story. The film is from Amazon after all and I doubt they want anybody leaving Prime or whatever the heck MGM+ is. Seriously, who uses MGM+? Anyone? If you have not seen the original “Accountant,” I much recommend that film over this one. It moves at a better pace, is less convoluted, and honestly does a much better job at characterization than the sequel. I enjoyed getting to know Christian Wolff not only through his profession but as someone who is on the spectrum. I thought the flashbacks during that film, most of them anyway, were used to its benefit. Like this sequel, the original has some decent action, but I cared more about what happened during those action scenes based on what I was learning about Christian as a character at the time. The sequel’s action is not bad, but it suffers from inferior character progression as well as storytelling. If it were not for the perfect chemistry between Affleck and Bernthal, I do not think I would be lending as much praise to this film.

In the end, “The Accountant 2” has its ups and downs. There are other recent films I would recommend watching before this one, especially in the action genre. Although if you are simply looking for good action, you will find it here. But this film is not a full meal. It satisfies in some ways and leaves a little to be desired in others. Do not get me wrong, Ben Affleck does not do a bad job in this film, and neither does Jon Bernthal. But I would not rush to see this film right away. I am going to give “The Accountant 2” a 6/10.

“The Accountant 2” is now playing in theaters and is available to stream on Prime Video.

Thanks for reading this review! My next reviews are going to be for “Bring Her Back,” “Friendship,” “Ballerina,” “The Phoenician Scheme,” and “The Life of Chuck.” 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 Accountant 2?” What did you think about it? Or, which of the two “Accountant” films do you like better? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

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!