Walt Disney Studios | Scene Before

Ready or Not 2: Here I Come (2026): The Sequel to My Favorite Film of 2019 is Finally Here… Was it Worth the Wait?

“Ready or Not 2: Here I Come” is directed by Matt Bettinelli-Olpin and Tyler Gillett, the same directing duo behind the original “Ready or Not” released in 2019. This film stars Samara Weaving (Bill & Ted Face the Music, Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri), Kathryn Newton (Blockers, Freaky), Sarah Michelle Gellar (All My Children, Buffy the Vampire Slayer), Shawn Hatosy (Animal Kingdom, Southland), David Cronenberg (The Fly, Scanners), and Elijah Wood (The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring, Grand Piano). This sequel once again follows Grace (Weaving), who just survived a nightmarish game of hide and seek against the Le Domas family. Now, she must face off against several elite families that make up the Council to play the same game with a twist.

“Ready or Not 2: Here I Come” is a movie I did not have on my bingo card. I say this as someone who loves the first film to death. “Ready or Not” remains my favorite film of 2019. Prior to watching this sequel, I took the opportunity to rewatch the original. It holds up tremendously. The ending is chef’s kiss. The simple utterance of “In-laws” is a top five final line in the history of cinema. It is up there with “Nobody’s perfect” from “Some Like it Hot.” I am not the most knowledgeable horror nut, but “Ready or Not” is an easy favorite of mine within the entire genre.

As much as I was looking forward to this movie, it had a lot to live up to. The original had a simple but fun concept. It contained a plethora of funny lines. It had a fantastic cast carried by Samara Weaving. If you know how the first movie went down, you would know that it would be impossible to bring most of that cast back. But to my delight, Weaving, once again, is leading this film and cooking up a killer performance with fire. She is one of the film’s many positives. Also, I know the term scream queen gets thrown around a lot amongst horror circles. To take that concept literally, Weaving’s screams are some of the most unique I have ever heard. It is to the point where I cannot imagine another soul playing her character.

Even you, Margot Robbie! I know you and Samara look so much alike, but I highly doubt your screams sound alike!

With this film being a sequel, it tends to follow the “bigger is better” cliche. Although if you are aware of my thoughts on various sequels over the years, you would know that I do not think they always live up to that phrase. “Ready or Not” is a beautifully simple movie that takes a childhood game as pure as hide and seek and turns it into an absolute nightmare. “Ready or Not 2: Here I Come,” puts its main character, Grace, in a situation where she has to play hide and seek against a ton of rich family members. Again. The before, during, and after, are a little different from the original. Although another similarity is that if these family members do not kill Grace by dawn, they die. The film does a fairly decent job at laying out some of the complications that make this experience different, and it also raises the stakes for the main character by bringing her sister Faith (Newton) into the mix and holding her captive. It also puts the elite family members in a situation where they have to do more than simply kill Grace. While doing so, they are competing for the Council’s “High Seat” now that the person who used to be associated with that position has died.

Bringing Faith into the picture does come as a bit of a surprise, as we learn a little bit about Grace’s backstory in the original movie, but not once does she mention she has a sister. Nevertheless, the sequel does a good job at making me believe these two are sisters. For starters, they look quite a bit alike between their blonde hair, big eyes, and expressive personalities. Also, knowing what we know about Grace from the original, I buy the fact that the two siblings had a bit of a falling out. It enhances that scene from the 2019 film where Grace talks about her family life, or lack thereof.

I enjoyed both “Ready or Not” and its sequel, but if you were to ask me which of these two movies I prefer, I would easily pick the original. The main reason is because Grace seems to go on a more personal journey. Sure, her sister is in the sequel, but as we get to the inciting incident of the first movie, it makes her rethink everything about her partner, her love life, her in-laws, whether she wants to be married… The first film was more interesting because it involved people she once trusted trying to kill her. The second film is an extension of that killer family, but without her partner, Grace is simply trying to defend herself against a group that held her captive.

So, the film may not be as memorable as the original, but to me, this could almost be the “Gladiator II” of the “Ready or Not” franchise. Is the story as exciting? Probably not, though it did keep my interest. But the action and humor more than make up for the film’s less intriguing plot. Every kill is terrifically done and the antagonistic family members come off with as much personality as those in the 2019 predecessor. The changes they made for how the game works were fun to see play out. It was also nifty to see Elijah Wood play a bad guy. Wood is not the first person I would associate with the term villain, but this film did make me reconsider. I was quite pleased with his quiet yet commanding performance. He reminded me of Grand Moff Tarkin in the original “Star Wars.” He does not have a big mouth, but every word that seems to come out of it sounds like it matters.

This sequel came out a little more than six and a half years following the original’s release date. As an avid fan of the original, I knew I was going to be in the cinema as soon as possible to see it. But even as a fan, I questioned if a sequel was the most sound idea. Judging by the fact that I liked the second movie, I could say it was. But even as someone who likes it, I recognize that the original is out of this film’s league. That said, I did dig the finale of the film. Much like the original, there were one or two out of left out of field moments that stuck the landing. I walked out of this film having a fun time. It added some exciting new material to the lore, maintained a good pace, and ended up having some genuine laugh out loud moments.

In the end, I really liked this film. It offers a lot of familiar aspects from the original. Sometimes expanding upon them. I prefer the first film’s simplicity and cast a bit more, but this new cast is by no means bad. They are actually quite fun to watch. That said, this film is directed by Matt Bettinelli-Olpin and Tyler Gillett, the same duo behind the original, and it shows. The duo helm each scene with perfect timing, balance scares and humor fantastically, and refuse to compromise on blood and gore. Kathryn Newton, who previously worked with these two in the excellent horror-comedy “Abigail,” is a lovely addition to the cast, and so is Elijah Wood. This film came out the same weekend as “Project Hail Mary,” which is doing very well at the box office. If that film is sold out, then “Ready or Not 2: Here I Come” is not a bad option to have as a backup as long as you are okay with violence and intense sequences. I am going to give “Ready or Not 2: Here I Come” a 7/10.

“Ready or Not 2: Here I Come” is now playing in theaters. Tickets are available now.

Thanks for reading this review! As a reminder, Scene Before is now officially 10 years old, and I am doing a brand new video series by the name of Movie Requests in honor of the occasion. Feel to check out my latest episode featuring “Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back” actor Jason Mewes, who requested I should talk about “House Party.” If you want to see more episodes, leave a like on YouTube and subscribe to my channel so you can stay up to date!

I am also happy to remind everyone that the next guest in the Movie Requests series is going to be “Avatar” actor Joel David Moore. You can catch that episode Sunday, April 19th. I have yet to watch his movie of choice, but I look forward to checking it out and talking about it!

My next review is going to for “They Will Kill You.” Stay tuned! Also coming soon, I will be sharing my thoughts on “You’re Dating a Narcissist!,” “The Super Mario Galaxy Movie,” “The Drama,” and “Exit 8.” 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 “Ready or Not 2: Here I Come?” What did you think about it? Or, which of the two “Ready or Not” movies do you prefer? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

Hoppers (2026): A Dam Good Animation

Posted on 18 Days Ago by Jack Drees

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Send Help (2026): See This Thrilling Survival Flick One Way or Another

Posted on March 20 by Jack Drees

“Send Help” is directed by Sam Raimi (Spider-Man, Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness) and stars Rachel McAdams (Mean Girls, Game Night), Dylan O’Brien (The Maze Runner, Teen Wolf), Edyll Ismail (La Brea, Ghosts), Xavier Samuel (Blonde, Tell Me Your Secrets), Chris Pang (As We See It, Blade of the 47 Ronin), and Dennis Haysbert (24, Now and Again). This film follows office employee Linda Liddle and her boss Bradley Preston as the two individuals, whose personalities and backgrounds could not be more different, do what they can to survive while stranded on an island.

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

Sam Raimi is a director who defined my love for movies and the art of filmmaking. Raimi directed Tobey Maguire in three “Spider-Man” movies, a trilogy that defined my childhood. Since then, I have gone on to enjoy some of his other works including “Evil Dead,” “Army of Darkness,” “Oz the Great and Powerful,” and “Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness.” Raimi is a master storyteller whether he is doing something original or working with popular IPs. If there was any reason for me to be excited for “Send Help,” he was it. Not to say that the film lacked talent in front of the camera, as the film starred Rachel McAdams, who recently worked with Raimi in “Multiverse of Madness.” Alongside her is Dylan O’Brien, who I have grown to appreciate with each role he’s taken through the years.

Having talented people on your project is a great start. Though that does not guarantee the movie will be good. For example, I love me some Wes Anderson. But his last couple movies have been a bit too off the rails for me. Hopefully, that would not be the case with Sam Raimi’s latest flick. Thankfully, “Send Help” brings out the best in its cast and crew in just about every regard.

Given his past work, some would say Sam Raimi is a master of horror. “Send Help,” while not Raimi’s scariest film, undoubtedly taps into his horrific tendencies when it comes to showing the brutality of a plane crash or the adrenaline rush of hunting in the woods. One of my favorite scenes of the film is a one on one between Linda Liddle and a boar. Despite her clear obsession with the outdoors and nature, the scene does a good job at showing she is still afraid of the near inevitability of doom while in an unfamiliar environment.

As a master of horror, Sam Raimi also manages to implement perhaps one of the scariest concepts of all time… Office culture. The concept is probably a pinch scarier knowing that a woman is the protagonist. While the film is set inside the office, we come to realize that employees are sometimes punished for having lunch at their desk, even if time does not allow them to have it elsewhere. For people like Linda, it is difficult to achieve career growth. Part of this is because the higher-ups tend to maintain a bro culture, one of whom happens to be Bradley Preston, the son of Linda’s former boss.

The script for “Send Help” starts off fantastic and only becomes more compelling by the second. It is full of twists and turns, each of which made sense despite some colossal shock value. Everything feels very contained. There are not many characters in the film, which works in its favor as it allows each individual to stand out. The movie perfects the chemistry between Linda and Bradley. They are finely tuned frenemies. Throughout the movie, we learn about these characters’ pasts and personalities. Both are well written, and when it comes to Linda Liddle in particular, it is the little things that stand out like her passion for “Survivor,” the fact that she has cats, or her karaoke song of choice being Blondie’s “One Way or Another.” Is this a “Mean Girls” easter egg? Perhaps. Regardless of the reason the song is in the movie, it works perfectly.

For the record, Sam Raimi did not write this movie. Screenwriting duo Mark Swift and Damian Shannon handled those duties. Their previous work does not boast high confidence as their resume includes “Freddy vs. Jason” and 2009’s “Friday the 13th,” neither of which got the best reviews. They also did the 2017 adaptation of “Baywatch” starring Dwayne Johnson, which is one of the movies ever. I am proud to say though, “Send Help” is probably going to put both of these gentlemen on the map for me. Though it is worth noting, their screenplay was likely enhanced by the directing talents of Sam Raimi, who has an eye for great shots, brilliant timing, and chilling scares. That said, there is that saying that one is only as good as their last project. Swift and Shannon are now on my radar because this is a twisty movie that had me hooked from the very beginning. Although the beginning is not all to rave about in this film. This film’s ending is not only mind-blowing, but it is something I will be thinking about for a very long time. I could not think of a cooler ending to a movie like this if I tried.

Once again, Rachel McAdams plays Linda Liddle, a dorky cat lady who spends her time off work watching “Survivor.” In fact, she was even passionate enough to audition for the show. Seeing her journey play out, most particularly when the movie passes its inciting incident is riveting as can be. If you are looking for incredible character development, then put this movie on the top of your must-see list. McAdams proves she has talent as this film’s lead.

“Send Help” does a great job at showcasing Dylan O’Brien’s chops. While he may not be the first actor that I would call a thespian, the film proves he has skills. Also, despite his tendency to come off as a jerk, O’Brien, and perhaps by extension, filmmaker Sam Raimi, does a spectacular job at making Bradley look like a jerk, but also likable enough from the audience’s point of view.

On the technical side, “Send Help” sings. Sam Raimi has had an extended career and it is not surprising to see him surround himself with a crew he’s trusted over the years. You have composer Danny Elfman who assembles a marvelous score. There is Bill Pope, who continues to prove he is one of the best cinematographers working today. Editor Bob Murawski puts together some clean, perfectly timed scenes, and his choices enhance the movie’s occasional attempts at humor that rely on visuals or sound. There is one scene involving a boar’s head that had me dying. No spoilers, and you might know this moment when you see it, this film contains one of my favorite cuts in recent memory, and it involves a golf ball. That is all I will say.

In the end, “Send Help” is another excellent film given by the directing god known as Sam Raimi. I can see this movie having quite a bit of replay value down the line. I read that Sam Raimi fought Sony, who did not end up distributing the final project, to keep this film from going straight to streaming. I am so glad he did that, because this is a film I think is best experienced with a crowd. It is scary, it is fun, it is why people go to the movies. The film contains a plethora of exciting scenes helmed by a master of his craft. It showcases the talents of two well cast leads doing their best to deliver a satisfying experience. This film is “Cast Away” with just the smallest pinch of “Office Space.” The story sucked me as it started, and refused to let me leave as it ended. Check this movie out if you can. I am going to give “Send Help” an 8/10.

“Send Help” is now playing in theaters. Tickets are available now.

Thanks for reading this review! My next review is going to be for “The Bride!”. Stay tuned! Also, stay tuned for my thoughts on “Hoppers,” “Project Hail Mary,” and “Ready or Not 2: Here I Come.”

I am also pleased to announce some information about the ongoing film review series Movie Requests, which features special guests selecting films for me to review. The second episode, which will feature “Clerks” actor Jason Mewes, will be released Saturday, March 28th! If you want to see the episode as soon as it drops, subscribe to my YouTube channel! Also, if you have not done so already, be sure to check out the first episode of Movie Requests, featuring actress Bryce Dallas Howard.

If you want to see all 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 “Send Help?” What did you think about it? Or, what is your favorite Sam Raimi movie? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

Is This Thing On? (2025): Bradley Cooper’s Compelling Dramedy on Why People Fall In and Out of Love

Posted on December 28 by Jack Drees

“Is This Thing On?” is directed by Bradley Cooper (A Star is Born, Maestro), who also stars in the film as Balls. Joining him is a cast including Will Arnett (The LEGO Movie, Arrested Development), Laura Dern (Jurassic Park, Marriage Story), and Andra Day (The Deliverance, The United States vs. Billie Holliday). This film is about a couple, Alex and Tess, agreeing to separate, as well as the new adventures and challenges that come their way as a result. Meanwhile, Alex develops a hobby as he turns to the New York comedy scene.

If you have followed this blog for a while, you would know that I am a child of divorce. Having such a background immediately made me intrigued by the premise of “Is This Thing On?”. The fact that it also has stand up comedy as a significant thread of the plot also had me hooked. In the past number of years, I have been fascinated by the art of standup. I personally do not take part in standup, but when I am not watching movies or game shows, standup comedy is probably the other option in which I regularly immerse myself. Even if I did not have these potential biases intact, chances are I would still be excited for “Is This Thing On?” as it is directed by Bradley Cooper. While I have come to admire him for his acting career, he has also turned himself into a solid director. His version of “A Star is Born” is excellent. His follow-up, “Maestro,” is a slight step down, but was still very well made.

Up to this point as a director, Bradley Cooper was 2 for 2. But not anymore. He is 3 for 3. “Is This Thing On” is amazingly well done.

I have seen the teaser trailer for “Is This Thing On?” a few times before watching other movies and I was always intrigued by its basic premise. Essentially it teases that a man going through a separation turns to standup, and bases his material on his personal journey. It taps into the classic ideas of writing what you know and that you often cannot have comedy without first experiencing tragedy. Basically, every bit of Alex’s material from the getgo is about his relationship. Not all of it is based on truth. Every once in a while he will make up a character for a bit, but the material all traces back to his struggle. Other characters respond to Alex’s material with praise. The praise is not exactly for the humor, but rather for the material’s therapeutic nature. Standup is practically Alex’s way of relieving stress through a tough time.

Despite prominently featuring standup as part of the plot, one could argue that “Is This Thing On?” is not exactly a comedy. If you were to ask me, I would argue it is to a certain degree. There are laughs to be had, including at some of the material offered by Alex and additional comedians in other scenes. But it is not a pure comedy in the way that “Splitsville” would probably be. Both films deal with separation and the complication of relationships in some way, but “Splitsville” seems to have more lighthearted fun with its premise whereas “Is This Thing On?” keeps things more grounded. The film in no way feels confused in its tone. Separation is not an easy concept to deal with, and the film makes sure that message is seen through. We see the couple struggling. We see their children and loved ones asking questions and needing to give their two cents on aspects of their relationship. We see the impact their own separation brings upon other people. The film keeps its tone serious while balancing things out with a few jokes here and there.

“Is This Thing On?” has a lot to say about relationships, marriage, and how those things can affect personal lives. The film paints divorce not necessarily as the end of a relationship, but perhaps a new beginning in some ways. We see Alex diving into standup, while Tess puts a major focus on volleyball. For the latter, this is something we find out was once a part of her life, but she had put it on the backburner.

The film also brilliantly highlights why Alex and Tess coupled up in the first place, why Alex in particular fell in love with Tess when she was younger. There is a fantastic scene where Alex reveals a piece of décor in his new place. Said piece has a specific link to Tess. Once Tess realizes what this piece is, she is upset by it. I understand both sides of this issue. Alex even defended his idea by suggesting that the children will appreciate the piece because it will show how awesome their mom is. The piece does a phenomenal job at encapsulating the idea that people fall in love with a certain version of someone. I am single and do not have a lot of relationship expertise, but this film seems to tell its audience that with commitment comes change. Not just in the status of the relationship, but the members of the couple themselves. Whether it is the way they look, the way they act, or what they do. While that change may be great for one person as they are making it, the other may not feel the same way. The film seems to paint separation or divorce as a proper path to change oneself for the better, but also recognizes that even at the end, there is still sometimes a sense of love and appreciation between both members of the couple. However, those feelings are not as strong as they were at one point.

Also, Bradley Cooper’s directing style in this is top notch. I was not sure if after “A Star is Born” that Bradley Cooper would simply be a one trick pony, but he kills it behind the camera, getting magnificent performances out of everyone, but most especially Will Arnett and Laura Dern as Alex and Tess. I bought into their relationship, not to mention its slow but steady decline. Never once did I feel either character overplayed any of their emotions. Every reaction that could have been an extreme is dialed down just enough to avoid becoming over the top. Some of the couple’s dialogue back and forth also hit me, most especially at the one scene involving where Tess says she is upset about Alex’s new décor. The scene, and one that quickly follows it, are among my favorites of the year. They make for dialogue-driven mastery both in front of and behind the camera.

But the cast does not just stop at Arnett and Dern. Bradley Cooper himself has a role in the film as Balls. This should not be too big of a surprise considering Cooper also starred in his last two films. Only difference is this time around, he is not THE star, and playing a supporting role. He has a lot less spotlight this time around, but he knows his place as his character and I thought he did a good job. The film only gets more star-studded from there, as former NFL pro Peyton Manning plays a notable role in the movie. And while she did not have a monstrous amount of screentime, I was more than happy to see Amy Sedaris showcase her lively personality while playing the small role of Kemp. Much like “Friendship” earlier this year, “Is This Thing On?” made me laugh and also made me think. It is not as hilarious as “Friendship,” but I do not think that Bradley Cooper was trying to make a movie as laugh out loud funny as “Friendship.” If that was the goal, I would say he succeeded while still committing to comedy at times.

In the end “Is This Thing On?” is easily one of my favorite flicks of the year. After seeing “Maestro,” I was not sure what Bradley Cooper was going to do next as a director, or if he even wanted to helm a third film for that matter. I am more than glad to see that this was the idea he had up his sleeve, because “Is This Thing On?” blew me away. I was expecting the film to be good, and I came out thinking it was a gem. Of the three Bradley Cooper directorial efforts, this is easily my favorite. Granted, I have some potential biases that could play a factor. Although I am sure even if I did not have those biases, I would have still fallen in love with this film. I admire the characters. I dig the story. I found the pacing to be perfect. The film successfully balances comedy and drama. There are predictable parts, but much like “Godzilla Minus One,” which was my favorite film of 2023, even the moments I saw coming felt earned. “Is This Thing On?” is definitely not going to be as big as “A Star is Born,” but I hope enough people go check this out in theaters to the point where it becomes a box office success like that film did, because the movie is compelling from start to finish. I am going to give “Is This Thing On?” a 9/10.

“Is This Thing On?” is now playing in select cities. Tickets are available now!

Thanks for reading this review! My next review is going to be for “Marty Supreme!” Stay tuned! Also, be sure to look forward to my end of the year countdowns! I will be reflecting on my top 10 BEST and WORST movies of 2025! If you want to see these posts and more from Scene Before, follow the blog either with an email or WordPress account! Also, check out the official Facebook page! I want to know, did you see “Is This Thing On?” What did you think about it? Or, what is your favorite Bradley Cooper film? I will accept anything where he is in front of or behind the camera. Heck, even in films where he is behind the camera, he is still in front of it. Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

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

Posted on December 27 by Jack Drees

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Photo by Courtesy of Searchlight Pictures – © Searchlight Pictures

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

Zootopia 2 (2025): Zoo Fast, Zoo Furriest

Posted on December 10 by Jack Drees

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!

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