Walt Disney | Scene Before

Zootopia 2 (2025): Zoo Fast, Zoo Furriest

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

“Zootopia 2” is directed by Jared Bush and Byron Howard, both of whom had their share of credits on the original movie. This film stars Ginnifer Goodwin (Big Love, Once Upon a Time), Jason Bateman (Game Night, Ozark), Ke Huy Quan (Love Hurts, Everything Everywhere All at Once), Fortune Feimster (Bless the Harts, The Mindy Project), Andy Samberg (Saturday Night Live, Hotel Transylvania), David Strathairn (The Bourne Ultimatum, Godzilla), Shakira (The Voice, Jennifer Lopez: Halftime), Idris Elba (Pacific Rim, The Suicide Squad), Patrick Warburton (Family Guy, The Emperor’s New Groove), Quinta Brunson (A Black Lady Sketch Show, Abbott Elementary), Danny Trejo (Machete, Storks), Alan Tudyk (Rogue One: A Star Wars Story, Wreck-it Ralph), Nate Torrence (She’s Out of My League, Hello Ladies), Don Lake (Watching Ellie, Space Force), Bonnie Hunt (The Bonnie Hunt Show, Cheaper by the Dozen), and Jenny Slate (Everything Everywhere All at Once, Big Mouth). This film once again centers around its main bunny and fox duo Judy Hopps and Nick Wilde as they take on a new case and pursue Gary Da’Snake, the first reptile widely seen in Zootopia in ages.

“Zootopia” released on March 4th, 2016. That is just days after I launched Scene Before. Based on this information, it is possible that I could have made the film my first ever review. Unfortunately, that never happened. Instead, I decided to a make singularly paragraphed and grammatically unsound post on why I was not a fan of the “Ghostbusters” reboot trailer. I am proud of my blog over the years, but if I could go back in time, part of me wishes I could have done a “Zootopia” review as my first ever post, because that would have meant I could have spent time talking about something that gave me joy, rather than something that triggered my apprehension.

If I did not make myself clear, I thought “Zootopia” was a load of fun. Like a lot of animated fare aimed towards families, it packs in a lesson, and I thought it was nicely implemented. “Zootopia” has fantastic commentary on racism, the importance of inclusion, and like a lot of Disney films, it also tells people to follow their dreams. Judy Hopps is an admirable protagonist and a great role model for children. A lot of these ideas were reinforced upon my recent rewatch of the film.

As for this sequel, I was quite excited to see where things could go. Much like the first film, the tone definitely felt kid-friendly, but it also looked like something that adults could watch without feeling like they wasted their time and brain cells. Thankfully, that is what I got with “Zootopia 2.” Does this film match the quality of the original? In some ways, yes. In others, not so much.

The biggest standout for this film to me is the humor. “Zootopia 2” sort of plays out like a late night talk show. If you watch a late night talk show like “The Tonight Show” or “Jimmy Kimmel Live!”, you will notice that there are often several attempts at humor every minute. Not every single one lands, but every once in a while either the host or the sidekick or even one of the guests will deliver something that will have the audience rolling out of their chairs. This is most definitely the case for me with “Zootopia 2.” The film has an endless supply of jokes. Some had me laughing out loud. Others had me chuckling. Others had me silent. And others had me almost rolling my eyes. Comedy is subjective, however, so chances are the jokes could someone laugh nonstop from start to finish. That said, to me, a lot of the jokes work, but there are quite a few that miss the mark and if it were not for this film’s handle on the commentary, which we will get to later, this would probably knock my score down a few points.

One of my favorite jokes, surprisingly, has to do with the song “What Does the Fox Say?”. I have never understood how that song ever became popular, but for whatever reason, there was a moment where someone references the song and it gave me arguably my biggest laugh of the film. I have no idea how that joke is going to land with others, but for whatever reason, it worked for me.

The film includes a fair amount of movie references too. Of course, there are tie-ins to other notable Disney-owned properties, including some under the 20th Century banner like “Alien.” If you pay very close attention, there is a clever cameo from Michael J. Fox that pays tribute to one of his most popular projects. There is a joke that pokes fun at the state of Hollywood and Disney’s ambition to make endless sequels and remakes. …Even though this is, after all, a sequel… The film even inserted a reference in the climax that felt totally out of left field, the children watching will likely not get it, but I think a lot of the adults will. Out of all the movies I thought “Zootopia” could reference as part of an elaborate visual gag, I was not expecting “The Shining.” But here we are.

Is there anything in this film as genuinely gutbusting as the DMV scene? No. Although that is a bit unfair to say because that scene achieves a level of comedic genius greater than God. I rewatched the film a day prior to checking this new one out, and I laughed just as hard, if not harder than I did during my initial watch of the movie in theaters.

“Zootopia 2,” like its predecessor, provides some excellent commentary that could not be more fittingly timed. I do not like to talk about politics on Scene Before, but the film sort of reminds me about how some people are feeling about the current position of the United States. I will not go into specific detail as I will probably spoil the movie, but there is a key part of the story that taps into the importance of history. This is something that you would have to watch the movie to see come to fruition because me saying more would diminish the commentary’s impact. If you know your history, or are living in a certain state of awareness right now, “Zootopia 2” might stick with you upon leaving the theater. The film also showcases the importance of working together while also serving as a reminder that people might not always be on the same page with their partner. Part of working together sometimes means compromise and this film heavily leans into that idea.

The film does not break new ground story-wise, but delivers familiar beats in an entertaining way. If you watched the first film, you would know that the story mainly revolves around a bunny and a fox, an unlikely duo. While that film taps into how unlikely such a duo is, this sequel heavily expands upon that idea to the point where it allows both characters to grow. Parts of the film are rather predictable, but there are moments where we see the tension growing in Judy and Nick’s partnership that hit me. There is one moment on a mountain involving a particular object that felt earned at the exact moment it happened.

Like the first film, which features “Try Everything,” “Zootopia 2” has an original song from Shakira called “Zoo.” Frankly, I am not as big of a fan of this song as I am of “Try Everything.” The song, while by no means incompetent, has a lot less personality than “Try Everything.” Sure, in context of the movie, one could say it is used in conjunction with celebrating 100 years of Zootopia. Although if that were the case, I wish the song would have a had more of an oomph for such a momentous occasion. It lacks splendor and diversity in its beat. Again, the song is not the worst I have ever heard, but I thought it could have been better. I have not gone back to listen to “Try Everything” since “Zootopia” came out. The song, like this one, is a bit too poppy for my taste. But I think the song is perfectly used in the film and the lyrics could not be a better match for what the story was trying to shoot for. The lyrics in this song are okay, but I found “Try Everything” to be inspiring whereas “Zoo” did not leave much of an impact. That said, the day after seeing the film, I was at another cinema waiting for my screening of “Wake Up Dead Man,” only to see a mother and son walking out of their “Zootopia 2” screening, at which point the mother starts singing the lyrics of the song, so what do I know? It’s catchy, perhaps.

“Zootopia 2” features plenty of returning characters, but the film also makes room for new cast members, including Ke Huy Quan as Gary Da’Snake, Generic name aside, the character is likable. While Ke Huy Quan is an incredible action star as seen through films like “Everything Everywhere All at Once,” his high-pitch voice makes it very easy to sympathize with his character. Da’Snake often evokes a friendly presence and ends up playing a notable part throughout the film, which unlike the original, has reptiles.

The film also features the great Patrick Warburton as Mayor Winddancer. It is funny how Warburton can use the same voice for every character and yet carry so much personality each time. It is kind of like Brad Garrett, his normal voice is sometimes the best voice for the role. Even though I think J.K. Simmons is the slightly better performer, I think Warburton’s Mayor character is a slight step up from the original movie’s Lionheart. I liked getting to know about Winddancer’s background as a movie star. If anything, Winddancer is perhaps Zootopia’s closest comparison to Arnold Schwarzenegger, who many know as the Terminator, but he also spent years serving as the Governor of California.

Also, I know not everyone is eager to stay for the end of a Disney animation, but if you have time, you may want to stay for the credits. If you pay close attention at the end, you will notice something of importance.

In the end, “Zootopia 2” may not match the quality of its predecessor, but it is a fun, entertaining, and gorgeous-looking sequel. It does a great job at showcasing the continued journeys of its core characters we have come to know while solidly expanding the universe. Ke Huy Quan is a great addition to the cast, and so is Patrick Warburton. Those two actors in particular stand out. There is a lot of humor in “Zootopia 2,” which does lead to a lot of laughs, but it does not mean that there are no duds in the mix. I will give the writers an A for effort though. It seems like the team had a lot of fun coming up with the jokes. The film is a blast for kids and adults alike. I am going to give “Zootopia 2” a 7/10.

“Zootopia 2” is now playing in theaters everywhere. Tickets are available now.

Thanks for reading this review! My next review is going to be for “Wake Up Dead Man: A Knives Out Mystery.” Stay tuned! Also coming soon, I will be sharing my thoughts on “Jay Kelly,” “Bugonia,” “No Other Choice,” and “Fackham Hall.” 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 “Zootopia 2?” What did you think about it? Or, which of the two “Zootopia” movies do you like better? For me, the original gave me one of my all time biggest laughs as a moviegoer with the DMV scene, so I have to pick that one. Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

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

Posted on November 5 by Jack Drees

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks for reading this review! My next review is going to be for “Bone Lake!” Stay tuned! Also coming soon, I will be sharing my thoughts on “A House of Dynamite,” “The Smashing Machine,” “Shelby Oaks,” “Frankenstein,” and “Good Fortune.” If you want to see these reviews and more from Scene Before, follow the blog either with an email or WordPress account! Also, check out the official Facebook page! I want to know, did you see “Tron: Ares?” What did you think about it? Or, what is your favorite “Tron” movie? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

Freakier Friday (2025): Well… It’s Definitely Freakier

Posted on September 11 by Jack Drees

“Freakier Friday” is directed by Nisha Ganatra (You Me Her, Late Night) and stars Jamie Lee Curtis (Halloween, Everything Everywhere All at Once), Lindsay Lohan (Mean Girls, The Parent Trap), Julia Butters (American Housewife, Once Upon a Time in Hollywood), Sophia Hammons (Up Here, The Social Dilemma), Manny Jacinto (The Acolyte, The Good Place), and Mark Harmon (Chicago Hope, NCIS). In this sequel to the 2003 film “Freaky Friday,” Tess and Anna, a mother-daughter duo who have switched bodies with each other in the past, now have to deal with something even wilder… A body switch between three generations, which includes Anna’s child, as well as her future stepchild.

We live in a time where it feels like even the most unnecessary of sequels are popping up in movie theaters. While one could argue almost no movie in history is “needed,” I think a sequel to the 2003 “Freaky Friday” is the year’s most unnecessary movie. Then again, this comes from someone who frankly does not care for the original. That is, if you can actually call that movie an “original.” It is based on a book that was already made into a movie decades prior.

To be honest, even though I read the book and watched the 1976 movie as a teenager, I never bothered checking out the 2003 “Freaky Friday.” For those who want to know, the book is quite good, and the 1976 film could be worse, but it shows its age. I also found the music choices in that film to be a bit weird.

I will not deny that the concept of “Freaky Friday” is intriguing, but I did not feel a need to see it again, despite my love for Jamie Lee Curtis. If you want my quick thoughts on that film, it is the very definition of “fine at best.” It is a movie that seems to lean more towards a female audience than it does male. After all, the two main characters are a mother and daughter. But even so, the film comes off as if it is trying to impress as many demographics as possible to the point where it almost pleases no one.

That said, what do I know? 2003’s “Freaky Friday” is seen as a classic to some, and I have talked to people who said that it is probably Jamie Lee Curtis’ biggest property and role.

Couple things… As long as “Halloween” exists, I am pretty sure “Freaky Friday” is not Jamie Lee Curtis’ biggest role to date. Also, if I were not reviewing movies, there is a strong chance I would not have seen “Freakier Friday,” but here we are.

Unsurprisingly, I did not like the film. In fact, I honestly prefer the 2003 original. This is not the worst film of the year, but I have similar gripes with this film that I do with the original. “Freakier Friday,” like the original, is a family film, and much like the original, it feels like there is something in this film for all ages and demographics. The film seems to be more concerned with how many people it can please to the point where it occasionally feels overstuffed. In fact, “Freakier Friday” seems to suffer from what I like to call the misuse of the “bigger is better” cliche. “Freakier Friday” undoubtedly lives up to its name. It is most certainly “freakier” than the original in the sense that its story involves more characters and threads. But it is almost to a point where I am not as invested in everything the movie’s throwing at me. The movie packs so much into less than two hours and sometimes certain parts feel rushed.

The film’s “switch” is a bit different from previous “Freaky Friday” projects. Instead of two people switching bodies, this movie has four. You have Annabel switching with her daughter, Harper. And you have Annabel’s future stepdaughter, Ella, switching with Tess. This took me a second to comprehend at first, but I have no problem with that. If anything, I am glad to see that “Freakier Friday” could challenge younger viewers. The film could get them to use their heads.

The film does feel more mature than the original, but also maintains the spirit of said movie. It makes sense considering how a core part of the audience are people who watched it when they were young and are now in their 20s and 30s. Another reason is likely because both of the film’s biggest stars this time around are adults. Lindsay Lohan is now grown up, and the same goes for her character. There is a calmer chemistry between Lohan and Curtis throughout the runtime.

One of my favorite characters in the film is Eric Davies (center), played by Manny Jacinto. Remember how I said this film is more mature than the original? Well, it appears Anna has outgrown her boy toy from 2003 as well. The film features Eric and Anna as an engaged couple. The two have their own daughters who are bound to become stepsisters. I also appreciate the film’s approach in regard to how it handles Eric’s personality. Never once did I get the sense that he was an unlikable guy. This movie could have easily set him up in such a way where he could have been the evil stepdad that his future stepchild has no choice but to put up with. Although this film is smarter than that. While it is obvious that Harper does not like Eric, and by extension, Ella, being in her life, never once do I get the sense that she hates him because he does terrible things. For the most part, she simply hates him because she does not like change. It sounds illogical but I get where she is coming from. In Harper’s eyes, this change evokes a similar vibe to moving to a new town at a young age. It is beyond her control and uncomfortable.

That said, as much as I can appreciate the film for somewhat effectively building things up, I cannot say I am a big fan of how it ends. For starters, the climax feels rather rushed. There is a point where we get from one’s lowest low to a certain climactic point with little breathing room. I think fans of the original film will appreciate the ending in certain parts. But as someone who did not grow up watching the original, I do not think the film left the impact it was going for. Without spoiling what happens, I think the ending puts the main four characters in a predictable place, but it does not mean that place is earned. It is a well-intended, happy-ish ending, but not one I buy. I know this is a Disney movie, so a happy ending is perhaps inevitable, but still.

The film tends to pack in a similar lesson also seen in the original. Throughout the film, the characters are put in positions where they realize what it is like to see themselves in another person’s shoes. But I thought that lesson was done better in other interpretations. The telling of that lesson to the audience felt cleaner and more digestible in the 2003 film compared to its 2025 sequel. As much as I thought 2003’s “Freakier Friday” reeked of averageness, I do buy the two leads appreciating each other a little bit more after switching bodies. In this film, it feels more focused on the chaos of the plot rather than finding ways that the characters can appreciate others being in their life or having them learn something about those people.

In the end, “Freakier Friday” to my surprise, was not outright frustrating. But it does not mean that this is a good film. At times “Freakier Friday” feels rushed, slapped together, and lacking on the emotion that it seems to be going for. The film is called “Freakier Friday” for a reason, but it seemed slightly more focused on the freakiness compared to establishing the most robust characters possible. I am not going to pretend I am a huge nut for the “Freaky Friday” IP, but if I did see the 2003 film when I was younger, or maybe even a teenager, the thought of a sequel titled “Freakier Friday” would probably be best fit for a “Saturday Night Live” sketch. But instead, a group of people got together and made a full-fledged movie out of it. I am going to give “Freakier Friday” a 4/10.

“Freakier Friday” is now playing in theaters. Tickets are available now.

Thanks for reading this review! My next review is going to be for “Nobody 2.” Stay tuned! Also look forward to reading my thoughts on “Honey Don’t!”, “Eden,” “Splitsville,” and “The Long Walk.” 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 “Freakier Friday?” What did you think about it? Or, between this film and the 2003 “Freaky Friday,” which one do you think is better? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

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

Posted on August 15 by Jack Drees

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

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

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

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

…Unlike that discarded project from 1994.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Posted on July 8 by Jack Drees

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks for reading this review! My next review is going to be for the brand new blockbuster “Jurassic World: Rebirth.” Stay tuned! Also, look forward to my reviews for “M3GAN 2.0” and “F1: The Movie.” If you want to see these reviews and more from Scene Before, follow the blog either with an email or WordPress account! Also, check out the official Facebook page! I want to know, did you see “Elio?” What did you think about it? Or, what is your favorite Pixar movie? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

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

Posted on June 1 by Jack Drees

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

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

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

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

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

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

Photo by Marvel Studios/MARVEL STUDIOS – © MARVEL 2025

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

MORE Celebrities?! Why I am Not Excited for the 2025 Season of Who Wants to Be a Millionaire?…

Posted on April 27 by Jack Drees

Hey everyone, Jack Drees here! I said in some recent posts that I am somewhat behind on my movie reviews. Unfortunately, that does not appear to be changing, because today I am going to be talking about a passion of mine I do not often get to discuss on Scene Before, game shows.

Today we are going to be talking about the upcoming season of “Who Wants to Be a Millionaire?”, and just how peeved I am by the current state of it. But before we get to why that is the case, I want to give some background on my relationship with this show.

As a game show fan, I have grown up watching “Who Wants to Be a Millionaire?” in the U.S. and have sometimes gone online to find variants of the show in other countries, including the original in Britain, and watch those as well. If I had to name a favorite game show format of all time, it would easily be “Who Wants to Be a Millionaire?”. In fact, I say that as someone who has not had the best luck with the show as a fan over the years. For one thing, I was born in 1999. So I was never conscious enough to truly experience Regis Philbin’s run on the U.S. version. I felt the changes later made to the show on syndication such as the eliminated lifelines, the eradication of the hot seat, as well as the lackluster music they decided to go with from 2010 to 2019 made for a product that I felt was significantly inferior to what the show had before.

Then came 2020, it was announced the show would come back to primetime. Good. They also announced there would be a hot seat. Good. They also brought the back the original music. Good. They also announced it would be a celebrity exclusive season. Okay… I mean… It is not ideal, but I will let it slide this one time.

Nevertheless, the fanboy in me was excited. I was truly bouncing off the walls. They even picked a decent host in Jimmy Kimmel, who I enjoy through his late night talk show, as well has his then recent gigs at the Oscars. I even reserved seats in the audience to see the first taping of the show in Los Angeles.

Then COVID-19 happened and nothing was ever the same.

Long story short, I got two free tickets for my mom and I. We got a flight to LAX. We got a hotel in Beverly Hills. All is fine and dandy. Then things start shutting down, and hours after we land and get to the hotel, I get a message from the ticket provider saying that the taping has been cancelled. I basically flew to Los Angeles for pure disappointment.

So what happens next? The show tapes its all celebrity season without an audience, and I have to say, despite some occasional bumps in the road in terms of the rules and question difficulty, it was a really good season. I had a ball watching the show return to its roots, and Jimmy Kimmel did a good job with hosting. The show did well with ratings, and it returned later that year. This time around, celebrities were still playing, but they also brought in some essential workers. It was a respectable balance of famous and not so famous players. A lot of those players across the board appeared to do very well with their individual games and they were all fun to watch. Though if I had one weakness, I think Jimmy Kimmel does a lot better communicating one on one with celebrities than he does the regular contestants. It could be attributed to his experience in late night television. He knows a lot of these people, and in some ways, a lot of the back and forth delivered a vibe that was similar to talk show banter. That is my one big gripe with the season I came to realize. If I had another one, it is the guaranteed minimum of $32 thousand given to each contestant. Essentially that means, no matter what, everyone leaves as if they successfully answered the 10th question of 15. It makes the game somewhat less engaging. Though the money is for good causes and for people who probably need it, so it is nice seeing the money going somewhere where it is needed.

Then a couple years go by where the show is essentially on hold, until it makes its triumphant return in 2024 for its 25th anniversary. Despite the special title, there was not much of a reason for me to get excited about it, as the program was showcasing all celebrity contestants again. And not just one, but two celebrities were playing each game! I was disappointed, but I was still onboard because it is still better than no “Millionaire” at all. Plus, the audience was back! And so was the Ask the Audience lifeline! Finally! Unfortunately, I was not a part of the audience like I would have been in 2020.

Then we get to this year… Just kill me.

Assuming we only get one season this year, the 2025 season of “Who Wants to Be a Millionaire?” is going to be the exact same format as the 2024 season. All celebrities, with two contestants per game. When will this end?

I love the “Who Wants to Be a Millionaire?” format, but it does not change the fact that the people running it do not know what to do with it. If anything, them bringing the show back this year, and perhaps also the year before, comes off as an obligation. I do not have a lot of time for television as I watch so many movies, but game shows have always been some kind of exception. “Who Wants to Be a Millionaire?” is a great idea for a show, and if done right, it is exceptional. This season feels underwhelming based on what I have read so far. I have no problem with Jimmy Kimmel coming back. He is a good host. I think when it comes to suspense, I think he does a better job with that compared to Regis Philbin. For the record, I think Regis Philbin is the superior host, but Kimmel holds his own. He is funny, he has good delivery with the prompter lines, and he times himself well with what the contestants have to say. Do I think there are people who I would rather see have a chance at hosting? Perhaps. If I had a few desired picks, I would go with Levar Burton from “Star Trek: The Next Generation,” Taylor Tomlinson from CBS’s “After Midnight,” or heck, let’s throw Howie Mandel in there as well. I liked him on “Deal or No Deal.” Or even bring back one of the older hosts! I have a soft spot for Meredith Vieira. I think she did a fantastic job during her run. Jimmy Kimmel is a fine choice though, I dig him. So that is one positive with this renewal.

Now onto the negatives. This show is becoming increasingly dumbed down. I understand the need to dumb things down during the 2020 seasons with the standby experts each contestant brought in. Many of the players were giving money to charity, and there was also an ongoing health crisis. While we still have people playing for charity in this upcoming season, I will not deny that we are at a point where it sounds like the people making this show are intentionally making it as insultingly easy as they can. I do not know what the questions will be. I will note, there have been a few million dollar questions over the past 5 years on this show, and all of them were actually quite difficult. I had trouble figuring them out myself. But regardless of what questions the contestants end up getting, the journey to get to that million dollar question is inevitably going to be less exciting.

I would have no problem with two people playing at the same time if it were a special occasion during a long season. It has been done before. There have been Couples Editions of the show when Regis Philbin was hosting. I also have no problem with bringing in a second player to help out. On top of the expert in the shadows that assisted the contestant during the 2020 season, there have been lifelines on the show that involved back and forth communication between two people like Phone a Friend, Ask the Expert, and Plus One. But those lifelines only help the contestants for a certain window of time. When you have two players answering questions simultaneously for the entire game, you basically have a permanent lifeline. On top of that, if this season is going to be like the last one, then chances are some of the lifelines are going to be Phone a Friend, which again, involves communication between multiple people… Ask the Host, where Jimmy Kimmel tells the contestant what he thinks, or knows, the answer is… And Ask the Audience, where a bunch of people with keypads give away what they think the answer is.

When making a game show with a million dollar top prize, it should have the feeling of high stakes, tremendous pressure, and utter intensity. “Who Wants to Be a Millionaire?” has mastered that through many of its past seasons. But the way things seem to be laid out for the current iteration of “Who Wants to Be a Millionaire?” feels smaller and less exciting. In fact, it sometimes feels scripted. If you watched “Who Wants to Be a Millionaire?”, even in the daytime, you would notice that not every show starts with a contestant playing their first question. They could be on the second, third, maybe even the 15th. If you watched the last season, every episode was the same. You had two contestants playing at once during the show’s initial half. And for the second half, another duo would take their place. It gets repetitive after awhile. I have no idea what the tapings were like. I have to imagine some significant editing must have taken place to allow each pair of contestants to fill the hour without going over or under. But even if any of these contestants’ runs were authentic, it made “Who Wants to Be a Millionaire?” feel more predictable than it has ever been. Predictable is probably the last adjective I would want to use to describe this show. The beauty of “Millionaire,” as well as just about every other game show in existence, is that it does not follow a script. Sure, there are some lines the host has to say. Sure, there is a format that is often followed. Sure, many games are played so they can easily be completed in one episode. But the contestants fill in the gaps. While the pairs of contestants from the previous “Millionaire” season may have filled those gaps, the show sometimes felt rushed or unfinished.

I remember watching some episodes of “Who Wants to Be a Millioniare?” in the United States as well as other countries, and when some people win the million dollars, the host will take time to talk with them, congratulate them, and let the audience breathe. That kind of communication did not happen every single time, but even when it did not, the show still gave a moment for everyone in the room to celebrate. I think this is a moment best exemplified by last season, when contestant duo Ike and Alan Barinholtz won the top prize. Unfortunately, there was not much Jimmy Kimmel could do to build up the million dollar win because the contestants used the Ask the Host lifeline. When that lifeline is used and a contestant locks an answer in, Jimmy must let the computer “reveal the correct answer.” The answer turns green, the contestants lose their mind, and so do Jimmy and the audience. Confetti shoots out, Jimmy acknowledges the win, and suddenly, the show is over. Maybe that is how things were when this specific portion of the show was being taped. But as a viewer, I would have liked to have maybe digested the moment a little more. Maybe once the music stops, you could hear the audience cheering, or we could get to know a little more about the duo’s charity and what this money means to them. I feel something was missing here. Yes, I know what I am saying sounds scripted. But come on. Would you rather see these celebrities take the money and run? Or would you want to take a moment to celebrate the win with them? It is not like this kind of thing has not happened in recent years.

Heck, during Jimmy Kimmel’s second season, that actually happened when celebrity contestant David Chang won! The player became the first celebrity in history to win the million, which was acknowledged on air. He and Jimmy celebrated with elbow bumps. The sideline expert joined in. They paused for a moment to breathe, and then they sit down and discuss how everyone felt in the moment. They even took time to call David Chang’s phone a friend, ESPN’s Mina Kimes, to bring her in on the celebration. In fact, you can see this for yourself in the full episode, which as of this post’s publication, you can watch on YouTube. The million dollar question begins around the 17 minute mark. You’re welcome.

Fast forward to the Barinholtz duo, Jimmy simply hands the check and the show is over. I was thrilled they won. Very thrilled, actually. I did not know much about his father, Alan, but deep down I knew Ike Barinholtz could make it to the end because I had the privilege of also watching him on “Celebrity Jeopardy!”, where he also did very well, and not just by celebrity standards. I just wish “Who Wants to Be a Millionaire?” could have celebrated an achievement as unbelievable as this with a little more pizzazz. In film speak, it is like if a movie wins Best Picture at the Oscars, but they do not let anyone give an acceptance speech. Again, if you want proof, the full episode is available on YouTube as of this post’s publication. The million dollar question begins around the 38 minute mark. Once again, you’re welcome.

I know during Regis Philbin’s time on the show, the contestants who won the million, or in Ed Toutant and Kevin Olmstead’s cases, anywhere between $1.86 million to $2.18 million, would also be given a check and shortly leave after. But that is supplemented with a bit of a breather where the music dies down. Maybe they celebrate with someone they know, or they get a thunderous response from the audience, perhaps even the people working behind the scenes.

I love some of the changes that have been made to the U.S. version of “Who Wants to Be a Millionaire?” in recent years. Jimmy Kimmel is a fine addition to the show. I appreciate the production going back to its roots with the hot seat and the original music. Those are two of my favorite production elements in any project I ever watched, and not just game shows. The current set, which was inspired by the latest one used in the United Kingdom, is spectacular. Ask the Host is also not a bad lifeline. It shows that the host does not always have the answers. They do not make the questions. They are just providing them.

Although if I must be honest, as great of a format as “Who Wants to Be a Millionaire?” is, this current edition of it needs improvement. I am not necessarily suggesting for it to air multiple nights a week. But there needs to be a prioritization of regular contestants. I am not going to pretend I know how much money every celebrity contestant has in their bank accounts. Although if the game is called “Who Wants to Be a Millionaire,” it is much less inspiring and captivating to know that a lot of the contestants playing the game are already rich and famous. You think John Mulaney WANTS to be a MILLIONAIRE? No! His net worth is somewhere in the tens of millions! At this point, I would think he wants to be a NEPTILLIONAIRE! Yes, I know Mulaney, and other celebrity contestants, are playing for charity. But in all seriousness, why not let a regular Joe try for a million? Game shows are built to let people potentially win big, make it rich. People dream of going on “Who Wants to Be a Millionaire?”. While it may not be the pinnacle of trivia programs that “Jeopardy!” seems to be at this point, it has become a staple in game show history. Why not let some average people live out that dream?!

The beauty of watching “Who Wants to Be a Millionaire?” when it started was the potential of it making someone an overnight sensation. NO ONE could have predicted John Carpenter, an IRS officer from Connecticut, making it to the million dollar question with all of his lifelines, reading the question, finally using his phone a friend to call his dad, only to tell him that he does not need his help because he is going to the win the million dollars, which of course, he did, because the answer was “Richard Nixon.” That is must see TV.

You might be questioning me right now. After all, I did say earlier that I think Jimmy Kimmel does a better job communicating with celebrity contestants than he does with regular ones. That has been established. But it does not mean he lacks potential. It is not like he only communicates with celebrities. In fact, he spent some time on another game show with some non-celebrity contestants through “Win Ben Stein’s Money.” He has showcased some solid hosting skills on that show and I think he has the potential to do the same on “Millionaire?” should they bring back non-celebrity contestants there too.

I am going to let the crew behind this season of “Who Wants to Be a Millionaire?” have their fun. Maybe I will watch the show. Maybe I will not. Who knows at this point?… But this format is slowly losing its flair. Make it an event. Make it engaging. Introduce the viewers to some nobodies who could potentially become somebody. Let some regular people phone a friend instead of letting Jimmy Kimmel have an excuse to talk to his friends. He already has “Jimmy Kimmel Live!” for that. I want this show to do better, and that, is my final answer.

Thanks for reading this post! Interesting enough, this is not the only game show-related post you will see on this blog in a matter of days. Because if you are curious to know what my next review will be, it is “The Luckiest Man in America.” For those not aware, that movie is based on the events of the infamous “Press Your Luck” episode featuring Michael Larson. I was really looking forward to checking out that film. I hope you all are looking forward to reading my review of it. If you enjoyed this post and want to see more like it, follow Scene Before either with an email or WordPress account! Also, check out the official Facebook page! I want to know, are you looking forward to the upcoming season of “Who Wants to Be a Millionaire?”. Am I an idiot for making this post? Please tell me in the comments, I assure you I do read them. What are your thoughts on “Who Wants to Be a Millionaire?” as a show? Do you like it? Dislike it? Leave your thoughts down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

Captain America: Brave New World (2025): The First Post-Endgame MCU Film I Did Not Enjoy…

Posted on February 21 by Jack Drees

“Captain America: Brave New World” is directed by Julius Onah (The Cloverfield Paradox, Luce) and stars Anthony Mackie (Synchronic, Twisted Metal), Danny Ramirez (Top Gun: Maverick, The Gifted), Shira Haas (Bodies, Unorthodox), Carl Lumbly (Cagney & Lacey, M.A.N.T.I.S.), Xosha Roquemore (Precious, The Mindy Project), Giancarlo Esposito (The Mandalorian, Abigail), Liv Tyler (The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring, Armageddon), Tim Blake Nelson (Watchmen, Scooby-Doo 2: Monsters Unleashed), and Harrison Ford (Star Wars, Blade Runner). This is the 35th movie in the Marvel Cinematic Universe and it is about Sam Wilson, the new Captain America, as he investigates a conspiracy regarding President Thaddeus Ross.

It is that time again. Another Marvel movie is here. Many people will tell you that their interest in the Marvel Cinematic Universe has been on a decline since “Endgame.” Some are experiencing said decline faster than others… But I am here to tell you that Marvel has yet to let me down since that 2019 blockbuster came out. That is unless you count the TV side, which has had its hits like “WandaVision,” but if I were to be honest with you, “The Falcon and the Winter Soldier” could have been better. I did not hate the show. In fact, for television, it seems as if no expense was spared in terms of the production. I just find it to be rather forgettable.

That said, “The Falcon and the Winter Soldier” did have its moments. It was also a solid introduction to Anthony Mackie’s Sam as the new Captain America. I thought the way they went about handling that arc was engaging. It set up the character effectively for further stories to commence, including “Captain America: Brave New World.”

Regardless of how I felt watching “The Falcon and the Winter Soldier,” I was excited for “Captain America: Brave New World.” I thought the trailers did a good job at not giving a ton of information away, while also teasing highlights to look forward to. Plus, even if some people are fatigued by Marvel, there is no denying that it is in a zone right now between “Deadpool & Wolverine” on the film side and “Agatha All Along” on the TV side. Does “Captain America: Brave New World” continue this hot streak?

Ehh…

Marvel Studios/Courtesy of Marvel Studios – © 2024 MARVEL.

I hate to say it, but I think the movie side of the MCU has experienced its weakest installment in years. I am of the unpopular opinion that phase 4 had no bad movies in it. Not every film was a banger in the way that “Spider-Man: No Way Home” was, but I did not hate any of the phase 4 films from Marvel. I also think all the phase 5 movies are good. Yes, even “Ant-Man and the Wasp: Quantumania.” Yes, even “The Marvels.” Both movies were big, explosive bursts of fun. “Captain America: Brave New World” on the other hand was missing the MCU magic.

I have referenced Martin Scorsese before when talking about comic book movies, but I think when it comes to his philosophy on the subgenre, “Captain America: Brave New World” honestly matches parts of it. While the film definitely has human characters expressing human emotions, the screenplay sometimes feels like it was written by artificial intelligence. I say this not only because the dialogue sounds stale and robotic, but also due to how this film essentially takes what has worked in previous films and shoved it into this one.

The film is definitely a “cinematic experience,” but it is cinematic in the sense that it has the scope of a theme park ride that offers very few genuine thrills. If this were Universal Orlando, this would be the equivalent to “Race Through New York Starring Jimmy Fallon.” It is a timewaster full of connections that some people will probably understand right away but will just as likely fly over lots of people’s heads.

“Captain America: Brave New World” is marketed as a… well, “Captain America” movie. But kind of like how “Civil War” was also a mini “Avengers” film, this is also secretly a film that if you break it down, is a blink you’ll miss it sequel to another part of the MCU. One of the problems with the MCU I have addressed is that as the universe gets bigger, it makes it that much harder to keep up with all the material. And for those who did keep up, chances are some of those people will not retain every detail. There is a chance I would have enjoyed this movie more had I vividly remembered certain details from earlier in the MCU.

What makes this film the weakest the MCU given in years is perhaps the idea that it builds off of so much that has already been established to the point where it comes off more as a continuation than an original idea. You do not necessarily have to see “The Falcon and the Winter Soldier” to understand this movie, but I think one can argue that viewers may appreciate this movie more if they watch that show. However, this movie is essentially a continuation of an MCU property that I am surprised is being brought back to the spotlight all these years later. Is this a good continuation? Not really. If anything, it adds to the overall convolution of this movie to the point where it almost lacks an identity. The MCU often receives complaints for how villains are handled in their projects, but at least in a lot of their projects, I can pinpoint who the big baddie usually is. That is not the case this time around.

Sometimes, “Brave New World” is a watered-down version of “The Winter Soldier.” The main characters may be different people this time around to some degree, but the main trio is structured similarly to that 2014 banger. The film emphasizes the presence of a new Falcon sidekick. We already met this sidekick on “The Falcon and the Winter Soldier,” but he has a much bigger presence this time around. That said, I am honestly not loving Danny Ramirez’s portrayal of Joaquin Torres. I have nothing against Ramirez, the actor. If anything, I am not a fan of the material he is given through the direction and the script. Going back to my distaste for the dialogue, this is especially noticeable with Joaquin. The character kind of reminds me of Tom Holland’s Spider-Man if you decided to remove his knack for humor. He is awkward, and sounds like he is giving off multiple variations of the same line over and over again, even if the next line is completely different from the last. The movie is likely going for a Batman & Robin vibe with its relationship. But if anything, Falcon sounds like a Robin parody.

Holy Red Hulk, Captain!

“Captain America: Brave New World,” despite all the otherworldly shenanigans and science fiction elements, appears to be more grounded than some of the other recent MCU films. If there is one character that cartoonifies this film, it would probably be Joaquin. There are more installments in the cinematic universe to come, so hopefully, Joaquin gets some better material than this.

This film is led by Anthony Mackie, who has done an excellent job playing Sam Wilson through the MCU’s previous installments. I am glad to see him get his own movie after all this time. While I wish the film itself were better, the long wait pays off in spades in another regard, because Mackie dominates the screen. People talk about actors like Ryan Reynolds and Tom Cruise oozing movie star level charisma. While Anthony Mackie may not be a movie star to the degree those two actors are, I think he could have been in another life because he kills it as the lead.

One common complaint I hear about the MCU, not to mention comic book movies in general, is that they all tend to end the same way where you have this big battle where the effects are dialed up to an 11. Sometimes to the point where said effects lack any realism at all. I do not always mind these sorts of climaxes because you have to end the movie on a big note. That said, the big note in this case had something missing. This film’s climax in no way feels grand or exciting. In fact, when the climax draws to a close, I thought we were on the verge of something else happening. I thought there would be another big bad to worry about or a last minute twist. That is not what happens. The climax of this film, while it has one or two decent elements, was underwhelming. Part of it might as well be blamed on the marketing. There was a character in the marketing that had me convinced they would be a middling threat of some kind, but they turned out to be a bit bigger. That said, when the movie goes down, said character felt as middling of a threat as they were in the trailer.

I also hate to say this, but the special effects did not save this movie. This is something I have noticed quite a bit in some recent Marvel projects. While I cannot name a single MCU movie or show where every effect is bad, there are quite a few projects where some effects that are noticeably sub-par. “Thor: Love and Thunder” is a good example. Per usual, Thor’s lightning effects look great. There are some good fire effects. But if you take certain shots from the movie, like one of Heimdall’s son’s floating head, that is not up to the quality I would expect from a cinematic universe that has garnered praise for delivering one spectacle after another. This leads me to say that “Captain America: Brave New World” may have the weakest special effects I have seen in an MCU film. Not only is the CGI obvious at times, but distractingly so. It took me out of the movie. This complaint mostly pertains to the way the movie handles Sam Wilson’s Captain America suit, which is established at the start of the film to be made of highly advanced vibranium in perhaps the most expository way possible. Every time the movie highlights some piece of vibranium technology, it looks holographic. It looks so unrealistic. I hate to say that because vibranium is not a new concept to the MCU. Just go watch the “Black Panther” movies. I do not have humungous problems with the vibranium effects in those films. Though when it is applied to Sam’s suit, it is rather goofy-looking.

I understand that “Captain America” as a brand is heavily associated with the big screen. As a concept, it is one of the most prominent in the MCU. There is a reason why something like this movie, titled “Captain America” ended up in theaters, whereas “The Falcon and the Winter Soldier,” which is about previous supporting characters and sidekicks, went to Disney+. Although just because the name “Captain America” is cinema-friendly, does not mean the same is true for the product behind the name. When you break this movie down on selling points, it feels like something that should be put in theaters. The Captain America name, the star power of Harrison Ford, Red Hulk, select scenes being shot with digital IMAX cameras… But tonally, this movie comes off as a lame Disney+ series that got condensed into a two hour movie. Certain scenes and storylines feel rushed, underdeveloped, and poorly written. When I was talking to my friend as we were leaving this film, one of the first things I said to her in regards to my initial thoughts was that the movie “flies by.” One can see that as a compliment. But I think the movie took notes from “Spaceballs” and dialed itself into “ludacrous speed.” I love a good fast-paced movie. I can also say I was never completely bored by this film. But the film seems to end at a point that leaves me unsatisfied.

To no one’s surprise, there is extra material during the end credits of this film. Unfortunately though, or perhaps fortunately if you are in a rush to get home after the mediocrity of this film, there is not really anything exciting in the post-credits scene. I have seen some MCU products do a good job at teasing something new. This does not really do that. Instead of a tease, it is more of a reminder of something that I already thought would be coming. I guess if you are not familiar with the MCU this could be an okay credits scene. But this is one of the weaker ones I have seen in this cinematic universe.

In the end, “Captain America: Brave New World” is not up to the quality I expect from the Marvel Cinematic Universe. I do not expect every MCU film to be perfect, but I think it is safe to say that the timeline has spoiled me with one decent project after another. I was looking forward “Brave New World.” The trailers looked great. It had the ingredients for an intriguing watch. But the culmination of such a recipe left a bad taste in my mouth. I will not deny there are good things about the movie. The action, for the most part, is fun to watch. I particularly enjoyed seeing the shield move chaotically through the screen in multiple scenes. Anthony Mackie is an excellent lead. I would watch a fifth “Captain America” movie if he were the star. But between the bad special effects, unmemorable characters and story, bland at best dialogue, and underwhelming climax. The negatives stood out for me more than the positives. That is a sentiment I hate to use regarding any movie, but as a fan of the MCU, it particularly hurts saying that in this case. I am going to give “Captain America: Brave New World” a 5/10.

“Captain America: Brave New World” is now playing in theaters everywhere. Tickets are available now.

Thanks for reading this review! My next reviews are going to be for “Paddington in Peru” and “Love Hurts.” Stay tuned! 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 “Captain America: Brave New World?” What did you think about it? Or, in the spirit of negativity, what is your LEAST favorite Marvel movie since “Avengers: Endgame?” Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

A Complete Unknown (2024): Timothée Chalamet Shows His Range One of His Most Complicated Roles Yet

Posted on January 4 by Jack Drees

“A Complete Unknown” is directed by James Mangold (Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny, Logan) and stars Timothée Chalamet (Dune, Interstellar), Edward Norton (The Incredible Hulk, Fight Club), Elle Fanning (The Neon Demon, Maleficent), Monica Barbaro (FUBAR, Top Gun: Maverick), Boyd Holbrook (Narcos, The Sandman), Dan Fogler (The Goldbergs, The Walking Dead), Norbert Leo Butz (Bloodline, The Exorcist: Believer), and Scoot McNairy (Halt and Catch Fire, Nightbitch). This film is set in much of the 1960s and centers around a young Bob Dylan as he establishes several relationships and creates a series of songs.

Bob Dylan is to music what the “Star Trek” franchise has been over the years to television and movies. He has been relevant since the 1960s, produced a lot of material that has been well regarded, and has somehow managed to maintain even the slightest hint of relevancy up until now. Much like the “Star Trek” franchise, I cannot say that I have the deepest appreciation for Bob Dylan. It is not that I hate Bob Dylan, or “Star Trek” for that matter, it is just that I never find myself circling around to Dylan’s music despite having many options for the taking.

You may remember there was an Amy Winehouse biopic in the middle of 2024 called “Back to Black,” which I gave a positive review. I do not think it was particularly striking or memorable, but I ended up leaning positive on it. It has its moments of fun and does a good job at capturing the darker side of Winehouse’s life. I also said that even though the movie presents the artist’s songs well, I would not claim to be an Amy Winehouse fan. I was not one before the movie. I am still not one after the movie. The same is true with Bob Dylan. I still appreciate his music, but I am pretty much in the same position as I was going into a “A Complete Unknown.” I am a Bob Dylan appreciator. Not a Bob Dylan fanatic. In regards to my appreciation, it is perhaps greater for him now than it was before, but still. I also think “A Complete Unknown” does a great job showing Dylan’s impact on the music industry by the time the movie’s over.

Is the film entirely accurate? No, it is not. If you know your Bob Dylan lore, you would know that he had a girlfriend in the 1960s by the name of Suze Rotolo. That is not the case in this film as Dylan himself requested her name would be changed. Therefore, we see Elle Fanning play a character by the name of Sylvie Rotolo (left). Regardless of accuracy, Fanning does a good job with the role. She has spot on chemistry with Chalamet’s Dylan. Speaking of chemistry, Chalamet also has quite a spark with another love interest in this film, Joan Baez, played by Monica Barbaro.

Overall, it is easy to say that the acting in “A Complete Unknown” is a standout element. This extends to more than just love interests. Edward Norton does a great job playing Pete Seeger. Dan Fogler plays one of my favorite characters in the film, Dylan’s manager, Albert Grossman. I thought of the entire cast, he was the one that delivered the most laughs. He had plenty of good material in the script to keep him busy. Boyd Holbrook oozes with charisma as Johnny Cash.

But of course, the real star of the show is Timothée Chalamet as Bob Dylan. Chalamet has been killing it for the past year or so. In 2023, he starred in “Wonka” as the title character. While I did not love the film, he does a phenomenal job with the role. I criticized “Wonka” for having unmemorable music sequences, but it does not mean Chalamet did not do his best with them. He has proven himself to be a solid singer, and therefore it is no surprise that Chalamet ends up lending his own voice to Dylan’s songs. Not only that, but Chalamet also plays the guitar in this film. I love Chalamet’s overall commitment to the role and he looks like he is having fun with it. If I had one thing to say though, there are some scenes where Chalamet has a bit of an accent to his character that feels kind of played up. It is a little over the top. Not quite over the top enough to sound like something out of “Saturday Night Live,” but at times it was a little distracting.

As an artist, I always appreciate when a movie has something to say about art itself. “A Complete Unknown” does this very well. Not only does the film highlight a portion of Bob Dylan’s career, which by the way, given how much Dylan has done over the years, I think it is wise of the filmmakers to just corner the story into just a small chunk of his life. It is worth noting within this small chunk of Dylan’s life we get to know a bit about his influence on the music industry and his rise to becoming an icon. With these elements in mind, this presents Dylan with a problem. While he is known for his music, deep down, he would like to be more than the identity in which society has given him. He wants to try new things and experiment. This film builds to a point where we see such a monumental shift come to fruition. Bob Dylan has built a reputation as a storytelling folk artist with a calming vibe. But we find out later on that he wants to implement electric instruments into his repertoire. The extended scene where we see this play out is easily my favorite part of the film. Not only is this sequence entertaining and presents significantly more stakes than we have seen throughout the story’s prior points, but we see Chalamet successfully channel his character’s happiness and indifference in regard to what others think of him.

This movie is more than just the rise of a popular musician, but it is also the story of an artist who just wants to make art. This is a consistency in every scene. Dylan sometimes tends to put his art before the people in his life, whether he knows them personally or they just so happen to be fans. It is his greatest passion in life. The movie shows the balance of making art to impress people intertwined with the complication of making art for yourself. It showcases the hurdle of shattering audience expectations. When you watch a movie, a shocking twist is sometimes warranted and can often be done well. But when is the shift too significant? That is a question this movie tries to answer and I think the overall response has resulted in an entertaining and exciting climax to a solid flick.

In the end, “A Complete Unknown” is not my favorite film of the year, but it has a series of strong moments and performances. Additionally, it has great production design, good direction by James Mangold, and a cozy vibe. I walked out of this awards contender feeling similar to how I did walking out of an Oscar-winning film I watched in 2023, specifically “The Holdovers.” “A Complete Unknown” is a movie that emits a sense of coziness. The movie practically puts you in a warm blanket. Again, this movie did not transition me into becoming a Bob Dylan fan. I am not going to go on YouTube just to listen to his music on a regular basis. But the musical sequences where we see Dylan’s folk songs come to life are most definitely comforting. If this movie is playing near you, give it a shot. I am going to give “A Complete Unknown” a 7/10.

“A Complete Unknown” is now playing in theaters everywhere. tickets are available now.

Thanks for reading this review! And that is the last of the movies I saw in theaters in 2024! Coming soon, I will be talking about my top 10 best and worst movies of the year. Like the past couple years, I will be starting with the worst. Stay tuned! If you want to see these countdowns 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 “A Complete Unknown?” What did you think about it? Or, what are your thoughts on Bob Dylan as an artist? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

Nightbitch (2024): Amy Adams Plays a Relatable Character in This Fairly Average, Wasted Concept of a Movie

Posted on December 22 by Jack Drees

“Nightbitch” is directed by Marielle Heller (A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood, Can You Ever Forgive Me?) and stars Amy Adams (Enchanted, Arrival), Scott McNairy (Speak No Evil, Monsters), Arleigh Snowden, Emmett Snowden, Zoë Chao (Strangers, The Afterparty), Mary Holland (Happiest Season, The Big Door Prize), and Ella Thomas (Surrogates, Nina). This film is based on a book of the same name and is about a stay at home mother who occasionally transforms into a dog at night.

Amy Adams is a fine actress with a ton of range. Doing everything from family flicks like “Night at the Museum: Battle of the Smithsonian,” to crime films like “American Hustle,” to comic book movies like “Man of Steel,” to modern sci-fi classics like “Arrival.” Now she is taking on her latest role, a woman who occasionally turns into a dog.

Judging by the film’s epically awesome title, it is easy to assume “Nightbitch” will not have the family friendliness of say “The Shaggy Dog,” which sees its main character also transforming into a canine from time to time. Whether you like the various editions of “The Shaggy Dog” or not, I think most people who know about it can admit that the concept is at the very least, clever. That is also a word I would use to describe the hook of “Nightbitch.”

This brings me to my first gripe regarding the film. The whole concept of the main character turning into a dog feels rather wasted, especially considering how much I heard about that hook going into the film. Having seen the film, I understand that seeing the main character turning into a dog is not necessarily what it is about. There is more to it. But I think if you are going to dive into that concept, you might try to expand it just a little. For the most part, “Nightbitch” is about a woman’s journey and struggles that come with being a mother. I am fine with that. I will also say the concept is handled well. But if you have this idea of occasional dog transformations, maybe do a little more than one or two scenes featuring a canine version of Adams and having her occasionally interact with other dogs every once in a while.

The film, in more ways than one, effectively turns Amy Adams into a dog in a figurative sense. This is especially noticeable when her character is interacting with her child. Though when it comes to the advertised literal sense of Adams becoming a dog, that is where the film disappoints. In fact, having seen this film now, part of me is curious about what it would have been like to go into this movie blind. Maybe I set my expectations too high. Maybe I would have been caught off guard by certain scenes in the film.

I will compliment the film for its point of view on parenting, particularly motherhood. This is far from a happy go lucky take on the concept. Amy Adams does a good job encapsulating the stress her character goes through from scene to scene. If I have one thing to say though, this film is based on a 2021 novel, and for all I know, the novel is great. But “Nightbitch” definitely feels more like literature at times than it does cinema. For one thing, we spend much of the movie hearing Amy Adams’ character, simply named “Mother,” talking inside of her head. There is not a rule saying you cannot have characters talk inside their head. Heck, there is a movie from earlier this year called “Boy Kills World” where the voice inside the main character’s head is probably my favorite part. That said, like any other movie, “Nightbitch” is presented in a medium that is traditionally more show than tell. This movie tends to spend a significant amount of time taking the tell approach. Sometimes it works, other times it does not really add anything to the scene. It kind of spells out certain things that I may have already come to realize. In addition to Adams’ narration, the film also contains fourth wall breaks. That said, this is a dark comedy, so I will at least point out that the narration thankfully provides for some laughs.

I think “Nightbitch” will definitely have an audience. I do not know how much staying power this film will have going forward. For all I know, it could do well when it comes to streaming. Though I think mothers in particular will find this film relatable. Even if they love their children or their partner, I think they will pick up something from “Nightbitch” that they can attach to a certain peeve in their lives. This film is not only a solid dive into motherhood and the struggles it can bring, but what such a common concept could take away. It could interfere with career paths, dreams, ambitions, all to continue the human race.

I imagine dads could find the film relatable themselves. There are several moments of the film that I imagine a father, no matter the age of their kid, has experienced. Either when they try to be useful, or when they want some private time with their partner. That said, “Nightbitch” is presented from a mother’s perspective, therefore it will relate to mothers the most. There is even a line out of Adams’ character that I will not cite verbatim, but she is talking to her husband and she mentions she is busy trying to take care of him, in addition to their child. Also keep in mind, I am single and do not have children. So while many opinions are valid when it comes to art, including ones presented in this review, my thoughts on the film could change should I get married or have kids sometime down the road.

The pacing of this film is brisk, although at times a little overly spontaneous. Though I do admire the film’s efforts for packing in as much as it does in such a short runtime. While there are one or two events that definitely almost come in almost out of the blue, the film for the most part maintains a steady, but speedy path from start to finish. Never once was I uninterested or bored. I have to give credit to Marielle Heller and Rachel Yoder for crafting a consistent script. While I would have been more delighted had said script unleashed more of the dog-related hook, it makes for a fine hour and a half at the cinema. Best movie of the year? Far from it. But is it decent? Sure.

In the end, “Nightbitch” is a fairly… PAW-sitive moviegoing experience. The star of the show, figuratively and literally, is Amy Adams, who overdelivers as “Mother.” Yes, she has a ton of narration. Sometimes it is hit or miss, but Adams goes all the way with it. It is not my favorite performance from Adams, but she clearly owns the role. I also think it was a smart choice to have Marielle Heller direct the film. I can say as a man, I do not think I would have done as effective of a job with a story like this. She is also a parent, so that helps too. This film, even if it is based on something else, definitely has a personal touch. It is noticeable in the dialogue and the performances. I would not recommend the film to all audiences, but I am certain it will find an audience regardless. I am going to give “Nightbitch” a 6/10.

I would also like to shout out this film’s director, Marielle Heller, whose directorial outing prior to this film was “A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood,” a film partially centering around Fred Rogers. I must say “Nightbitch” is quite a transition from Heller’s previous film… A wholesome, comforting, feel good drama, to a vulgar, honest, dark comedy. While Heller is not my favorite director working today, I am definitely looking forward to seeing what she does next because like I said about Adams at the start of this review, Heller definitely has range.

“Nightbitch” is now playing in theaters and is available to stream on Hulu Friday, December 27th.

Thanks for reading this review! Do you have comic book movie fatigue? I don’t! But I just saw “Kraven the Hunter” and I am most certainly having “Sony Spider-Man Schlockiverse” fatigue as we speak. Look forward to that review as long as I do not smash my computer in rage while making it. Also coming soon, I will have reviews for “The Lord of the Rings: The War of the Rohirrim” and “Sonic the Hedgehog 3.” 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 “Nightbitch?” What did you think about it? Or, what is your favorite Amy Adams movie? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

	No Other Choice (202… on Shelby Oaks (2024): Chris Stuc…
	Bugonia (2025): Bu-G… on Killers of the Flower Moon (20…
	Bugonia (2025): Bu-G… on One Battle After Another (2025…
	Bugonia (2025): Bu-G… on Kinds of Kindness (2024): Kind…
	Bugonia (2025): Bu-G… on Poor Things (2023): Emma Stone…