Fackham Hall (2025): Fackin’ Average

Posted on by Jack Drees

© 2025 – Bleecker Street

“Fackham Hall” is directed by Jim O’Hanlon (Coronation Street, Your Christmas or Mine?) and stars Thomasin McKenzie (Last Night in Soho, Joy), Ben Radcliffe (Pandora, Anatomy of a Scandal), Katherine Waterston (Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them, Afraid), Emma Laird (The Brutalist, A Haunting in Venice), Tom Goodman-Hill (Baby Reindeer, Humans), Anna Maxwell Martin (Bleak House, Motherland), Sue Johnston (Downton Abbey, Coronation Street), Tom Felton (Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone, The Flash), and Damian Lewis (Billions, Homeland). This film showcases the shenanigans and problems that ensue as a porter forms a bond with the daughter of a prominent family, just as said family is coming together for an extravagant wedding.

If I had to give a rundown of my most anticipated films of the year back in January, chances are “Fackham Hall” would not have made the list, partially because I had no idea it was coming out. In fact, I was first made aware of the film while watching trailers before the underwhelming horror flick “Bone Lake.” This film, like that one, is distributed by Bleecker Street, so it makes sense that the red band trailer, which played exclusively in theaters at the time, would be the last thing I’d see before the feature presentation. But if I were to go back in time and tell my younger self that “Fackham Hall” would be coming out in December, then maybe I would have considered putting it on the list. This is partially because I would tell my younger self that the trailer gave me the biggest belly laughs I have had watching a piece of marketing in years. I do not recall the last time I watched a trailer and nearly lost self-control from cackling as audibly as I did.

Unfortunately, “Fackham Hall” was not as good as I was expecting it to be. Do not get me wrong. It was not an automatic guarantee that this film was not going to work for me. This film is being marketed as “Downton Abbey” meets “Airplane.” As much as I enjoyed “Airplane,” “Downtown Abbey” never struck me as my kind of show. This is why you never saw me review any of the “Downton Abbey” movies. I never watched the show, so it would not make a lot of sense for me to watch the movies. Though I went into this film with an open mind because it came off as something that one could appreciate without necessarily needing to watch “Downton Abbey.” One can argue such a thing to be true.

Among the reasons why I was looking forward to this film, one of them is the the fact that comedian Jimmy Carr is attached to the project. If you know me, you would be aware that Jimmy Carr is one of my all time favorite comedians. I watch his specials on YouTube on a regular basis. I have seen him a few times when he’s performed in New England. I also like him as a game show host. In fact, he is one of the film’s five writers, making this his first screenplay. Carr also has a small role in the film as a vicar. He is only on screen for one to two minutes, but he plays his part to the best of his ability. This is not to say he did a bad job, but he played a character who basically has one running joke, specifically that he says things that sound taboo or wrong, only for him to pause and finish the rest of what he has to say. On paper, the joke is funny. But I have seen the trailer for this film and as someone who was looking forward to seeing Jimmy Carr on screen, I wish he had some variety in his material.

In fact, remember how I said the trailer was one of the funniest I have ever seen? It does not mean the movie is. I think part of that has to do with seeing the trailer in the first place. One of my biggest fears going into any comedy film is the possibility that they show all the best bits in the marketing, and based on what I have seen through “Fackham Hall’s” marketing in particular, I cannot name one joke in that stood out to me that was not in the trailer. Also, multiple jokes likely lost their intended effect since I already got to see them in advance. Other than that, there are a lot of jokes that feel too over the top, and that is saying something for a film called “Fackham Hall.” The film is filled with a lot of toilet and taboo humor. It often came off as if it were being written by a young child who just learned what the word “boobies” means.

Overall, the film has a lot of jokes. Therefore, those jokes trigger a lot of reactions. For a film that ultimately left me underwhelmed, I had a surprising amount of laughs. That said, I cannot really name a favorite joke. Also, with this movie having a lot of jokes, it also indicates that a good chunk of them fell flat. There are a few references to The Beatles and the works of J.R.R. Tolkien. While the jokes sound clever on the page, they feel less clever on the screen. I could see myself writing these gags down and amusing myself as I read them, but their delivery in the film did not do it for me. Lots of comedies have jokes that are better than others. Although in the case of “Fackham Hall,” the balance between good jokes and bad jokes is not exactly satisfying.

Also, once again, “Fackham Hall” is written by four people. I wish I could have been a fly on the wall to see the process of the screenplay being put together. I want to know who came up with the best jokes of the film, who came up with the weakest, and how everyone decided to tie the story together. The film comes very close to having an identity crisis. While the film is often smooth sailing, it introduces a mystery plot that makes sense within the context of the film, but it simultaneously feels tacked on.

For all I know, this movie could age well and find an audience over time. If anything, I blame myself for perhaps getting so overly invested in the film prior to its release. This film left such a lasting impression on me before it came out that it only increased the chances that I would be disappointed.

Do not get me wrong. My feelings about the film do not change my opinions about the people involved. Thomasin McKenzie is a great actress and it is nice to see her find work. I am proud of Jimmy Carr for expanding his horizons and doing something outside of standup and game shows. One of the film’s writers happens to be Jimmy’s brother, Patrick Carr. It is lovely to see family working together. Overall, the cast of the film, even the most minor of characters, all do a fantastic job with their roles. I just wish all this talent resulted in something more entertaining.

In the end, “Fackham Hall” is one of the most of the disappointing films of the year for me. Maybe I set my expectations too high, which could be part of the problem. But that initial trailer, to me, promised so much potential for laughter that my hype levels reached the sun. There were definitely laughs in “Fackham Hall,” just not to my desired degree. Once again, this film has five writers. I wonder if that played a part in this film’s pace, because by the time we get to the murder mystery portion of the film, it felt rather out of the blue. Not necessarily in a satisfying and twisty way, but instead it made me go, “Okay, so this is happening…” I would not avoid this movie like the plague, but I still would not recommend it. I am going to give “Fackham Hall” a 5/10.

“Fackham Hall” is now playing in theaters. Tickets are available now.

Thanks for reading this review! My next review is going to be for “Scarlet!” Stay tuned! Also coming soon, look forward to my thoughts on “The Secret Agent,” “Hamnet,” and “Avatar: Fire and Ash.” 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 “Fackham Hall?” What did you think about it? Or, what are your thoughts on “Downton Abbey?” Is it a good show? Are the movies worth watching? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

No Other Choice (2025): My First Park Chan-wook Film

Posted on by Jack Drees

“No Other Choice” is directed by Park Chan-wook (Oldboy, Decision to Leave) and stars Lee Byung-hun (Joint Security Area, A Bittersweet Life), Son Ye-jin (A Moment to Remember, April Snow), Park Hee-soon (My Name, Seven Days), Lee Sung-min (Golden Time, The Spy Gone North), Yeom Hye-rann (The Glory, The Uncanny Counter), and Cha Seung-won (Uprising, Believer). This film is based on a novel called “The Ax” and is about a man who quite literally decides to eliminate his competition in order to secure a job.

Courtesy of Neon – © Neon

My experience with Korean cinema is very limited. In fact, to this day, I have never once reviewed a Park Chan-wook film on Scene Before. I have not even seen one of his films. Of course, I have heard of some of his work, but I have never had the chance to watch any of it. However, when I watched “Shelby Oaks” at AMC in October, one of the last trailers that played was for “No Other Choice,” which immediately caught my attention. This trailer boasted its positive reviews in addition to its 100% Rotten Tomatoes score. As of this publication, the score stands at 99%, but this is still mighty impressive. The trailer also made sure to emphasize that the film was from Park Chan-wook, whose last feature, “Decision to Leave,” was nominated for two BAFTAs. Not to mention, his feature prior to that one, “The Handmaiden” actually won him a BAFTA for “Best Film Not in the English Language.” While Chan-wook may not have as much recognition in the States as Bong Joon Ho, I would not be surprised if “No Other Choice” brings him some extra publicity that could make him somewhat of a household name. After all, I got to the see the film a little more than a week ago, and I have to say I found it to be quite good.

I have no idea how this film is going to do with general audiences, particularly those in the United States, but I really hope it succeeds. That sounds like a moot statement. In actuality, I want just about every film that exists to succeed. But I really hope “No Other Choice” in particular does, because the film has themes and ideas I think a lot of people living in the United States, as well as other parts of the world, can relate to.

The film starts off by introducing its lead character, Yoo Man-su, who basically has it all. A good life, a happy family, a couple dogs, a nice house, a good job, even some awards recognition. However, there comes a point where his collective success begins tumbling like a flimsy Jenga tower. He loses his job, keeps applying for other ones in his field but he cannot find success, so he ends up working in retail. With the pay not high enough, Man-su’s wife, Lee Mi-ri, gets to a point where she takes up some part-time work. The family starts sacrificing some of their hobbies and possessions. For Man-su, his extended struggle gets to a point where he feels he has, no pun intended, no other choice, but to kill off his competitors.

Seeing this plot play out is quite entertaining and results in some unpredictable moments. The screenplay weaves a lot of threads. Some some of those threads are more engaging than others. Admittedly, I felt the 2 hour and 19 minute runtime. If anything, that is probably the film’s biggest flaw. It is sometimes, not all the time, but sometimes, tediously paced. Yet it fails to change the fact that I was often intrigued by not just how much was going on, but the execution of all of it.

While “No Other Choice” will probably not end up amongst my top movies of the year, I do have to admit that it is absolutely one of the most technically beautiful movies I have seen in 2025. There are a lot of little quirks the film delivers that almost do not matter at all, but they nevertheless make the final product all the better. For example, there is a scene where we see one character holding a lighter, and there is a cartoony fire effect that comes up as said character flicks it. This is almost like something out of a graphic novel. The color grading in this film is extravagant. I got to see this film in IMAX laser, so I had a pretty bright projector in the auditorium, but I am sure even if it was not that bright, the film would still look incredibly poppy. The film is sometimes dark, but it takes a satirical route. It has a Tarantino vibe at times, so the color palette fits. Speaking of colors, sometimes the sun acts like a secondary character. There are a couple shots where the sun’s dropping or rising and it comes off as an Instagram influencer’s dream. The camerawork is also pretty solid. The film has maybe the sickest zooms I have seen since “Scott Pilgrim vs. the World.” I dropped my jaw at some of these movements. The film is often grounded, but there are occasional moments where the vibe can feel animated, and yet those two moods mesh together perfectly to make something fulfilling.

Another standout in the technical department is the soundwork. I saw this film with a large crowd, about a five to ten minute drive outside of Boston. My screening was almost sold out. The film has plenty of laughs, including some moments that, again, arguably do not matter much, but the fact that they are there makes the project better. There is a moment in the film where Lee Mi-ri is going over the changes that the family has to make in order to save money. One idea she had was to cancel Netflix. Of course, one of the children excuses themselves from the dinner table with an electronic device and says they’re going to get one final stream in. Next thing we hear is Netflix’s well-known “Tudum” sound effect that plays either before one of their programs or when you log in. It got a much bigger laugh from the audience than it should have, but it was timed and mixed so perfectly that it was almost impossible not to laugh.

The other sound effect that could have gone sideways was a specific door chime. You know how when you walk into a store, you hear a chime when the door opens? There is one scene set at a shop where a chime almost plays on a loop. The more it played, the funnier it became. At least to me. The chime itself was rather funny-sounding to begin with, but the fact that it kept playing only added to the comedy. “No Other Choice” has a lot of little things to appreciate in what is ultimately an ambitious ride. It has laughs. It has drama. It has entertainment. It has everything one could want to make a solid flick and more.

Courtesy of Neon – © Neon

In the end, I have no other choice but to recommend this film. I would not be surprised if “No Other Choice” ends up speaking to a lot of people. These include people who lost their jobs, perhaps those close to someone they know who lost a job, or people simply trying to get by. The cost of living, depending on where you reside, is getting out of control, and that is if it has not done so already. This is my first Park Chan-wook movie, and I would not mind seeing more. At some point, I would like to check out some of his older projects, or if he has something new up his sleeve, that could be cool to see too. I am going to give “No Other Choice” a 7/10.

“No Other Choice” arrives in select theaters this Christmas and will have a wide release in January 2026.

Thanks for reading this review! My next review is going to be for “Fackham Hall!” Stay tuned! Also coming soon, I will be sharing my thoughts on “Scarlet,” “The Secret Agent,” “Hamnet,” and “Avatar: Fire and Ash.” 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 “No Other Choice?” What did you think about it? Or, do you have a favorite Park Chan-wook movie? Let me know your suggestions down below as I would love to get into more of his work. Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

Bugonia (2025): Bu-Go See Something Else

Posted on by Jack Drees

Courtesy of Focus Features – © Focus Features

“Bugonia” is directed by Yorgos Lanthimos (Poor Things, Kinds of Kindness) and stars Emma Stone (The Favourite, The Amazing Spider-Man) Jesse Plemons (Civil War, Game Night), Aidan Delbis, Stavros Halkias (Let’s Start a Cult, Tires), and Alicia Silverstone (Clueless, Batman & Robin). This film is based on the 2003 South Korean feature “Save the Green Planet!”, and it is about two cousins who capture a pharmaceutical company CEO and keep her in their home. One of the cousins, Teddy, is convinced the captive is secretly an alien who is killing earth’s honeybees.

Yorgos Lanthimos… We meet again.

On Scene Before, I make an effort to talk about the things I love. Unfortunately, sometimes this blog feels like work, and Lanthimos is a reason for that. So far, Lanthimos is one for three through the films of his I have seen. In 2018, I watched “The Favourite,” which despite its stunning presentation and solid performances, I found to be incredibly boring. Then his next feature, “Poor Things” shocked me beyond belief. I not only genuinely liked the film, I found it to be one of the funnier watches of 2023. Then came his 2024 movie, “Kinds of Kindness,” which I found kind of forgettable, kind of overly disturbing, and ultimately, kind of a chore to get through. While there are other films I have not seen from the director, my experience with him showcases why I have avoided “Bugonia” for as long as I did. I know people who went to see it as soon as the film came out, but I waited a little more than a month. The marketing came off as quirky, and so did the concept. I do not mind a quirkfest, as long as it is good. Sadly, “Bugonia” not only fails to be good, it nearly left me with a headache.

As I write this, I recognize that my review is going to come off as something in the neighborhood of a CBR opinion piece that challenges people to reconsider one of their all time favorite films. But I am nothing if not honest. And as much as it pains me to tell the truth, “Bugonia” may be my least favorite film I have seen from Yorgos Lanthimos so far. And if it were not for select redeeming qualities that I had time to think about post-viewing, I would have been so close to calling “Bugonia” the worst picture of the year.

Look… “The Favourite” was a bore. “Poor Things” surprisingly scored. “Kinds of Kindness” is a chore. But “Bugonia…” broke me to the core! This movie is deplorable! Is the movie made by people who are clearly trying hard? Trying their best? You can say that. The film is by no means incompetent. In fact, like one of this year’s most prominent talking points amongst cinephiles, “One Battle After Another,” it is shot in VistaVision. Therefore, the color palette sometimes feels fairly diverse. Although unlike “One Battle After Another,” never once does the movie feel as grand. Maybe that is unfair of me to say since I saw “One Battle After Another” in IMAX 70mm whereas I saw “Bugonia” on AMC’s laser system. Although for a movie that uses a high quality format, it feels surprisingly intimate. While there are several shots that feel like they come from the same crew that did “Poor Things,” I think the on screen results are a bit more picturesque and satisfying in “Poor Things.”

On top of the VistaVision, another Lanthimosianism makes a return, particularly Emma Stone. This is their fourth film in a row together, and I can see why. The two clearly work well as a team, and the results sometimes show on screen. I would even go as far as to say that Emma Stone’s lead performance in “Poor Things” may be the best display of acting I have seen so far this decade. Not surprisingly, Stone plays her part well. A lot of it has to do with her given dialogue and the specific direction Lanthimos gives her. A large chunk of the movie is set amongst three people, Stone’s character included. Although the characterization is something I find to be one of the film’s weak points.

Much of the movie involves the two male leads, Teddy Gatz (Plemons) and his autistic cousin Don (Delbis), as they keep Michelle Fuller (Stone) captive inside their home. Teddy appears to be heavily invested in conspiracy theories to the point where it is nearly impossible for him to escape his echo chamber. Don appears to be somewhat easily influenced by Teddy, even when he questions some of the choices he makes. While both pairs have their distinctions, the relationship between Teddy and Don kind of reminded me of George and Lennie from “Of Mice and Men.” Only in the case of George and Lennie, I found that pair through their respective story, whether it was told on the page or the screen, to be more likable and compelling, whereas I found “Bugonia’s” main pair to peeve me on a regular basis. Granted, as I say that, I more than likely reserve most of my despise towards Teddy, who is practically the captain of their respective duo. Don often seems to follow Teddy’s lead. Given their characteristics and quirks, it makes sense. I buy into their mannerisms, I just wish both characters were executed better. Teddy is not that compelling of a lead to me. In fact, at times, I think he is kind of a psychopath. Perhaps that is the point of such a character and maybe that is what Lanthimos is going for, but this movie genuinely made me uncomfortable. Everyone is the hero of their own story, but if that hero is downright insufferable, then their story is probably not worth my time. If I were not reviewing this movie, and I were strictly watching this for entertainment, I would probably have walked out of the theater because some of the things Teddy does on screen deeply turned me off.

With the VistaVision filmmaking, distinct colors, and prominent use of actress Emma Stone, this film is about as Lanthimosian as it gets. As for that last part, I will not deny that Stone gives a good performance. There is a sense of mystery to her character, particularly as to whether or not she is an alien. Without spoiling too much, I thought Stone’s specific tendencies matched that mysteriousness. This is not the best performance of her career, but I thought she handled the role well, and props to her for shaving her head.

“Bugonia” is not short on commentary. In addition to perhaps having something to say on humanity’s place on earth, this film is essentially a satire on echo chambers, conspiracy theories, and extremes. As a result, it also satirizes those who follow such things. But just because the film supposedly spends a couple of hours mocking its subject matter, does not make the end result comedic, entertaining, or satisfying. The lead character is either so deep in his echo chamber to the point where it is difficult for me to root for, care about, relate to, or even sit back and admire him. I like complicated characters, but there is a flavor to Teddy that feels too rotten for yours truly. He reminds me of Ernest Buckheart from “Killers of the Flower Moon,” there are very few, if any, qualities that appealed to me about this character. Both characters, deep down, come off as jerks. Sure, there are people these characters care about, but if I ran into both characters at the mall I would immediately speedwalk past them as I try to get as far away from them as I can.

I think I have come to the conclusion that Lanthimos and I have completely different personalities and artistic preferences. I often say on this blog and in life that art is subjective. Not everyone is going to think the same way, therefore not everyone is going to like the same things. But I did not think I could become less excited for whatever else Yorgos Lanthimos has up his sleeve. Sometimes being wrong just plain sucks.

In the end, “Bugonia” broke me. I must reiterate, my opinion of this film is obscenely unusual. Chances are it might work for you. Heck, as of writing this, the movie has Best Picture nominations from the Critics Choice, Golden Globes, and to my complete and utter amazement, it is one of AFI’s top movies of the year. I highly question and nearly gag at all of these accolades but that is just how the cookie crumbles sometimes. As far as I am concerned, “Bugonia” is not one of the top movies of the year, but rather a movie released this year. Are there good things about it? With some time to marinate on the film, I can conclude that there are. The film has a nice color palette. While I do not think the commentary works 100% of the time, I do appreciate the film for getting me to think about humanity’s place on this planet. Even though I am not a fan of Lanthimos’ style, I do think he did a fine job with the direction, particularly with getting effective performances out of the actors, most especially Emma Stone. I will also give some credit for the casting of Aidan Delbis. The actor, who has autism in real life, plays a character in this film who is also on the spectrum. I will give some points for authenticity and it shows in his performance. This is also Delbis’ feature film debut, so I hope this leads to him finding more work. Maybe if I watch the film a second time with a different mindset, chances are I could appreciate it more. But this first viewing, which nearly left me with a headache, gave me the sense that I would probably would not have any desire to put on this film for a second viewing anytime soon. I am going to give “Bugonia” a 3/10.

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

Courtesy of Neon – © Neon

Thanks for reading this review! My next review is going to be for “No Other Choice!” Stay tuned! Also coming soon, I will be sharing my thoughts on “Scarlet,” “The Secret Agent,” “Hamnet,” and “Avatar: Fire and Ash.” 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 “Bugonia?” What did you think about it? Or, what is a film released this year that everyone seems to love except for you? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

Jay Kelly (2025): Movie Star George Clooney Terrifically Stars as a Movie Star

Posted on by Jack Drees

“Jay Kelly” is directed by Noah Baumbach (White Noise, Marriage Story) and stars George Clooney (Gravity, Ticket to Paradise) and Adam Sandler (Happy Gilmore, Billy Madison) in a film about an actor who reflects on his career, choices, relationships, and legacy.

Throughout the years, there have been cases where I would point out that an actor plays themselves in a movie. This could be in a literal sense like Kumail Nanjiani did in the hilarious and heartfelt “Big Sick,” or in a figurative sense like Dwayne Johnson playing some variation of a character he has portrayed before, or some version of their off-camera personality.

While the character of Jay Kelly is not based on George Clooney or any particular actor, it is interesting to see an actor of Clooney’s caliber take him on, and it results in one of the best performances of the year. A good chunk of the performance is enhanced by the screenplay, crafted by Noah Baumbach and Emily Mortimer. The former is already an acclaimed name through his work on 2019’s “Marriage Story,” and Emily Mortimer is known for her acting career, but this is her first feature writing credit, and may I say it is a fine one to have.

Courtesy of Netflix – © 2025 Netflix, Inc

It does not surprise me that Noah Baumbach would work on a film like this. Not just because it is great, which it is. But also because it appears to take slight threads from “Marriage Story.” If you go back and look at “Marriage Story” and some of the reasons why the main characters’ relationship falls apart, a lot of it has to do with their creative lifestyles. They were both artists, but happened to be after different goals. In “Jay Kelly,” we see the title character having a uniquely successful acting career, which ultimately puts a damper on the relationships between him and several people he knows. One of the movie’s most moving scenes happens between Kelly and one of his daughters. She reminds Kelly of one of his acting gigs as a loving father. She says she remembers watching that project in particular and did not understand how her actual father was not as caring and attentive as the character he played.

This scene furthers one of Kelly’s extended struggles. Kelly seems to find it easy and appealing to escape his own world and enter someone else’s. It is almost like Kelly has ADHD and constantly feels the need to daydream. Except in his case, he does not imagine himself in another world, he comes as close as he can to living it. In this sense, the movie seems to imply the importance of appreciating what you have. Kelly seems to love his job. So much to the point where it gets in the way of important people like those in his family.

“Jay Kelly” surprisingly sticks the landing, because this movie had the potential to make the main character look like a jerk. The screenplay instead does everything possible to make Kelly human. Kelly means well, but his flaws sometimes stick out like a sore thumb, either to the audience or to the rest of the cast. There are moments of unforgivable behavior, but the movie never once makes Kelly look like a complete psycho. Maybe it is because we spend much of the movie with Kelly’s manager, Ron Sukenick, played by Adam Sandler. While Sandler’s performance does not quite have the dramatic oomph of “Uncut Gems,” it is nice to see him continue to expand his range. Especially considering he just came off of “Happy Gilmore 2,” which I did not review, but if I had to say something quick about it, I thought it was, in a word, fine.

Sukenick plays a huge part in forwarding Kelly’s journey. Their relationship, and by extension, the movie, makes me think of Bob Sugar’s line from “Jerry Maguire,” specifically, “it’s not show friends, it’s show business.” I get the sense that these two people are close, but at times they feel more like partners than friends, if that makes any sense. That said, the two do seem to like each other and get along just fine.

Clooney and Sandler are not the only super-sized names in this film. Much like another recent Netflix feature, “Wake Up Dead Man,” the star power in this film is massive. For the most part, it is hard to pinpoint a bad performance in the film, but it is chock-full of talent including Laura Dern, Greta Gerwig, Isla Fisher, and Riley Keough just to name a few. Similar to how we see George Clooney playing an actor, the film’s director and cinematographer, Noah Baumbach and Linus Sandgren respectively, have cameo roles as, you guessed it, a director and cinematographer on one of Jay’s films.

I enjoyed getting to see Kelly’s work throughout various points of his career. One of these examples also happens to be the first scene of the movie, which does an incredible job recreating a backdrop of metro New York, particularly the area around the East River, Roosevelt Island, and Long Island City, complete with the Queensboro Bridge above it all. When I think of my favorite films this year in terms of production design, “Jay Kelly” would probably not be my first choice. But the way this set is laid out perfectly showcases the location itself, and when Kelly is on camera, it does a great job at maintaining an illusion. If I look hard enough at the backdrop, I can tell that I am not looking at the real New York, but the movie, as well as the movie within the movie, does a great job at making said backdrop feel as real as possible.

One of the film’s most memorable aspects is the relationship between Kelly and Timothy Galligan. The two start off as classmates in acting school. At one point, the two try out at the same audition, only for Kelly to steal his friend’s spotlight. It is at this point where everything changed for Kelly and his career essentially began. This is especially true when one particular storyline comes into play where Kelly is caught on camera doing something terrible to Timothy. If the footage of that moment is released, it could jeopardize his career. The way the film navigates this storyline is topsy turvy to say the least, but the way it closes out is surprisingly satisfying and carries some emotional weight for both Kelly and Galligan. “Jay Kelly” is some ways a comedy, some ways a drama, but those two genres mesh together to make something special. It is a fascinating character study and is likely to stand out in several regards this awards season.

In the end, “Jay Kelly” rules. I need time to marinate as to whether I like this more than “A House of Dynamite” but of the five Netflix films I have watched this year, “Happy Gilmore 2” included, “Jay Kelly” is easily my favorite. “Jay Kelly” showcases some of the finest displays of talent in any film released in 2025. Whether it is George Clooney in front of the camera or Noah Baumbach behind it. I am going to give “Jay Kelly” an 8/10.

“Jay Kelly” is now playing in select theaters and is also available on Netflix to all subscribers.

Thanks for reading this review! My next review is going to be for “Bugonia.” Stay tuned! Also coming soon, I will be sharing my thoughts on “No Other Choice,” “Fackham Hall,” “Scarlet,” “The Secret Agent,” “Hamnet,” and “Avatar: Fire and Ash.” 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 “Jay Kelly?” What did you think about it? Or, what is your favorite Netflix release this year? Heck, I’ll count TV. Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

Wake Up Dead Man: A Knives Out Mystery (2025): The Weakest Film of the Knives Out Trilogy

Posted on by Jack Drees

“Wake Up Dead Man: A Knives Out Mystery” is directed by Rian Johnson and this is the third film in his ongoing “Knives Out” franchise. This film stars Daniel Craig (Casino Royale, Logan Lucky), Josh O’Connor (Challengers, The Crown), Glenn Close (The Wife, Fatal Attraction), Josh Brolin (Avengers: Infinity War, Weapons), Mila Kunis (Family Guy, Jupiter Ascending), Jeremy Renner (The Avengers, The Hurt Locker), Kerry Washington (Scandal, Little Fires Everywhere), Andrew Scott (Sherlock, Ripley), Cailee Spaeny (Priscilla, Civil War), Daryl McCormack (Good Luck to You, Leo Grande, Bad Sisters), and Thomas Haden Church (Spider-Man 3, Wings). This film shows what happens as Benoit Blanc investigates the death of priest who passed during a Good Friday service.

“Wake Up Dead Man” is one of those films that I really should be more excited about. I did not make a most anticipated films of the year list this past January. Frankly, I do not know if I ever will make one of those lists again. But if I did do one for this year, chances are I would have put “Wake Up Dead Man” on it. I really enjoyed the last couple of “Knives Out” movies, especially the original. This film franchise comes off as a passion project for Rian Johnson behind the camera and Daniel Craig in front of it. That said, I kept forgetting that this third film was happening. I knew that a third film would happen at some point. But I feel like the hype machine for this film was miniscule compared to the previous ones. The first film, while definitely somewhat familiar as far as the mystery genre goes, was one of 2019’s freshest and most exciting originals. “Glass Onion” appeared to piggyback off of the first film’s success while still delivering something new and what I thought to be a solid sequel. It also surprisingly implements the COVID-19 pandemic quite well. There were quite a few 2020-esque callbacks that had me laughing. I did not see that coming. “Glass Onion” even got a wider theatrical release than most Netflix projects, as it should have. I could not believe I had the opportunity to watch a Netflix movie at an AMC, but it happened!

Meanwhile, “Wake Up Dead Man” also had a release in theaters, but it appears to have similar treatment to a lot of Netflix’s other movies that end up in cinemas. “Wake Up Dead Man” ended up playing a few locations, but none of the major chains. Not AMC. Not Regal. Not Cinemark. I took advantage of the limited opportunity to catch “Wake Up Dead Man” in cinemas, and part of me is thankful for it. Like the past couple films, “Wake Up Dead Man” has plenty of laughs. It was exciting to see this film play in front of an occasionally audible crowd. That said, of the three “Knives Out” films, I found this one to be the least funny.

Courtesy of Netflix – © 2025 Netflix, Inc.

One of the biggest positives I can give “Wake Up Dead Man” just so happens to be one of the biggest positives I’ve acknowledged through the last couple of “Knives Out” movies. Daniel Craig looks like he is having a ball in every single scene. Benoit Blanc is a perfect balance between being a voice of reason while also teetering to a point where he is practically a complete goofball. He has such a knack for theatricality and a lust for shenanigans all the while being in complete focus to simply solve whatever case is in front of him. This is Craig’s third outing as Blanc and he continues to shine. Of course, Craig surrounds himself with plenty of star power. This film’s ensemble cast includes big names like Mila Kunis, Josh Brolin, Thomas Haden Church, Kerry Washington, and Josh O’Connor to name a few.

“Wake Up Dead Man: A Knives Out Mystery” feels the most Netflix-esque of the “Knives Out” movies so far. Granted, this statement may be unfair, considering the first one is not a Netflix original. It was distributed by Lionsgate. But of the three movies, this is the one that feels the most disposable of the bunch. I hate to stereotype Netflix films, but when I think of Netflix’s filmography, much of what comes to mind is “content.” These are stories designed to be consumed as soon as it drops, only for them to be quickly forgotten. “Wake Up Dead Man” undoubtedly has some memorable moments, but I would not be lying to say it is the most forgettable film of the trilogy so far.

That said, there are some things that this film does to separate itself from the previous two. Like the last couple of films, the story revolves around a large ensemble cast. However, this story involves a group of people who are to a certain degree, constantly in a tight knot, but we also see them constantly separated. Specifically, people who work within and go to a specific church. Sure, we see the cast of first film split up through town, but much of the picture sees a large family gathering in one home. The second film sees a big group of friends coming together at an unusual abode. This film goes bigger and many of the crucial story moments happen from one place, followed by another. It is not like multiple people are dying in the same home similar to the second movie.

“Knives Out” so far has remained a consistent franchise for the most part. All three films are directed by Rian Johnson, and his touch has been exquisite with each go. Every film to a certain degree feels like a throwback set in modern times. All the films run at a smooth pace and have laugh out loud humor. That said, this film let off a particular vibe that the other two did not. As this film reaches the end, it felt draggy. There is a moment in this film where this huge revelation is unveiled. Of course, it is eloquently explained by Daniel Craig’s Benoit Blanc. The film’s timing with its edits, shot choices, and music also play a role in such mastery. While Craig seems to be having fun on set, I had less fun watching him and the surrounding characters during this scene. The revelation is incredibly drawn out, perhaps on purpose. Regardless of the intent, watching this scene occasionally felt tedious. The climax of this film felt rather underwhelming compared to the other two.

All of the “Knives Out” films exceed a two hour runtime including credits. While “Wake Up Dead Man” is the longest “Knives Out” film statistically, it is perhaps the only “Knives Out” movie where I could feel the runtime, almost to the point where I thought the movie was longer than what the runtime said it was. This is the first time I watched a “Knives Out” movie wondering it would end. I was far less invested in this film than I was the other two. Is the film clever? Sure. Is it well made? Sure. But it lacks the oomph that the other two movies have delivered. This may be because I found the screenplay or characters to be less compelling this time around, or perhaps that the formula is not as novel as it was in 2019. As much as I respect Rian Johnson, I would be curious to see what another filmmaker could bring to this franchise in the future. I feel like they could bring a breath of fresh air. This is not a horrible movie, but it is the least palatable of the trilogy so far and by its conclusion, I kept wondering when it would roll the credits.

Courtesy of Netflix – © 2025 Netflix, Inc.

In the end, “Wake Up Dead Man: A Knives Out Mystery” feels like a step down for the franchise. I walked out of the first couple of “Knives Out” movies buzzing. Even though I gave “Glass Onion,” a 7/10, which is good, not great, I found the film to be a memorable experience. The first two films had nonstop laughter, engaging plots, and likable characters. While there is still plenty of humor in “Wake Up Dead Man,” I found myself less attached to the story and cast. Sure, Jud is a solid protagonist, but I found the supporting cast to not stand out as much as those from the previous installments. There is no Chris Evans in the cast or Dave Bautista. I cannot name that one character who had one or two extremely quotable lines that I will be thinking about for a long time. Sure, this film gets plenty of big names, but I do not think they were used as well as the actors from the last movies. Maybe I will rewatch the film on Netflix one day and have a totally different opinion, but for now, I am going to give “Wake Up Dead Man: A Knives Out Mystery,” a 6/10.

Little sidenote, this is not sponsored, but if anybody wants to watch a really fun “Knives Out” parody, this is your chance. Netflix, who not only distributes “Knives Out,” but also airs new episodes of “Sesame Street,” released a new short called “Forks Out.” The 5 minute story features the cast of “Sesame Street” trying to figure out who ate the Cookie Monster’s pie, with some help from Detective Beignet Blanc, inspired by Daniel Craig’s Benoit Blanc from the movies. Go check it out. It’s a take on “Knives Out” with puppets. How can this not be funny?

“Wake Up Dead Man: A Knives Out Mystery” is now playing in select theaters and is available on Netflix for all subscribers.

Thanks for reading this review! My next review is going to be for “Jay Kelly!” Stay tuned! Also coming soon, I will be sharing my thoughts on “Bugonia,” “No Other Choice,” “Fackham Hall,” “Scarlet,” “The Secret Agent,” and “Hamnet.” 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 “Wake Up Dead Man: A Knives Out Mystery?” What did you think about it? Or, what is your favorite film in the “Knives Out” trilogy? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

Zootopia 2 (2025): Zoo Fast, Zoo Furriest

Posted on by Jack Drees

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sentimental Value (2025): The House That Joachim Trier Built

Posted on by Jack Drees

“Sentimental Value” is directed by Joachim Trier (The Worst Person in the World, Louder Than Bombs) and stars Renate Reinsve (Presumed Innocent, A Different Man), Stellan Skarsgård (Dune, Andor), Inga Ibsdotter Lilleaas (Women in Oversized Men’s Shirts, A Beautiful Life), and Elle Fanning (Maleficent, The Neon Demon). This film is about the relationship between a filmmaker and his two estranged daughters, which only becomes more complicated when one of them declines to be in a film based on their family’s history.

Of the many prestige titles coming out at the end of 2025, one of the names that eventually found its name somewhere on my must see list was “Sentimental Value.” The film’s trailer seemed to tap into its central family drama, making for a rather intriguing idea. I did not care that it had a couple big stars or acclaimed names behind the scenes, though such things happened to be a bonus. Though selling me on a movie is not enough, I wanted to dive deeper into what I was buying, and what I bought was a fulfilling experience that highlights the ups and downs that comes with making personal art. Or in this movie’s case, perhaps as close as one can get to personal art.

Few things in life are as important as a good first impression. And “Sentimental Value” brings forth a dynamite first impression. The movie starts off with some of the best narration I have heard in a long time. The opening scene of the film is narrated from the perspective of a young Nora, one of the two daughters who play a large role in the story, and it taps into the idea of whether her house was alive, or happened to be aware of everything happening on the inside. Things such as the memories being made as well as the wear and tear that was being done to it over time. The editing throughout the scene perfectly matches each thought and neatly sets up everything that happens after, considering how much of a role that house continues to play in the characters’ lives.

Despite the film being a Norwegian production, “Sentimental Value” at times feels more like something straight out of Hollywood. Part of it has to do with the film having recognizable cast members including Stellan Skarsgård, who kills it as Gustav. But there is also Elle Fanning, who plays Rachel Kemp, an American actress. Kemp ends up taking the role in which Gustav originally asked Nora to play in his film, and I thought her presence often did a great job at representing Gustav’s tendency to sell out for the sake of his project. There is a great scene where Nora is riding an escalator and we see endless screens playing the same ad of Kemp as she’s going up.

The events in “Sentimental Value” very much reflect its name. Much of the movie revolves around a family home. In fact, one of the things Gustav wanted to make happen in his movie was being able to shoot it at said house. While the film does not dive into Gustav’s entire resume, it is easy to assume that  “Sentimental Value” is arguably Gustav’s most personal project yet considering he wants either someone or some place he knows in it. There is a saying that people should write what they know. There is also a saying that in filmmaking it is not a matter of what you know, and instead, who you know. While the latter can sometimes be seen as a negative in terms of allowing certain people a chance to find work, this movie does sometimes showcase the beauty and fun of working alongside family. For something like Gustav’s project, it only makes it more personal.

“Sentimental Value” is far from my favorite 2025 release. Though I do highly recommend seeing it, especially with someone you know. I had the privilege of seeing this film with a friend, and we had a pretty insightful discussion about it after. We knew a bit about each other so we were able to connect this movie to our lives. For example, throughout the film, we see that one of the differences between Nora and Agnes is that the latter has children. Of course, Nora gets the comment from her dad that having children is something she will not regret. That is an area in which the two seem to disagree. One of my favorite moments in the film is when Nora and Agnes are talking about the concept of having children, and Nora says while she does not have them, she said being Agnes’ big sister felt like being her parent. I am 26 years old, single, and do not have children. Frankly, I debate each and every day whether it is actually right for me to have children. And if my children read this years from now, please know, I am not saying this because I regret having you, or that I fear I will regret having you. But when I was younger, part of me felt like I was playing, to a certain extent, a fatherly role with my sister’s upbringing.

I was also pleasantly surprised to see the film’s occasional comedy chops. At its core, “Sentimental Value” is a drama, but it also weaves in some natural humor. Every instance of comedy felt more like something in the moment rather than a planned attempt to make people holler. One of my favorite moments of the film is getting to see Gustav explaining to Rachel the main idea for one of his film’s scenes involving a stool. When it is revealed that the story that inspired said scene was fabricated, the way that such a thing is done had me laughing. That said, whether the film goes into its more lighthearted laughable moments, its darker moments where we get some backstory, or the quite literally sentimental moments somewhere in between, it makes for one of 2025’s most compelling screenplays.

One final note about the film. While Netflix had no hand in producing or distributing “Sentimental Value,” I found it amusing how Gustav’s upcoming project was at one point going to be a Netflix movie. The film notes that this is not exactly Gustav’s first choice. Of course, one of the questions asked by the press about the movie is if it is going to be in theaters, to which I chuckled. Netflix’s refusal to put movies in theaters is astounding to me. By the way, as a reminder, please check out my reviews for “A House of Dynamite” and “Frankenstein,” two Netflix movies I saw in theaters this year, as much as they want me tied to my couch.

In the end. “Sentimental Value” is a completely inviting and moving package. It is film that showcases the importance of family while also diving into one’s personal struggles of being an artist. It balances both of these ideas perfectly and makes something beautiful out of both of them. Again, there are other films released this year I prefer, but I could see “Sentimental Value” having replay value somewhere down the line. I am going to give “Sentimental Value” a 7/10.

“Sentimental Value” is now playing in theaters. Tickets are available now.

Thanks for reading this review! My next review is going to be for “Zootopia 2!” Stay tuned! Also coming soon, I will be sharing my thoughts on “Wake Up Dead Man: A Knives Out Mystery,” “Jay Kelly,” “Bugonia,” “No Other Choice,” and “Fackham Hall.” If you want to see these reviews and more from Scene Before, follow the blog either with an email or WordPress account! Also, check out the official Facebook page! I want to know, did you see “Sentimental Value?” What did you think about it? Or, would you ever want to make a movie based on your family’s history? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

Wicked: For Good (2025): Can This Second Half Follow the Yellow Brick Road?

Posted on by Jack Drees

© Universal Pictures

“Wicked: For Good” is directed by Jon M. Chu, who also directed the prior “Wicked” installment. This film stars Cynthia Erivo (Genius, Widows), Ariana Grande-Butera (Victorious, Scream Queens), Jonathan Bailey (Jurassic World: Rebirth, Bridgerton), Ethan Slater (Lost on a Mountain in Maine, Gen V), Bowen Yang (Awkwafina is Nora from Queens, Saturday Night Live), Michelle Yeoh (Everything Everywhere All at Once, Transformers: Rise of the Beasts), and Jeff Goldblum (Jurassic Park, Independence Day). This film is the second in a two-part adaptation of the “Wicked” musical, which itself is based on a book of the same name. In this story, we see our main characters from the first film return as they embrace their identities of Wicked Witch of the West and Glinda the Good.

© Universal Studios. All Rights Reserved.

If you read my review for “Wicked” over the past year, you would notice that I have not offered the fondest of opinions regarding the film. While I acknowledge the film is by no means broken, I found it to be mostly slow. I thought a lot of the musical numbers were not doing it for me. And I thought some of the film’s technical aspects such as the color grading needed improvement. That said, I know that movie has its fans. I will even say there are things I liked about it. While most of the music failed to impress me, signature songs like “Popular” and “Flying Gravity” were well executed. Cynthia Erivo and Ariana Grande are excellent as the main duo. And even though I thought the film could have been more aesthetically pleasing in certain regards, I was impressed by the production design.

I was quite nervous for this sequel, because I acknowledge that I probably pooped on a lot of people’s parties when it comes to my opinion on the first film. A lot of people I know really dug it. Those people were also looking forward to this one. The film was a shining star over the past awards season, but I wish I aligned with those who praised it. Given how I am a Movie Reviewing Moron of the people, I used one of my A-List reservations to see this film opening weekend.

Having now seen the film, I cannot say “Wicked: For Good” surprised me in any way. I expected to not like the film, and that is exactly what happened. Of course, I go into every movie wanting it to be good. But in the case of “Wicked: For Good,” it did not do it for me.

© Universal Studios. All Rights Reserved.

Believe it or not, there are plenty of positives in “Wicked: For Good.” Many of the things that I found to work in the first film also work here. Then again, this should not be a big surprise given how both titles were shot back to back. That said, much like the original film, the sequel wowed in terms of its production design. Oz feels just as grand as I recall it feeling a year ago. I thought the music was great, and in some ways, it was an improvement over the first part. There were bits of the first film where it felt like the characters were singing almost unnecessarily. In this sequel, every song seemed to have a purpose. They either fit the moment or enhanced a character’s arc. During my review for the first film, I pointed out that the music became so loud at my screening to the point where I almost had a headache. At the risk of torturing myself, I ended up seeing “Wicked: For Good” at the exact same theater and auditorium, which is a Dolby Cinema at an AMC location. I do not know if they turned the volume down in that theater, but I found the soundtrack much more comfortable to listen to than the one from the original. Speaking of sound, the sound editing was top notch. For example, I like the attention to detail the movie gives whenever Glinda is in her bubble. You can hear a little blockage coming through whenever she talks because the camera’s point of view is from the outside of the vehicle.

Another point of praise I would have to give is that most of the cast does a good job with the material they are given. Of course, Cynthia Erivo and Ariana Grande, who had dynamite chemistry in the first film, work well together this time around, that is during whichever moments allow the two to be on screen together.

© PHOTO BY: UNIVERSAL PICTURES – © 2025 UNIVERSAL STUDIOS. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

I am not going to pretend that I found the first film’s screenplay to be phenomenal, but there was at least a novelty to it even though it was based on both a play and a book. This film’s script is consistent with the first film in certain ways. Therefore, like the first film, I found a lot of the fantastical vocabulary to be rather annoying. I get that this film is not directly set on earth, but a lot of the diction dropped by select characters including “thrillifying,” “obsessulated,” and most especially “clock tick” felt too over the top. Every time a character in this film said the words “clock tick,” it felt tacked on. It did not feel authentic, even for Oz. It came off as a fantasy version of “Mean Girls” where instead of people trying make fetch happen, they were trying to make “clock tick” happen.

When I reviewed “Wicked” last year, I pointed out that there was a pink and green tint attached in my presentation. That was not the case this time. I can only make an assumption, but maybe the projector had a filter that should have been removed. I do not know if it was a 3D filter because the screen did not look that dark. Point is, the screen looked normal during “Wicked: For Good.” Shoutout to the staff at the AMC Liberty Tree Mall 20 for the upkeep. I found “Wicked: For Good” to look much better than the original “Wicked” did during my initial watch. The sequel’s viewing experience fully allowed me to see the film the way Jon M. Chu intended. Sadly, I do not know if his vision satisfied me all that much. “Wicked: For Good,” like its predecessor, feels lacking in color. Again, the set design is great. I will even say a quite a bit of the framing is pretty good. But I think the color grading could have been pinched up a little bit, and a lot of the shots seem to lack personality. I hate saying this, because I have a soft spot for these movies, but these “Wicked” films look like select MCU films. They look slapped together and almost done on the fly. Like the original, “Wicked: For Good” has some decent shots, but it is also packed with a lot of shots that look gray, digital, and lifeless.

© PHOTO BY: UNIVERSAL PICTURES – © 2025 UNIVERSAL STUDIOS. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

Overall, I found this film to engage me more than the original did. That said, this film will definitely be enhanced by watching the original, as much as I do not recommend doing so. I found “For Good” to start off with a bang. It quickly establishes the Wicked Witch as a threat amongst Oz, or at least a threat in people’s minds. That said, despite establishing Elphaba as a threat to Oz’s population, I can say that this film feels uneventful by the conclusion. Does this film have a beginning, middle, and end? Yes. But by the time the film is over, I had little attachment to any of the characters. Not Elphaba. Not Glinda. Not a single soul in the cast. This is a film that is supposed to cap off the story and instead of going out with an emotional bang, it closes things off with a dull whimper. I get that “Wicked” in essence paints the story told in “The Wizard of Oz” as an anti-Elphaba propaganda piece, but the way that the film showcases some of the events from “The Wizard of Oz” lacks something the classic tale had. Sure, “The Wizard of Oz” is a formulaic hero’s journey, but like a lot of formulaic hero’s journeys, it had stakes. As I watched parts of “Wicked: For Good,” I almost did not care about a single character in the cast. The film barely paints the Wizard as a threat, even if Elphaba most definitely sees him that way. The closest thing to an unforgivable act I can say he pulled off is him capturing a bunch of animals, which, okay, that is not something reasonable people do. Not to mention, such an action piggybacks off of material from the first film. But even that plot point feels like it barely gets any spotlight. It comes off as an afterthought.

Do things happen in “Wicked: For Good?” Sure. Do characters develop in “Wicked: For Good?” Sure. We see some characters change more than others, but there is some character development to be had. That said, by the film’s conclusion, I felt like nothing really mattered that much. There was not much in the film that left a significant impact on me.

There is quite a bit in this film that I do not like. I did say there are plenty of positives, but I utter such a sentiment with as much generosity as I can provide. That said, if there is one reason why you should watch this movie, especially on the big screen, I think I might be able to pull one out of my sleeve. The soundtrack to “Wicked: For Good” is not as solid as the original. In fact, the parts of the soundtrack I found to be the most memorable are throwbacks to songs from the original movie. There are some good songs, but not anything on the level of say “Defying Gravity,” except for one number. That number being “No Good Deed Goes Unpunished.” There are so many fantastic elements that make this sequence worth writing home about. I almost want to shout out Cynthia Erivo for her ability to carry a tune in this scene like it is nothing. But then I remember that this sequence contains some incredibly dazzling showcases of visual effects. And while I do think the film could have been improved from a color perspective, I thought the overall aesthetic of this scene was perfect at times. Despite a lot of pizzazz going on in the frame, several shots feel kind of dry and rugged. It kind of matched the tension of the film at the time. It came at one of this film’s closest moments to what somebody could call a tipping point. The soundwork in this scene is great, and this was most definitely a treat to hear in Dolby. After seeing these two “Wicked” films, I would be totally fine if I never had any chance to watch them a second time. But I will not lie, part of me could see myself going on YouTube and either watching this clip again for fun, or listening to this song through my headphones.

I have not seen the “Wicked” play. Yes, I know, “No Good Deed Goes Unpunished” is not a song that is original to this film’s soundtrack. That said, I like the way the song is utilized in this film. It satisfies both the eyes and ears. One thing I also like is that in the moments that follow, we have a crowd of people singing a similar sounding song called “March of the Witch Hunters” that changes the core lyrics ever so slightly. It is executed rather chillingly.

Speaking of singing, watching Jeff Goldblum try to sing in this movie is something else. Do not get me wrong, Jeff Goldblum as the Wizard, like many of his other roles, is charismatic. But the guy cannot sing. He can change your apartment, he can change the world, but he cannot sing. He tries. He puts some effort into his material, and even as he fails he still has a sense of star power. Although when the film has Goldblum singing, he comes off like a reserved, yet somewhat noticeably drunk dad who drags his family into the basement so he can try out his new karaoke machine for the first time. I love Jeff Goldblum, but this is not his best work. If I were to judge Goldblum for his performance in the first “Wicked” I would say his performance was perfectly acceptable. But when this movie asks him to sing, which is one of the most important parts of making a musical, that is where the corniness ensues.

In the end, the “Wicked” movies are 0 for 2. I do not mind musicals. I enjoy fantasy movies. To quote that one kid from “A Christmas Story,” “I like ‘The Wizard of Oz.'” If there is one adjective that I could use to describe these movies, it would be “consistent.” The films are consistently boring, consistently colorless, and consistently annoying. I never latched onto the universe that these two movies were trying to sell me. It has simply never once appealed to me. When I reviewed the first “Wicked,” I said it failed on the most important thing a part one is supposed to do, which is get me excited for this film, part two. Wait, sorry, I mean for “For Good…” The title card in the original says “Part One,” why does this one not say “Part Two?” Kind of weird. Anyway, now that I have seen “Wicked: For Good,” it fails at something of equal importance, which is getting me to care about the cast of characters. I like the actors in the film, and I think like the last movie, Ariana Grande easily gives the best performance. But their characters, like the story, rarely, if ever, engage me by the film’s conclusion. I am going to give “Wicked: For Good” a 4/10.

“Wicked: For Good” is now playing in theaters everywhere. Tickets are available now.

Thanks for reading this review! My next review is going to be for “Sentimental Value!” Stay tuned! Also coming soon, I will be sharing my thoughts on “Zootopia 2,” “Wake Up Dead Man: A Knives Out Mystery,” “Jay Kelly,” and “Bugonia.” 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 “Wicked: For Good?” What did you think about it? Or, which of the two “Wicked” movies is superior? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

Eternity (2025): Romance Isn’t Dead in This Clever Take on the Afterlife

Posted on by Jack Drees

“Eternity” is directed by David Freyne (Dating Amber, The Cured) and stars Miles Teller (Whiplash, Top Gun: Maverick), Elizabeth Olsen (Avengers: Age of Ultron, Godzilla), Callum Turner (Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald, The Boys in the Boat), John Early (Search Party, At Home with Amy Sedaris), Olga Merediz (Blockbuster, Orange is the New Black), and Da’Vine Joy Randolph (The Holdovers, People of Earth). This film is set in an afterlife where people are presented with endless realms called eternities, one of which they can choose to remain for as long as they are dead. The story revolves around a love triangle in which a woman named Joan is forced to choose between spending the rest of her afterlife with her first love who died at war, or the man with whom she built the rest of her life.

Prior to watching “Eternity,” I have not seen a single trailer for the film. Anytime I go into a film without having seen a trailer, part of me gets a pep in my step, as blindness can often lead to a great surprise. I ended up checking out “Eternity” about a week before its release. The film had a press screening in Boston, a city from which I live 20 minutes north. I thought I would take advantage since I had a free Thursday night.

I am pleased to say that “Eternity” is quite good. It is not my favorite film of the year, and there are some notable problems I will bring up during the review. But it is a film that keeps a good pace, contains a likable cast, develops its characters nicely, and offers a fun take on what may happen after people die.

“Eternity” is not the first story I have seen brought to the screen that focuses on the afterlife. The film does tend to remind me a bit of other takes on it I have seen. This film reminds me of is the NBC series “The Good Place.” While I have not seen the whole series, the production design feels very similar with lots of bright colors filling the frame. As for both properties’ takes on the afterlife, that is where some of the differences start to come in. For instance, “Eternity” gives people some options on how exactly they spend their afterlife. There is a whole area of tents set up advertising all sorts of places where people can go spend the rest of their afterlives, and the possibilities feel nearly infinite. “Eternity” also establishes that there is not exactly a “Hell” or some equivalent to it where people wind up when they die. Everyone gets a chance to pick their eternity, and if they try to leave, they get chased down and sent to this film’s closest concept to Hell, which is a black void. More on that later… Also, one thing to note about these distinctions… It should not come as a surprise that there is no Hell because some of the eternities are based on seemingly unattainable desires, or bad habits. There is even an eternity dedicated solely to cigarette smoking!

A24 is a distributor whose movies always tends to get a reaction out of me, and “Eternity” is no exception. As I watching “Eternity,” a thought popped in my head that I do not tend to experience that often. Of all the A24 movies I have seen, “Eternity” may have the most franchise potential. Sure, A24 has the “X” trilogy and “The Souvenir” has two parts, but there is some really good world building and lore establishment in this film to the point where if another story in its universe were announced, I would be onboard. This film ends in a way where its main trio might not have much more of a story to tell, but I would not mind seeing another installment featuring new characters. This movie focuses on a love triangle, but it would be interesting to see what it is like for someone who never found love to have a chance to do so once they enter the afterlife. This could even spin off into a TV show. Maybe each new episode could feature the staff dealing with new people who are dying each day. They could probably make a whole season about someone who died if they wanted to go in that direction.

This film does not have a major antagonist. The biggest problem our characters face throughout the movie is that Joan is forced to choose between two men she’s loved at certain points of her life. That is the everlasting dilemma affecting our main trio. Although as mentioned earlier in the review, if someone leaves their eternity, they have to go on the run and avoid getting placed in a black void. Frankly, I think this movie would be better off if it did not have this consequence. It basically shames people for making the wrong choice even if they had the best of intentions while making it. For those who read my review for “Bone Lake,” sorry if this comment sounds familiar, but it works here too. The consequence sounds like something brought up during an episode of YouTube’s “Pitch Meeting” series, where the Executive Guy asks why a particular concept is a thing, to which the Screenwriter Guy responds “So the movie can happen!”

That said, “Eternity” is still pretty funny. In fact, this whole movie feels like an extended “Simpsons” episode. I cannot tell you every single joke or sight gag in this film, but for the most part, the movie seems to be running at a mile a minute. If you like that kind of humor, I think you will dig “Eternity.” This movie might be worth watching a second time to see if there are any jokes I missed.

Overall, this film is quite creative. There is a whole world built around what happens when people die. It gives its characters a week to choose where they would like to spend the rest of their time. I like how the film establishes there being a whole staff that has to acquaint dead people to their new environment. That said, when it comes to being a romcom, that is where things become a little more familiar. When it comes to the breakdown of how Joan navigates her dilemma, I could see certain key points of her journey coming from a mile away. That said, never once did I get the sense that any point in her journey was broken, and I do think said journey was slightly enhanced by both men being in her actual life. She had someone she was getting to know, but lost too soon. Then she had another man with whom she spent more than sixty years. It is a compelling dilemma and makes for a great story. All three of the main characters are layered and give all the exposition the audience needs to know for the rest of the movie to play out exquisitely.

In the end, “Eternity” is not only funny, but it made me think. I am 26 years old and I have never had a partner. If anything, this film made me not only think about what happens after I die, but it makes me wonder what is going to happen throughout the rest of my life. If the afterlife somehow ends up being similar to what this film presents, it makes me think much harder about any crucial life decisions I am going to make. Also, one last note, this film proves that Da’Vine Joy Randolph is a comedic force. I would love to see her as the lead in a comedy one day. I loved her in “The Holdovers.” She is also fantastic in “Eternity.” She is incredible at what she does. I am going to give “Eternity” a 7/10.

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

© Universal Studios. All Rights Reserved.

Thanks for reading this review! My next review is going to be for “Wicked: For Good!” Stay tuned! Also coming soon, I will be sharing my thoughts on “Sentimental Value,” “Zootopia 2,” and “Wake Up Dead Man: A Knives Out Mystery.” 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 “Eternity?” What did you think about it? Or, if you could choose to spend the afterlife in one place, real or imaginary, where would it be and why? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

The Running Man (2025): Edgar Wright Delivers a Supersonic Ride

Posted on by Jack Drees

“The Running Man” is directed by Edgar Wright (Scott Pilgrim vs. the World, Last Night in Soho) and stars Glen Powell (Twisters, Anyone But You), William H. Macy (Fargo, Kingdom of the Planet of the Apes), Lee Pace (Foundation, Guardians of the Galaxy), Michael Cera (Scott Pilgrim vs. the World, The LEGO Batman Movie), Emilia Jones (CODA, Locke & Key), Daniel Ezra (A Discovery of Witches, All American), Jayme Lawson (The Batman, Sinners), Sean Hayes (Will & Grace, The Three Stooges), Colman Domingo (Sing Sing, Rustin), and Josh Brolin (Avengers: Infinity War, The Goonies). This future-set film is based on the book by Stephen King and follows Ben Richards who is put on a game show where he has the chance to become a billionaire by surviving for 30 days against hunters.

The 2025 adaptation of “The Running Man” is my first true exposure to the property. Yes, I have long been aware that Arnold Schwarzenegger starred in a previous adaptation years ago. It took me a while to realize that said adaptation was based on a Stephen King book. That said, I was onboard for this 2025 film just for the fact that Edgar Wright was helming it. I love his fast-paced directing style utilized in films like “Scott Pilgrim vs. the World” and “Baby Driver.” He has a knack for sick action scenes.

That said, compared to those movies, “The Running Man” does not hold a candle. Yet at the same time, like I often say about Pixar, an inferior Edgar Wright project can still equal a good movie, and a good movie “The Running Man” is.

While I have not seen the original “Running Man” film, I am aware that former “Family Feud” star and record-breaking lady kisser Richard Dawson played Bobby Thompson, a charismatic game show host. I cannot say much about Dawson’s performance given my lack of experience with the 1987 movie, but I can see why he was cast to play the character. Flash forward to 2025, where we have Colman Domingo, who last I checked, let me check my notes here =flips papers= hosted ZERO game shows. But Domingo’s performance as Bobby T makes me think he could easily kill it as a game show host in real life I would love to see what he could do on perhaps a reboot of “1 vs. 100” if that ever comes back. In fact, at times, that’s what part of “The Running Man” game show feels like, at least before “The Running Man” gets started. Maybe it is because both concepts involve one person trying to fend off a group of people.

Domingo says his role was inspired by Jerry Springer, and I can see where he is coming from, because if you watch those kinds of talk shows, even ones like “Maury” or “The Steve Wilkos Show,” there is a sense of heightened reality that those hosts are responsible for bringing to the table. In fact, when it comes to Domingo’s line delivery and the production design that often matches perfectly alongside it, it reminds me of something I and others would often compare “The Jerry Springer Show” to, specifically wrestling. The theatrics on “The Running Man” are much more extravagant than most real life game shows. At times it makes “Who Wants to Be a Millionaire?”, a show that partially succeeds on its elaborate production design, seem insignificant.

“The Running Man,” like many films set in the future, paints a dystopian, bleak picture of what’s to come. To my surprise, I found quite a bit in common with “The Running Man” and “Idiocracy.” Granted, people are much smarter in “The Running Man,” but if you look at the state of television in both films, you would notice that both heavily feature programming that focuses on people’s pain. Sure, we have that now. One of my all time favorite game shows is “Wipeout,” which features people falling from great heights in each episode. But it is on a different level in this film. Life in “The Running Man” has gotten to a point where gambling is supposedly dominating the world. For Ben Richards, getting on a game show means everything to him. Not necessarily because he likes the shows, but because those shows are a means to make a quick buck. He wants a better life for himself, his family, and game shows are a fast and easy way to get to that point.

Overall, I thought Ben Richards was a likable protagonist. The movie gives him one obstacle after another. He cares about the people he loves. I like the film indicating his distaste for being on “The Running Man” despite doing all he can to make it through. If I had one thing to say though, I feel that of all the characters in this film, Ben Richards is the most likely candidate to receive the title “character that could be played by almost anyone.” I have nothing against Glen Powell. Each role of his proves he is a movie star in the making. Powell has charisma, and he even impressed me in the neither romantic nor funny “romcom” some like to call “Anyone But You.” But as I look back at Ben Richards, I feel that this is maybe the least Glen Powell-esque the actor has been thus far. Through the films in which I have seen him, this is the most “everyday” Powell has come off.

This is a film that fires on all cylinders in act one, keeps up the pace in act two, and while it does not fall apart in act three, if I had to name a “worst act,” it is easily the third. By the time the film reaches its end, I found it to be overstuffed, too long, and close to tonal inconsistency. The third act sometimes feels slow, and slow is the last adjective I should be using to describe a movie called “The Running Man.” The movie is 2 hours and 13 minutes long, and for the most part, it is paced well. That said, the third act has a pacing problem. Certain moments of the third act feel rushed and slapped together, while others tend to drag. It lacks the personality of the acts that came before. It is not the worst schlock I have seen this year, but I do not think it is up to the standards of Edgar Wright, who is generally praised as a filmmaker. This is not Wright’s finest outing, but it does mean the movie is bad. I would still recommend it if you want a fun action-adventure.

In the end, “The Running Man” is worth checking out. The film looks great, sounds great, and at times, it feels like Edgar Wright’s passion for the material shines through. That said, there are quite a few scenes in this film that are noticeably superior to others. “The Running Man” paints a future that I can see happening. It has traces of our present with the popularity of reality TV, gambling, and humanity’s noticeable desire to see others fail for the sake of entertainment. I am going to give “The Running Man” a 7/10.

“The Running Man” is now playing in theaters everywhere. Tickets are available now.

Thanks for reading this review! My next review is going to be for “Eternity!” Stay tuned! Also, look forward to my thoughts on “Wicked: For Good,” “Sentimental Value,” “Zootopia 2,” and “Wake Up Dead Man: A Knives Out Mystery.” 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 Running Man?” What did you think about it? Or, what is your favorite Stephen King film adaptation released this year? As for me, I have not seen “The Monkey” yet, so I am not sure if I can validly answer that question, but I must declare that “The Life of Chuck” is a must see if you have not gotten the chance to check it out already. Leave your thoughts and opinions down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!