Sony

Scarlet (2025): Revenge is a Dish Best Served in the Afterlife

Posted on by Jack Drees

“Scarlet” is directed by Mamoru Hosoda (Belle, Mirai) and stars Mana Ashida (Pacific Rim, Mother), Masaki Okada (Drive My Car, Confessions), and Koji Yakusho (Babel, Perfect Days). In this film, the titular princess, who lives in Medieval Times, is out to get revenge against her father’s killer. Unfortunately for her, the mission does not go according to plan, because she dies before completing it. Her quest continues in the afterlife, where the killer also happens to reside. In the meantime, she runs into a medical worker from the present day, whose views on violence and revenge strongly conflict with hers.

“Scarlet’s” wide U.S. release does not take place until 2026, but I had the unique opportunity to watch the film in 2025, as it received a very limited engagement in select IMAX theaters. One of those theaters happened to be 20 minutes from home, and given how much I was chomping at the bit to see “Scarlet,” I bought a ticket lickety split. That said, even if “Scarlet” were only playing one, two, three, or even four hours away from where I was, I would have still bought a ticket because the film is from someone who has become a favorite filmmaker of mine in recent years, specifically, Mamoru Hosoda.

If you have read this blog in 2022, or sometime after, you may have discovered that I have a very unhealthy obsession for Hosoda’s movie “Belle,” which I have made multiple posts about, and watched countless times. Since then, I have gone back to watch Hosoda’s other films including “The Girl Who Leapt Through Time,” which was clever and fun. “Summer Wars,” which is creative and full of likable characters. “Wolf Children,” which by the end, triggered all kinds of emotions for me. “The Boy and the Beast,” which I found to be an entertaining journey with a likable duo. And “Mirai,” which I think is the weakest of Hosoda’s filmography, but still charming and neatly animated. Even with his inferior films, Hosoda boasts an incredible resume, and I am proud to say that “Scarlet” just the latest success from the masterclass storyteller.

Every once in a while, there comes in a film that makes people say that such a story is something we need right now, and I would argue “Scarlet” is not just a story we need right now, it is story that we will probably continue to need for years to come. This is not so much a movie as much as it is a message about being kind. A message reminding people of the horrors of violence. A message concerning the importance of the human condition. I really enjoyed seeing the major differences between the film’s two main characters, Scarlet, a princess from medieval times, and Hijiri, a first responder from modern times. Both characters end up dying, meet up in the afterlife, and come to realize each other’s differences.

“Scarlet” is not the only afterlife-centric film I reviewed this year. If you have followed Scene Before recently, you would know I reviewed “Eternity.” Both of these films have clever interpretations on what happens after you die, but both films are likely to hit certain audiences differently. “Eternity” takes a more comedic approach to dealing with the concept of death and the uncertainty of what happens after one ceases to exist. “Scarlet” on the other hand, while it occasionally has a funny moment, is grittier, bloodier, and more violent. If you dig this more dramatic approach, this movie could work for you. One indication of how dramatic this movie can get at times is its messaging about war.

Technically speaking, this film sings. The sound mixing in this film blew me away. There are some lightning claps in this movie that shook me as soon as they emitted. Granted, I saw this film in IMAX, so it is not much a surprise that a lot of the sound effects end up packing a punch. Not surprisingly, like most of Hosoda’s work, this film looks beautiful. Granted, I will say unlike some of his past work like “Summer Wars” or “Wolf Children,” there is a lot less emphasis on color. The film is not only rugged in terms of its vibe, but it is often matched by its color choices, or lack thereof. Though I will note, between this film and “Belle,” Hosoda seems to like focusing on protagonists with pink hair. The animation style is not the easiest to explain in layman’s terms. It is almost “Spider-Verse“-esque considering the film’s mix of 2D and 3D elements. It is not quite on the same level, but at times “Scarlet” does remind me of those films.

The music in this film is also fantastic. There is one song that is original to the film called “A Celebration Song.” I thought it was perfectly timed and utilized around the story’s midpoint. The score, whose percussion elements stood out to me in particular, is composed by Taisei Iwasaki. While I do not think this is as memorable as his “Belle” score, his efforts here result in some chilling tracks.

The story does have elements that are familiar. In fact, “Scarlet” takes a bit from William Shakespeare’s “Hamlet,” but it does not mean it is not its own animal. Scarlet and Hijiri come from different times, different places, different backgrounds. But both note that they are no strangers to war and violence. Scarlet wants to get revenge on the person who killed her father. And Hijiri suggests that people like him are trying to keep the concept of war in the rear-view mirror, despite the difficulty of doing so. He also establishes that his very profession involves saving people from death, and that he has never become used to the idea of people dying despite what his job entails. Scarlet mocks Hijiri, calling him a do-gooder, but he simply wants there to be world peace. As these two navigate the afterlife together, it becomes clear that in a sense, this movie is practically a near two hour plea for pacifism.

I also found the ending quite satisfying. Granted, it does require some suspension of disbelief. But if you can get past the logic leap, then it might hit you in the same way it hit me. Then again, as I say that, I realize how much this film made me suspend my own disbelief. I have no clue what the afterlife is going to be like, but most of my interpretations of the afterlife over the years have a timeline that is almost parallel to the one we experience in “real life.” When someone dies, I sometimes think of them “looking down” at me, or somebody else. The thought has never crossed my mind that there could be another version of me that has already died, or that if I die, I would travel to a time so to speak long before the people I know are born. The afterlife in this film is undoubtedly creative, but it is kind of mind-numbing to think about, and if I did end up there after I died, I would be a bit bewildered. The afterlife feels very specific to the movie’s universe in order to tell its specific story, and it works here. But it does not feel like a place in which people would truly end up after death if you ask me.

I cannot stop thinking about this film’s afterlife, which is in part a good thing because it is clever, but also a bad thing because I sometimes question its logic. But that is not all that is on my mind upon leaving “Scarlet,” because the film reminds me of how I sometimes think about some of the bad things in my life and how I could at one point say to myself, “This is the worst timeline,” or “This is the worst time in history.” But in actuality, my time in history is probably as not as bad as some others. In fact, it is very likely that as I look back in the past, so many people felt that their specific time had an overwhelming amount of negativity attached to it. I look at our world today and there is so much war going on across the planet, but this film reminds me that even though war exists, my generation did not invent it. In fact, many people in my generation are trying to stop it. This film made me wonder what life would be like if I were born at a different time, all the while making me appreciate the good that we have in this current time. I need time to marinate, but “Scarlet” is likely my favorite animated film of the year. It looks pretty, has likable characters, and is also a bit of a thinker.

In the end, “Scarlet” is, to me, in the middle tier of Mamoru Hosoda’s filmography, which is another way of suggesting that I really dug this movie. Hosoda tells a fast-paced, riveting, emotionally satisfying story with a couple of fleshed out main characters. I liked getting to know about both of them. On top of that, the film is beautifully animated and has tons of great music. I am going to give “Scarlet” an 8/10.

“Scarlet” arrives in theatres Feburary 6th, 2026.

Thanks for reading this review! My next review is going to be for “The Secret Agent!” Stay tuned! Also coming soon, I will be sharing my thoughts on “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 “Scarlet?” What did you think about it? Or, what is your favorite film from Mamoru Hosoda? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

Eleanor the Great (2025): June Squibb Gives one of 2025’s Best Lead Performances in Scarlett Johansson’s Directorial Debut

Posted on by Jack Drees

“Eleanor the Great” is directed by Scarlett Johansson, and this marks her first time directing a feature film. This movie stars June Squibb (Nebraska, Thelma), Erin Kellyman (Willow, Raised by Wolves), Jessica Hecht (Friends, Breaking Bad), and Chiwetel Ejiofor (The Lion King, Doctor Strange). This film is about a 94-year-old woman who moves from Florida to New York following a devastating loss. Shortly after her arrival, she finds herself in a group where she tells a tale that harkens back to the Holocaust.

Last year, I was introduced to June Squibb in the super funny comedy “Thelma.” If you told me that I would walk out of an action movie, led by someone in their 90s, thinking the lead kicks all kinds of butt, I would say, “Unless it’s Clint Eastwood, I ain’t buying it.” I am glad to be surprised.

Now Squibb is once again a leading lady in “Eleanor the Great.” But just because a movie has an actor I admire, does not mean it automatically sticks the landing. Heck, as much as I love Ke Huy Quan, watching “Love Hurts” earlier this year was sometimes painful despite some cool action scenes.

I have to think about the two movies side by side for a little bit, though I would understand one’s argument as to why “Eleanor the Great” is the better of the two films. I can honestly see myself going back and forth between the two movies depending on my mood. After all, I would argue that “Eleanor the Great” was not made for as wide of an audience as “Thelma.” “Thelma” has action, comedy, and it balances things out with some occasional pathos. It also presents a story where there is a relatable character for every age group.

If you cry easily, you might want to sit out on “Eleanor the Great.” The film partially centers around the Holocaust, or more accurately, reflections about the Holocaust. It also deals with getting older. Sure, “Thelma” did that too, but “Eleanor the Great” has a lot less fun with that concept. Not only does it deal with Eleanor herself getting older, but also what it is like for other people to watch her get older. It presents the obstacles she has to cope with, as well as those her family are pushing through themselves. June Squibb does an excellent job representing these obstacles as the lead through everything she does, as well as the things she observes around her.

“Eleanor the Great” is not just June Squibb’s show. The film is directed by one of the most talented and profitable actresses working today, Scarlett Johansson. Anytime an actor turns to directing, I have a little hint of curiosity. My big question is if they should stick to acting, or if they could sit in the chair for another round, and the latter is true for Scarlett Johansson. She understands what every performer in this film is supposed to deliver. The direction is not perfect. There are some moments that feel a little rushed just so we as an audience can understand a character’s line and move on. Select scenes appear more obviously staged than others, but they do not take away from the authenticity presented throughout much of the film’s runtime. That said, the moments where we get to know Eleanor’s so-called backstory, each line pairs well with the overall selection of shots. The film is meticulously edited. It is some of the finest I have seen this year. Eleanor’s storytelling is not only effective enough in terms of letting those around her get emotional, but also in the sense of letting that emotion fling itself to the audience watching the film.

Johansson did not write the movie. That honor belongs to Tory Kamen. The film is based on Kamen’s own experiences as well as the experiences of those she knows. One of the most robust rules in screenwriting is writing what you know. While Kamen is not old enough to have witnessed the Holocaust as it happened, she uses the perspective of people in her life to create an emotionally charged hour and a half.

In fact, I think this film reaches a major accomplishment with its portrayal of the Holocaust. Because if you watch films like “Life is Beautiful,” a chunk of the runtime is spent showing the horrors of the Holocaust, rather than telling them. Since film is a visual medium, I often believe “showing” should be prioritized over “telling” within the confines of said medium. However, some of my most emotional reactions regarding the Holocaust have been through seeing pictures or video, not by hearing someone talk about it. Hearing Eleanor tell the story of her friend had me stunned. By the end of the film, I was trying my best to hold back tears.

© Sony Pictures Classics

Just because the film deals with serious topics and features characters who have experienced some of the absolute worst moments in history, does not mean there are no lighthearted moments. With this film being set mostly in metro New York, we get to see Eleanor share some sympathy to a cab driver when she finds out he lives in Staten Island. Another example involves Eleanor’s love for Coney Island. Despite Eleanor’s reservations about moving to Manhattan, the film reveals how much she treasures Coney Island. While the film does have its occasional moment of levity here and there, the Coney Island storyline is the shiny gem planted between a rock and a hard place. That said, “Eleanor the Great” is incredibly poignant. Despite centering around the Holocaust, the screenplay is a work of fiction. The characters may not be real, but their respective performers are infinitely raw in their portrayals.

The basic concept of this film is intriguing enough, but the events that piggyback off of it are just as interesting. Not only does it establish an admirable connection between Eleanor and a curious college journalist (Erin Kellyman, center), but it later inserts Eleanor in scenarios that as soon as they came up on screen, a part of me went “Oh, no…” At times, I could feel the uncertainty running through Eleanor, and I got surprisingly nervous for what was going to happen as the film progressed. The film is predictable in some ways, but it presents obstacles and scenarios that not only did I fail to see coming, but feel earned. As this film neared the credits, I got pretty close to tearing up. This film has its moments of levity, but it is not an easy watch. Do not get me wrong, the movie is not a bad watch. If you can deal with the serious subject matter, I can see you appreciating “Eleanor the Great.” Please check it out if you can.

In the end, “Eleanor the Great” is a stellar directorial debut for Scarlett Johansson. At times, the movie feels predictable, some scenes come off as staged, and there are maybe one or two small moments that feel rushed. Even with those complaints in mind, this is one of the most emotional film-watching experiences I have had all year. This movie might not be in my top 10 of the year, but I would not be shocked if it ends up in my top 20. June Squibb is a tour de force. The supporting cast from Erin Kellyman, to Chiwetel Ejiofor, to Jessica Hecht, to Will Price, all do a superb job as their respective characters. If Scarlett Johansson is directing another movie, count me in. I am going to give “Eleanor the Great” an 8/10.

“Eleanor the Great” is now playing in theaters. Tickets are available now.

Thanks for reading this review! My next review is going to be for “The Lost Bus.” Stay tuned! Also coming soon, look forward to my thoughts on “One Battle After Another,” “If I Had Legs I’d Kick You,” “Tron: Ares,” “Bone Lake,” “A House of Dynamite,” and “The Smashing Machine.” 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 “Eleanor the Great?” What did you think about it? Or, have you ever been to Coney Island? What did you think of it? I’ve actually been twice, and both times were fun. Though I will admit the second time was arguably more enjoyable as I had much better weather. Let me know if you’ve been down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

A Big Bold Beautiful Journey (2025): Colin Farrell and Margot Robbie Deal with the World’s Strangest GPS

Posted on by Jack Drees

© Sony Pictures

“A Big Bold Beautiful Journey” is directed by Kogonada (Pachinko, After Yang) and stars Margot Robbie (The Wolf of Wall Street, Suicide Squad), Colin Farrell (The Banshees of Inisherin, Total Recall), Kevin Kline (Cyrano de Bergerac, Bob’s Burgers), and Phoebe Waller-Bridge (Fleabag, Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade). This film is about two people who meet at a wedding and eventually go on a journey that leads both of them to revisiting their pasts.

The trailers for “A Big Bold Beautiful Journey” did very little to excite me. I had the feeling the flick was going to either be too corny, overly sappy, or uneventful. In some ways, the final product falls in line with those expectations, but not exactly in the way that I thought they would. I am here to tell you that this movie is much better than I could have imagined, even if it is not perfect.

“A Big Bold Beautiful Journey” is not my kind of movie. When it comes to the many genres moviegoing has to offer, romantic dramas, in fact, even romantic comedies, are typically at the bottom of the list for me. I have nothing against the concept of romance, but as stereotypical of a guy thing as it is to say, I like my action. If I were not as open-minded about movies, chances are I would probably buy a ticket to “A Big Bold Beautiful Journey” solely to impress a date. That said, I do not live in that reality, and I took my single behind and put it in a Dolby Cinema chair. Because who needs a date when you have shaking recliners?

© Sony Pictures

Few things are as pleasing as a tremendous surprise, and “A Big Bold Beautiful Journey” was in fact, a surprise. This film immersed me from the very beginning and refused to let me leave. They say not to judge a book by its cover, but this film proves that it is not about the destination, it is, in fact, about the big bold beautiful journey.

The film finds itself in this peculiarly fulfilling middle ground where it does not quite feel real, but there is a certain level of belief that I am willing to suspend in what is ultimately a grounded world. Yes, much of the film features a self-aware GPS that takes its characters to places that make them think about their lives. But the film is ultimately about the human condition. The experiences that shape us. The places that make us. The people that define us. It is about the unpredictable mess that is life. Judging by everything I am telling you, it sounds like I am hyping this up to be the movie of the year. That would be a bit of an overexaggeration, but I do appreciate how much the movie made me think.

© Sony Pictures

I buy both of the leads in their respective roles. You have Colin Farrell as David… A reserved, hopeless romantic, trying to make it from one day to the next. Then there is Margot Robbie as Sarah, who has a bit more experience when it comes to the dating scene. Together you have a star-studded pair in a film that sounds too crazy to work, but somehow it does.

I am not going to pretend that everything works. One can make the argument that the film is too convenient. It is a film that relies heavily on something happening at the right place at the right time, or at the wrong place at the wrong time. I mentioned I am able to suspend my disbelief to a certain degree, but I think that is something I think not every viewer is going to do. The movie often feels fantastical and I see how select viewers would find that to be a turnoff. In fact, one thing that turned me off at times were the moments we spend at a rental car facility. That’s when we see a cashier and a mechanic played by Phoebe Waller-Bridge and Kevin Kline, who are honestly not as whimsical and charming as this movie wants me to think they are. Also, this film maybe has one of the most obvious product placements of any film I’ve seen in 2025, with its inclusion of Burger King.

Yes, I know “War of the Worlds” is a big Amazon commercial, but would you really call that a movie?

The restaurant ends up playing a somewhat substantial role in the plot as both lead characters go there, bond, share what they have in common, and once the leads are done there, that’s where the real fun begins for them. Nothing ignites romance like Whoppers!

Years ago, I reviewed a movie, if you want to call it that, by the name of “Superintelligence,” and this film reminds me of that one, as the protagonist’s journey is heavily guided by a computer, but there is a key point that this film gets right that “Superintelligence” does not. As I watched the film’s protagonist, David, I got the sense that he was often hesitant or second-guessing himself at each point of his journey. Despite some of his actions being determined by a computer, it often feels like he is presented with constantly engaging dilemmas. Should he go where the computer is taking him or should he go elsewhere? Should he perhaps go home?… As I watched the film, I wanted to know how these dilemmas were resolved.

You may be under the impression that the film’s biggest selling point would be one of it’s stars, like Colin Farrell. He is a great actor, but no. You might think it is Margot Robbie. Despite being a straight white male, she did not sell me either. Instead, what got me in the door was this film’s composer, Joe Hisaishi.

Some of you might be wondering who the heck I am talking about. And I would understand that reaction because this is Hisaishi’s first Hollywood feature he’s ever composed. That said, if you have watched Japanese film, or every film from anime director Hayao Miyazaki, you have heard his music, and each piece is often as inviting as his last. His compositions in this film are not exactly the most booming or epic pieces, nor do they need to be. Just about each one comes with a cozy vibe. Hisaishi delivers the goods here with several soothing tunes.

One last note, the GPS in this film is voiced by Jodie Turner-Smith. The role does not require a lot of pizazz or physical work. It is ultimately just a voiceover, but Turner-Smith gives it her all. The two most prominent characters are those of David and Sarah, but if this film had one character just below them in terms of importance, it would probably be the GPS, and Jodie Turner-Smith does her best to allow the character to ooze personality. It puts the film in the right direction.

…

I said, it puts the film in the right dire–(some dude tackles me to the ground and slaps me in the face)

© Sony Pictures

In the end, “A Big Bold Beautiful Journey” is surprisingly solid. Margot Robbie and Colin Farrell have enough star power to keep an entire solar system running by themselves, but together, they have solid chemistry. I buy these two as they revisit various points of their lives. I thought they were cute together. Is this a film I plan to watch again anytime soon? Not immediately, but this is not a bad flick by any means. It is also a decent pick for a date movie. I am going to give “A Big Bold Beautiful Journey” a 7/10.

“A Big Bold Beautiful Journey” is available to rent or buy on VOD.

Photo by Universal Pictures – © 2025 Universal Studios

Thanks for reading this review! My next review is going to be for “Him!” Stay tuned! Also coming soon, look forward to my thoughts on “Eleanor the Great,” “The Lost Bus,” “One Battle After Another,” “If I Had Legs I’d Kick You,” “Tron: Ares,” and “Bone Lake.” If you want to see these reviews and more from Scene Before, follow the blog either with an email or WordPress account! Also, check out the official Facebook page! I want to know, did you see “A Big Bold Beautiful Journey?” What did you think about it? Or, what two actors would you like to see play a couple on screen together? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

Oh, Hi! (2025): A Surprisingly Relatable Romcom That Features Multiple Relationship Extremes

Posted on by Jack Drees

“Oh, Hi!” is directed by Sophie Brooks and stars Molly Gordon (The Bear, Animal Kingdom), Logan Lerman (Fury, The Hunters), Geraldine Viswanathan (Thunderbolts*, Blockers), and John Reynolds (Search Party, Stranger Things). This film is about a couple who go on their first romantic getaway, only for it to go awry in an unexpected way.

I saw “Oh, Hi!” as part of a double feature. I do not usually partake in double features. In fact, when many people were participating in the infamous “Barbie” and “Oppenheimer” trend back in 2023, I saw “Oppenheimer” opening weekend, but waited on “Barbie” for a couple weeks. That said, because of my schedule over one particular weekend, I saw “Oh, Hi!” just minutes after finishing Micahel Shanks’ solid directorial debut “Together.” As I was waiting to watch both movies, I was thinking “Oh, Hi!” could be a nice palette cleanser after some body horror shenanigans, kind of like “Barbie” would have been had I watched it right after “Oppenheimer…” Boy was I wrong.

I often watch movies with my grandma, and this is one I am kind of glad we did not watch together. For the record, the film is quite good. But keep in mind, it is a dark comedy that is probably best watched with, or without, certain people.

I skipped most of the marketing for “Oh, Hi!”, other than catching a random spot on social media every once in a while, so when this film got to the core of the story, I was rather surprised by where it was going. Conceptually, this is a great idea for a movie. The thought of trapping someone to a bed to test romantic compatibility is undoubtedly dark, but the movie handles this narrative with excellence.

This sounds unbelievably stereotypical as a straight white male, but romcoms are not my first choice when it comes to movies. It does not mean they are impossible to enjoy, because “Oh, Hi!” is a blast. It is a romcom worthy of its title. The film is romantic and comedic. I very much felt the spark between its two leads while also having plenty of laughs. This is neither the most romantic or funny movie I have seen, but when it comes to both of those adjectives, I would be lying to say they do not apply to this film. The movie does not hold back on its story either. It is a story that is not only relatable, but does everything to keep you engaged. As the film reached its final ten, fifteen minutes, I was on the edge of my seat.

Much of what makes “Oh, Hi!” work so well is the cast. At the top you have Molly Gordon and Logan Lerman as Iris and Isaac, a completely admirable couple, if you want to call them that. Right below them is Geraldine Viswanathan and John Reynolds as Max (right) and Kenny (left). I was pleasantly surprised to find David Cross make an appearance in the film. He does not play a significant role in the story, but he is charming and funny. In fact, everyone in the film is charming and funny. They all play off each other perfectly. Props to casting, each actor feels well placed in their role.

There is a saying that every story is only as good as its villain. The antagonist of “Oh, Hi!” is by no means evil. There are no world-ending matters in a movie like this.

In fact, while Isaac (left) is most likely “the” antagonist of this film, it does not suggest that Iris (right) is a perfect individual herself. She ends up making some nearly indefensible, dark decisions despite her best intentions. That said, it does not change the fact that both characters are likable.

What makes Isaac in particular likable is his relatability. The film seems to address a common issue that people have in relationships, particularly commitment. The idea of committing to being with someone else for the rest of your life is one of the most daunting decisions you can make. The idea of taking steps in a relationship is scary. The idea of getting married is scary. The idea of being with someone else every day is scary. Nobody knows what the future has in store.

That said, having seen “Oh, Hi!”, I recognize that Isaac is kind of a fool. The way he addresses that he is not looking to be in relationship is so out of the blue to the point where he comes off as a jerk. And if he is not a jerk, he is most certainly stupid. While Isaac is relatable, it is no surprise the script does not always take his side. That said, it is also easy to root for him, especially considering he is tied to a bed for much of the runtime. The movie even points out despite Iris’ best intentions, she is technically kidnapping Isaac. His character is a solid representation of someone who would prefer to keep things casual, and is possibly afraid of taking things to the next level.

Overall, the relationship between Iris and Isaac is beautifully complex. The two seem to like each other and happen to be cute together. But they seem to have different goals in mind. One is in it for the romance, the other seems to be enjoying a short-lived fling. The film may as well be hinting that Isaac cares more about sex than anything else. The two seem to have failed to communicate their wants and needs before taking things further, therefore leading to the movie’s main incident. Either that, or it is possible that Isaac did what he could to impress Iris just to get into bed with her. The movie leaves a little room for interpretation and I appreciate that. If anything that matches the real-life complication of relationships.

Again, the end of this film is fantastic. I think a number of you could predict what happens towards the conclusion as the movie goes along, but it feels earned. The moments leading up to it are sometimes goofy, even for a romantic comedy like this one. But I can forgive it somewhat. If you are looking for a super funny film to watch with a great lead couple, then give “Oh, Hi!” a chance. It deserves some love.

In the end, “Oh, Hi!” came out of nowhere for me, but I ended up loving it. It is a romcom that is by no means disposable. It is a film that made me laugh, and then think. “Oh, Hi!” features an incredible cast of characters, well-written dialogue, and an ending that is truly satisfying. Romcoms are not my genre, but this one in particular stands out to me. I am going to give “Oh, Hi!” an 8/10.

“Oh, Hi!” is now playing in theaters and is also available to rent or buy on VOD.

Thanks for reading this review! My next review is going to be for “Weapons.” Stay tuned! Also coming soon, I will be sharing my thoughts on “Freakier Friday,” “Nobody 2,” and “Honey Don’t!”. 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 “Oh, Hi!”? What did you think about it? Or, what is a movie you really enjoyed from a genre you typically could not give two craps about? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

Bring Her Back (2025): Another Clever, Scary Outing from the Philippou Brothers

Posted on by Jack Drees

“Bring Her Back” is directed by Danny and Michael Philippou, the directing duo behind “Talk to Me.” This film stars Billy Barratt (Kraven the Hunter, Responsible Child), Sora Wong, Jonah Wren Phillips (Human Error, How to Make Gravy), and Sally Hawkins (The Shape of Water, Paddington). This film centers around Andy and Piper, a brother and sister who are placed under the care of an eccentric woman and find themselves part of a terrifying ritual.

I ended up going to see “Bring Her Back” mainly because of the films that were out in one particular weekend, it piqued my curiosity the most. Note my choice of words. I never said I was looking forward to this film. But I cannot say I was dreading it either. If anything, I was going to see “Bring Her Back” because of my past experience. If I saw any trailers for “Bring Her Back,” they likely flew over my head. That said, I saw “Talk to Me” one time a couple years back. I thought it was a respectable effort by filmmaking brothers Michael and Danny Philippou. While the film had its fans, I cannot say I thought it was perfect. Though I liked it enough to give it a thumbs up. There is a saying that you are only as good as your last project. The Philippou brothers’ last project got me in the door. So, how is their latest outing?

Out-freaking-standing, and I cannot emphasize my enthusiasm enough.

“Bring Her Back” is easily one of the best films of the year. It is a movie that is not quite committed to one genre. I have called it a horror film, and knowing what “Talk to Me” turned out to be, I was kind of expecting “Bring Her Back” to be in the same boat as that movie. While the film is creepy, I will say that one could easily put “Bring Her Back” in the category of psychological thriller. One can simply say it is a drama. Regardless of whatever genre you call it, it handles all of its mini-genres with excellence.

What makes “Bring Her Back” so great is my attachment to the core characters. We come to find out that they all have something in common. Specifically, they are all grieving over someone they lost. While it is traditional for people to grieve over someone’s death, these deaths are unlikely scenarios. For the two younger characters, Andy and Cathy, we see early on in the film that they lose their dad. Shortly after, they meet a new foster parent (Sally Hawkins), whose young daughter died after drowning in a pool. The movie made me feel bad for all three of these people, even if something seems off about one of them.

When these three people first met, it did not take long for me to develop a pit in my stomach. I knew we were in for a ride with Sally Hawkins from the moment I saw her. First off, like some of her previous projects, Hawkins does not phone it in whatsoever when it comes to her performance. She has so much range packed into one character. At one moment she is kind of a creep, then lovable, then flamboyant. Whatever she happens to be as Laura, Hawkins nails it. That said, even when she is those last two adjectives, there is a sense of creepiness to her that remains consistent.

There are some things Hawkins does throughout the runtime that not only made me hate her, but made me want to straight up punch her in the face. She is everything you can want in a solid antagonist. While I will give praise to Hawkins for her performance, I will not deny that her character is sometimes straight up unlikable despite her occasionally having a chill or “cool mom” vibe. And me loathing her is a good thing. All it got me to do is get behind the kids through their journey as it plays out. As wacky as this movie gets at times, I was able to buy into Laura’s motivation. I could see where she was coming from even if I ultimately thought she was a psychotic lunatic.

I would not call this a complaint, but this is more or less something I noticed through my experience of watching the film. Keep in mind, I found “Bring Her Back” to be quite scary. But I cannot say that there are many jaw-dropping individual scares in the film. If anything, I found the film to maintain a consistent eeriness. Going back to how this film balances itself between multiple genres, this is another example to support that case. The scariest part of this film is not any particular scene, but it is the everlasting sense that Laura is going to do something bonkers. And she ends up doing some bonkers things.

Structurally, “Bring Her Back” does not miss a beat. It has a great hook that gets you to care about the two younger kids. You have all the adventures these kids encounter alongside their new foster parent, and as the film gets to the climax, it means business. Again, Sally Hawkins is a fantastic performer. But by the end of the movie I would not have minded seeing her character splatter into bits. There is never a boring moment in this film. The story is captivating. The characters are well written, everything ends on a solid note, and the entire film has a pretty good soundtrack. There are some tunes that slide their way into the film that are perfectly placed.

Sally Hawkins is not the only standout amongst the cast, though she is by far the biggest name. That said, I must give credit to all the younger cast members as well. Billy Barratt does a solid job in the film as Andy. I thought he was on the money when it came to channeling his character’s apprehension in a variety of situations. Jonah Wren Phillips is not given as much to do as Oliver compared to some of the other characters, but what he ends up doing stands out. There is one particular scene in the film that involves him chewing an unusual object that will linger in my mind beyond the end of the year. And lastly, Sora Wong as Piper is adorable. This is Sora Wong’s first role and I am very pleased by how it turned out. I think she is going to have a great career ahead of her. I can totally tell how masterful the Philippou Brothers are as directors based on the efforts of the talent. Each actor feels perfectly in sync with the others around them and not a single performance feels off.

In the end, “Bring Her Back” is top tier filmmaking. I cannot believe we have been blessed with cinema as compelling as this. When I walked out of “Talk to Me,” I did so having had a good time with it. Flash forward a couple years later to “Bring Her Back,” I am genuinely onboard for whatever the Philippous can produce. I keep bringing up Sally Hawkins as a selling point, partially because she is a recognizable name. But everyone else in this film does a great job too. I have to give the entire cast credit for their work. If you like good storytelling, look no further, because I am going to give “Bring Her Back” an 8/10.

“Bring Her Back” is now playing in theaters. Tickets are available now.

Thanks for reading this review! My next review is going to be for the brand new comedy “Friendship.” I have been looking forward to seeing and talking about this movie. And I finally get to discuss it in the coming days. Stay tuned! Also look forward to my reviews for “Ballerina,” “The Phoenician Scheme,” and “The Life of Chuck.” If you want to see these reviews and more from Scene Before, follow the blog either with an email or WordPress account! Also, check out the official Facebook page! I want to know, did you see “Bring Her Back?” What did you think about it? Or, which film did you like better? “Talk to Me” or “Bring Her Back?” Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

The Penguin Lessons (2024): A Poignant and Pleasant Penguin Picture

Posted on by Jack Drees

“The Penguin Lessons” is directed by Peter Cattaneo (The Full Monty, Military Wives) and stars Steve Coogan (Night at the Museum, Philomena), Jonathan Pryce (The Two Popes, Brazil), Vivian El Jaber (Guapas, Cha Cha Cha), and Björn Gustafsson (People of Earth, Parlamentet). This film is about an Englishman living in 1970s Argentina who rescues and looks after an orphaned penguin.

One of the coolest things about going to the movies is getting to experience something with other people. “The Penguin Lessons” is the latest example of one of those events. Partially because this is a film I would have probably waited a bit before going to see by myself. Granted, the trailer, for the few times I saw it, won me over, but this was not my kind of movie. I picked this movie to watch with a couple other people, particularly my mom and grandma, as an equalizer. I thought it would be something we would all agree on.

Thankfully, the decision to watch this film was a wise one. “The Penguin Lessons” is one of the most adorable films I have seen in a long time. I am the furthest thing from a pet person, but even I was captivated by the connection between our film’s protagonist, Tom, and a penguin who eventually winds up going by the name Juan Salvador. The film itself follows a predictable path, where you have a guy who could care less about owning a penguin, he is essentially obligated to take care of it, and he ends up forming an unlikely bond with it. Although the film is much more than that. It is a look into a tragic time for Argentina, where its people were noticeably divided and under dictatorship rule.

In some cases, the penguin in this film seems to serve as an escape from the troubles Argentina’s people were experiencing at this time. We see him not only as Tom Michell’s pet, but also as a reward for his class. There is a scene where we see the class spiraling into chaos, and to calm him down, Michell goes into his nearby home, grabs the penguin, and walks into class with it. Having had time to think about this movie, I probably would have had a much different reaction to this scene if Michell suddenly brought in a dog or a cat, considering a decent number of people are allergic to them. That said, in fairness, there are not as many known records of people having penguin allergies. It is nice to see this group of students experience a moment of comfort and joy in what is clearly a tense time. Some of these boys may be immature or part of the problem, but we see them lighten up a bit because of this one animal.

Some of the best films have something to say about what it means to be human. At certain points, “The Penguin Lessons” is not afraid to show the worst of humanity, as this film is set in an Argentinian dictatorship where anyone on the street can be captured. “The Penguin Lessons” reminds me of humanity’s unique connection to other creatures. We do not just bond with our own kind, but also many others. In fact, the penguin in this film sometimes shows it is easier for certain people to step up for another animal than it is for them to step up for another human being, even if they see another human being in serious danger. In some cases, that may be because we do not want to risk our own lives, partially to the blame of, unfortunately, other humans.

The film may be set during a dark, gritty time, but it manages to pack plenty of joy and levity into just about every other scene. If you are looking to escape from the problems of the real world, this movie surprisingly works, despite also presenting a world with prominent problems of its own. The first 30 minutes of this film, especially when we first see our protagonist and the penguin in the same place, is sometimes laugh out loud funny. There is a line, I will not say what it is, but you will know it when you hear it, that Tom says twice in a span of several minutes, and I was almost rolling on the floor. It is not so much the line itself that is funny as much as it is the delivery. There are moments where Tom finds out what it is like to clean up bird poop, but much to my delight, the film does not treat it so much like a gag.

This film is directed by Peter Cattaneo, who was previously nominated for a Best Director Oscar for “The Full Monty.” With “The Penguin Lessons” being a 2024 release to some degree and having its wide release this early in 2025, I do not know if Cattaneo is going to get another nomination, but if the Oscars were tomorrow, his presence amongst the nominees would be debatable. Between his perfect balance of comedy and drama, as well as the timing connected to both of those genres, Cattaneo knows exactly what he is doing.

Another reason why Cattaneo knows what he is doing shows through the performances. This film is led by Steve Coogan, who I have seen in a number of films before. But I am not going to lie, I had no idea who the lead was for this film going in,. As I was watching, I thought, much to my embarrassment down the line, that I was looking at Hugh Grant. The two actors have their aesthetic individualities, but for whatever reason they do look surprisingly similar. Steve Coogan in this film sort of reminds me of a Hugh Grant type. His character, Tom, is reserved and comes off as if he is stuck in his ways. Yet at the same time, if you get to know him, you will realize he is a wholesome person. While Tom may seem like a grump on occasion, he stands firmly alongside Juan Salvador the penguin as the film’s heart and soul.

The film clearly establishes Tom’s lack of enthusiasm for keeping a penguin from the getgo, but never once did I think he was a jerk. Heck, if someone randomly handed me a penguin, I would probably resist the idea of keeping it too. But this film shows the fascinating journey of what happens when you choose to keep a pet you never wanted, and how taking on such a responsibility can be rewarding.

In the end, “The Penguin Lessons” is a well-paced, well-written delight. If you are looking for a film that focuses on Argentinian history, it might be for you, but you may also want to look elsewhere. Ultimately, this is an adorable story about a man and his penguin. If that is what you signed up for, you will be satisfied. Steve Coogan gives a heck of a performance. It is still early, but I will be interested to see what other portrayals could top it throughout the year. I highly recommend “The Penguin Lessons,” and I am going to give it an 8/10.

“The Penguin Lessons” is now playing in theaters and is also available to rent or buy on VOD.

Thanks for reading this review! If you have been paying attention to my recent posts, you may have noticed my last couple have focused heavily on game shows. If you have not yet checked them out, be sure to read my thoughts on “The Luckiest Man in America,” the new movie based on a couple of infamous “Press Your Luck” episodes, as well as my thoughts going into the upcoming season of “Who Wants to Be a Millionaire.” If you want to see posts like these 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 Penguin Lessons?” What did you think about it? Or, what is your favorite movie involving penguins? I’ll even accept “Batman Returns.” That movie is sick. Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

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!

I’m Still Here (2024): Fernanda Torres Carries This Moving Drama

Posted on by Jack Drees

“I’m Still Here” is directed by Walter Salles (Central Station, The Motorcycle Diaries) and stars Fernanda Torres (Love Me Forever or Never, The House of Sand), Selton Mello (A Dog’s Will, Lisbela and the Prisoner), and Fernanda Montenegro (Sweet Mother, Central Station). This film is based on a memoir of the same name and is about a mother who deals with the forced disappearance of her husband, former politician Rubens Paiva, who opposed Brazil’s military dictatorship.

In an effort to catch all of this year’s Best Picture nominees before the Oscars, I had to find a way to check “I’m Still Here” off my list. One key difference when it comes to this nominee in particular compared to say “Anora” or “Wicked” or “Dune: Part Two” is that I went into this film knowing nothing about it. All that I really knew was that it was a Brazilian movie, the characters speak Portuguese, and it was getting a lot of critical acclaim. I went in completely blind, having barely come across as much as a poster. Safe to say, I did not know what to expect.

Thankfully, I came out of this movie feeling satisfied.

“I’m Still Here” is not an easy watch. Some of my audience might think I say such a thing because this is a film not made in the United States or a film where English is not the primary language used in the dialogue.. That is not my point. Though I can see why those two things could turn some people off upon a first impression. Instead, this film deals with a serious subject matter that I imagine would be tough for some viewers. The film is dramatic, yet grounded at the same time. It is perfectly balanced in its attempt to be both an inviting slice of life story and an engaging political thriller. The film is like life itself. It has its happy moments. It has its sad moments. And in the long run, it is worth seeking out.

One of my favorite things about this film is how it handles the importance of family, especially when you consider the protagonist’s point of view, as well as the many obstacles she must face just to be with them, or do what is best for them. We see her trying to protect them under their respective political landscape, as well as do anything and everything she can to uncover her husband’s whereabouts. The film shows what it means to stay connected even in the darkest of times.

The family itself is well written and decently cast. There is not a single person on the lineup I found to be out of place, and I thought everyone’s personality shone through. Honestly, the entire cast of the film serves their purpose and does a good job. I cannot name a bad apple on the tree. But Fernanda Torres is on another level with her performance here.

There is a reason why Fernanda Torres was nominated for an Academy Award. She is the film’s soul and I cannot see anyone else playing her. Every moment, every line, every facial expression, she sold me. Torres is commanding in every scene. The movie gives her a lot to do and she handles all of her material very well. I have been doing some research online to see what everyone is saying about this film, and just about every other person I am coming across is losing their mind over Torres. I may not be adding anything new to the conversation that has not already been said, but she is easily the best part of the movie.

This film is based on true events. On that note, the story features real life politician Rubens Paiva (left). I do not know a ton about the real events that inspired this film, but I did some research on Paiva following the film and I have to say kudos to whoever cast Selton Mello, because he looks the part. Granted, acting ability is arguably more important, and thankfully, he has that in spades.

One of the reasons why I have come to realize “I’m Still Here” has some of the best collective acting in 2024 cinema is likely because of the way the film was shot. If you know how movie productions tend to work, not every project is shot in chronological order. “I’m Still Here” is an exception to the rule. I think this move paid off, because it allowed the talent to experience the sense of immersion in their story that viewers like I did while watching it unfold.

On that note, “I’m Still Here” is quite an immersive movie. “I’m Still Here” has more in common with a slice of life tale than a large scale epic, but the movie sometimes feels as large as life itself. Whether I was at a family gathering, the beach, or the inside of a home, I felt like I was a part of this film’s world. Such a sentiment is also true for a prison, which does not emit the most pleasant feeling, but every scene in this film, like it or not, had a sense of verisimilitude. The film takes time to showcase the beauty of life, but also keeps things real by reminding people of the extreme obstacles our characters constantly encounter.

At times, this movie is the definition of the idea that life goes on. An integral part of your life may cease to exist, but as long as you are still around, it is up to you to decide how to navigate things going forward. You could remember your past, run from it, choose to reinvent yourself. Sometimes that integral part may leave you in a literal sense, but deep down, it will always be with you.

The movie ends on a satisfying note. The final scene is exquisitely acted and well directed. It also goes to show the power of silence. Filmmaking is a visual medium, and any opportunity that can be taken to let the visuals do the talking allows for great scenes like this one. I will leave the details undisclosed for now and let you see the proper craftsmanship for yourself.

In the end, “I’m Still Here” was kind of a last minute purchase for me. I probably would not have seen this film if it were not for the word of mouth it racked up during this awards season. And I am happy to have added to it. This film is full of great performances, gripping scenes, and solid chemistry amongst its cast. Of course, Fernanda Torres is the standout, but the supporting actors also add quite a bit to the final product. It is not an easy watch, but I think if you can handle the material, this movie could be worth your time. I am going to give “I’m Still Here” a 7/10.

“I’m Still Here” is now playing in theaters and is available to rent or buy on VOD.

Thanks for reading this review! I have reviews on the way for “Riff Raff,” “Nickel Boys,” “Mickey 17,” and “Locked.” Stay tuned!

And coming on March 30th, look forward to the 7th Annual Jack Awards! The most important awards show in the history of movie blogs! Why? Because I said so! This is a reminder that you have the power to vote for this year’s Best Picture! You can do so by clicking this link and choosing one of the ten nominees. And click this link if you want to know what films are nominated for this year’s ceremony! Unfortunately, “I’m Still Here” was not nominated for any awards this year, but if I were to add a sixth candidate for Best Actress, Fernanda Torres would probably earn that spot. It was a very close call. But rules are rules. I did see this movie before announcing the nominations last week, but Torres’ honestly goes to show how great acting has been across the board for several performers over the past year. If you want to see this upcoming show 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 “I’m Still Here?” What did you think about it? Or, what is the saddest film you saw in the past year? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

Paddington in Peru (2024): This Bear’s Still Got It

Posted on by Jack Drees

“Paddington in Peru” is directed by Dougal Wilson and this is his feature film debut. The film stars Hugh Bonneville (The Monuments Men, Downton Abbey), Emily Mortimer (The Pink Panther, The Newsroom), Julie Waters (Mamma Mia!, Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone), Jim Broadbent (Bridget Jones’s Diary, Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince), Carla Tous (30 Coins, El hombre del saco), Olivia Colman (The Favourite, The Mitchells vs. the Machines), Antonio Banderas (Shrek 2, The Hitman’s Wife’s Bodyguard), and Ben Whislaw (Skyfall, Fargo). This film is the third installment to the “Paddington” film franchise, where Ben Whislaw once again voices the title character. The film dives into Paddington’s adventurous journey to reunite with his Aunt Lucy, who now lives at the home for retired bears in Peru.

Two similar phrases I notice myself use sometimes as a film fan are “better than it should be” or “better than it has any right being.” Those two phrases very much apply to the current “Paddington” movies. Sure, these movies might appeal to kids, but just like I often say about Pixar titles, they are presented in such a way where they also have a lot for adults to enjoy. I watched both “Paddington” titles leading up to this one earlier this year. I have heard nothing but good things about both, and boy do they live up to the hype. Ben Whislaw adorably voices the lead role. The rest of the cast has perfect chemistry and all play their parts well. The atmosphere of these films do a great job at adding an enhanced otherworldliness to real life locations. The films somehow get you to buy that an animated bear lives with a large human family.

That said, I did maintain a notable nerve with “Paddington in Peru.” The director of the past couple movies, Paul King, is not in the chair this time around. Dougal Wilson is helming this project instead. As someone who is sometimes resistant to change, it was something lingering in my mind upon this film’s release. Thankfully, my nerves were rid of by the time the film got into gear because this film maintains the tone, atmosphere, and therapeutic nature of the previous “Paddington” installments. I did not know this was Wilson’s first film. But having seen it, I would love to see more from work from him. Heck, if he wanted to do a sequel to this movie, I would not be against it.

Is “Paddington in Peru” as good as the Paul King installments? No. It is a step down. But it is a step down in the same way that I see “Inside Out 2” as a step down from its predecessor. “Inside Out” is so masterfully made that whatever came after it had big shoes to fill. While “Inside Out 2” was good, it was nowhere near the level of the original. In fact, one similarity I will note between these sequels is that these latest films do not pack as much emotional weight as their predecessors. I will forever cherish the ending to “Paddington 2.” It has become a new favorite of mine because not only is it earned, but it almost broke me. There is nothing in this film as emotionally charging as that scene. This does not mean the film itself lacks emotion, it just does not have as much.

In addition to emotion, the film has laughs and adventure. This is a great watch for the entire family, but also maintains a balance between being overly mature and overly childish. Pardon the incoming bear pun, but when it comes to finding a balance for all audiences. The film is “just right.”

“Paddington in Peru” is a solid trilogy capper that understands its characters, its vibes, and successfully progresses the universe into a direction that is bigger than what came before. Bigger does not necessarily mean better in this case, but this film in terms of scope, sometimes feels more epic than the last two. At times, the film has an “Indiana Jones” feel. Not only because of the adventurous structure, but also likely because the film mainly takes place in the jungle. As a bonus, there is a scene involving a giant boulder.

One of the most crucial aspects many movies must balance is a sense of realism combined with suspension of disbelief. The “Paddington” movies do a great job at this, and this one is no exception. One example of this involves Olivia Colman’s character, the Reverend Mother, a happy go lucky, singing, guitar-playing nun who lives in the middle of the Peruvian Jungle. Unsurprisingly, Colman kills it here. She is so dynamic and hyperactive to the point where every scene of hers is a highlight. She makes you believe that someone as over the top like her can exist in a world much like ours.

Going back to what I said about change, turns out the director was not the only change behind the scenes. While Mary Brown (right) from the previous movies does return here, Sally Hawkins has been replaced with another actor, Emily Mortimer. While watching the film, I did not know Hawkins was replaced, but when I look at the two actors side by side I could barely see a difference. Mortimer maintains the welcoming, calm feel Hawkins previously brought to the role and gives a solid performance in her own right. I would love to watch all three of these movies back to back one day and see how these two performances compare as a whole. Although upon my first impression, I have no complaints regarding Emily Mortimer’s portrayal of Mary Brown.

That said, Hugh Bonneville does come back as Henry Brown (right center), and while I think his presence here is probably the weakest of the three movies, I still think Bonneville himself plays the role nicely. I am glad to see him come back. The film tends to dive into Henry’s risk aversion. I thought that was handled well and brought a decent load of conflict into the character’s path.

I see this franchise in the same way that I see some of my favorite sitcoms like “Seinfeld” or “The Big Bang Theory.” Story is arguably the most important aspect of any movie. But even if the story comes off as an afterthought, which for the record, it does not here, I would keep coming back to the “Paddington” movies just to hang out with the characters. Paddington himself is a bundle of joy. The supporting human characters are all likable. The antagonistic roles in this film are some of the best parts of the movie. I would watch a fourth “Paddington” film just to see where these characters go next. If you are under a lot of stress or you want to forget about the troubles of the world, the “Paddington” movies, including this one, are a solid option to pass the time.

The film also looks beautiful. This should not come as a major surprise considering a lot of it takes place in the Peruvian jungle, but the color palette, much like the last two films, has this slight homey gloss to it. Many of the river shots, the tree shots, and anything else related to the jungle environment are pleasing to the eyes. Erik Wilson, who shot the last two “Paddington” movies, comes back to shoot this one, and he follows up those two with another gorgeously framed spectacle.

Also, when the credits roll, do not get out of your chair. There is an extra scene. If you are familiar with these movies, it is a nice little addition that would be worth your time.

STUDIOCANAL – © STUDIOCANAL SAS

In the end, “Paddington in Peru” is the worst of the “Paddington” movies. But like the “Toy Story” franchise, even the weakest film, in my case the fourth one, is worth a watch. The film is a fine-looking, exquisitely presented, well-oiled machine of happiness. Feeling down? Watch this movie. I am not a doctor, but I watch a lot of movies. This is simply my professional advice. The film has the vibe of a glorified Saturday morning cartoon that also feels down to earth. I am looking forward to seeing what Dougal Wilson does next as a director. If “Paddington” continues, I will go to the cinema to support it. The franchise is 3 for 3 so far. I am going to give “Paddington in Peru” a 7/10.

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

Thanks for reading this review! My next reviews are going to be for “Love Hurts,” “The Brutalist,” and “I’m Still Here.” Stay tuned! If you want to see these reviews and more from Scene Before, follow the blog either with an email or WordPress account! Also, check out the official Facebook page! I want to know, did you see “Paddington in Peru?” What did you think about it? Or, which is your favorite of the “Paddington” movies? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

One of Them Days (2025): Keke Palmer and SZA Star as Two Broke Girls

Posted on by Jack Drees

“One of Them Days” is directed by Lawrence Lamont and this is his first feature film. The movie stars Keke Palmer (Nope, Lightyear), SZA, and Katt Williams (Scary Movie 5, Cats & Dogs: The Revenge of Kitty Galore). This film is about two roommates who must do anything and everything they can so they can pay their rent and continue living in their apartment.

As a moviegoer, I wholeheartedly welcome “One of Them Days” as a concept alone. With the growth of streaming and the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic, the moviegoing space is in a dire need for more straight-up comedies. While not every comedy lands with me, it is a preferred genre of mine. These kinds of movies are fairly digestible and fun, even if they sometimes feel repetitive or try too hard to be over the top and raunchy just for the sake of being raunchy. That said, I was a little skeptical watching the marketing for “One of Them Days” each time it came on. At best, I found what was in front of me to be mildly funny. Thankfully, the movie itself has more than a few laughs. This film released in January, and as far as January movies go, this is quite good. It is hard to know if I will remember this film by the end of the year, but this is a movie that if I had my way, I could experience it in a sold out setting because I think it has enough decent humor to get an entire room cracking up.

If I had to choose my favorite things about “One of Them Days,” a few immediately come to mind. For starters, the pace of this film never slows down. The film is kind of like “Saturday Night” in a sense. It constantly reminds the audience of how much time our characters have left before certain doom. I would say this is probably less anxiety-inducing than “Saturday Night” though as our characters start their journey off with more time to waste. But the movie still has a looming countdown to something that could potentially change the course of our characters’ lives.

Another standout element that comes to mind? The actors. Everyone on screen genuinely looks like they are having a good time making something that could be considered mindless. While the film may look and sound mindless on its surface, it nevertheless does a good job at getting me to care about the characters as they deal with their problems. Keke Palmer and SZA play Dreux and Alyssa. The two are fairly grounded characters who also bridge a gap to where they match the film’s hyperactive, almost animated vibe. This is the latest film in which I have seen Keke Palmer, who is quickly becoming one of my favorite on-screen personalities. On top of her movies, I think she is a solid game show host as well on NBC’s “Password.” This film continues to prove why I want to see more work from her. As for SZA, I do not know enough about her, but this film definitely makes me want to know more.

I saw this movie with my mom, and we both agreed upon walking out that it is silly and ridiculous. In a way, one can say my expectations were met. But if you go on the Wikipedia page for “One of Them Days,” it says the film is in the “tragicomedy buddy” genre. In reality, I would say most, if not all comedy, comes from tragedy, hence the phrase “comedy equals tragedy plus time.” But sticking with the idea of tragedy, I also think this movie does a great job at interjecting drama, and none of it feels forced or tacked on. The main plot involving the rent money is one thing, but there is also a subplot where we see Dreux trying to get a job she has been working towards, and I felt the stakes as this subplot was unfolding. There is a great interview sequence where I cannot help but root for the character. There is so much more to this scene than one could expect. In fact, “more” is a word that could heavily apply to my experience watching this movie. This movie keeps putting more, and more, and more high stakes material into its narrative to the point where you continue to worry that the main duo will fail at accomplishing their goals.

While “One of Them Days” is not my favorite screenplay of all time, I will not deny that it is structured quite nicely. This movie keeps building one problematic scenario for our main duo after another, with each one as engaging as the last. At one moment, they are dealing with their rent money. At another, one of them is dealing with their career. At another, they are dealing with their literal lives. I do not think “One of Them Days” is perfect considering how I do not remember all the character’s names. Also, execution-wise, some of the dialogue was delivered in such a way where I could not digest all of it. While the film’s replay value is not as high for me as others, I think “One of Them Days” is not only worth watching again just for fun, but I think the film would absolutely benefit from a rewatch in case there are any jokes or lines I missed the first time around.

“One of Them Days” also delivers a surprisingly thrilling climax. For what I previously referred to as a straight-up comedy, this film is at times, rather deep. And it shows here. Because the film resolves itself in a way where everything makes sense, everything binds together, but it leaves our characters in positions that I may not have seen coming from the movie’s earliest moments. And on top of that, I would imagine the characters themselves happen to feel the same way.

I am not going to pretend that I am watching “One of Them Days” for the visual effects, but if I had one nitpick about the film, I will say that there is a scene where one character gets electrocuted and throughout the process, we see the most fake-looking, obviously CGI-ed electricity that could have possibly been brought to screen. Despite that, this movie is often grounded to the point where you buy the scenarios, even if they are a bit over the top. There are also moments that almost cross a line to where if they happened in real life, it would leave one responding to the moment saying, “You can’t make this stuff up!”. This film feels real because not only does it have relatable characters, but it does a good job at putting you in the mindsets of these characters to the point where you too are bewildered by the actions of other people.

In the end, “One of Them Days” definitely lives up to its title. It is crazy, briskly paced, and refuses to let its characters, and therefore the audience, breathe. Sometimes it is so bonkers to the point of potential convolution, but the movie also has enough laughs in it to make up for that. Keke Palmer and SZA are a fine leading duo. I thought their roles were well cast. Also, I have to shout out Rizi Timane, who is also a highlight as Uche the landlord. Same goes with Maude Apatow as Bethany, I thought she was adorably charismatic. I have seen better movies, not to mention better comedies, but “One of Them Days” is a good time at the movies and I am going to give it a 7/10.

“One of Them Days” is now playing in theaters. Tickets are available now.

Thanks for reading this review! My next review is going to be for the brand new MCU installment, “Captain America: Brave New World.” Stay tuned! If you want to see this review and more from Scene Before, follow the blog either with an email or WordPress account! Also, check out the official Facebook page! I want to know, did you see “One of Them Days?” What did you think about it? Or, what is your favorite comedy of the decade so far? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!