Title: Apples

Director: Christos Nikou

Released: September 2, 2020 (Venice International Film Festival)

Runtime: 1 hour 31 minutes

Available to stream: Exclusively on Mubi (have a month on me!)

Aris (Aris Servetalis) finds himself living through a pandemic. However, this isn’t your run of the mill pandemic. No, in this pandemic, the infected suffer from sudden amnesia.

One day, Aris finds himself going about his daily tasks when all of a sudden, he awakes on a bus. When the bus reaches the end of the line, the driver asks Aris if he knows where he was supposed to get off. He can’t remember anything. How he got on the bus, where he was going, none of it is coming back to him.

To make matters worse, Aris has no form of identification on him. Because of this, Aris is taken to a specialized ward handling amnesia patients. Time goes by and not a single person has come looking for Aris. He can’t leave the facility unless someone comes to “claim” him. As an alternative, he is approached and encouraged to take part in a new program designed to give amnesia patients a new beginning.

In the program, Aris receives instructions to perform predetermined tasks and take a photo of himself completing each one. While progressing through each task, Aris is completing and documenting life experiences that will form his new identity.

Is it possible to completely forget oneself while simultaneously forging a new version of oneself?

Will there be a point where Aris’ past will bleed into his new memories?

Well, I warned you upfront that it was going to get weird. But now the question is, were you able to buy into the weirdness?

I was.

Reading the synopsis for Apples (2020) before viewing it gave me one version of what to expect. However, Christos Nikou decided to give you what you expect, and turn it on its head. Nikou is now on my radar and knowing that Yorgos was a mentor to him helps explain a bit of the weird factor.

Apples (2020) is one that you need to see to try to begin to understand. And one that, at least for me, will need multiple rewatches to try to fully grasp and understand.

What I will say though, is that Aris Servetalis gives an incredible performance. While his character doesn’t have a lot of dialogue, Aris gives an award worthy performance through just his facial expressions. Also, if you were able to buy into weird, you’re going to love it. All throughout you are trying to decipher what is going on, what is the big picture, and what can you truly believe?

You can view Apples (2020) in one of two ways. You can say that Aris forgot everything about his life and through these tasks his memories began to come back to him. Or you can say that Aris never really suffered from amnesia. Rather, he chose to act like he had amnesia as a way to avoid processing grief.

I tend to believe the latter. There are instances of Aris remembering his old address, the lyrics to a song, and how to perform a specific dance. However, the human brain is a mystery. One can’t know for certain why specific memories may resurface.

Maybe having me believe that Aris acted like he suffered from amnesia was just another trick played on my brain.

Either way, I’ll definitely be revisiting Apples (2020) again.

So, what about you? What did you think of Apples (2020)?

Leave me a comment below or reach out to me on social media and let me hear your thoughts!

Give me a follow over on Letterboxd to keep up with everything else I’ve been watching.

The post Apples (2020) appeared first on I've Scene That!.

Title: The Stunt Man

Director: Richard Rush

Runtime: 2 hours 11 minutes

Released: June 27, 1980 (United States)

Available to stream on: Kanopy, Peacock, and Tubi

Cameron (Steve Railsback) is a combat veteran wanted for attempted murder. Cameron, still handcuffed, manages to successfully escape after the authorities apprehend him. Now on the run, he finds himself on a bridge when all of a sudden, a car appears to be running him down. Cameron avoids the car and when he turns back to look at where it came from, the car is gone.

Did it go over the bridge? Who was driving? And where are they now?

As Cameron continues on, he winds up stumbling onto a movie set. Not knowing where he is, he jumps in to save a drowning old woman. However, the woman he saved isn’t an old woman, it is Nina, (Barbara Hershey) the lead actress of the film in makeup and prosthetics.

Eli (Peter O’Toole), the film’s director, walks in and approaches Cameron. He explains to him that their last stunt man just drove a car off a bridge. They can’t find the body, but they also can’t afford to slow down production. So, Eli offers Cameron the role of stunt man on the film. Not only will this help Eli keep the film on schedule, but it also helps Cameron stay hidden from the authorities.

While grateful for an opportunity to avoid law enforcement, as Cameron learns the ropes as a stuntman, he begins to wonder what Eli’s true intentions are. The stunts seem to be getting more intense and increasingly more dangerous.

Just how much risk is Cameron willing to take in order to remain a free man?

Sometimes what you expect to get out of a movie and what you actually get are two completely different things. Such is the case with The Stunt Man (1980).

What I expected was an action movie about stunt men. What I got was a frustrating jumbled mess with a standout performance.

To the surprise of absolutely nobody, Peter O’Toole demands your attention as Eli. He is phenomenal in the role and really manages to get you to hate the character while also leaving you questioning his intentions.

While I enjoyed O’Toole’s performance overall, the portrayal isn’t quite as clever as it wants to be. Yes, blurring the lines between what is being done for the movie and what is being done for Eli’s own pleasure is effective…to an extent. However, it unfortunately reaches a point where there is no longer any cohesiveness, and it becomes frustratingly repetitive rather than cleverly deceiving.

A good portion of the stunts performed look great. Although, as the movie progresses, the stunts begin to become less and less believable. As the stunts became more impossible, unfortunately, they took me out of the movie, despite the committed performance from Steve Railsback.

While worthy of a watch, I don’t believe that The Stunt Man (1980) is one I’ll be frequently returning to.

Now it’s your turn!

If you’ve seen The Stunt Man (1980), tell me what you thought of it in the comments below or by reaching out to me on social media!

As always, you can keep up with everything else that I’ve been watching over on Letterboxd.

The post The Stunt Man (1980) appeared first on I've Scene That!.

Title: A Fish in the Bathtub

Director: Joan Micklin Silver

Released: April 23, 1998 (USA Film Festival)

Runtime: 1 hour 36 minutes

Available to stream on: Tubi, Kanopy, and of course on Mubi (here is a month of Mubi on me!)

Sam (Jerry Stiller) and Molly (Anne Meara) have been married for forty years. To the surprise of no one, over the course of those forty years there’s been a healthy amount of bickering and arguing like an old married couple. Their children, Joel (Mark Ruffalo) and Ruthie (Jane Adams), are accustomed to seeing and/or hearing them bicker and trade jabs with each other.

However, one day Sam decides to come home with a giant carp. No, he didn’t bring it home to cook it up for dinner. He bought it for himself and decides to keep it in the guest bathtub. Molly, despite her best efforts, is unable to get Sam to return the fish, cook the fish, or even simply just to get rid of it. Turns out that this act by Sam is the straw that broke the camel’s back. Molly is fed up and through with Sam and his shenanigans. She packs up and leaves Sam, choosing to temporarily move in with Joel.

If you’ve been with someone for forty years, there’s bound to be a level of stubbornness on both sides. Sam refuses to call Molly to try and smooth things over because he is convinced that she will come back, all he has to do is wait it out. Meanwhile, Molly refuses to come home and digs her heels in, after forty years she has had enough.

The marital issues are between Sam and Molly, although they aren’t the only ones impacted by this lover’s quarrel. Joel and his wife are now having to learn to adapt to Molly living with them. While yes, they’re happy to help, Molly has a tendency to overstep and do things the way she believes they should be done. This, in addition to a flirtatious new client for Joel, begins to put a strain on his own marriage. Meanwhile, Ruthie is trying her best to get her father to see the error of his ways, to no avail.

Will distance make the heart grow fonder?

Or after forty years, is it time for new beginnings and a new lease on life?

I am always willing to watch something with Jerry Stiller in it. Regardless of the role, he always finds a way to deliver on a comedic level. (Bonus points here for having him and his wife play a couple on-screen.) However, sometimes even Jerry Stiller isn’t enough to salvage a film.

Now that’s not to say that I didn’t enjoy A Fish in the Bathtub (1998). Stiller delivers comedically and there’s a surprisingly impressive supporting cast. In addition, if you’re not in the mood for anything too heavy, this is a perfect light watch for you.

That being said, not only is it a light watch, but it is also a little light in terms of substance as well. In the final act, the lack of substance starts to make you feel every one of those ninety-six minutes. There are also instances where it feels as if they held back on the comedy, despite the cast they had. If you’ve seen any variation of a “battle of the sexes” type rom-com drama, you’ll know exactly what to expect as it suffers from falling into “paint-by-numbers” territory as it wears on.

Am I saying to avoid watching A Fish in the Bathtub (1998)?

Absolutely not.

Rather, go in with tempered expectations and form your own opinion.

Well, those are my thoughts. But what are yours?

If you’ve seen A Fish in the Bathtub (1998), leave a comment below or reach out on social media and tell me what you thought of it!

As always, you can follow me over on Letterboxd to keep up with everything else I’ve been watching.

The post A Fish in the Bathtub (1998) appeared first on I've Scene That!.

Title: The Settlers

Director: Felipe Gálvez

Released: May 22, 2023 (Cannes Film Festival)

Runtime: 1 hour 41 minutes

Available to stream: Exclusively on Mubi (Here’s a month on me!)

We begin in late 19th century Chile, immediately exposed to its beautiful landscapes. During this time, colonization is running rampant and still molding the country. One of the Spanish oligarchs who is staking their claim to land is José Menéndez (Alfredo Castro). Menéndez decides to hire surveyors to map out and “clear” his territory in the Tierra del Fuego region. We come to understand quickly that the term “clearing” denotes the removal of Indigenous peoples from land now claimed by Menéndez through extermination.

The leader of this group is a Scottish ex-soldier by the name of Alexander MacLennan (Stanley). When we first meet MacLennan, he’s riding over to a fallen chain-gang worker who has just lost his arm in a freak accident while working on fencing. The man pleads for help and not to die. However, in the words of MacLennan, “One less arm is one less man”. MacLennan’s chilling statement is followed by him shooting and killing the man.

MacLennan hand picks a mixed-race Chilean named Segundo (Arancibia) to join him on the assignment. While it might not be a popular pick amongst the other Europeans, turns out Segundo is one hell of a shot with a rifle. Instantly we can feel the tension and distrust present between Segundo and MacLennan.

Rounding out the group is an American mercenary named Bill (Westfall). MacLennan didn’t choose Bill; instead, Menéndez assigned him to join. To no one’s surprise, Menéndez found the idea of Segundo partaking in all of this neither pleasing nor impressive.

As the three embark on their journey, there is a deep level of skepticism amongst them. None of them are comfortable enough with each other to figure out of if they can trust one another. With everyone having their own reasons to keep their head on a swivel, it makes it tough to see any sort of bonding happening on this trip.

More importantly though, if it comes down to a life-or-death scenario, where will alliances fall?

Two things about The Settlers (2023) that instantly stand out to me are the cinematography and the score. Simone D’Arcangelo shot this in a way that is able to paint the picture of the beauty of the Chilean landscape while also illustrating how vast and rugged it can be. He also manages to take the simplest of images and somehow present it in such a way that leaves a haunting impression on you.

As for the music, Harry Allouche delivers a score that is clean, loud, and percussion forward. The score here is able to, on its own, create a nervous tension that remains for a good portion of the film. Combine the score with the cinematography and you have visions of spaghetti westerns coming to mind.

Except, as we learn, this is anything but your typical western.

I am all for colonialism being called out for the disgusting atrocity that it is. This time around it was Chile’s turn to have a go at it. And for this being his feature directorial debut, Felipe Gálvez comes out swinging. While there are some violent moments shown on screen, a lot of the horror of The Settlers (2023) comes from the atmosphere that is carefully crafted throughout. Knowing the implications of some things without having to see the outcomes, certain words/sentences being allowed to hang there for an extra moment, or even descriptions where the only accompanying images are the emotions on a character’s face, all of these build an unsettling atmosphere and deliver a message without having to be visually graphic or explicit.

However, the one issue I had with The Settlers (2023) was the final act. Yes, I am glad that we got to jump forward in time and see how things played out for everyone involved. The problem being that it didn’t feel like it fit together with the first two acts. While I can appreciate the jarring tonal shift, this is a rare occasion where I would advocate for the movie being longer. If there had been an extra ten to fifteen minutes to help bridge the gap between acts two and three, it might have helped make all three acts feel like a cohesive whole.

Is that enough for me to recommend avoiding The Settlers (2023)?

Absolutely not. It certainly is worthy of at least one viewing, if not more.

Well, those are my thoughts, but what are yours?

If you’ve seen The Settlers (2023) tell me what you thought in the comments below or on social media!

As always, you can keep up with everything else that I’ve been watching over on my Letterboxd page.

The post The Settlers (2023) appeared first on I've Scene That!.

Title: Less and Less (Toujours moins)

Director: Luc Moullet

Released: January 2, 2010 (France)

Runtime: 14 minutes

Available to stream on: Mubi (here’s a month of Mubi on me!)

Technology is all around us. Not only is it all around us, but it is also constantly evolving and changing our lives. Like it or not, it is up to us to adapt to these changes. Whether that change is for better or worse remains up for debate.

Director Luc Moullet takes us on a brief fourteen-minute tour of how technology has evolved and ingrained itself in our lives. Starting back in 1968 with the introduction of the turnstiles and going all the way through self-checkout lanes we find almost everywhere today.

All of this technological advancement is presented to assure us that change is in our best interest. We have automated pay stations at garages framed as being beneficial because the machines always dispense accurate change. Automated bank deposits are said to reduce robberies and cut down on teller-customer conversations. Possibly the wildest one, for me, was baguette vending machines. Those vending machines cost less to operate than the human staff it would require to bake and sell the bread in a storefront.

However, is everything truly as wonderful and convenient as portrayed when you remove your rose-colored technology glasses?

The short film Less and Less (2010) was both interesting and slightly strange. Although, despite only being fourteen minutes in length, it manages to make you think.

The more we allow technology to make our lives easier, the less likely we are to partake in human interaction. Self-checkout, self-service, yes, these advancements cut back on the risk of human error (although the risk of user error is still very much alive). And let’s be honest, who doesn’t like the idea and convenience of flowers, a baguette, a pizza, or even unemployment services being just a push of a button away. No awkward small talk and we all get time back in our days, even if it’s only mere seconds.

And from a business standpoint, there are financial upsides as well. Why hire a store full of employees when you can simply have a handful of employees and one or two machines?

On the other hand, while easy access to goods and services is appealing, in the end, what we truly desire transcends easily purchasable items. We, as humans, long for genuine connections shared with others. No advancement in technology will ever be able to truly replace the “mundane” interactions we have when buying a coffee, buying a ticket to a movie, or even buying groceries.

Viewing Less and Less (2010) for the first time after coming out the other side of a global pandemic might skew the messaging a bit more than had I viewed this prior to 2020. Some of the conveniences highlighted, such as self-checkout, have become things I seek out now. However, the overall message still carries weight. And with it being such a brief watch, there’s no reason for you to not give it at least one viewing.

Well, there you have it. Another Mubi Monday in the books.

But, before we go, it’s time to hear your thoughts!

If you’ve seen Less and Less (2010), I want to hear your take on it. Leave a comment below or reach out on social media and tell me all about it!

As always, you can follow me over on Letterboxd to keep up with everything else that I’ve been watching.

The post Less and Less (2010) appeared first on I've Scene That!.

Title: Singin’ in the Rain

Director(s): Stanley Donen and Gene Kelly

Runtime: 1 hour 43 minutes

Released: April 10, 1952

Available to stream on: MAX

Don Lockwood (Gene Kelly) and Lina Lamont (Jean Hagen) are at the top of their game and rule the silent era of Hollywood. However, it isn’t all sunshine and rainbows. In fact, Lockwood and Lamont secretly can’t stand each other.

On the red carpet of their newest release, Don Lockwood takes us down memory lane and gives us all a look at his start in the business. What he tells the press and how he actually got his start are two very different stories. He and his best friend, Cosmo Brown (Donald O’Connor), actually were stuntmen and vaudeville musicians before becoming established.

We cut back to present day after the premiere and Lockwood, fleeing his fans, hops into a car driven by Kathy Selden (Debbie Reynolds). Kathy agrees to drive Lockwood to the after party for his premiere. While at the after party, the head of Monumental Pictures, R.F. Simpson (Millard Mitchell), shows everyone a brief peek at what talking pictures will look like. Most of the people in attendance scoff and the party continues. It isn’t until later on in the night that Lockwood discovers that Kathy Selden is part of the chorus group of girls hired to perform at the after party.

After Warner Bros. releases their talking picture, The Jazz Singer, R.F. Simpson decides to pivot and make the newest Lockwood and Lamont picture, The Dueling Cavalier, a talkie as well. The shift from silent films to talking pictures is one of gigantic proportions. The audiences will now hear the voices of the big screen stars for the first time on screen.

Thus, Lockwood and Lamont both begin taking lessons from a diction coach to help them annunciate their words. As the lessons progress, and Lamont is not progressing as hoped, Lockwood begins to formulate an idea.

What if there were someone who could sing the parts for Lina Lamont? It would still be Lina that everyone in the theaters sees, just that her voice would become more palatable.

But will Don Lockwood’s latest scheme completely dismantle what is left of a working relationship with Lina Lamont?

Prior to this viewing, Singin’ in the Rain (1952) was a giant blind spot for me. Yes, I’ve seen the iconic dance number. And yes, I knew of some of the other musical numbers. But I’d never sat and watched the movie from beginning to end.

One of the first things that jumped out to me was the bright vibrant colors. Everything is bold and pops without being in your face or overwhelming. Another thing that is nearly impossible to ignore is the talent on display in the dance numbers. Debbie Reynolds, in her big breakout, holds her own with the like of Gene Kelly and Donald O’Connor. In fact, overall, the majority of the songs feel natural and not like they were shoehorned in just because the movie is a musical.

This isn’t a slight on the abilities of either Reynolds or Kelly, but I found myself to be more captivated by O’Connor when he was on the screen. I can’t quite put my finger on it, but something about his performance managed to steal the spotlight. That being said, it should come as no surprise that my favorite number was “Make ‘Em Laugh”.

Meanwhile, the story of transitioning from silent films to talkies was incredibly well done. We see the impact it has on audiences, the studios, and more importantly on the individual talent themselves. If you happen to be like me and hadn’t yet seen Singin’ in the Rain (1952) but were fond of The Artist (2011), you’ll be in for a treat.

And if you’ve already seen Singin’ in the Rain (1952), well, now is as good a time as any to watch it again.

So, you’ve heard my thoughts, but now it’s time for yours.

If you’ve seen Singin’ in the Rain (1952), leave a comment below or reach out on social media and tell me what your thoughts are.

As always, you can follow me over on Letterboxd to keep up on everything else I’ve been watching.

The post Singin’ in the Rain (1952) appeared first on I've Scene That!.

Title: Phases of Matter

Director: Deniz Tortum

Released: January 25, 2020 (International Film Festival Rotterdam)

Runtime: 1 hour 11 minutes

Available to stream on: Kanopy and Mubi (have a month of Mubi on me!)

The director tells us right away that this film is important to him. In fact, Cerrahpaşa Hospital happens to be where he was born, where his father worked, and it is soon to be demolished.

What follows is an interesting journey through the hospital where we, the viewer, get to be a fly on the wall to all of the daily happenings in the hospital. Think of an episode of Scrubs without the majority of the humor sprinkled in. Yes, there are some moments that are lighter than others. However, the majority of Phases of Matter (2020) chooses to focus on what is taking place in all corners of the hospital.

Our peek behind the curtains starts with the camera squeezing its way through a crowd of medical personnel. Once we’ve worked our way to the front, we see that they are examining a partly mummified corpse. The camera doesn’t shy away, and we get a front row seat to exactly what the other professionals are seeing.

Not holding back and getting a raw feel for the hospital is a constant throughline here. We get to see into the breakroom and eavesdrop on conversations between doctors. Later we see doctors trying to determine what exactly they see on a patient’s scan. Through it all, the patients aren’t the focus though. That remains on Cerrahpaşa Hospital itself.

As we get further into the film, we are better able to see the signs of aging in the hospital. Everything from prevalent cracks in the walls to sagging window frames are on full display.

However, despite the structural issues, Cerrahpaşa Hospital still has stories to tell. Deniz Tortum does his best to give us an insight to the history held within the hospital walls.

While it might not be your “traditional” documentary, it is wildly fascinating to experience.

So, now it’s your turn. If you’ve seen Phases of Matter (2020), I want to hear what you thought.

Leave a comment below or reach out on social media with your thoughts on it!

As always, you can keep up with everything else I’ve been watching by following me over on Letterboxd.

The post Phases of Matter (2020) appeared first on I've Scene That!.

Title: Keoma

Director: Enzo G. Castellari

Released: November 25, 1976 (Italy)

Runtime: 1 hour 40 minutes

Available to stream on: Pluto TV, Tubi, and of course on Mubi (here’s a month of Mubi on me)

Keoma (Franco Nero) is a part-white and part-Indigenous former Union soldier. When he returns home, he realizes home is nothing like what he left.

The smallpox epidemic ravages the entire town while the landowner, Caldwell (Donald O’Brien), cruelly rules with an iron fist. Caldwell ships all infected townspeople to the mines to die, and those who resist face immediate execution. Meanwhile, the lucky few who avoid the mines must survive without access to food or medicine.

A pregnant woman by the name of Lisa, (Olga Karlatos), has not yet come down with smallpox but finds herself being shipped off to the mines. Keoma decides that he is unable to stand back and do nothing. While Lisa is in transit to the mines, Keoma leaps into action to free her. However, there’s one thing Keoma never expected when he finds himself facing off against Caldwell’s men…his three half-brothers.

Can Keoma find it in himself to take on his own brothers in order to save his town?

Admittedly, westerns are more of a blind spot for me than other genres, spaghetti westerns are even more of an outlier. That being said, Keoma (1976) was a wild ride, and I can see why some people may not like it.

The song throughout is one that was like nails on a chalkboard at-first. But by the end of the film, while I didn’t grow to like the song, it didn’t bother me as much. It’s three people singing/screeching the plot to us as it unfolds. Is it perfect? Not by any means. However, it still manages to serve a purpose and is effective in doing so.

If you’re looking for a hearty plot to go along with your western, look elsewhere. The plot here is paper thin, but that’s okay. Luckily, Franco Nero turns in such a solid performance as Keoma that the lack of overall plot never really phased me. Is he fantastic as an Indian? Again, no. But it’s something I’m able to look past.

One of the things we all watch westerns for is the shootouts. Keoma (1976) more than delivers on that front. If you happen to like your shootout action in slow-motion, you’re in for a treat. There are more slow-motion shootout scenes that I would have expected to see, yet they all somehow manage to work. The main shootout looks fantastic and gives us a score that is a welcomed reprieve from the sing-songy narrative that is screeched at us throughout.

While I’m no expert on what makes a “good” spaghetti western, I will say that if you can look past the lack of any depth in the plot, you’ll have a fun time with Keoma (1976).

Well, those are my thoughts but now it’s time for yours.

If you’ve seen Keoma (1976), tell me what you thought of it in the comments below or on social media!

As always, follow me over on Letterboxd to see what else I’ve been watching.

The post Keoma (1976) appeared first on I've Scene That!.

Title: Roman Holiday

Director: William Wyler

Runtime: 1 hour 59 minutes

Released: August 20, 1953 (premiered at the Venice Film Festival)

Available to stream on: Paramount+

Princess Ann (Audrey Hepburn) finds herself on a tour of European nations. Exhausted from her grueling schedule that never allows her to go out and have fun, the Ann finds herself in bed. Her doctor tends to her and gives her an injection. His advice to her? Do what you wish for a while.

Well, Ann takes that to heart and decides it is time to go explore Rome. While out on the town, the injection from her doctor begins to make her sleepy. So much so that she winds up falling asleep in the middle of the city. Luckily for her, American reporter Joe Bradley (Gregory Peck) happens upon her. Believing that she is intoxicated, Joe takes her back to his apartment for her to sleep it off.

The next morning, Joe oversleeps and misses the planned press conference of Princess Ann. When his boss tells him it was cancelled because the Princess was ill, Joe slowly realizes who it is that is in his apartment. Quick on his feet, Joe proposes an exclusive interview with the Princess. His boss agrees and says he’d pay $5,000 for it. In addition, he also bets Joe $500 that he’ll never get the interview.

Joe decides to play coy with Ann and not reveal that he is a reporter. In fact, he gets his photographer friend, Irving (Eddie Albert), to join him in showing Ann around Rome. While resistant at first, Ann eventually allows Joe to convince her into seeing Rome.

How will Joe manage to secure the interview without revealing his profession to Ann?

Will their relationship maintain strictly professional?

And how long until the royal family sends a search party to try and find the missing princess?

Admittedly, this is only the second film of Audrey Hepburn’s that I have seen, the other being Charade (1963). The fact that she turned in a performance like this in her first leading role, it’s a no-brainer that she won the Oscar for Best Actress. She is absolutely phenomenal here as Princess Ann. Gregory Peck shines as well and his chemistry with Hepburn manages to elevate them both.

If you happen to be a semi-regular reader, you know that I am a sucker for romantic comedies. Well, I’m even more of a sucker for them when they surprise you by not following the “standard” paint-by-numbers structure and feel somewhat believable. The ending we get here is one that I did not expect or see coming.

That being said, you know I try not to spoil too much. So please, if you have not seen Roman Holiday (1953), correct that as soon as possible. For it is absolutely deserving of its place on the Letterboxd featured list of 1,001 Movies You Must See Before You Die.

Well, now it’s your turn. If you’ve seen Roman Holiday (1953), I want to hear your thoughts on it.

Leave a comment below or reach out to me on social media.

If you’re curious to see what else I’ve been watching, follow me over on Letterboxd!

The post Roman Holiday (1953) appeared first on I've Scene That!.

Title: Nest

Director: Hlynur Pálmason

Released: February 10, 2022 (Berlin International Film Festival)

Runtime: 22 minutes

Available to stream on: Mubi (here’s a month of Mubi on me)

Writer and director Hlynur Pálmason found himself at home for a year. So, what did he decide to do with his time? Well, he set up a camera and filmed the evolution of a tree house that was assembled with the help of his three children.

If you were looking for more background or insight into the film, sorry to disappoint. That’s it.

We have a fixed camera position focused on an old utility pole with the Icelandic landscape behind it. Beginning with the utility pole coming down and continuing all the way through the completion of the tree house, we get a front row seat to both the successes and the mishaps along the way.

I wasn’t joking when I said that there wasn’t a lot of depth to this. However, that isn’t always a bad thing. Yes, as the viewer, we get dropped into the world of these children without any explanation. As things progress, we realize that we’re never going to get that explanation either.

Now for some, I can see why this approach would be a deterrent. Why are we here? Will the children succeed in building their tree house? The one child who disappears after an unfortunate incident…does he make it? These were the questions that kept me engaged throughout. It doesn’t matter why I’m here, what matters is seeing what unfolds now that I am here.

Although I was invested in seeing the outcome, what also helped to keep me engaged was the Icelandic landscape. While there is very little dialogue, the changing landscapes do their own version of speaking. They allow us to see the transition from season to season and the challenges that come along with each.

I am not sure how rewatchable Nest (2022) might be after a couple of viewings. However, it is definitely at least worth carving out twenty-two minutes of your time to view at least once.

So, there you have it. You’ve heard my thoughts, but now I want to hear yours.

If you’ve seen Nest (2022), drop a comment below or reach out on social media with your thoughts!

As always, you can see everything else that I’ve been watching recently over on my Letterboxd page.

The post Nest (2022) appeared first on I've Scene That!.