Warner Bros

They Will Kill You (2026): Cult Craziness Ensues in This Stylish Action Flick

Posted on by Jack Drees

“They Will Kill You” is directed by Kirill Sokolov (Why Don’t You Just Die!, No Looking Back) and stars Zazie Beatz (Deadpool 2, Joker), Myha’la (Swiped, Leave the World Behind), Paterson Joseph (Wonka, Timeless), Tom Felton (Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone, Fackham Hall), Heather Graham (The Hangover, Boogie Nights), and Patricia Arquette (Boyhood, Severance). This film follows a woman named Asia, a recent hire at a high-rise in New York City, as she uncovers its ties to a Satanic cult and does what she can to survive against those who make up the place.

Part of me wonders what the heck Warner Brothers was thinking with the release of “They Will Kill You.” Not the fact that they put it out at all, but rather that they put it out when they did. As someone who loves the first “Ready or Not” movie to death, I figured it would be inevitable that “They Will Kill You” would end up reminding me of that absolute piece of cinema. But seriously, what prompted Warner Brothers to release this movie the week after “Ready or Not 2: Here I Come?” While these movies are not exactly the same, they have similar plots and vibes… Both films feature a woman who is forced to take on a mob of people who are trying to kill her. Oh, and that mob is connected to a cult.

Questionable release date aside, I was interested in “They Will KIll You.” Of course, with a title like that, how could I not be? The concept intrigued me, and the movie looked like an overall gory fun time. To me, that is exactly what this movie was. Is this film going to win any awards? Probably not. Though I would not start a debate if you thought this film should be recognized for its production design.

What makes this film great is more than just its style. And I say that realizing its style is quite pleasing. What makes everything work is the connection between Asia (Beatz) and Maria Reaves (Myha’la). The film starts with the younger versions of the two as they try to run from their abusive father. Asia shoots him and gets arrested, while Maria remains in his custody. The film then flashes forward a decade to where Asia becomes a housekeeper at a New York City high-rise. As she takes on the job, she learns more about the building’s history, as well as what could happen to her if she is not careful.

The progression of the story unveils the sisters’ backgrounds and capabilities. Asia is more than able to defend herself, and as the film’s action sequences reveal, she can look cool while doing it. Turns out Maria also made it into the high-rise. When Asia runs into her, we learn not only how she got there in the first place, but how she managed to stay for as long as she did. The backstory as to how Maria ended up surviving for so long makes for some meaty material. It added depth to her character, the high-rise itself, as well as the others inside it.

This is not the first time I have watched Zazie Beatz on screen. I enjoyed watching her supporting roles in “Deadpool 2” as well as “Joker.” That said, this is the first time I have seen her as a leading lady, and she carries this movie. After seeing her take on the leading role of “They Will Kill You,” I would not mind seeing another movie where Beatz plays the main character. She has proven herself to be a fine action star and carries a commanding presence.

When I talk about the things I enjoy in a movie, I will often go for the big guns and talk about performances, direction, writing, and so on. But at other times, there are films where “the little things” tend to stand out, and “They Will Kill You” is no exception. I will save the context for your viewing experience, but there is an important point of the story involving an eye. I thought what exactly they did with it was clever. The film also showcases what people in the high-rise like to do. We find out that there is an entire floor where groups of people could be in the same place having sex at the same time. For the record, the people living in this building are immortal, so they have to find things, or perhaps more accurately, people, to do, otherwise they might become bored.

This film cost $20 million to make, but each frame almost looks like a trillion bucks between the color palette, the action, and the sets. This film is directed by Kirill Sokolov. I had not seen any of his work prior to this movie. Having seen “They Will Kill You,” I was convinced that its style is what would happen if a Matthew Vaughn movie and a Guillermo del Toro movie had a baby. The movie is a perfect mix between fast-paced, boisterous action with a pinch of color to balance things out.

Not to digress from this movie, but having looked at Sokolov’s IMDb page, it mentions that one of his previous works, “Why Don’t You Just Die!,” is inspired by one of his favorite filmmakers, Quentin Tarantino. Filmmaking has been around for some time, so it is not surprising to know that newer filmmakers are copying older filmmakers that inspired them. This film reminds me of “Reservoir Dogs” or “Pulp Fiction” to a degree. These all have sick action scenes and are not afraid to show some blood and gore. It has been nearly seven years since a Quentin Tarantino-directed movie has hit theaters. If you are looking for a filmmaker that has a pinch of Tarantino’s DNA, then Sokolov seems to get the job done. Time will tell if Sokolov will have the career or name recognition of Tarantino, but if he keeps making good films like this one, that could end up being the case. Sokolov has a twisted mind, and his screenwriting efforts alongside Alex Litvak, who also has a story credit for the “Masters of the Universe” movie releasing later this year, prove to make for a solid hour and a half.

The film’s cast may be small, but its action sequences prove to feel giant. I am not in an immediate rush to watch “They Will Kill You” again. In fact, of the two big movies coming out within the span of a week that involve women surviving against cults, I would prefer to go back and watch “Ready or Not 2: Here I Come” a second time. Maybe it is because I have an attachment to the 2019 original, so there could be some bias. Nevertheless, I recommend “They Will Kill You.” Give it a watch sometime.

In the end, “They Will Kill You” is killer fun. The film is fast-paced, never boring, and is packed with brilliant setpieces. When I watched the trailer for this movie, I was intrigued by how the action sequences presented themselves. Having seen the movie, they lived up to the trailer. I was not surprised. However, what did surprise me was the film’s ability to get me engaged towards the two sisters’ connection. The movie has a good hook featuring the duo and successfully builds upon that. Go check this flick out. I am going to give “They Will Kill You” a 7/10.

“They Will Kill You” is now playing in theaters everywhere. Tickets are available now.

Thanks for reading this review! If you want to see another review, I am dropping a new episode of Scene Before’s brand new series “Movie Requests” Sunday, April 19th. It is going to feature “Avatar” actor Joel David Moore. I look forward to talking about his suggestion. If you want to see this review as soon as it drops, consider subscribing to my YouTube channel!

© Cool Girl Productions

My next review is going to be for “You’re Dating a Narcissist!” Stay tuned! Also coming soon, I will be sharing my thoughts on “The Super Mario Galaxy Movie,” “The Drama,” and “Exit 8.” If you want to see these reviews and more from Scene Before, follow the blog either with an email or WordPress account! Also, check out the official Facebook page! I want to know, did you see “They Will Kill You?” What did you think about it? Or, in the spirit of Tarantino, what is your favorite Quentin Tarantino movie? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

Dune: Part Three Sells Out Limited IMAX 70mm Screenings Months Before Release – The Eventification of Moviegoing

Posted on by Jack Drees

Hey everyone, Jack Drees here! My most anticipated movie of 2026 is Christopher Nolan’s “The Odyssey,” based on Homer’s epic poem of the same name. You may remember nearly 9 months ago, tickets went on sale for some of the movie’s IMAX 70mm screenings. And by sheer luck, I managed to grab a ticket for the first show in Fort Lauderdale, Florida when the movie opens this July.

Naturally, Warner Brothers must have seen this and decided to follow suit with another film I am looking forward to… “Dune: Part Three.” Around noon on the east coast, which is where I live, a list of theaters were selling tickets for the movie. I had very little notice to buy tickets, but I was scrolling on Instagram and saw a couple posts suggesting that tickets were going to go on sale in a half hour. Not next week, not the next day, but literally the next half hour. So, I go through the list of theaters and make a game plan… Opening multiple tabs, having different devices out… I was ready. After checking a couple websites, I go to IMAX’s official site and click on a link that brings me to the AMC Lincoln Square 13 in New York, New York… And lone behold… Tickets went on sale minutes before their scheduled time at 12 p.m.. So, I click on the 7 p.m. show for Friday, December 18th.

For the first time in my life, I had to go through multiple seat selections just to get something that will take me to the landing page. It took me three tries, and knowing how many seats were sold already, I am shocked the count was not higher. And if someone can get Hans Zimmer on the phone to play some victory music, that would be amazing! Why? Because I got my tickets! …And so did everyone else in the world, apparently. Less than a half hour after I buy the tickets, I check the “view” tab on my screening, and it says the show sold out. And so did other showtimes! Keep in mind, I bought tickets for Friday. There was also a show being held the day before that I had no idea about. When I checked AMC’s site originally, I did not see a listing for it. Not that I am complaining. Friday is still quite early in the release schedule and I am sure the crowd going to see it Friday will be just as enthusiastic as the crowd going the night before.

My theater is not alone. For this push, 19 IMAX theaters were selling tickets. Only two are located outside of North America. More than seven hours after tickets went on sale, most of these theaters say they “sold out” on IMAX’s website. All of these theaters were selling one show per day from opening Thursday to the following Sunday. Since buying my tickets, more showtimes have been added, and those are already selling too.

Though my ticket-buying experience makes me wonder if we are seeing a shift in how movie tickets are sold. Between “Dune: Part Three” and “The Odyssey,” buying movie tickets, in certain regards anyway, is starting to feel like buying concert tickets. The concept may not be resemblant to every concert, but these past couple of instances of buying tickets felt like the cinephile’s equivalent to scoring seats for Taylor Swift’s The Eras Tour a few years back. Between how early the tickets are going on sale, the specific venues that are allowing tickets to sell immediately, the fact that people like me are fighting to get the seat they want, as well as the price… These are not only hottest tickets in town, but buying one almost guarantees jealousy from others who did not acquire theirs in time. That is, if you choose to keep the ticket. There are already some users online selling them for several times their original price. Morons.

I bought two tickets for my screening at the AMC Lincoln Square 13. Each ticket cost me $30.49. It would have cost me more if my AMC Stubs memberships did not cover my convenience fees. Sadly, this film is excluded from my A-List reservations, but in actuality, I do not mind it that much. If anything, it saves me the trouble from having one less slot I can use for the next 8 months. For the record, the price is not that much different from what I would pay now for an IMAX movie at the same location. Not to give AMC any ideas, but I am a tad surprised the cost is not higher.

The reason why I say that is because not only is Lincoln Square home to one of the biggest IMAX screens in the country, but due to it being in New York City, I would expect the price to be more than some of the other markets selling tickets early. Yet to my surprise, there are a few less populated areas that are selling the same experience, but charging more money for it.

I was going through X, and found a couple of people posting about the prices some of these theaters were charging…

Including one in Nashville, Tennessee…

As well as another located about 35 miles away from Atlanta, Georgia…

I should also note, both of these are Regal locations. I am noticing a trend here…

In fact, since the theaters have added more showtimes, it has only given me a smidge more material to work with for this post. I checked a 10:45 p.m. showtime for the Regal in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania. This theater probably would have been my backup if I could not get into Lincoln Square as the distance is somewhat drivable from home, and the fact that I have always wanted to check out the King of Prussia Mall. Though I likely saved myself a hassle, as tickets are $50 a pop.

Meanwhile, a Cinemark that is somewhat drivable from home, located in Rochester, NY, is also listing early showtimes. Having checked an 11 p.m. show on opening Thursday, they do not seem to be showcasing the same level of greed as Regal, considering how tickets are half the price at $25.

The pricing for this event does appear to be a bit out of control, especially when you consider that a ticket for an evening IMAX show set around the same timeframe for both Nashville and the Mall of Georgia is typically around $30 for adults. If I were to go see “The Super Mario Galaxy Movie” this week during the evening, that is how much I would pay just for a single ticket prior to fees. As much as I do not mind the trend of premium screenings selling tickets early, I do think there is a limit on how high one of these screenings should be priced. $40 for a movie ticket in 2026 feels like overkill. $50 is just outrageous.

I have paid 50 bucks for a movie ticket before, but I felt that price was somewhat justified as the director of said movie showed up to introduce the screening and stay after to do a Q&A. By the way, the screening was for the 25th anniversary of “Dogma,” and getting to see Kevin Smith before and after was a complete blast. This was a standard 2D screening, but it had a unique luxury on top of it.

I have a feeling that should we continue to do events like these, theaters could end up taking advantage of their customers and make them spend more money than perhaps one realistically should on something as simple as a movie. And that is important to note. I have no problem spending a good chunk of money to see a comedy show or a baseball game, because you are witnessing the event live. Movies are on a screen, therefore you are not watching real people. It does not make as much sense to charge $10 more than what a typical ticket would cost around an identical timeframe in the same auditorium, even if the detail on the screen is going to be incredibly lifelike.

Interesting enough, if I were to see “The Super Mario Galaxy Movie” this week during the evening at Lincoln Square’s IMAX, where fate decided I should have a “Dune: Part Three” ticket waiting for me, I would be paying $30.49 for the adult tier. That is the same price as a single ticket for “Dune: Part Three.” It gives me the sense that Regal is jacking up the price on purpose… Again, going back to the eventification of moviegoing, this shows that even if a movie theater charges a higher price, someone will pay it just to be in the building. In fact, my backup option if Lincoln Square sold out was to buy a ticket at the Regal in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania. But knowing myself as an IMAX fanboy, there is a good chance I would have paid whatever the ticket cost just to get my hands on it.

The $30.49 ticket price packs quite a bit into it. In addition to being part of one of the first audiences to experience “Dune: Part Three,” we are watching it in IMAX 70mm, one of clearest formats of all time. Any instance in which I can see something on one of the clearest formats of all time, I will most definitely take. There are very few theaters in the world with capable, working equipment to make this possible. The film is also shot on IMAX technology, including IMAX film. The screen is one of the largest in the country. There will be no trailers before the movie starts, which for AMC is almost unheard of. For my commitment, the theater is giving me a collectible filmstrip. The theater is giving a lot for 30 bucks. I would not pay that much for a movie each and every day, but I would for something like this.

Going back to what I said earlier about the “Dogma” screening and how cool it was to see Kevin Smith there, if we really want to eventize these screenings even further, here is an idea… Have the stars show up. Granted, these are 19 locations in different parts of the world, so it may not be possible for this to happen. But in theory, it would be cool to be welcomed to “Dune: Part Three” on opening weekend by Zendaya or Denis Villeneuve or Robert Pattinson. It is almost like a reward for buying tickets early.

Between “The Odyssey” and “Dune: Part Three,” movies are truly becoming much bigger events for yours truly then they have ever been. Granted, I have gone to press screenings and premieres in my area. I have been to screenings where celebrities show up. But these two movies have gotten me to consider crossing state lines just to watch them. I am flying to Florida in July. FLORIDA. IN JULY. Just to watch a movie. I think air conditioning is going to be my best friend when that time arrives. These are more than adventures to catch flicks. These are practically turning into vacations. Heck, since I am seeing “Dune: Part Three” a week before Christmas, I am already debating on what time would be best to visit Rockefeller Center to check out the big Christmas tree.

Could I watch these movies closer to home? Perhaps. In fact, I live 10 minutes away from the largest IMAX in New England, located at Jordan’s Furniture in Reading, Massachusetts, which is an amazing place to see a movie. …But it is not currently 70mm capable. If I waited months to buy tickets there, I would not be mad at myself. In fact, I would be excited. That theater is amazing and it would be fun to see something as hotly anticipated as “Dune: Part Three” there. But this screening is getting me more excited by the minute. It feels electric just knowing that I am going to be in a room with a group of people who are likely just as committed to seeing this film as me.

To add even further excitement… Unless Disney decides to change their mind, “Avengers: Doomsday,” which could end up making $2 billion at the box office, even without IMAX screens, releases the exact same day as “Dune: Part Three,” thus inspiring the term “Dunesday.” If both Warner Brothers and Disney are committed to this event, it is possible that we could witness the biggest moviegoing weekend in history. Now that I have my ticket for “Dune: Part Three” it makes me wonder when exactly I should plan to buy a ticket for “Avengers: Doomsday.” Should I do a screening the same day hours before? Should I do it the day before? It would let me easily avoid spoilers. Should I watch that film closer to home? I still have not figured out how I am getting to New York, so we shall see what happens. Part of me thinks deep down that “Dunesday” could end up hurting both “Dune” and “Avengers.” But after seeing the response “Dune: Part Three” is getting months before release with these ticket sales and the first trailer, I think this less diverse edition of “Barbenheimer” could pay off for both parties.

“Dune” and “Dune: Part Two” are movies that have given me some fond memories upon watching them, so it is no surprise that I am looking forward to “Dune: Part Three,” no matter how I see it. That said, I am thrilled to experience the film the way the director intended. Judging from what has been shown so far and the track record of the previous installments, I would not be surprised if this ends up being a Best Picture nominee at the next Academy Awards. Until then, if anybody else already has their “Dune: Part Three” tickets, congratulations! Maybe I will see you at Lincoln Square. Much like Paul Atreides’ promise at the end of “Dune: Part Two,” I am sure that IMAX and Warner Brothers are going to lead me to paradise this December. I cannot wait.

Thanks for reading this post! As a reminder, be sure to check out my latest episode of Movie Requests! This is a brand new series where I take movie suggestions from celebrities and talk about them. The latest episode features “Clerks” actor Jason Mewes. Check it out, give it a like, and if you want to see more videos in the series, consider subscribing to my YouTube channel!

My next review is coming later this week, and it is going to be for “Ready or Not 2: Here I Come.” I love the first “Ready or Not” to death, so it should not be a surprise that I eagerly awaited the sequel. I will share my thoughts on it soon. If you want to see more from Scene Before, follow the blog either with an email or WordPress account! Also, check out the official Facebook page! I want to know, did you get tickets for “Dune: Part Three?” Where and when are you seeing it? And how much did you have to pay? Also, if you are a scalper, please find something better to do with your time. Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

The Bride! (2026): Buckley and Bale Do Their Best with This Unexciting Cinematic Enigma

Posted on by Jack Drees

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

“The Bride!” is written and directed by Maggie Gyllenhaal (The Dark Knight, White House Down) and stars Jessie Buckley (Hamnet, Women Talking), Christian Bale (Batman Begins, Thor: Love and Thunder), Peter Saarsgard (Shattered Glass, The Batman), Annette Bening (American Beauty, Nyad), Jake Gyllenhaal (Stronger, Spider-Man: Far from Home), and Penélope Cruz (Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides). This film is set in 1930s Chicago, at which point Frankenstein’s monster, or Frank, asks Dr. Euphronius to create a companion. Once the companion is brought to life, the film follows both creatures as they go on a wild journey together in which they become romantically involved.

“The Bride!” was on my radar ever since I saw the trailer back in October in the best possible way… On a giant IMAX screen. Any movie that is shot in the coveted 1.43:1 format, even if it is digital, has my attention. Of course, having looked at the many shots the trailer had to offer, the film definitely would dazzle in scope widescreen if I were to see it that way too. The film had a dirty, rugged, sometimes sexy feel to it that felt unlike anything I would not recall witnessing before. Sure, in terms of vibe, this film did remind me a bit of “Joker” and its severely insulting sequel, especially considering some of the crew members on those films also work on this one. Some of the names attached to this film include cinematographer Lawrence Sher and composer Hildur Guðnadóttir. But “The Bride!” appeared to have its slight differences from “Joker.” “The Bride!” seemed to lean more towards the horror route rather than a pure drama route, though “Joker” did manage to insert an eerie moment or two.

Speaking of the “Joker” movies, if you are aware of how I scored them, you would know I did so on opposite sides of the spectrum. The first was pretty positive, while the second was highly negative. “The Bride!” falls somewhere between these two projects. Frankly, this movie is kind of a hot mess. If I had to compare “The Bride!” to any other film experience in my life, the “Joker” movies are an easy target because they do have similar tones and concepts. The movie takes familiar characters and puts an odd spin on them. As much as I do not mind odd movies, this experience felt too odd at times. It was odd to the point where I did not really feel any emotion in certain scenes. Overall, Maggie Gyllenhaal puts something together that is pleasing to the eye, but at times, it strikes a vibe that feels like “Dollar Tree Tim Burton.” That is almost unfair to say because this movie was by no means cheap. Variety reports the budget is a hefty $90 million. While the film looks nice, it does not really feel nice. It reminded me of “Jupiter Ascending,” which is one of the most beautiful looking pieces of crap that someone has the audacity to call a film. One moment after another, the movie sounded like it was trying to welcome me into its environment, but as a viewer, I was consistently hesitating on the film’s invitations.

The film is not all bad. It has a decent cast, and its two leads do a fantastic job despite the average at best material given to them.

Jessie Buckley is on a roll lately. Right alongside Timothee Chalemet in “Marty Supreme,” I think she gave the best performance captured on film in 2025 through her lead outing in “Hamnet.” While her lead role in “The Bride” is not as compelling, Buckley nevertheless manages to bring a performance that makes me think I am getting a five-star meal despite slumming it in the middle of a Buffalo Wild Wings. Buckley is diabolical as the titular character. I almost cannot imagine anyone else in her shoes.

Alongside her is Christian Bale as Frankenstein’s monster. Technically his character is credited as Frankenstein, even though he is not the scientist… Anyway… The timing of this film is interesting, as it was made around the same time as Guillermo del Toro’s “Frankenstein,” which I thought was pretty good. Much like Jacob Elordi, who played the Creature in that movie, Bale is excellent here. Is he as strong as Elordi? Perhaps not. But I also feel that part of it is more the fault of the material given to Bale rather than his performance. Much like Buckley, Bale makes the most of what is given to him. This is not to say everything about his presence is bad. In fact, I really liked getting to see the two leads when they’re close as a couple. It brought out both of their wild sides and showed they have chemistry. That said, Bale’s performance did feel rather familiar. It almost reminded me of his portrayal of Gorr the God Butcher from “Thor: Love and Thunder.” It is a character who is mildly scary, odd-looking, but complicated beneath their wretched surface.

Technically speaking, this film is rather impressive. The cinematography is beautiful. The makeup work is stunning. The production design is off the charts. I bought into every location and set. When it comes to immersion, “The Bride!” really tries. Though I cannot say it always succeeds.

The color palette feels weirdly mute. Note my use of the word “weirdly.” I was convinced by the marketing that this film was going to be big and exciting. While it was definitely the former, I cannot say the same for the latter. The film looked oddly dry for something that simultaneously was trying to deliver something of utter extravagance. It is an enigma.

I am sure many people are familiar with the phrase “do not judge a book by its cover.” Bear with me as I go against this philosophy for a moment. If you look closely at the title for “The Bride!”, you would notice that it has an exclamation mark. “The Bride!” is not the first project to contain such a thing. You would notice this if you ever get a good look at the game show “Jeopardy!”, or the animated series “American Dad!”, or the movie “Airplane!”. In terms of punctuation, an exclamation mark is meant to signify an extreme. “Jeopardy!” is extremely fast-paced. “American Dad!” is extremely action-packed. “Airplane!” is extremely funny. Meanwhile, I find it difficult to come up with an extreme for “The Bride,” that is unless I were to resort to negatives. I could say the movie is extremely bland. I could say it is extremely wasted. On paper, “The Bride!” sounds like a project that should be a big ball of energy. But at times I am watching it and find myself surprised that I barely happen to be awake.

Chances are I am not going to remember much about “The Bride” by the end of the year. Part of it is because other than the visuals and the unique way of telling the story, there was nothing to write home about. Sure, the two leads are great, but never once did I feel captivated by anything the story had to offer. If I were presented the story in a pitch meeting, I think it would sell. If I saw the full picture, like what we got in this film, that is a different scenario. If anything, “The Bride!” does feel like a film that comes from a singular mind. I would have never have been able to come up with the vision that Maggie Gyllenhaal had intended. While I have one or two gripes about Warner Bros. Discovery since their merger three years ago, I will credit them for hiring filmmakers with unique visions, with Gyllenhaal being the latest example. I would love to see what other projects she has in mind, and sincerely hope they are better than what this one had to offer.

In the end, “The Bride!” is by no means the worst movie ever. In fact, part of me is glad I saw it because it has some great acting and setpieces. But from one moment to the next, I thought there was something missing. There was barely a sense of a wow factor. It is really sad I did not like this more. I was genuinely looking forward to “The Bride!”. I do not think Gyllenhaal should give up on her work behind the camera. I can see her knocking another project out of the park, but she struck out on this one. I am going to give “The Bride!” a 4/10.

“The Bride!” is now playing in theaters. Tickets are available now.

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

Also, feel free to check out the new promo for the second episode of Movie Requests! The next guest on my list is actor Jason Mewes, who requested a movie he has watched in the past with his collaborator Kevin Smith. Make your guesses! The movie will be revealed this Saturday, March 28th! If you want to see me review whatever movie Jason Mewes asked me to talk about, subscribe to my YouTube channel and hit the notification bell that way you know exactly when the video drops! If you want to see more from Scene Before, follow the blog either with an email or WordPress account! Also, check out the official Facebook page! I want to know, did you see “The Bride!”? What did you think about it? Or, what is the most disappointing movie you have seen recently? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

All You Need Is Kill (2025): Groundhog Day – Anime Style!

Posted on by Jack Drees

“All You Need is Kill” is directed by Ken’ichirô Akimoto and co-directed by Yukinori Nakamura, making this their first official directing credits. This film stars Natsuki Nanae (Demon Slayer: Kimetsu no Yaiba – The Movie: Mugen Train, Goodbye, Don Glees!), Ai Makami (Kokuho, Chastity High), Mô Chûgakusei, and Kana Hanazawa (Suzume, The Night is Short, Walk on Girl). This film is based on a light novel of the same name, which also inspired the 2014 live-action film “Edge of Tomorrow.” The film follows a young woman who has relive the same day over and over while dealing with an alien invasion. She crosses paths with a young man, and together, they fight to break the cycle.

I saw the trailer for “All You Need Is Kill” last month and was genuinely shocked I had not heard this movie was going to be coming out. Granted, I should not be too shocked, given how I have not read the light novel or the manga series. That said, I did recall the name “All You Need Is Kill” as soon as it popped up, and that is because I am a fan of “Edge of Tomorrow.” For those who do not know, “Edge of Tomorrow” is a film starring Tom Cruise as an American public relations officer who is forced into battle against aliens by his superiors. He quickly comes to realize that each time he dies, he reverts back to a specific point in his life that he has to relive over and over.

When I first saw “Edge of Tomorrow,” I thought of it as “Groundhog Day” with a sci-fi twist. While that is technically accurate, the film was actually inspired by “All You Need Is Kill,” which was written by a Japanese author and made with a Japanese mindset, so “Edge of Tomorrow” is in a sense, the Americanized version of “All You Need is Kill.”

…Although, now that I think about it… “Groundhog Day” did release before all of these… So, there is that.

As a fan of “Edge of Tomorrow,” I was looking forward to seeing what could be done with a movie that would likely end up feeling closer to the source material that inspired it. Now that I have seen “All You Need is Kill,” I have to say the film is quite solid. It is definitely worth watching if you are looking for a dazzling spectacle in addition to an admirable character piece.

While the characters in “All You Need Is Kill” are identical to those in the light novel, one difference that should be noted is that the roles in the story’s center are reversed. Instead of centering around Keiji, who this time around serves as a supporting character, the film’s protagonist is Rita. I have no problems with this change, mainly because I found both characters to be well written and each one seems to the serve the other in a way that benefits the story overall.

Both of these main characters have excellent chemistry and are not only fun to watch as a team, but it is nice to see how each character allows the other to realize what they are missing. One thing I noticed throughout the movie is Rita’s tendency to become overly emotional and cry on certain occasions. I have no idea how such a thing would play out for certain viewers, but I thought it was a great way to balance Rita out from Keiji, who tends to be a bit more reserved with his presence. By the end of the movie, this allows for some really good dialogue between the two.

I also really like seeing Rita learn how exactly her time loop works. Throughout the movie, we see Rita wake up in the same time and place, and do almost the exact same things each time, but she learns something during each go. She remembers what other characters say, whether they are directed specifically towards her or simply uttered in the background. Each time she dies, she tries a different move to avoid perishing, only to realize that she sometimes ends up doing so moments later in another way.

While the film is not a comedy, the constant cycle of death does allow for a funny moment or two. Every time Rita dies, she is reverted back to her bedroom where she is woken up by the sound of her alarm clock. When this happens, another character in the background yells from the other room, telling Rita her alarm is sounding off. At one point, Rita becomes so familiar with the same old song and dance that she tells the other character to shut up before they could finish reminding her about the alarm. Moments like that, and a couple others, did get a chuckle out of me.

The other standout to me in this film is the animation, which is almost ironic the more I think about it. Because this is a film where characters die on repeat, and yet, it is absolutely gorgeous and picturesque. The alien creatures in this film are presented in a vibrant color palette. They are incredibly easy on the eyes, almost to the point where it works in their favor. If I were in battle against them, I would be so distracted by their glitz to the point where I would die instantly. If you ever watch certain movies, you would notice that the villains would present themselves in a darker costume or a more “negative” color. Look at the “Star Wars” villains over the years like Darth Vader or Kylo Ren. This is not the case with “All You Need Is Kill.” While the aliens may look pretty, there is more to them than meets the eye.

This film is not even an hour and a half. Yet by no means is it rushed. I think the runtime is almost perfect given the story that has been told. I have no complaints about the pacing at all. In fact, it might be one of the best things about this film. It is, no pun intended, all killer, no filler. We come to realize the main character dies hundreds of times. The film does not show each death, but it makes time for ones that are arguably more important to the story and allow the final product to have a more compelling impact. The film gets to the point with each and every scene. Not every scene is presented in a TikTok-pace, but there are no moments that overly draw themselves out. This movie hits the Goldilocks zone in terms of engagement.

In the end, “All You Need Is Kill” is a fun movie. Rita and Keiji are an admirable duo and their journey throughout the film makes for quite the story. The animation is well done and emits a weird sense of peace in what is ultimately a dark world. The musical score in this film is also really good. I have no idea if I will listen to it down the line, but I dug it while watching the movie. Also, the soundwork is amazing. Every time the aliens make noise, it is not only easy on the ears, but also rather ominous. Technically, the film is a beast. I am going to give “All You Need Is Kill” a 7/10.

Again, I did not read the light novel, nor have I read the manga. The best comparison I have to this film is “Edge of Tomorrow.” In preparation for “All You Need Is Kill,” I rewatched “Edge of Tomorrow,” and I think both stories are equally engaging. The styles, while different, each serve their movie’s vibe perfectly. I think “Edge of Tomorrow” is an immersive ride that puts you in the middle of a futuristic war. Its darker color palette tends to serve its tone well. I also like William Cage as a character. That said, I also think “All You Need Is Kill” stands out for its more unique technical presentation and I find it to be the superior character piece. I am not saying one film trumps the other. If anything, both are great for their own reasons. I think certain things stand out in one film more than the other, but if it were a Friday night and I were to pick between either movie to watch, it would be like going to Ben & Jerry’s for ice cream and having to choose between Ameri’Cone Dream or chocolate chip cookie dough. Both choices, in the end, are winners, for their own reasons.

“All You Need Is Kill” is now playing in theaters everywhere. Tickets are available now.

Thanks for reading this review! My next reviews are going to be for “Song Sung Blue,” “Mercy,” and “Send Help.” Stay tuned!

Also, if you missed it, be sure to check out the teaser trailer for Celebrity Movie Requests, the all new series where I review movies requested by your favorite stars, coming to Scene Before, and my YouTube channel! And while you are here, please watch the trailer, give it a like, and subscribe to my YouTube channel, hit the notification bell, that way you are up to date on the latest info Celebrity Movie Requests has to offer! If you want to see all of this 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 “All You Need Is Kill?” What did you think about it? Have you read any of the prior source material? Is it good? And lastly, if you have seen “Edge of Tomorrow,” tell me your thoughts on that movie! Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

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!