Month: April 2025

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

Posted on by Jack Drees

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Then we get to this year… Just kill me.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hans Zimmer & Friends: Diamond in the Desert (2025): The Most I Have Fanboyed Over a Movie in a Long Time

Posted on by Jack Drees

“Hans Zimmer & Friends: Diamond in the Desert” is a concert film directed by Paul Dugdale. The picture features performances from a Hans Zimmer concert as well as several interviews featuring people Zimmer has worked with over the years.

I was somewhat hesitant to talk about this film. Not because I thought it was bad, or I wanted to easily forget about it, but it all comes down to a lack of experience. I can safely say I have not watched many concert films. In fact, to this day, I never reviewed a concert film on Scene Before. Yes, even that “Eras Tour” movie that made a decent amount of money when it came out. I am not a Swiftie, to be honest. In fact, my experience of attending concerts in person is next to none. I have sensitive ears, so attending obnoxious events like these are not often my first choice. Although, Hans Zimmer is one of the few artists I have seen live during his tour, fittingly titled “Hans Zimmer Live,” at Boston’s TD Garden last year, which leads me to another reason why I almost avoided reviewing this movie.

I am a huge Hans Zimmer fanboy.

If there one artist that has defined my life over the past decade, it is Hans Zimmer. Not just because he has done some of my favorite movies, but his variety of approaches to composing his music. In one movie, he will go super electronic, in the next he will do things a bit more on the orchestral side, sometimes he will go full rock and roll. Sometimes a bit metal. Zimmer is one of the greatest musicians alive. When I would do homework after school, blaze down the highway on road trips, or even trek on Amtrak trains, Zimmer would often be my artist of choice. Going into this film, I was a bit worried that I would be so lost in what I love about Zimmer’s music that I would forget that there was a movie in front of me to potentially critique.

We will start this review off with some bad news for the filmmakers. Despite my fanaticism, and it was definitely on display during my experience of watching the movie, I have some negatives to point out. They are not game-breaking, but still.

There is a scene in the film where we see Hans Zimmer suggest that the audience was not allowed to take photos or use their phones during the concert. Shortly after, he essentially says “Screw it,” and allows everyone in the room, including him, to take a photo of the exact same moment in time. There is nothing wrong with the concept of this scene. In fact, it is a cool, community-driven moment of the movie. But when the film later features a ton of quickly spliced shots of people recording the concert, it makes me wonder if that “rule” existed to begin with. For the record, during my show in Boston, camera use was fair game, assumingly as long as we did not engage in flash photography. Perhaps the same was true for the concert he did in the film. Maybe Hans Zimmer and crew just wanted a good scene for the sake of a good scene. I have no clue.

Before we get to my next negative, I will state one positive, and it is that the music sequences outside the venue are not only fitting, but incredibly creative and very well put together. They start the concert off with a piece from “Dune” and it makes you feel like you are in the middle of an Arrakis-like landscape. When the film gets to “The Dark Knight,” it becomes an obnoxious rush through the city. Later on, when the movie gets to “Interstellar,” they eventually transform the set into a cosmic wonder. The efforts on display to make the most stunning spectacles possible are nothing short of magnificent. That said, if I had a nitpick, the film spends so much time outside the venue for the “Interstellar” sequence that I wish I could have been in the room with the audience, seeing their reaction to the musicians playing the music in front of them.

In fact, if you look hard enough during the movie, you will notice a disco ball in the middle of the arena. Having been to the concert that inspired this project, I can confirm that the ball was utilized during the “Interstellar” portion of the concert. We never see it used during the movie. Then again, I went to the concert with my dad, and he told me while he did see the ball at one point, he never noticed the ball being used during the “Interstellar” sequence. Perhaps no one could figure out a way to show the ball and make it look cinematic, but part of me would have liked to see a closer look at least once.

Although if you are a Hans Zimmer fan, like me, you are in for a treat. If you missed the Hans Zimmer Live concert, this movie shows most of it. There are a couple pieces missing, but the film is already quite long so I can understand why a couple parts were taken out. The film also features several interviews between Zimmer and some of the people with whom he has a connection to in the industry. Some of these include producer Jerry Bruckheimer, musician Pharrell Williams, director Christopher Nolan, and actor Zendaya. The film is not short on notable names. Some of the more prominent members of Zimmer’s band are not part of the talks like Tina Guo or Lebo M, but they do get their shoutouts during the concert itself.

These interviews give fascinating insights as to why Hans Zimmer attached himself to the movies he did. I found Zimmer’s story on his connection to “The Lion King” to be particularly powerful. In some ways, it enhances the connected concert sequence, and might also enhance “The Lion King” movie itself. That says something because it is a spectacular film.

Additionally, the interviews also highlight fans’ perspectives. When we get to Zendaya’s interview, a much younger individual than Zimmer, she talks about her connection to the composer’s music and the films in which they are a part of. Again, going back to “The Lion King,” she highlights it is a film she enjoyed growing up. Zendaya also says that “Interstellar” is a movie she adores and the two get into what can be described as an apparent resurgence of one piece of music from that film that is used on TikTok on a regular basis. The movie reveals just how much of an impact Zimmer has had on the people who had the pleasure of listening to him over the years.

If you are not familiar with Hans Zimmer, I would still highly recommend checking out this film. As of this review, being able to do so is probably near impossible at this point. But if there is ever a legal way to do it, give it a chance. Because even if you do not know the name Hans Zimmer, you probably know some of his work like “Pirates of the Caribbean” or “Man of Steel” or “Gladiator.” The concert itself is a sight to behold. The camerawork both in and out of the arena is immaculate. The lighting onstage is downright jaw-dropping. There are some shots that go on so long yet feel so pristine and yet the film also treats its audience to some crystal clean editing that flies at supersonic speed. This film is an experience.

Even if you have not seen any of the films represented during the concert, this is still a great time. In fact, despite my film-watching experience, I am proof of this. I still have yet to see “Dark Phoenix.” Judging by what I have heard about the film, I might be better off for avoiding the film up until this point. But good movie or not, that score nevertheless made it into the setlist, and it is a straight-up frenzy of electronic mayhem. Though I will warn people, that part of the film contains a lot of colorful flashing lights. If that is not your thing, you may want to fast forward through that, close your eyes, or skip this film altogether because that is not the only flashy scene in the final cut. Though that one in particular stands out to me. That said, if you are like me and you know Hans Zimmer’s work, this film is almost like a dream. If you are less familiar with Hans Zimmer, still give it a shot anyway, because I think you will find something in it to enjoy. Going back to, again, the story he gave as to why he ended up embracing “The Lion King,” it might even make you appreciate certain movies he did a little more.

In the end, “Hans Zimmer & Friends: Diamond in the Desert” is a giant ball of euphoria. It is a near perfect experience. I found this movie to be equally as electrifying as one of Hans Zimmer’s scores. It sucks you in from the first minute and quickly becomes something totally over the top. The show is fantastic. The music videos are creative. The interviews are fun to watch. You might learn something new by the end of this two and a half hour thrillfest. If there is any legal way you are able to check this project out, I highly recommend doing so, because this is truly something special. I am going to give “Hans Zimmer & Friends: Diamond in the Desert” a 9/10.

“Hans Zimmer & Friends: Diamond in the Desert” is unfortunately not playing anywhere as of posting this review. There is no information available on a home release date at this time.

Thanks for reading this review! Turns out, my next review is going to be for a film that I also admittedly have been fanboying over simply based on the concept. If you know me in real life, you know I love game shows. And if you are aware of the true story behind this film, you would have to imagine the utter excitement I have been feeling for “The Luckiest Man in America.” Also stay tuned for my thoughts on “The Penguin Lessons,” “Novocaine,” “The Ballad of Wallis Island,” “Secret Mall Apartment,” and “A Minecraft Movie.” If you want to see these reviews and more from Scene Before, follow the blog either with an email or WordPress account! Also, check out the official Facebook page! I want to know, did you see “Hans Zimmer & Friends: Diamond in the Desert?” What did you think about it? Or, what is your favorite Hans Zimmer score? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

Locked (2025): A Hilarious, Torturous Thriller That Dives Into Humanity’s Entitlement

Posted on by Jack Drees

© The Avenue

“Locked” is directed by David Yarovesky (Nightbooks, Brightburn) and stars Bill Skarsgård (IT, Boy Kills World) and Anthony Hopkins (Thor, The Silence of the Lambs) in a film where a carjacker gets trapped inside of a luxury SUV owned by a mysterious man who wants to teach him a lesson about his lifestyle.

It has been hard to find time to go to the cinema in March, so any opportunity I can get to do so, I will take in a heartbeat.

Well, except for “Snow White.” I am honestly not interested in any more Disney live-action remakes for the time being. Additional apologies to “Lilo & Stitch” as well. I think I will be giving my money to the new “Mission: Impossible” the weekend that film comes out.

Thankfully, in March’s second half, the trailer for “Locked” sold me and got me to buy a ticket shortly afterwards.

Not only does “Locked” have solid talent on display like Bill Skarsgård and Anthony Hopkins, but the film looked like it would have fun with its simple concept. Essentially, a man named Eddie enters someone else’s unlocked car, and when he tries to get out, he is stuck and must deal with the unfamiliar surroundings as well as the virtual presence of an utterly hilarious geezer named William. Sounds simple, right? It might. Yet the film goes balls to the wall with its execution between a couple of powerhouse lead performances, and its implementations of one obstacle after another, no matter how convenient or absurd.

I did some research while writing this review and found out that “Locked” is the latest adaptation of a 2019 Argentinian film called “4×4.” I did see that title during the credits, but I was surprised to know that this was the fourth iteration of a film that was finished less than a decade ago. Apparently the film also has a Brazilian remake, as well as another in the Telugu language. To be fair, the premise works in several environments.

For the record, “Locked” was technically shot in Canada, but the English-language film has done much of its marketing in the United States, and uses well known Hollywood stars. Therefore, when connecting this movie to the United States, it works perfectly not only because we are a car-centric country. Not only because we sometimes put significant value on cars. But in regard to this movie’s deeper meaning, it also helps that the United States may be one of the most individualistic countries on the planet. While the movie is about someone being trapped in a car, if you look deeper, the movie is a dive into humanity’s selfishness.

Take Eddie for example. The movie taps into some addiction complications Eddie has. Early on, we see he does not have enough cash to pay for an important vehicle repair. Granted, cars can be pricey to maintain, but we also see that some of his other investments such as drugs and gambling could be getting in the way of more important aspects of his life. Additionally, he has a daughter who he seems to care about, but is not perfect when it comes to supporting her or being there for her. I do not have kids, but in one of my favorite movies, “Interstellar,” there is a line from Cooper that I think about sometimes where he suggests the reason why he is still around is to be a memory to his children. In comparison to Cooper, Eddie is not a role model by any means. He is far from a perfect protagonist, but I like him as a character despite his issues, he clearly loves the people in his life. That is despite him showing barriers that keep him from showing that love.

At the same time, we see Eddie questioning William, and how he got to live a luxury lifestyle. After all, Eddie entered a clearly expensive vehicle, so it is not surprising to see him ask William if he had a head start of some kind. Meanwhile, the film reveals that the two have different educational backgrounds. William has book smarts, Eddie has street smarts. William spent time in the classroom, Eddie was self taught. There is clearly a sense of snobbery when we dig deeper into William’s point of view. The movie shows that entitlement, a quality that both of these characters possess, does not necessarily come from having it all. Entitlement is not specific towards one class of people. Humans, at their core, want everything. And at the point where we do have everything, we do not necessarily have the urge to settle down.

The film mainly takes place in a car that is almost always in park. Yet pacing-wise, the narrative gets into gear to the point where several cops would be following it in a high speed chase. “Locked” is heavy on language, and by the midpoint, violence. This movie dials things up to an 11 by that point. Every random gag, no matter how unnecessary, landed for me. I do not want to reveal every single one, but there is one constant back and forth that had me dying in the beginning where William would call out Eddie for his vulgarity and lack of manners. When it comes to his delivery, Anthony Hopkins at first sounds like a sweet, reserved old man. As the film progresses, we see further hints of aggressiveness within his character. The more of a loose cannon Anthony Hopkins becomes, the more fun the film gets.

The film is quite a short watch. Granted if I had another positive to add, it is that every minute of the runtime is either essential to the story, or at the very least, downright entertaining. On that note, I will say the film does end somewhat abruptly. Is it a fitting ending? Sure. Is it a satisfying ending? One could say that. But I think the movie would have benefitted from being a minute longer and letting the actual end scene play out just a little. Even so, the film does end on a decent note and fulfills all the important arcs. That is perhaps my one gripe with an otherwise near-perfect film.

In the end, “Locked” is an exhilarating joyride. Even when the movie stays in the same place, the overall pace is fast and furious. Unsurprisingly, Anthony Hopkins is on fire with his role. The same can also be said for the film’s lead, Bill Skarsgård, which is also not surprising because that whole family is loaded with talent. I have been impressed with Skarsgard’s script choices lately. Sure he has done mainstream titles like “IT,” which was fantastic. The sequel, not as much, but it was still enjoyable. But he has had an impressive run in recent years with smaller films like “Barbarian” and “Boy Kills World.” “Locked” is yet another small wonder for this talented actor. I hope he continues to land roles as captivating as this one. The film made laugh, and then think. It is a great time overall. I am going to give “Locked” a 9/10.

“Locked” is now available for preorder on VOD and will be available to stream starting April 22nd.

Thanks for reading this review! If you enjoyed this review, I have plenty more on the way! My next review is going to be a first for me. For the first time in Scene Before history, I will be sharing my thoughts on a concert movie, specifically “Hans Zimmer & Friends: Diamond in the Desert.” I very rarely watch concert movies, but I love Hans Zimmer’s scores, so I jumped at the chance to check this film out in theaters last month. Also, stay tuned for my thoughts on “The Luckiest Man in America,” “The Penguin Lessons,” “Novocaine,” “The Ballad of Wallis Island,” “Secret Mall Apartment,” and “A Minecraft Movie.” If you want to see these reviews and more from Scene Before, follow the blog either with an email or WordPress account! Also, check out the official Facebook page! I want to know, did you see “Locked?” What did you think about it? Or, have you ever been trapped somewhere? If you dare, let me know your crazy stories down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

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

Posted on by Jack Drees

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nickel Boys (2024): The 2024 Academy Award Best Picture Nominee I Did Not Care for

Posted on by Jack Drees

“Nickel Boys” is directed by RaMell Moss (Hale Country This Morning, This Evening, Easter Snap) and stars Ethan Herisse (When They See Us, The American Society of Magical Negroes), Brandon Wilson (Murmur, The Way Back), Hamish Linklater (The Big Short, Battleship), Fred Hechinger (The White Lotus, Thelma), Daveed Diggs (Wonder, The Little Mermaid), Jimmie Fails (Pieces of a Woman, The Last Black Man in San Francisco), and Aunjanue Ellis-Taylor (King Richard, Ray). This film is set mostly during the Jim Crow era and is about the friendship between two African-American men who meet an abusive reform school.

I love when filmmakers experiment and try to insert unique concepts or tricks in their films. In the case of “Nickel Boys,” the film mainly uses a first person perspective to tell its story. If you watch a lot of movies, you will notice that while they do have main characters, the camera, more often than not, acts as a third person. I think a first person point of view is a clever idea for telling a story like this. It could put you in the mindset of someone who lived unfathomable events. I wish I could tell you I was riveted by this concept, but I cannot. The honest truth is, I found “Nickel Boys” to be gimmicky.

Going back to what I said about that first person perspective… Notice how I said it “mainly” uses that perspective. Because the film tends to switch perspectives from time to time, and these transitions tend to come off as distracting. There is a decent story that engages conversation in “Nickel Boys” somewhere. In fact, this story takes inspiration from a book based on unfortunate but true events. But the impact of that story is diminished by unusual tricks that do not stick the landing.

I should note this is not the first time I have seen a film done primarily in a first person view. One of my first reviews on Scene Before, where my writing abilities were definitely not as up to par, was for the action film “Hardcore Henry,” which I thought was okay but ended on a weird, abrupt note. While the movie is not perfect, I thought for the most part, the first person perspective added to the experience of that film. It reminded me of a first-person shooter like “Call of Duty.” I did not feel as immersed or closer to the scene when watching “Nickel Boys.” If anything it sometimes gave the illusion that I was watching life. Granted, this film does have a slice of life feel to it. You might think, “If something is so lifelike, does that not make it immersive?” Technically two and two can go together, but what I am getting at is that there was nothing about this film’s first person perspective that made me escape my reality and enter someone else’s, no matter how hard the filmmakers tried.

There are shining moments of “Nickel Boys” despite its flaws. The acting in this film is excellent. While I meant it as a diss earlier, this film is like watching life. In the sense of everyone’s acting abilities on screen, that is technically a compliment because all the performances are lifelike. While I wish I were more riveted by the relationship between Elwood and Turner, I will not deny that both of their respective performers, Ethan Herisse (above) and Brandon Wilson, knock their performances out of the park. These two seem like genuine friends and part of me wishes I could have been a fly on the wall if they were ever given a chemistry test.

The film does a really good job at establishing the connection between the main character, Elwood (Herisse), and his grandmother, Hattie (Ellis-Taylor). This is best established by what happens when they are separated. There is a scene where we see Hattie talking with Turner, and she reveals her displeasure for how the school would not allow her and Elwood to see each other. The scene even ends on a comforting note. Despite my previous complaints for the way the movie was produced, I thought that moment enhanced the first-person perspective. It is a moment that I thought could have worked in a more conventional manner, but it was made a smidge better since it was done in a first person view.

If I am going to be honest with you, I am going to remember this film mostly for its experimental vision that I imagine could sit well with some viewers, but not so much for yours truly. I think this film’s narrative is only going to become increasingly forgettable over time. I know this is a deep narrative, I just wish I were more compelled by it. The film will undoubtedly have an audience, some of whom will likely revisit it over the years. I just do not know if I will be a part of the crowd that ends up watching the movie more than once. As I watched the film I found myself a bit underwhelmed. I knew in advance about all the accolades and praise this film received from others. There is always at least one film nominated for Best Picture every year at the Oscars that begs me to question or disagree with the majority of viewers in regards to liking it. Last year, it was “Killers of the Flower Moon.” The year before that, it was “Elvis.” This season, it is “Nickel Boys.”

I hate to say this, because I was genuinely was looking forward to this film. By the halfway mark, I was bored. As of writing this, the film is streaming on MGM+, a streaming service whose slogan must be “The streaming service to buy when you finished buying all the other ones.” I watched “Nickel Boys” in a theater, but if I were streaming, I would probably turn it off and watch something else around the halfway point. My time is much too valuable and this would not have been the best use of it. I wish I were more compelled by the story, the characters, and unfortunately I was not. I think others will be. I am likely in the minority. Maybe a second viewing would help. But I do not think that is going to happen anytime soon.

In the end, “Nickel Boys” one of the biggest disappointments of the past year. It is not a broken movie, it is just one that I wish I could have appreciated more. I have seen all of the Academy Award Best Picture nominees from 2024, minus “Emilia Perez.” I would have to say “Nickel Boys” is my least favorite of them all. This was not an easy movie for me to sit through. Other than a couple decent scenes, “Nickel Boys” does not have a lot for me to write home about. The narrative dives into poignant moments that should keep me riveted. Maybe they are better represented in the book that this film is based on. “Nickel Boys” was a one time watch for me. I would watch it a second time to see if it is better, but if I were alone on a Friday night and were looking for something to watch, I would want it to have a better pace than what this movie delivered. I am going to give “Nickel Boys” a 4/10.

“Nickel Boys” is now available to stream on MGM+ for all subscribers.

Thanks for reading this review! Once again, apologies if my posts have been slow lately. I am still catching up on reviews after finishing the 7th Annual Jack Awards. And I have plenty in the pipeline. Soon I will be reviewing “Mickey 17,” “Locked,” “Hans Zimmer & Friends: Diamond in the Desert,” “The Luckiest Man in America,” “The Penguin Lessons,” “Novocaine,” and “The Ballad of Wallis Island.” 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 “Nickel Boys?” What did you think about it? Or, what is your favorite of the 2024 Academy Award Best Picture nominees? It is an easy pick for me, and I am very glad this movie won. I would have to say “Anora.” That was an experience if there ever was one. Let me know your pick down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

Riff Raff (2024): Having a Cast This Good in a Movie Just Shy of Being Solid is a Crime

Posted on by Jack Drees

“Riff Raff” is directed by Dito Montiel (Empire State, The Son of No One) and stars Jennifer Coolidge (American Pie, The White Lotus), Ed Harris (The Truman Show, Apollo 13), Gabrielle Union (America’s Got Talent, Bring it On), Lewis Pullman (Top Gun: Maverick, Bad Times at the El Royale), Miles J. Harvey (Supercool, The Babysitter), Emanuela Postacchini (The Seven Faces of Jane, Who is America?), Michael Angelo Covino (Keep in Touch, The Climb), Pete Davidson (Saturday Night Live, The King of Staten Island), and Bill Murray (Ghostbusters, Stripes). This film is set during a family reunion when a criminal’s life is suddenly turned upside down.

February is typically a dumping ground for movies. Although in recent years, the month has had a few attractive titles at the box office that would bring in a vast audience. In fact, this year we had “Captain America: Brave New World” as the month’s hot ticket. I am not going to pretend that “Riff Raff” had anywhere close to the box office potential of Marvel’s latest film, but if you look at the film’s cast, it would, in theory, bring some unlikely viewers in the door.

With the film’s cast being the biggest selling point, I am not surprised to say that they collectively end up being the highlight. Each individual brings their A-game and they all have decent material to work with. Is the material award-winning? No. Will the material go down in the history books? Probably not. But if you are looking for an hour and a half to kill, this might do. Perhaps just barely.

If you like the vibes of Rian Johnson’s “Knives Out” combined with a bunch of Quentin Tarantino’s filmography, then “Riff Raff” is for you. This film features a peculiar family who all come together at the same place. Even families whose members vowed to never speak to each other after that one time they discussed politics at Thanksgiving can tell you that this is clearly not a typical family gettogether. On top of that, the film is violent, bloody, and visceral. It is not the most grotesque picture of all time, but it is rather dark.

You may have noticed in the last couple paragraphs that I refused to take select thoughts I had on the film to an extreme. This is a consistency I have noticed regarding the film as I write this review. “Riff Raff” is a film that lacks standouts, both positive and negative. Sometimes I wonder if that is worse than a straight up bad movie. Because at least you can remember a bad movie. It is an experience you want to forget, but it often stays with you for a reason. This movie, while it has its moments, feels kind of disposable in the long run.

That said, there are some standouts in this film, one of which is Jennifer Coolidge as Ruth. She is funny, charming, and brings a respectable energy to her role to the point where I can only see Coolidge playing this particular character. There are certain portions of the film where you can clearly see the nerves coming out of Ruth to the point where she even tries to defend said nerves by suggesting they turn her on.

When you put Jennifer Coolidge in the same room as Bill Murray, Pete Davidson, and Ed Harris for example, such a concept sounds promising. In fact, all of these actors do a great job with their roles and have solid chemistry with one another. If I had to be honest, if you have a cast this promising, I wish the script were pinched up a little more to make the experience of watching all of these people at the same time just a bit better. Going back to “Knives Out,” the great thing about the movie, and even its 2022 follow-up, is that the gangbusters ensemble casts of both projects had great screenplays to back up their performances. I am not going to pretend that the screenplay for “Riff Raff” is broken. It works, it functions. Again, just barely. When I look back at this movie however, if I were to recommend it to somebody, I would recommend it on the idea of watching all of these big name actors come together as opposed to selling them on what kind of ride they are in for. The actors seem to offer more to the film, and as a result, the experience, than the writer does.

For the record, this film is solely written by John Pollono, who co-wrote one of my favorite films of the past decade that I did not review, “Stronger,” which is about a guy who was injured in the 2013 Boston Marathon Bombing. If I were to put these films side by side, I would easily choose to watch “Stronger” every single time. Although this is not to say “Riff Raff” is a heaping pile of malarkey. Pollono does a good job with “Riff Raff” by balancing humor with occasional drama. He also brings halfway decent stakes to the table.

I watched the film alongside my grandma as well as my mom. These two are not usually the target audience when it comes to bloody, violent films. Unsurprisingly, these two did not seem to walk out of the film thinking it was their favorite. But I would say in a way, the film seemed to do its job because it definitely generated a reaction out of them. The film has its hints of shock value, and there are some tense scenes where serious injury or bloody death seems imminent.

The film has some hilarious moments. There is one sequence past the halfway point featuring Pete Davidson and Bill Murray’s characters that had me in stitches. The sequence presents them with a neverending obstacle, and it was executed fantastically. “Riff Raff” is not the easiest film to identify within a certain genre. It is a little bit of an action flick. It is a little bit of a drama. It is a little bit of a crime story. It is a little bit of a comedy. When it comes to the comedy, it does not always hit, but when it does hit, it is sometimes a bullseye.

In fact, going back to those genres, one problem with this film is that it leans into being multiple genres at a time to the point where it never finds its footing and excels at one thing. It is like a more mature “Red One.” Although in this case, some of those genres perhaps barely surpass the “it’s fine” mark.

In the end, “Riff Raff” is neither great or horrible. It is the Little Caesars Pizza of crime movies. It delivers some enjoyment in the moment, but by no means is it going to sit in the hall of fame. Is “Riff Riff” going to end up being the year’s most memorable movie? No. In fact, it will likely be far from it. But there are also way worse options out there for your viewing displeasure. This is kind of in the middle of the road. It has been some time since I sat down and watched the movie so I am bound to forget some things, but truth be told, the more that time passes, the more I realize how forgettable “Riff Raff” becomes. The film has some decent moments that could squeeze it into a territory where I would say it is worth at least one watch, but I am nevertheless going to give “Riff Raff” a 5/10.

“Riff Raff” is now available to rent or buy on VOD.

Thanks for reading this review! I am sorry I have not posted a review for awhile. I have been busy with life, hobbies, as well as crafting the 7th Annual Jack Awards, which you totally should check out! It is available now for your enjoyment! That said, I do have more reviews coming including ones for “Nickel Boys,” “Mickey 17,” “Locked,” “The Luckiest Man in America,” “The Penguin Lessons,” and there is one film I saw recently that I have been debating as to whether I am going to review it or not, I just saw “Hans Zimmer & Friends: Diamond in the Desert.” It is a concert film, and I do not have a ton of experience with reviewing, or even watching those kinds of movies. That said, it was a great moviegoing experience and I would love to talk about it at some point. 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 “Riff Raff?” What did you think about it? Or, what is a movie with a solid cast that you think could have been better? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!