Warner Bros

One Battle After Another (2025): Leonardo DiCaprio Delivers the Performance of a Lifetime in Paul Thomas Anderson’s Excellent Thriller

Posted on by Jack Drees

“One Battle After Another” is directed by Paul Thomas Anderson (Licorice Pizza, The Master) and stars Leonardo DiCaprio (Titanic, Inception), Sean Penn (Daddio, Licorice Pizza), Benicio del Toro (Guardians of the Galaxy, Sicario), Regina Hall (Think Like a Man, Scary Movie), Teyana Taylor (White Men Can’t Jump, Coming 2 America), and Chase Infiniti (Presumed Innocent). Inspired by Thomas Pynchon’s novel “Vineland,” this film is about an ex-revolutionary who must save his daughter from a corrupt military official.

As much as I beat a dead horse with this phrase, I only say it because it is true. To me, there are many cases where an artist can only be as good as their last project. Sure, Yorgos Lanthimos is a director with an admirable hustle, but after “Kinds of Forgettable–” err, I mean “Kinds of Kindness,” I am a little nervous about his latest project, “Bugonia.” Kind of like Lanthimos, I was nervous about what would be in store for “One Battle After Another” especially after the infuriating couple of hours I had watching “Licorice Pizza.” Is it a well made film? Sure, in certain regards. But in terms of characterization, plot, perhaps even pacing, I found the end result to be fairly off-putting. It is not to say that Paul Thomas Anderson is an incompetent director. While it has been years since I have seen “The Master,” I do remember it being beautifully made, so Anderson has his ups and downs.

I saw this film a week after it came out. Not because I wanted to stall on it, but because by complete coincidence, I happened to be staying in New York City for a weekend, and I wanted to see the movie in IMAX 70mm. Anytime you hear people say that they saw the next great masterpiece, it is a sentiment that you have to take with a grain of salt. I will only believe the hype when I see it. Plus, the marketing did not do a lot for me. It gave me an idea of the tone, but I thought there was no real oomph to what was on screen. The biggest selling point seemed to be the names Leonardo DiCaprio and Paul Thomas Anderson. I am not critiquing this. If you have talent, sell it. But as far as the movie itself, the marketing did not do it for me.

Photo Courtesy Warner Bros. Pictures – © Warner Bros. Pictures

Before this goes off the rails any further, I must say “One Battle After Another” is a magnificent piece of cinema. Is it my favorite film of the year? Not quite. But I am also having trouble coming up with genuine problems. There are problems that come to mind, but if my reviews for “Risky Business” or “Revenge of the Nerds” shows anything, I can still dig a movie despite its flaws. One personal problem would probably force me to spoil part of the film’s climax. But let’s just say that as “cool” and “shocking” as it was for the movie to unveil a choice they made for a major character, I questioned the logic behind said choice. I also find the film’s pacing to mostly work, though I must admit that the movie does start off slow and gets better as it goes. This is not to say that the film is bad, but if I had to name a weakest part of the film, it would probably be the first twenty minutes or half hour.

By the way, if you are looking for a short movie, you will want to sit this one out. “One Battle After Another” is two hours and fifty minutes long. I know for some of you this might be intimidating, but at the risk of sounding like a pervert, size does not matter, it is what you do with it. And Paul Thomas Anderson does his best to deliver a spectacular vision made for the big screen.

If you get a chance to see “One Battle After Another” in a theater, please do. The film is easy on the eyes thanks to Michael Bauman’s cinematography, as well as the ears courtesy of Jonny Greenwood’s score. There was a point during the film’s climax where my chair was vibrating like I was at an NFL game.

Speaking of cinematography and camerawork, this film is one of the cleanest I have seen this year. While “One Battle After Another” may not be the most colorful movie, it makes the most of its rather limited palette to the point where everything that’s on the screen pops. There is also a riveting chase scene towards the end of the film that basically turns the road itself into a character. The film contains a shot where we see the road winding up and down and it helped set the mood for what’s to come. Visually, this movie needs no notes. It is also heavily enhanced when watched in the film’s native 1.5:1 aspect ratio, which is typically used for VistaVision.

Photo Courtesy Warner Bros. Pictures – © Warner Bros. Pictures

Going back to the marketing of this film, I mentioned that one of the biggest selling points for “One Battle After Another” is Leonardo DiCaprio. And why wouldn’t he be? He has starred in some of the best films in the past couple decades. Like usual, DiCaprio gives his performance his all. Also, the more I think about his performance, the more I come to a conclusion that I am proud to wear on my sleeve. There are not many other people that I could see playing a character of this type as well as Leonardo DiCaprio could. Maybe Brad Pitt… Perhaps Sam Rockwell… Those two names come to mind. But the more I look at this role and think about the way it was executed, it comes off as if it was written with Leonardo DiCaprio in mind. We see him start off as part of revolutionary group as Pat Calhoun, and he later evolves into a washed-up stoner who goes by Bob Ferguson. You can the see the range coming from DiCaprio as he effectively portrays multiple portions of his character’s life. I also found some scenes featuring the character to be laugh out loud funny. There is a phenomenal gag in this film involving a “rendezvous point” that had me rolling on the floor.

Paul Thomas Anderson and Leonardo DiCaprio are celebrated veterans in the industry, but “One Battle After Another” may also be responsible for some people’s big breaks, including Chase Infiniti, who plays Leonardo DiCaprio’s child. I dug the back and forth between these two. Going back to the evolution of DiCaprio’s character, I thought Infiniti did an superb job at channeling her character’s distaste for her father’s resorting to drugs or his overprotectiveness. Chase Infiniti’s career is likely only getting started and this film is going to open so many doors for her. I look forward to seeing what she does next.

In the end, “One Battle After Another” is an experience. Is this my favorite movie of the year? No. But it is an exquisitely crafted piece of cinema in multiple regards. It is one of the best looking movies of the year. It has one of the best casts of the year. The story, while sometimes slow, is engaging. It is a satisfying film that balances serious topics like political extremes and revolution while also having time to insert scenes where Leonardo DiCaprio acts like a complete buffoon. This movie is a massively successful balancing act. I am going to give “One Battle After Another” an 8/10.

“One Battle After Another” is now playing in theaters everywhere. Tickets are available now.

Thanks for reading this review! My next review is going to be for “If I Had Legs I’d Kick You,” stay tuned! Also coming soon, I will be sharing my thoughts on “Tron: Ares,” “Bone Lake,” “A House of Dynamite,” “The Smashing Machine,” “Shelby Oaks,” and Guillermo del Toro’s “Frankenstein.” 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 “One Battle After Another?” What did you think about it? Or, what is your favorite Paul Thomas Anderson movie? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

Weapons (2025): A Slightly Repetitive, but Undoubtedly Creative Sophomore Outing from Zach Cregger

Posted on by Jack Drees

“Weapons” is directed by Zach Cregger, who also directed the brilliant 2022 horror flick “Barbarian,” and stars Josh Brolin (The Goonies, Avengers: Infinity War), Julia Garner (The Fantastic Four: First Steps, Ozark), Alden Ehrenreich (Solo: A Star Wars Story, Cocaine Bear), Austin Abrams (This Is Us, The Walking Dead), Cary Christopher (Days of Our Lives, The Rookie), Toby Huss (The Adventures of Pete & Pete, King of the Hill), Benedict Wong (Doctor Strange, Annihilation), and Amy Madigan (Uncle Buck, Gone Baby Gone). In this film, several children wake up at 2:17 a.m. and disappear. Now it is up to a community to come together to figure out why these children vanished.

While not my favorite film of 2022, Zach Cregger’s “Barbarian” left me gobsmacked. It is genuinely one of the cleverest horror screenplays I had the privilege of seeing come to life.  That said, I really was not sure what his future would hold when it comes to filmmaking.

By the way, where’s the “Barbarian” Blu-ray? Come on, Disney! I thought you wanted my money!

I was not sure what to think going into “Weapons,” partially because I missed out on much of the marketing. I knew this film was coming out. I had people in my circles who were stoked to see it. But I did not know what I would think of it. Then the week of its release, I watched the trailer for the first time. If I were a higher-up for a studio and someone pitched me this film in an elevator, I would probably follow that person out, needing to know more. This is an incredible idea that has translated into quite a good movie.

“Weapons” sucked me in from minute one. This movie only had one chance to make a first impression, and as soon as it started, I figured I was going to get something of the nature of an epic bedtime story. The movie starts off with narration from a child, and I thought having a child narrate was smart partially because of the subject matter, but also because it makes what’s being told much more mysterious and chilling. If an adult were narrating this, I might have more trouble buying it because the subject matter dives into a certain degree of fantasy. But it is perfect the way it is.

The film contains an unbelievable cast, led with excellence by Julia Garner. Safe to say, she is having quite a year for herself between this film and “Fantastic Four.” She might be the star of the summer, and while she was good in “Fantastic Four,” this film allows her to unleash much more of her chops. While she may not have as high of a profile as some of her co-stars such as Josh Brolin or perhaps even Benedict Wong, this film put her on the map for me. I would like to see her in more movies going forward.

“Weapons” is one of the freshest films of the year. Though I will admit, like another highly rated horror film from earlier this year, “Sinners,” I might have to be a party pooper and say “Weapons” is probably not going to end up amongst my favorite films when I do my countdown at the end of 2025. The film has problems and I have the balls to talk about them. There is a concept in this film involving people eating soup. This is really hard to dive into without giving much away, but I’ll give it my best shot. For those who have seen the movie, you likely know what I am talking about. My biggest question, how do the people eating the soup, one, swallow it, and two, digest it? The people eating the soup all have something in common, and that similarity is boggling my mind as to whether they are actually able to eat. I should probably stay calm about this issue. But I am conflicted as to whether it really makes sense.

One of the things I loved about Zach Cregger’s “Barbarian” is how it successfully blended multiple key perspectives without having the end result feel convoluted or jarring. “Weapons” does not do exactly the same thing, but the film commits to something similar. “Weapons” is much heavier in its storytelling. It combines a multitude of perspectives as a large cast takes in the same event playing in front of their eyes in different ways. Some of these perspectives are handled better than others. A lot of these perspectives are blended nicely, but sometimes it is a little unsatisfying to have the moment play out multiple times. The film itself is finely edited, but every once in a while it does feel a little repetitive.

“Weapons” falls into the horror genre, and it does the number one job these movies are supposed to accomplish, delivering on the scares. When I say that, it should be made clear that I would not call “Weapons” terrifying. If anything, it is more tense than it is scary. I am not going to pretend that this film goes over the top with its scares, but it does not mean it does not fail when it comes to the creeps.

The film is also, at times, surprisingly hilarious. I can probably see some of the comedy being a distraction for some people considering quite a bit of the narrative comes off as serious. But this movie has a knack for delivering naturally funny moments. I went to see this film with a small crowd and I was delighted to see quite a few people other than myself letting out a few laughs.

While the movie does have some bumps in the road, I have to admit that the ending is beyond satisfying. It is one of my favorite scenes of the year. Not only does it do a good job at tying all the loose ends but it is simply one of the most well directed scenes in cinema I can recall seeing recently. Everyone on camera gives it their all. There is sometimes a point of view shot that made me feel like I was in the middle of the scene. The ending is a rollercoaster ride worth seeing on the big screen, much like the film as a whole.

In the end, “Weapons” is another decent outing from Zach Cregger. They say you are only as good as your last project, and thankfully, Cregger’s last couple of projects have me looking forward to whatever he has up his sleeve next. The cast of the film unleashes a ton of talent and they all have a great script that does them favors. The film is endlessly intriguing and well-paced despite some minor flaws. Will I watch “Weapons” again? It’s within the realm of possibility. I am in no rush, frankly, but if a friend were at my place and they wanted to put it on, I would not say no. This is a solid flick. I am going to give “Weapons” a 7/10.

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

Thanks for reading this review! My next review is going to be for “Freakier Friday!” Stay tuned! Also coming soon, look forward to my thoughts on “Nobody 2,” “Honey Don’t!”, and “Eden.” If you want to see these reviews and more from Scene Before, follow the blog either with an email or WordPress account! Also, be sure to like the official Facebook page! I want to know, did you see “Weapons?” What did you think about it? Or, which Zach Cregger movie did you like more? “Barbarian” or “Weapons?” Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

Superman (2025): The DC Universe Begins with a Big Bang

Posted on by Jack Drees

“Superman” is directed by James Gunn (Guardians of the Galaxy, The Suicide Squad) and stars David Corenswet (Twisters, Pearl), Rachel Brosnahan (The Marvelous Mrs. Maisel, House of Cards), Nicholas Hoult (The Menu, Juror #2), Edi Gathegi (Into the Badlands, Twilight), Anthony Carrigan (The Forgotten, Gotham), Nathan Fillion (The Rookie, Firefly), and Isabella Merced (Transformers: The Last Knight, Dora and the Lost City of Gold). This film centers around the titular hero as he takes on Lex Luthor while trying to win back the general public’s trust.

It’s finally here. A brand spankin’ new cinematic universe. Just like DC’s last attempt at one of these ongoing sagas, we are kicking things off with Superman, this time around played by David Corenswet. When the DC Universe was announced, I was excited about it. Yes, I was enjoying the DCEU, but demand for it to continue has clearly diminished with one unsuccessful project after another, so I get why this new universe is happening. What really sold me is who would be involved. There was Peter Safran, a producer behind many of Warner Bros.’ recent films, including some DC fare. And alongside him on the more creative side was James Gunn, the director of this very film.

While Gunn is not my favorite filmmaker working today, he has a respectable knack for the craft. I thought he was perfect to shepherd something like this partially because of his love for comic books, as well as his experience with adapting them into films like Marvel’s “Guardians of the Galaxy.” Plus, with the release of “The Suicide Squad” in 2021, he is responsible for making my favorite DC movie ever. And I say this as someone who has seen every DCEU movie. Every Christopher Reeve “Superman” movie.” Every Christopher Nolan “Batman” movie. Even “The LEGO Batman Movie.” Not to mention “V for Vendetta!” There was a point where “Superman” was my most anticipated film of the year. That has changed having seen the more recent marketing, which was not horrible, but kind of lost steam for me the more I knew about the film. There were undoubtedly plenty of creative marketing stunts in recent weeks, but if we are just talking about trailers, that is where I feel the batting average starts to weaken. But who knows? Maybe I could walk out of the movie having a blast.

A lot was riding on this film between a new cinematic universe, trying to get general audiences onboard, as well as making a relatable story about a god. James Gunn and Peter Safran can take a moment to breathe a sigh of relief. This film is excellent.

Is “Superman” my favorite comic book film of the year? No. I prefer “Thunderbolts*” over “Superman,” but there is no denying that the latter is a blast. That said, there is something that separates “Superman” from a lot of recent comic book movies, even some of the better ones. With this being a brand new cinematic universe, there is no homework to be done to prepare for this movie. “Superman” is not the first entry to the DC Universe. It is the first film installment, but the current cinematic universe started earlier this year on HBO Max with the animated series “Creature Commandos.” Even so, one can go into “Superman” knowing nothing about the DC Universe, the comics, or any other piece of media related to the character and have a good time. It likely helps if you are more attached to that stuff, but it is not necessary.

While “Superman” may not be my favorite comic book film of the year, there is a serious possibility that this is likely the best “Superman” movie ever. It is definitely a more generalized interpretation of the character than “Man of Steel” but it is more pleasing to the palate. Despite my praise for “Man of Steel” and what would be my favorite “Superman” film if it were not for this latest one coming out, “Superman: The Movie,” there are parts of both stories that drag. Meanwhile, in this film, the pacing is quite literally perfect. The film is not exactly an origin story, though it does introduce Superman’s birthparents as well as Ma and Pa Kent. Instead it starts off with Superman losing a battle for the first time. We are not even two minutes into the movie, and it has already made a literal god compelling and relatable with what may be his lowest low as a hero. And it does not even stop there. Because if you stick around for the rest of the film, Superman has to deal with issues that are not only relevant, but incredibly human.

“Superman” astoundingly links to multiple prominent real world issues. Whether it has to do nations or groups of people fighting each other, hostile world leaders, the downsides of social media, or having your life forever changed by false information. The film is also likely an allegory on immigration. After all, Superman is not from Earth. So, despite him living there, he is technically an illegal alien. The rivalry between Superman and Lex Luthor sees the latter irritated by the former because in a sense he, an outsider, is being prominently celebrated to the point where Lex, an Earthling, envies him. This film does an amazing job of putting pressures on a popular figure like Superman. He knows how to be a hero in a general sense, but he is not as super in other areas such as dealing with social media controversy or handling the press. Although I will say, as well as that last concept is, it is a tad unexpected considering Clark Kent works for a news outlet, but still.

When I think about “Superman” my mind often goes to about how hard the character must be to write, and this film does an amazing job in terms of its script. I was genuinely surprised by how hooked I was by James Gunn’s vision from start to finish. But the pressure must have been equally as high for David Corenswet. Some of you who have not seen this movie yet are probably wondering who Corenswet is, but if you watch the film, I think he would be responsible for putting a smile on your face. When it comes to the movie variants of Supes, I do not think a single performer has ever been bad. That said, as much respect as I have for Henry Cavill as Superman in the DCEU, I think Corenswet’s character channels more joy, and he works well that way. Part of this is due to how he was written and directed, but when I look at Corenswet and hear him speak, it allows for an incredibly welcoming presence. While this Superman is very much Corenswet’s own thing, his interpretation somewhat reminded me of what I enjoy about Christopher Reeve’s take on the character. He is a likable role model, albeit flawed in certain ways.

We learn that there is so much more to Superman behind the big fat “S.” Going back to what I said about his handling of controversy, there is a fantastic scene early on in the film where the pressures of an interview are getting to him. Lois Lane is asking him a bunch of questions and he ends up saying things that he then realizes he probably did not want to say. We see that Supes is strong on the outside, but he might not always be the best at hiding his emotions. This is not to say he is a wuss. If anything, it means he avoids falling into the trap of toxic masculinity, but he also is not afraid to showcase how he really feels.

The surprise star of the show? Krypto the Superdog. I genuinely did not expect to like this character as much as I did. First off, I am not a dog person. I am allergic to dogs and my sensitive ears are not exactly the best things to have when a dog happens to be near me and starts barking up a storm. But Krypto is perfectly utilized here. He is not exactly a “good boy.” Though I can see one making a valid argument suggesting he actually is, considering he is loyal to his master. To my surprise, Krypto’s action scenes brought out some of my biggest laughs during the film.

The thing I perhaps loved most about this movie is its nature to embrace the silly and fantastical. Of course, with this being a James Gunn film, there is a scene where Superman takes on a kaiju in the middle of Metropolis. The film skips over Superman’s origin story and introduces other DC heroes like Hawkgirl, Metamorpho, Green Lantern, and the fantastically portrayed Mr. Terrific. James Gunn knows how to inject charisma into characters who may seem like they belong in the background, and Mr. Terrific is one such example. He is most certainly as terrific as his name suggests. I almost cannot see anyone else but Edi Gathegi in his shoes. Every line out of him is given with such pizazz. I would love to have lunch with Mr. Terrific if I was given the chance.

The film kind of reminds me of a Studio Ghibli title like “Ponyo.” One of my favorite things about that film is that even the adults seem to embrace things some in “the real world” would consider to be out there or of the land of make believe. I found it fascinating how Lois Lane, who by the way is excellently portrayed by Rachel Brosnahan, simply accepts the idea that she is flying an intuitive, advanced super vehicle.

That said, with this being a comic book movie, we have the return of one of the most overused jokes in the sub-genre. Specifically, this film has a gag that has something to do with a specific name. This is a joke as common as a Dunkin’ location in New England. It is not always a bad joke, it is just overdone. This time around, it revolves around the group of heroes trying to determine what exactly to call their team. The jokes are passable and by no means offensive. But they sometimes lack originality, especially coming off of “Thunderbolts*” which handled this cliché surprisingly well.

Speaking of humor, that is something that James Gunn is no stranger to in his movies. If you are coming to “Superman” to laugh, I am not saying you won’t, but the laughs in this film are not as strong as say “Guardians of the Galaxy” or “The Suicide Squad.” Then again, laughter is not exactly the most important item on the to-do list of making a “Superman” movie. That said, it is nice to have. The script, while definitely lighthearted, sucks me in to the point where I am more excited to see Lex Luthor lose his mind.

On that note, Nicholas Hoult is irreplaceable as Lex Luthor. They say a movie is only as good as its villain. And I will remember Hoult’s interpretation of the iconic villain for a very long time. Hoult has proven himself to be a solid actor in previous projects like “The Menu” and “Juror #2.” Meanwhile in “Superman,” Hoult unleashes a side of himself I am not used to seeing. His take on Lex Luthor is almost hyperactive nightmare fuel. While Lex Luthor may look like someone who can take a punch at times, he is beyond intimidating. His methods of trying to kill Superman sometimes teeter into Saturday morning cartoon territory, but James Gunn made me buy much of the movie’s over the top tendencies and choices.

With this being the first movie of its cinematic universe, “Superman” spends a little time teasing what is ahead, and I am interested to see what is next. Of course, I am a bit predisposed to these kinds of projects, but I probably would not be as excited for what lies ahead if I was not enjoying what was already in front of me. “Superman” may not be the best movie of the year, but it is unbelievably fun. It would have been a colossal disappointment if this movie failed because you only have one chance to make a first impression. I cannot wait to see what the DCU delivers from here on out.

In the end, “Superman” is a super fun time! Is it James Gunn’s best comic book movie? No. But it is also far from his worst. It is miles better than “Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2.” “Superman” is one of the most joy-filled movies of the year. It is packed with well written, phenomenally cast characters. The film never denies that “Superman” is a godly creature, but also spends lots of time humanizing him. I loved getting to know Clark Kent, as well as his alter ego. The story may be relevant, but it is delivered in such an otherworldly vibe. I was under the impression I was watching James Gunn flip comic book pages right in front of a projector lens. While I thought the score from John Murphy and David Fleming score could have used more memorable original bits and pieces, I thought the nods to John Williams’ music added a nice touch at times. Kind of like “Jurassic World: Rebirth,” I get why Williams’ music made into the final cut. He knows how to craft an epic theme. The film is off and on in the comedy department, but when it lands, it is smooth as butter. Go see this film with a group of people, everyone is guaranteed to have a great time. I am going to give “Superman” an 8/10.

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

Thanks for reading this review! My next review is going to be for the brand new action movie “Guns Up.” Stay tuned! Also coming soon, I will be sharing my thoughts on “The Fantastic Four: First Steps,” “The Bad Guys 2,” “Smurfs,” “Together,” and “Oh, Hi!.” If you want to see these review, and more from Scene Before, follow the blog either with an email or WordPress account! Also, check out the official Facebook page! I want to know, did you see “Superman?” What did you think about it? Or, what are some things you are looking forward to seeing in the DCU going forward? Is there anything that has not been revealed yet that you would like to see? Personally, “Peacemaker” season 2 cannot come fast enough. Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

F1: The Movie (2025): Joseph Kosinski Puts Viewers in the Driver’s Seat for One of the Year’s Most Immersive Blockbusters

Posted on by Jack Drees

“F1: The Movie” is directed by Joseph Kosinski (Top Gun: Maverick, Tron: Legacy) and stars Brad Pitt (Ad Astra, Babylon), Damson Idris (Outside the Wire, Snowfall), Kerry Condon (The Banshees of Inisherin, Better Call Saul), Javier Bardem (Being the Ricardos, Dune), and Tobias Menzies (Game of Thrones, Outlander). This film centers around racer Sonny Hayes, who returns to the track following a long absence to boost his former teammate’s underdog team, all while mentoring a younger driver.

Director Joseph Kosinski has a knack for turning films into experiences. Back in 2010, he directed “Tron: Legacy,” which is one of the prettiest looking neon-infused fever dreams in cinematic history. But like lots of other people, the first film of his that comes to mind when you say his name, perhaps somewhat due to recency bias, is “Top Gun: Maverick.”

I had a blast watching “Top Gun: Maverick.” Is it a perfect movie? No. In fact there are some genuine screenplay problems that have been on my mind ever since I first saw it. That said, when I saw Kosinski’s name attached to “F1: The Movie,” it made perfect sense. If Kosinski can deliver to audiences the same kind of thrilling, high-octane, exhilarating experience that he did with “Top Gun: Maverick,” then I would be quite happy.

I am proud to report that Kosinski’s jump from planes to automobiles is just as exciting, and frankly, has a better story. Though that last part is not saying much. More on that later.

This film is an experience. My pupils dilated beyond their sockets watching this movie in IMAX. Part of this is thanks to the brilliant execution delivered in each shot from cinematographer Claudio Miranda, who previously worked with director Kosinski on “Top Gun: Maverick.” For a great chunk of the film I felt like I was inside the car driving it myself. There are several clever camera angles that gives the viewer the illusion they are moving with the car, whether it is on the side, on top, or while looking at the windshield. Some of these techniques are familiar. But there are select moments where the movie offers a first-person perspective that had me imagining that I was literally the car itself. There is a moment towards the film’s conclusion that is so riveting, so heart-pumping, and so freaking cool to look at that I could not help but glue my eyes to the screen. And it is even better in IMAX because the movie was shot with the company’s digital cameras, which expanded the aspect ratio for the entire film on their screens.

Keep in mind, it is the 1.90:1 aspect ratio, not 1.43:1. In Layman’s terms, it will not cover the whole screen at taller IMAX locations.

Once I saw Hans Zimmer’s name on the opening credits, I knew we were in for something special with the score. And something special we got. Some of the movie’s tunes genuinely got me excited. There is a moment that reminded me of another one of Hans Zimmer’s efforts, particularly “Interstellar,” mainly because the music appeared to be going at 60 beats per minute during one of the races. It seemed to be aiming for that “ticking clock” effect that was present for much of “Interstellar’s” runtime. The percussion in this film’s score is some of the best I have heard since Ludwig Gorranson’s score for “Tenet.”

The soundtrack in this film is not bad either. The film has a fairly rock-heavy soundtrack. There is not a bad track on the lineup. Perhaps the most well-known song on the list is Queen’s ‘We Will Rock You.” There is a pretty good use of it early on in the movie.

The best way I can sum up  “F1: The Movie” is that on the surface, it is the quintessential “dad flick.” It is very much a movie that you can imagine being made for the “dad” crowd. It has fast cars, good looking men and women on screen, it has a good amount of rock music, and it is about someone who is trying to prove himself despite his older age.

I sincerely feel bad for anyone whose first experience of “F1: The Movie” is going to be through Apple TV+. After seeing this film, “Mission: Impossible – The Final Reckoning” has got some competition for the greatest technical achievement of the year. This movie cost anywhere between $200-300 million to make, and I honestly can see all the money on the screen. Yes, the film has a well known star in Brad Pitt. But my jaw was on the floor with this film’s look. The colors. The audio. The camera angles. Everything in this film feels dialed up to an 11.

“F1: The Movie” is quite the ride. So, how is the script? It is not bad. As far as Joseph Kosinski’s library goes, this is a step up from “Top Gun: Maverick” in some ways. Perhaps the biggest improvement is that it never mysteriously refers to the antagonist as “the enemy.” What enemy? Who exactly? Who even cares?

The movie can most certainly be enjoyed by F1 fans, but it is definitely written with general audiences in mind. There are broadcaster bites throughout the film, highlighting every little nook and cranny throughout the race. As someone who has never sat down and seen an F1 race on television, I think this is an okay technique to use. The announcer lines are well done and there are quite a few that sound like they would come from a genuine sports telecast, and they also did a good job at introducing me to the rules of F1 that I probably would not have known right off the bat.

The one big negative, to a certain degree anyway, is that the movie is full of clichés. A lot of parts of the script feel been there done that. Though as I have addressed time and time again, clichés are fine as long as they are done well. And they are done well here. In fact, this movie feels like a genuine cousin to “Top Gun: Maverick” not only in terms of its experience, but structure as well. The film involves a race car driver who is trying to prove himself despite being past his prime, and much of the film sees him teaming up with a younger individual who shares his profession and ambitions. The two are off and on with each other, but ultimately have to work together no matter the obstacle.

If anything, “F1: The Movie” reminded me of Pixar’s “Cars,” and not just because both involve racing. But I happened to watch “Cars” a week before catching “F1: The Movie” in theaters and many of the story beats and character traits presented throughout the film felt interchangeable. “F1: The Movie” is kind of like the original “Cars” if someone gave it a bit of a “Freaky Friday” treatment. In this case, the filmmakers took Doc Hudson and made him the main character and turned Lightning McQueen into the supporting character. Additionally, they gave the Doc Hudson wannabe a little bit of Lightning McQueen’s entitlement.

So, maybe the story is generic, but it does not change the fact that I had fun watching it play out. Sometimes a simple story is effective as long as all the elements that make it up are done right. You have an arrogant but likable main character. You have an ambitious supporting character. All the other characters serve the story perfectly. On top of that, you have one of the most cinematic experiences of the year. What’s not to like about that?

In the end, “F1: The Movie” is an exciting race to the finish. You do not have to be an F1 fan to enjoy this film. It is simply an engaging two and a half hours of cinema that gets into gear and never runs out of gas. The script does not reinvent the wheel, but if you like watching wheels turn really fast, it will leave you beyond satisfied. I left this film thinking that this was likely going to have a strong presence in regards to the technical awards at this year’s Oscars ceremony. If “F1: The Movie” is playing in a theater near you, please check it out. You will have a ball. Do not wait for streaming. I imagine some of you are probably looking for an excuse to use your Apple TV+ subscription, but I guarantee the film will not look or feel as epic as it would on the big screen. I am going to give “F1: The Movie” a 7/10.

“F1: The Movie” is now playing in theaters. Tickets are available now.

Thanks for reading this review! My next review is going to be for another highly anticipated summer blockbuster, “Superman.” At one point, this was my most anticipated film of the year. Admittedly, with more marketing coming out and other films making their presence known, some of the anticipation has dwindled a bit. That does not mean I was not excited, but I was interested enough to see if this film could truly be something special. I will share more of my thoughts during my upcoming review. Also coming soon, look forward to my thoughts on “Guns Up,” “The Fantastic Four: First Steps,” “The Bad Guys 2,” and “Smurfs.” 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 “F1: The Movie?” What did you think about it? Or, do you ever watch actual F1 sporting events? What’s that like? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

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

Posted on by Jack Drees

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks for reading this review! My next reviews are going to be for “Bring Her Back,” “Friendship,” “Ballerina,” “The Phoenician Scheme,” and “The Life of Chuck.” If you want to see these reviews and more from Scene Before, follow the blog either with an email or WordPress account! Also, check out the official Facebook page! I want to know, did you see “The Accountant 2?” What did you think about it? Or, which of the two “Accountant” films do you like better? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

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

Posted on by Jack Drees

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

Courtesy of Warner Bros. – © Warner Bros.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A Minecraft Movie (2025): Chicken Schlocky

Posted on by Jack Drees

“A Minecraft Movie” is directed by Jared Hess (Napoleon Dynamite, Nacho Libre) and stars Jason Momoa (Aquaman, Slumberland), Jack Black (Kung Fu Panda, Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle), Danielle Brooks (Peacemaker, Orange is the New Black), Emma Myers (A Good Girl’s Guide to Murder, Wednesday), Sebastian Hansen (Lisey’s Story, Just Mercy), and Jennifer Coolidge (American Pie, The White Lotus). This film is based on the “Minecraft” video game and is about a group of people who find themselves inside the mysterious “Overworld.” Together, they must use their imaginations to survive and make it back home.

Courtesy of Warner Bros. – © Warner Bros.

If there is a movie coming out this year I could not possibly be less excited about, it is “A Minecraft Movie.” I have never played “Minecraft.” However, I have seen tons of gameplay of it either through family, friends, or on YouTube when I am looking for something to fall asleep to. The game came out just before I was a teenager, but I was never one of the cool kids playing it. It was never my thing. If I were to play a building game as a kid, chances are it would have been “Mall Tycoon.”

In fact, I largely avoided “A Minecraft Movie” when it first came out due to competition. I wanted to see “The Luckiest Man in America,” which came out the same weekend. I still had not seen “Novocaine.” I was lucky to catch it in theaters while I still could. I ended up seeing “A Minecraft Movie” a couple weeks into its run with a friend of mine, who is clearly more into the game than I. Frankly, they seem to be much more into the movie than I as well. Whereas they seemed to be having a ball with everything in front of them, I was cringing beyond belief.

While video game adaptations seem to be getting better with movies like “Sonic the Hedgehog” and TV shows like “The Last of Us,” “A Minecraft Movie” fails to meet the standards of those two projects. Heck, even “The Super Mario Bros. Movie,” one of the most by the numbers hero’s journey stories in years, was more memorable. Granted, unlike “A Minecraft Movie,” I actually played the “Super Mario” games. So there could be some bias.

Thankfully though, this adaptation is a slight improvement over last year’s “Borderlands,” which despite a decent cast, is an intolerable mess. Aside from being bad, “Borderlands” and “A Minecraft Movie” share some similarities. As much as I was not a fan of the way both films are presented through their artificial-looking backdrops, they do seem to implement some key elements from their respective games. “A Minecraft Movie” is full of blocky textures, from buildings to weapons to even some of the characters. It does not change the fact that some of these textures fail to please the eye. The movie sometimes presents its Overworld as a place of wonder, but I never felt that as a viewer. It had an uncanny valley effect at times. It felt like something inside “Ready Player One,” except in that film’s virtual world, just about everything was distinctly animated whereas the Overworld often serves as a hybrid between live-action and animation. I questioned the filmmakers’ decision from the start to make this film live-action, and seeing some of the Overworld on screen makes me feel justified for reacting the way I did. What were they thinking?!

Courtesy of Warner Bros. – © Warner Bros.

I am not a huge fan of the blocky graphics “Minecraft” tends to use in their games, but they are still undeniably unique. If you presented “Minecraft” to someone in the 1990s who was in the middle of playing “Super Mario 64,” and say this is coming out more than a decade later, they could think that video game graphics regressed heavily over the years. But the graphics are still a part of the “Minecraft” brand. I understand this is an adaptation, but the movie just looks off-putting. If I had one positive, if we are going by symbolism, the contrast between the people from the real world and the Overworld is distinct. Perhaps this distinction is an artistic choice. But if I want art, I will simply go watch paint dry.

Going back to “Borderlands,” another similarity that film has with “A Minecraft Movie” is that Jack Black appears in both projects. And just like “Borderlands,” Jack Black basically plays a cartoon. In some ways, Jack Black’s character, Steve, reminds me of my dad. He is pretty expressive, spends lots of time building things, and sings during the most random occasions. Although unlike my dad, I found Steve’s singing to be annoying and nonsensical. There are multiple instances where Steve sings. Not all of them impressed me. There is one song towards the film’s conclusion that I found mildly decent, but other than that, they were headache-inducing.

By the way, I have no idea how many people would be surprised by this, Steve is not exactly what one would call the main character of this film. Sure, the film is sometimes presented from his first-person perspective, but there is also a huge gap where he basically disappears. So, the question is, who is the main character?

Your guess is as good as mine.

The film starts with Steve yearning for the mines and later discovering the Overworld, until we eventually spend some time in the real world with a couple young adults, a retro gamer, a realtor, and some other faces.

Courtesy of Warner Bros. – © Warner Bros.

In the real world, much of the screen time is dedicated to the young adults, who happen to be a brother-sister duo. The sister, Natalie (left) is raising her brother, Henry (right center) while trying to hold a job at a chip factory. The brother means well, but his creative mind seems to get him in trouble. If you were to break this movie down structurally, one can argue the brother is the main character as his arc tends to show him being creative and embarrassing himself in the real world, but having much better luck with such creativity in the Overworld. By the film’s conclusion, the script tries to implement an epilogue for each character, but sometimes they feel half-baked based on the little substance their characters are given during the runtime.

Sticking to the real world, there are a couple characters who come from there who caught my attention from their first appearance – Jason Momoa as Garret Garrison (right), and Jennifer Coolidge as Vice Principal Marlene.

I said earlier that Jack Black basically plays a cartoon, but whereas his performance felt overdone, Jason Momoa had an animated energy that kept me captivated. He plays a game store owner who endlessly brags about a particular accomplishment he made in his career, but ultimately, he comes off as a has-been. Momoa gives 110% with every line, no matter how idiotic.

Warner Bros

Then you have Jennifer Coolidge’s character. She is not in the movie for long, but by the end, she is unhinged. I am not going to pretend her character was perfect. In fact, you could almost write Coolidge out of the film entirely and it would have little to no real effect on the main story. Does it change the fact that her material was mildly entertaining? No. I will admit, Coolidge oozed personality at times. I will also note that this is a film mainly aimed at children, but Coolidge’s character does utter some mature phrases and act out some equally mature scenarios. I think the teenagers might understand what she is doing. The children? Hard to say. Hard to know in this digital age.

“A Minecraft Movie” has five writers. This film is the textbook definition of too many cooks in the kitchen. Again, when it comes to naming a main character, the film is almost confused in who that ultimately is. Maybe I would be more forgiving if all the characters were likable, but several of them were dull or flat out irritating to watch. By the film’s conclusion, the atmosphere honestly feels as bloated as one of the Michael Bay “Transformers” movies.

My experience of watching “A Minecraft Movie” reminded me of when I saw “Avengers: Infinity War” in the theater for the first time. During both screenings, there was no shortage of people applauding and cheering at various points. Although there is a difference between the two experiences. The age range for my “Infinity War” screening skewed more adult, whereas “A Minecraft Movie” had noticeably more kids. I was also not one of the people cheering. Granted, some of the applause breaks were for in-game references, which I would not fully understand anyway. I was not the target audience for those jokes. But one reason why I was not applauding as much as the people around me is because I was not as engaged as they were with the film. I wonder if I would be clapping more if I played the game. I wish I could share the same passion about this film that seemed to be beaming throughout the rest of the auditorium, but I was bored. There is no way around it.

Although I will say, even though my audience seemed to applaud at certain points either out of pure contagion or simply for the sake of doing so, one positive thing about my experience is that no one threw food. On that note, “Chicken Jockey” got a lot of fanfare.

With that in mind, it leads me to something I typically say about movies. Just because the children end up liking it, does not automatically indicate that I had equally as positive of an experience and will therefore give the movie a positive score. There are good movies that are “made for kids.” “A Minecraft Movie” is not one of them. Go watch a Pixar movie or a Studio Ghibli movie if you want a fine example of masterclass visual storytelling. This is just visual noise. Heck, if you want a great commercialized film that kids and adults can enjoy, go watch “The LEGO Movie!” Who would have thought a movie on plastic building blocks would become a beloved hit? Go watch “A Minecraft Movie” and “The LEGO Movie” back to back and tell me which one you think is better. Personally, I think the answer is obvious.

In the end, there is not enough TNT in the Overworld to destroy my memories of experiencing “A Minecraft Movie.” This is a film that I imagine that the people making it will probably be happy to have on their resume, likely because it was popular, and not necessarily because it was good. If you are looking for cinema, look elsewhere. This is not the worst video game movie of all time. I just find a lot of choices in the final product to be questionable. Everything from casting Jack Black as Steve to the uncanny valley-esque live-action style choice to the paint by numbers narrative. I do not play the “Minecraft” game that much. It does not interest me. But I imagine I could have a more pleasant hour and a half playing the game as opposed to watching the movie that it inspired. I am going to give “A Minecraft Movie” a 3/10.

“A Minecraft Movie” is now playing in theaters and is also available to rent or buy on VOD.

Courtesy of Warner Bros. – © Warner Bros.

Thanks for reading this review! My next reviews are going to be for “Sinners,” “Thunderbolts*,” “Rust,” “The Ruse,” and “Mission: Impossible – The Final Reckoning.” Stay tuned! If you want to see these reviews and more from Scene Before, follow the blog either with an email or WordPress account! Also, check out the official Facebook page! I want to know, did you see “A Minecraft Movie?” What did you think about it? Or, have you ever played “Minecraft?” Is it fun? Let me know down below! Scene Before is click to the flicks!

Mickey 17 (2025): More Robert Pattinsons Means More Fun in Bong Joon Ho’s Latest Movie

Posted on by Jack Drees

“Mickey 17” is directed by Bong Joon Ho (Parasite, Okja) and stars Robert Pattinson (The Batman, Tenet), Naomi Ackie (Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker, Master of None), Steven Yeun (The Walking Dead, Minari), Toni Collette (Knives Out, Hereditary), and Mark Ruffalo (The Avengers, Dark Waters). This film is set during a group’s mission to colonize a planet and mainly follows the journey of a disposable employee who we see living his 17th life.

I have waited desperately for the day I could watch “Mickey 17.” As a science fiction fanatic, this film looked like my jam. It had a clever concept, intriguing cast, and it was helmed by Bong Joon Ho, whose previous film became the Academy’s first Best Picture recipient not made specifically in the United States. I have a feeling that if this film were in the hands of, say a first time director, it might still sell me, but Bong Joon Ho’s involvement basically put me over the edge.

Is “Mickey 17” likely going to follow in the footsteps of “Parasite” and win Best Picture next year? It is still too early to say, but I would assume that to be a “no.” Although if the Academy Awards were tomorrow, I could see the film at least being nominated. That said, it is not for everyone. The film has heavy commentary, but also happens to cross a line to where it can be silly. If Bong Joon Ho did not direct this movie, I would have been convinced that this was a Taika Waititi film in the style of “Jojo Rabbit,” which seamlessly blends comedy and drama despite the movie sometimes falling into an extreme on one side or the other.

The movie has Robert Pattinson playing a character who we get to see repeatedly die, sometimes in brutal ways. That is something to put on the more comedic side of the spectrum. Yet on the dramatic side, the movie uses this disposable character as a foundation for highlighting the human condition.

Going back to comedy, this movie also has Mark Ruffalo and Toni Collette playing a couple who tend to be more concerned with blood spilling on their carpet as opposed to having someone die on said carpet. At the same time, on the dramatic end, the narrative also shows how people with prominence or power can affect the way people think.

There are multiple adjectives I could use to describe “Mickey 17.” Fun, brisk, grand, ambitious… I was not expecting “horny” to be one of those adjectives. At times, the vibe of this film reminded me of the 2021 flick “Voyagers,” which like this film, is mainly set in a spaceship with a decent amount of characters. The films have their differences, one of them being that “Mickey 17” is much more watchable. Although one similarity the two movies have is that they feature characters or storylines that have something to do with sexuality and urges. The movie features a sizzling connection between Robert Pattinson’s Mickey variants and a security agent named Nasha (Ackie) for example. This movie is about a group’s journey to colonize a new planet, and the individual at the forefront of this mission is politician Kenneth Marshall (Ruffalo) who early on, gives this dramatic speech to an audience encouraging them to “spread their seed” upon their arrival.

This is Bong Joon Ho’s first feature film following the Oscar Best Picture winner “Parasite.” While the film itself is not on the same level as “Parasite,” there are some scenes from “Mickey 17” that made me shake in the same way I did watching the former. “Mickey 17” has a halfway decent amount of unpredictability, but nothing as out of left field as “Parasite.” The structure of the film feels familiar, but it is done in a way where certain moments feel fresh or one of a kind. Much like “Parasite,” “Mickey 17” does a good job at handling commentary. Sometimes it is a little on the nose, but it is still decently delivered. For example, there is a scene early on where we notice a massive sea of supporters for Kenneth Marshall, a politician this movie clearly paints as the antagonist, and a fair amount of those supporters are wearing red hats. Sound familiar? If not, then maybe this movie will have to try harder and make commentary great again.

I can get by the not so subtle commentary because despite it being played up, it does feel reminiscent of current times. In fact, it only feels more on the nose by coincidence considering who was elected President in the U.S. before this film came out. The true test however is to see how the film ages with the world’s political landscapes. That said, society is not perfect. So odds are this film could age decently.

Tonally, “Mickey 17” is an enigma. It is certainly unconventional, but I kind of love it. That said, I could see some people comparing this film to a Saturday morning cartoon at certain points. Aside from that, there is not a ton else that bothers me in the film aside from the fact that some of the effects look fake. The exterior of the spaceship looks like something out of a TV series. That bothered me in the marketing for this movie. When I saw that spaceship for the first time, I thought I was watching an animation. That gripe remains in the final product. Many of the effects in this film look okay, but that spaceship stood out to me. I will not doubt that a lot of work was put into the CGI, but the film’s budget is at least $118 million. It could definitely be more expensive, but for that much money, I sometimes expected something a little more polished.

I am curious to know how this film will do with general audiences. For science fiction nerds like myself, this film is a complete and total blast. I think some casual moviegoers will be riveted by the film’s spectacle, and they will also enjoy seeing Robert Pattinson give it his all in two roles. Bong Joon Ho has had a prominent boost in the past number of years, and “Mickey 17” will likely garner certain people’s attention in my country, the U.S., since the film is in English, unlike his previous outing. But I am not sure if this film is going to have the spark to bring everyone together. Plus, again, I will mention that Mark Ruffalo is essentially playing a Donald Trump wannabe. Should word of that spread around just enough, I can imagine more people wanting to give their hard earned money to something else that will feel more like an escape. Although if I am being honest with you, this film is kind of an escape. The film took me to space, and I found it to be a fine journey. I give the movie a recommendation.

In the end, “Mickey 17” is an experience that is going to stick with me for a long time. This movie is grounded yet wonderfully odd. It is full of tiny, admirable quirks. The performances are to die for. Everyone is great in this film. Mark Ruffalo, Robert Pattinson of course. But if I had to name a favorite, I would have to say Toni Collette takes the cake. By the end of the film, I loved her simply because of how fiendish this film makes her out to be. She is very well directed. “Mickey 17” is another win for Bong Joon Ho and I am going to give it a 7/10.

“Mickey 17” is now playing in theaters and is available to rent or buy on VOD.

Thanks for reading this review! I keep beating a dead horse, but I apologize if I am behind on my reviews. The truth is, I am most definitely behind. I have been busy. I am still catching up on posting about the movies I watched while making the 7th Annual Jack Awards. A ceremony which by the way, you should totally check out. Here are some of the reviews you can expect going forward, and I have seen all these movies by the way. Coming soon, you can read my thoughts on “Locked,” “Hans Zimmer & Friends: Diamond in the Desert,” “The Luckiest Man in America,” “The Penguin Lessons,” “Novocaine,” “The Ballad of Wallis Island,” “Secret Mall Apartment,” and “A Minecraft Movie.”

I cannot wait for you to see my reviews on all these movies. No, seriously. I have been putting these off for quite some time so I cannot wait any longer. And you can be notified about these reviews as soon as they drop. Please follow Scene Before either with an email or WordPress account, and be sure to check out the official Facebook page! I want to know, did you see “Mickey 17?” What did you think about it? Or, what is your favorite Bong Joon Ho film? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

The Lord of the Rings: The War of the Rohirrim (2024): Nowhere Near the Quality of Peter Jackson’s Original Trilogy, But Still Precious Enough to Get by

Posted on by Jack Drees

“The Lord of the Rings: The War of the Rohirrim” is directed by Kenji Kamiyama (Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex, Blade Runner: Black Lotus) and stars Brian Cox (Succession, X2: X-Men United), Gaia Wise (A Walk in the Woods, The Chelsea Detective), Luke Pasqualino (Skins, The Musketeers), and Miranda Otto (Talk to Me, War of the Worlds). This film is set 183 years before the original “Lord of the Rings” trilogy and is about the tale of Helm Hammerhand (Cox) and how his family went about defending themselves against an army of Dunlendings.

Just a warning for those who need to know… I have not read a single “Lord of the Rings” book. I have not lacked desire to read the books, I just never got around to it. But I have seen every single Peter Jackson-directed “Lord of the Rings” film, including “The Hobbit” trilogy. I enjoyed all those movies. There are even a couple of those movies I would even considerto be amongst the greatest of all time. If you have not seen these movies, you are missing out and owe it to yourself to give them a watch at least once in your life.

It has been ten years since the last theatrically released “Lord of the Rings” film, specifically “The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies.” As a fan of these movies, I thought they had a good run, but I would have been fine knowing that is all we were getting. I am well aware on the TV side, “The Rings of Power” is doing well on Prime Video in terms of finding an audience after a couple seasons, but I cannot give my thoughts on it since I have not seen a single episode. Though when they announced a new animated “Lord of the Rings” film was coming, I was not against the idea, but my reaction to it reminds me of the reaction I had when I first heard about “Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse.” My thought was… “Okay then.” I was not completely uninterested, but I also was not going to be first in line to check it out.

Then I got the recommendation of my life, and I swear on my unborn children, this is a true story.

I went to a taping of “The Late Show with Stephen Colbert” in October and during a Q&A, Colbert picked me to ask him a question. I was one of three people. I asked him, “Have you seen any good movies lately?” To which he responds, “Yes.”

…

Following the audience’s laughter, he asks, “Would you like to know which ones?”

I say, “If you would like to tell me about them.”

That is when he recommends this movie. He saw it early. This is no surprise considering Colbert has established himself as a J.R.R. Tolkien and “Lord of the Rings” fanboy. He told the audience and I that the film matches the feel that he got out of the Tolkien books and the Peter Jackson films. Granted, I was aware that he was going to be hosting a panel for the film at New York Comic Con the next day, so this may as well be a plug for the movie.

That said, if it was good enough for Stephen Colbert, it was good enough for me.

So without dillydallying any longer, I thought the movie was fine.

As far as “The Lord of the Rings” film franchise goes, I think this is the weakest of the films I have seen so far. This is not to say it is bad. If anything it is just that most of the other ones are so good that this film easily pales in comparison to them. It is like when I watched “Lightyear.” I thought almost every “Toy Story” movie was a masterpiece of animation and storytelling, then we get to the “Lightyear” spinoff, which was fun but it did not have the impact on me that the “Toy Story” movies did.

I will admit, Colbert was correct on one thing. Tonally, this film feels like it belongs in Jackson’s Middle-earth. That said, it does so maybe to an unhealthy degree. The film is a nice welcoming back to that universe with the familiar title cards and Howard Shore’s music. For the record, Howard Shore did not do the music for this movie, it was instead composed by Stephen Gallagher, who I thought did an okay job. I am not going to go back to listen to the score on my own time unlike some of Shore’s work, but I thought it fit the movie. There are also some pieces of fan service that have ties to the Jackson films, including one towards the end that involves someone’s voice that audiences have not heard in a new film for a long, long time. I thought it was a clever addon towards the film’s conclusion.

“The War of the Rohirrim” is done in the style of an anime. You have this colorful 2D look to the film with a rough pace to it. When I watched the trailer for this film previously, I thought it looked cool. Having seen the movie, I would say it is cool to a degree, but also kind of underwhelming. There are many scenes where we see some vibrant colors, finely detailed characters, and some nice landscapes. But there are other scenes that either lack detail, feel slapped together, done on the cheap, or flat. They lack a sense of realism. Now I know you can get away with a lack of realism in animation. But this lack of realism honestly equals a lack of flair at times.

The same can be said for the actual journey of the film and what we see our hero, specifically Hera, go through. I will give credit for the film for one thing, nearly each and every scene, even if it is subtle, oozes with conflict. Who is gonna live? Who is gonna die? Will our hero make it? The film is a lot of things, but uneventful is not one of them. Speaking of Hera, Gaia Wise does a great job voicing her. Wise’s resume is not huge, but I would not mind seeing her in more projects. Though as I watched the movie, the progression of the story seemed to lack unpredictability or a sense of originality. The structure feels familiar. Granted, even the better “Lord of the Rings” films are not that complex when it comes to the plot as they are with the world involving said plot. Most of the films are essentially about the characters navigating from point A to point B. This is not as much the case with “The War of the Rohirrim,” which spends most of its time around one specific portion of Middle Earth. The scope feels a bit smaller. But the earlier films were simply much more well executed in terms of bringing the best out of a familiar journey. Not to mention, for the time they came out, Jackson’s “Lord of the Rings” films had monumental special effects, whereas the animation for this film, while definitely different, lacks innovation.

“The War of the Rohirrim” is a standalone “Lord of the Rings” project. There are no continuations planned for it. By that logic, this should make “The War of the Rohirrim” a good watch in the franchise if you do not want to worry about keeping up with the greater lore. While this is true, I will also say if you are a more casual “Lord of the Rings” fan or someone looking for a place to start, I do not think “The War of the Rohirrim” is a priority. Is it a good movie? Yes. If anything, while the negatives stand out, I think I lean a little more positive when it comes to my overall verdict. While Hera’s journey has cliches, it is still engaging. The soundwork for the film is quite solid. Tonally, this film is very good. If you love Brian Cox’s voice, you will hear plenty of it in this film. Every time Cox speaks as Helm Hammerhand, he steals the scene. If you are a “Lord of the Rings” casual, there is a chance you might walk out of the movie thinking it is a thumbs up. If you are perhaps a more hardcore fan of the franchise, there could be something more for you. But I also think most people who watch this movie will end up saying that it is not as good as any of the films in Jackson’s original “Lord of the Rings” trilogy. As for ranking this film against “The Hobbit” trilogy, I am not sure. I know it has its fans, and I am one of them. I personally find “Desolation of Smaug” to be one of my favorite movies. But if it were a Friday night, I ordered a pizza, and I needed a movie to go with it, I might put on “The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey,” which I thought to be the weakest of the “Lord of the Rings” installments for a long time, before watching “The War of the Rohirrim” again.

Although speaking of “An Unexpected Journey,” this brings me to a negative I sometimes found with both that film and “The War of the Rohirrim.” As engaged as I was in the journey, I wish I found myself more attached to some of the characters. I do not think I am going to remember some of these characters’ names a couple years from now. If you want a good movie, watch “The War of the Rohirrim.” But if you are looking for the best possible “Lord of the Rings” experience, Peter Jackson might have some better options available.

In the end, “The Lord of the Rings: The War of the Rohirrim” was a fine time at the movies, especially compared to the film this one opened against, “Kraven the Hunter.” Both of these films are flops at this point. Neither of them likely have any chance of making their budgets back. But if you had to pick between one of these losers to watch in the cinema right now, then “The War of the Rohirrim” is definitely the winner. The film is a fun adventure that sometimes comes off as cliche. Some of these cliches are handled well, others not so much. The cast is likable, even if I am probably not going to remember some of these characters in a couple years. The action scenes have their moments. And for the most part, I was engaged in the journey. This film is not playing in a ton of places right now, but if you have a cinema loyalty subscription like AMC A-List or Regal Unlimited, use it for this film. Either that or find a showtime at matinee price. Even though I think the film looks cheap at times, the sound design makes up for it. There are moments where the film does become wonderfully obnoxious and immersive. I am going to give “The Lord of the Rings: The War of the Rohirrim” a 6/10.

“The Lord of the Rings: The War of the Rohirrim” is now playing in theaters and is now available to rent or buy on VOD.

Thanks for reading this review! If you enjoyed this review, I have more coming! Stay tuned for my thoughts on “Sonic the Hedgehog 3” “Flow,” “Nosferatu,” and “Babygirl.” 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 Lord of the Rings: The War of the Rohirrim?” What did you think about it? Or, have you seen “The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power?” For those who have seen it, tell me your thoughts! Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

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

Posted on by Jack Drees

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

© Warner Brothers

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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