Title: To Catch a Thief

Director: Alfred Hitchcock

Released: August 5, 1955

Runtime: 1 hour 46 minutes

Available to stream on: Prime Video, Paramount+, and MGM+

IMDb synopsis: A retired jewel thief sets out to prove his innocence after being suspected of returning to his former occupation.

John Robie aka “The Cat” (Cary Grant) was once a prolific cat burglar. While yes, he was caught, he was later granted parole so that he could fight the Germans in World War II. Robie has left that life behind him, he now enjoys his days in the French Riviera where he grows grapes and flowers.

Sounds like a pretty decent way to ride out your years, yeah? Well, not when there is a jewel thief on the loose who is copying the pattern of your past crimes. Because of his checkered past, Robie is the number one suspect in the eyes of the authorities.

Being that this isn’t Robie’s first time having the authorities on his tail, he’s no stranger to giving them the slip. The difference this time is that John Robie is not the burglar. He just has to prove who is in order to prove his innocence.

To do this, Robie enlists the help of insurance man H.H. Hughson (John Williams). The plan? To catch the copycat in the act. But how? Compiling a list of the most valuable jewelry on the Riviera along with their owners. First up, Jessie Stevens (Jessie Royce Landis) and her daughter Frances Stevens (Grace Kelly).Robie turns on the charm and it works on both Jessie and Frances to varying degrees. So much so that when John Robie and Frances Stevens begin watching a firework display in Frances’ room, the night ends with a firework show of their own.

As Robie’s luck would have it, Jessie’s jewels went missing the same night of he and Frances’ fireworks. While Jessie is more forgiving of Robie, Frances is convinced he used her to get to her mother’s jewels. So much so, that she informs Robie that she’s already called the police and they’re on their way. She answers the door to let the police in but by the time she returns to her mother’s room, Robie has vanished.

Yet again, John Robie finds himself on the run. This time, who is left to believe him? Will he be able to prove that he has not fallen back into his old ways? Is there anyone left who is willing to help John Robie?

I was excited going into To Catch a Thief (1955) as I’ll never turn down the opportunity to correct a Hitchcock blind spot. What was surprising to me though, is that this is anything but a typical Hitchcock movie.

Yes, there is still the element of suspense. But thanks to the wonders of VistaVision, the element of suspense isn’t what stands out. The bright and vibrant colors steal the show. Whether it’s on the terrace, in a hotel room, or driving through the countryside, the colors pop on screen and demand your attention.

I was unaware of this when I chose the film, but Arthur Krams was actually nominated for an Oscar for Art Direction – Color (which combined Art Decoration and Set Decoration) for To Catch a Thief (1955). While he lost out to Picnic, it was still a good year for Arthur Krams as he won the Oscar that very same year for Art Direction – Black & White for his work on The Rose Tattoo.

While the cinematography (which Robert Burks won the Oscar for) and the set decoration (Arthur doesn’t get all of the credit, he splits it with Sam Comer) are what draws you in and makes the setting feel authentic, it’s the work of Grant and Kelly that steal the show. Cary Grant and Grace Kelly are phenomenal on-screen together and each scene they share feels so effortless. I could watch them watch paint dry.

No, this isn’t your typical Hitchcock. So don’t go in with those expectations.

It’s bright, it’s vivid, it’s flashy, there’s beautiful people in elegant costumes speaking suggestively to each other. And you know what? It works.

Well, those are my thoughts. But what are yours? What did you think of To Catch a Thief (1955)? Leave a comment below or let me know on social media!

Next up is the letter “B”. Do you know of a crew member whose name starts with “B” that worked on a movie you love? Get your suggestions in by Wednesday morning. Wednesday evening I’ll reveal on Instagram and Twitter (for now anyways) who the crew member is and what film we’ll be covering.

The post To Catch a Thief (1955) appeared first on I've Scene That!.

Title: Zero Fucks Given

Director: Julie Lecoustre and Emmanuel Marre

Released: July 11, 2021

Runtime: 1 hour 55 minutes

Available to stream on: Prime Video and Mubi

IMDb synopsis: A young flight attendant loses her job at a low-cost airline.

Cassandre (Adèle Exarchopoulos) is in her mid-twenties working as a flight attendant for the budget airline Wing. Does she love her job? No, not in the slightest. In fact, it’s a soul crushing job that makes Cassandre numb to the world around her. So why stick with it? Because the end goal is to get to work for an elite airline such as Emirates.

Getting to that next level is no easy task. She has sales goals to meet on each flight, customer service scores to meet, all while dealing with the clientele that come with a budget airline such as Wing.

Cassandre does her best though. Each city, meal eaten, random hookup, they all blur together. Every interaction doesn’t really carry any depth to it. It’s all surface level, doing and saying whatever is necessary to hit her customer service and sales goals.

On top of the soul crushing experience of her job on a daily basis, we learn early on that Cassandre has lost her mother in a car accident. Instead of dealing with the situation, she’s used her job with Wing, as much as it kills her on the inside, to escape from her realities.

With a drive to not face her own reality that is just as strong as her desire to work for Emirates, Cassandre is surely bound for greatness. But will her thankless job cause her to break? Can she leave the issues of her past unresolved and still achieve her dream?

Yes, the story of Zero Fucks Given (2021) is interesting despite appearing very thin on paper. But what makes the movie compelling and keeps you invested in what happens with Cassandre is the performance we’re given from Adèle Exarchopoulos.

If you’ve ever worked in any customer-facing customer service role, you can see and feel the pain on Cassandre’s face. You can relate to the experience of going through every shift feeling like you’re dead inside and in zombie mode as you wander through life. Hiding the pain and anger of every human interaction behind a forced smile and a compliment.

So, in case you couldn’t tell, Adèle’s performance alone is reason enough for me to recommend you give this at least one viewing. Zero Fucks Given (2021) is a movie that might not sound like much, but it is definitely one that you appreciate more and more long after the credits have rolled.

Well, what did you think of Zero Fucks Given (2021)? If you’ve seen it and want to share your thoughts on it, tell me all about it in the comments below or by reaching out on social media!

Now that we’ve reached the end of the alphabet, what comes next? We’re starting over again! But this time, we’re going alphabetically by crew member name. Do you have a favorite visual effects artist? Set decorator? Editor? Whatever their role is, as long as it’s not actor or director, we’re going by first name starting with “A”, randomly choosing one film they’ve worked on to cover for the week, then moving on to “B”, so on and so on, working our way through the alphabet again.

Get those first suggestions in by Wednesday afternoon. Wednesday evening on Twitter and Instagram I’ll post the movie and crew member being covered for the letter “A”.

The post Zero Fucks Given (2021) appeared first on I've Scene That!.

Title: You Only Live Once

Director: Fritz Lang

Released: January 29, 1937

Runtime: 1 hour 26 minutes

Available to stream on: Tubi

IMDb synopsis: The public defender’s secretary and an ex-convict get married and try to make a life together, but a series of disasters sends their lives spiraling out of control.

Joan (Sylvia Sidney) is a secretary for the public defender’s office. She has a thing for Eddie (Henry Fonda) and Eddie has a thing for breaking the law. Despite the fact that Eddie has made being a criminal his career, Joan is head over heels for him. With help from those in the office, she’s able to get Eddie out early. All of Joan’s friends have tried to get her to realize that Eddie isn’t good for her. So naturally, they run off and make the sensible decision to get married. What could possibly go wrong?

If you watched the scene embedded above, you might have caught yourself saying, “Hey, look! It’s the Wicked Witch!”. And you’d be correct. After their marriage, Joan and Eddie are staying in a tavern run by Hester (Margaret Hamilton) and her husband. Realizing that Eddie is a convict, they kindly ask for both Eddie and Joan to leave. Eddie appears to be on the up-and-up and landed himself a job as a driver. However, the string of bad luck is just beginning as he shows up late and is fired on his first day.

When a bank robbery goes sideways and six people wind up dead, Eddie is the primary suspect. No, he wasn’t there and no he didn’t take part in the robbery, let alone kill anyone. But Eddie’s hat with his initials was found at the scene. A jury finds him guilty, and he’s sentenced to death by electric chair.

Flash forward to the eve of Eddie’s execution and Eddie is ready to make a run for it. He’s got a plan to escape and sets it in motion. Meanwhile across town, the bank trunk that was used in the robbery/murder is found at the bottom of a lake with the real guilty party dead behind the wheel. Eddie is cleared of any wrongdoing and is free now a free man. One small probelm…Eddie is already working on breaking himself out.

The prison warden begs with Eddie to drop his gun. Trying over and over again to explain to him that he’s now a free man. Cleared of all charges. Eddie, rightfully so, is incredibly skeptical of the situation and doesn’t believe the warden. So, the warden calls in the chaplain who is a friend of Eddie’s. Still, Eddie does not believe that he’s a free man, rather that this is all an elaborate trap. In the heat of the moment, Eddie fires his gun and hits the chaplain, killing him.

Who would have guessed it, Eddie Taylor is now on the run from the law yet again. This time Joan is with him, and they agree to make a run for the border. No, not that one. They flee for Canada and manage to get blamed for a string of robberies that just happen to occur along their travel route.

Given his track record, it’s only a matter of time before the police manage to catch up with Eddie. But is Eddie’s run of bad luck finally over? Or does he manage to take Joan down with him this time?

Honestly, the way that this movie starts out, I thought I was in for a long eighty-six minutes. Luckily, once things get moving you kind of forget about the first 4-5 minutes and the random man who is complaining about an apple thief.

The camera work from Leon Shamroy is one of the biggest highlights of the movie. There are some scenes that almost instantly make you think of Hitchcock. The pacing of it keeps you engaged and not picking up your phone or checking the time. Yes, some aspects of the story show their age. But as a whole it holds up incredibly well after eighty-six years. Is it now one of my favorite film noir movies? No, but it’s an enjoyable watch and deserves at least one viewing.

Well, those are my thoughts on it. But what did you think of You Only Live Once (1937)?

Tell me your thoughts in the comments below or by reaching out on social media!

Next week we reach the end of the first half in our A-to-Z challenge with the letter “Z”. Keep an eye on my Twitter and Instagram Wednesday for the reveal of what the movie will be.

The post You Only Live Once (1937) appeared first on I've Scene That!.

Title: X: The Man with the X-Ray Eyes

Director: Roger Corman

Released: September 19, 1963

Runtime: 1 hour 19 minutes

Available to stream on: Kanopy and Tubi

IMDb synopsis: A doctor uses special eye drops to give himself x-ray vision, but the new power has disastrous consequences.

Dr. James Xavier (Ray Milland) (no relation to Charles Xavier) believes that he is on the verge of something huge. He is convinced that these new eye drops that he’s created will allow the eye to see to its full potential. This includes gamma rays and x-ray wavelengths. Dr. Diane Fairfax (Diana Van der Vlis) is skeptical to say the least so Dr. X has her witness an experiment on a monkey.

Dr. X administers the eye drops to the monkey while Dr. Fairfax looks on in disbelief as the monkey is able to identify colors through solid material. What neither of them expected was for the monkey to drop dead soon after. Dr. X says that the monkey must’ve died from shock of what he’d seen.

Convinced that he needs to test the eye drops on a human subject, Dr. X decides to administer the eye drops himself. Initially his sight is full of color, as if he were looking into a kaleidoscope. After a few moments his vision settles and he’s able to read the text on papers that are beneath a folder on the desk. One instance isn’t enough to satisfy Dr. X though, so he administers a second round to himself.

This go-around, Dr. X is able to see into a patient’s organs to identify a misdiagnosis. But it doesn’t stop there, while at a social gathering Dr. X realizes he can see through everyone’s clothing. Not to their internal organs like with the patient, while effective the x-ray vision also appears to be selective.

Friend and colleague, Dr. Sam Brant (Harold J. Stone) while impressed with the results of the eyedrops, urges Dr. X to pump the brakes until they can evaluate what the side effects are. To no one’s surprise, Dr. X insists they must push on. While struggling to take the eye drops back from Dr. Brant, Dr. X hilariously throws Dr. Brant out of a window, and he falls to his death.

Now on the run, Dr. X decides to hide in plain sight. He’s working for a carnival barker named Crane (Don Rickles) under the name Mr. Mentallo where he works as a mind reader. After some time, Crane realizes that Mr. Mentallo isn’t just a gimmick and there could be a lot more money to be made off of this “ability” Mr. Mentallo possesses. Crane convinces Dr. X to become a miracle worker of sorts. They’ll charge people whatever they can afford, and Mr. Mentallo will give them the exact diagnosis they need to relay to their doctors.

Meanwhile, Dr. Fairfax has managed to track down Dr. X and he confesses to her that the power has become too much for him. She promises to help him escape but before they can Crane stops them and tells Mr. Mentallo that he knows exactly who Dr. James Xavier is and what he’s wanted for.

On the run again, now with a heightened threat of the police, Dr. Fairfield and Dr. X flee to Vegas. While here, Dr. X decides to use the eye drops to make some quick cash. While this seems all well and good, apparently irrational outbursts are a side effect of the eye drops. Unable to keep his cool, Dr. X is threatened to be escorted by security. To escape he tosses his winnings into the air as a distraction as he flees the casino in a stolen vehicle.

With a police helicopter following him overhead, and his vision severely impaired from the eye drops, how will he manage to escape?

What will the lasting impact of the eye drops be on his vision?

Right away I knew it was going to be a weird ride. It feels as if we were dropped into the middle of an already in-progress limited series. Why things are at the point they are and how they got there, doesn’t matter. Here it is and now we’re off and running.

For it being 1963, the special effects manage to not feel offensively cheap while also feeling the right level of campy. The script seems rather simplistic, and the acting is at times stiff. However, that’s not to say that there were no bright spots or redeeming qualities.

Don Rickles as Crane the carnival barker was incredibly casting. It didn’t feel like Rickles had to act so much as just be himself in this role.

The big reason that X: The Man with the X-Ray Eyes (1963), for me, avoids the category of “awful camp” and instead lands somewhere in the realm of “fun camp” is the performance of Ray Milland. His commitment to the role of Dr. James Xavier is what kept me engaged throughout. Without him, the movie becomes just something to have on for background noise.

It’s a weird ride but one that somehow manages to be fun along the way.

So, what did you think? Were you a fan of X: The Man with the X-Ray Eyes (1963)? Hit me with your thoughts on it in the comments below or by reaching out on social media!

Alright, we are down to the last two weeks in the A-to-Z challenge. Due to my upcoming schedule, I won’t be asking for suggestions for the “Y” and “Z” installments. I will, however, still be posting what the movies will be on Instagram and Twitter come Wednesday.

For the second half of the year, we’ll do the A-to-Z challenge one more time focusing on crew members. Set decorator, stuntperson, makeup artist, doesn’t matter what their role is, as long as it isn’t an actor or a director. You name the crew member and I’ll pick a film of theirs I haven’t seen to cover for the week. Just something to start considering over the next few weeks.

The post X: The Man with the X-Ray Eyes (1963) appeared first on I've Scene That!.

Title: Witness

Director: Peter Weir

Released: February 8, 1985

Runtime: 1 hour 52 minutes

Available to stream on: Showtime

IMDb synopsis: When a young Amish boy is sole witness to a murder while visiting Philadelphia with his mother, police detective John Book tries to protect the boy until an attempt on Book’s life forces him into hiding in Amish country.

Young Samuel (Lukas Haas) is ready to embark on a trip. He and his mother, Rachel (Kelly McGillis), are leaving their Amish community and traveling by train to visit Rachel’s sister. Their connecting train in Philadelphia is delayed, so they now find themselves biding their time while they wait.

While passing the time, nature calls and Samuel has to go to the bathroom. Rachel tells him to go ahead and go since the men’s room is within eyesight of where she is sitting. As he’s in the stall, Samuel hears a commotion and as he peeks through the abnormally large (yet somehow standard sized) gap in the stall door, witnesses two people murder a man at the bathroom sink.

The detective assigned to the case is the gruff city detective, John Book (Harrison Ford). When John has Samuel at the police station looking through lineup photos, John takes a call and Samuel wanders off. He stops in front of a trophy case and becomes fixated on a newspaper clipping. Right there in the article is the face of the man he saw in the bathroom, McFee (Danny Glover). Once John realizes that the murderer is a fellow officer, he realizes that he has to be careful how he goes about things.

John does some digging into McFee and wouldn’t you know it, McFee is involved in the disappearance of chemicals used to create drugs. McFee is no fool, he quickly catches wind of someone looking into him. Ultimately, this leads to a showdown in a parking garage where McFee shoots John. At this point, John realizes that Rachel and Samuel aren’t safe. He drives them back to their Amish community and as he is driving away, due to blood loss from his gunshot wound, John passes out and crashes into the community’s birdhouse. Despite being wary of outsiders, the Amish agree to take John in while his wounds heal.

Based off of that synopsis, you’re probably thinking, “Huh, sounds like a fun thriller.”, and while you’re not wrong, you’re also not entirely correct. Once John Book is healed, he decides that hiding out in the Amish community probably isn’t the worst idea. But if he’s going to hide out there, he’s going to be put to work. From here we see John learning to adapt to the Amish lifestyle and earning the respect of the members in the community.

What I didn’t expect was the love story we got. Well, I at least didn’t expect to forget I was watching a thriller because the romance took center stage. Normally that would be something that would turn me off from a movie. You teased me with a thriller and now that’s all forgotten so we can have a romance?

If your writers are William Kelley, Pamela Wallace, and Earl W. Wallace and you have Peter Weir directing, you can get away with doing that. They somehow managed to blend a thriller and a romance together into one without it impacting the quality of the movie. You aren’t sitting there just waiting for everyone to remember there’s a killer cop looking for them. Instead, you’re all-in on seeing how John becomes a member of the Amish community and what will happen with the spark between him and Rachel.

Although, none of the story is half as convincing as it is if not for the performance turned in by Harrison Ford. I tend to like most roles that I see Harrison Ford in, but him as John Book might be the overall best and well-rounded performance that I’ve seen from him. Yes, we still get the gruff side that has become synonymous with Harrison Ford. But while living amongst the Amish community we also are treated to a vulnerable dramatic performance. Again, I’ve just seen McFee put a bullet in John Book. Why do I care about the relationship John builds with Samuel? Or why should I care if he winds up forming a deep connection with Rachel? I’ll tell you why. Because Harrison Ford took the incredibly well-written role of John Book and had a feast with it.

I highly recommend at least one viewing of Witness (1985). Who knows, you just might find your next favorite movie.

Well, those are my thoughts. But what are yours? Tell me what you thought of Witness (1985) in the comments below or by engaging with me on social media!

Next up is slim pickings with the letter “X”. I’m going to try and do my best when it comes to sticking to a movie that I haven’t seen and is currently available to stream.

If you’ve got any suggestions, hit me with them! You’ve got until Wednesday afternoon. Wednesday evening the movie will be revealed on Twitter and Instagram.

The post Witness (1985) appeared first on I've Scene That!.

Title: Valley Girl

Director: Martha Coolidge

Released: April 29, 1983

Runtime: 1 hour 39 minutes

Available to stream on: Kanopy and Paramount+

IMDb synopsis: Julie, a girl from the valley, meets Randy, a punk from the city. They are from different worlds and find love. Somehow, they need to stay together in spite of her trendy, shallow friends.

Julie (Deborah Foreman) is your typical Valley girl. She’s got the looks, the popularity, and the totally bitchin’ boyfriend in Tommy (Michael Bowen). Everything is perfect for Julie, right? As if.

After a montage that reminds us there was a point in time where malls were busy and were the cool place to be and be seen, Julie decides she’s had enough. She breaks things off with Tommy then heads to the beach with her friends. While at the beach, Julie makes eyes with Randy (Nicolas Cage) but Randy isn’t exactly what she’s used to.

Randy is a punk from Hollywood who runs in different circles than Julie. Julie’s friends, Loryn (Elizabeth Daily), Stacey (Heidi Holicker), and Suzi (Michelle Meyrink) do not approve of Julie’s new infatuation with Randy. They feel she should get back with Tommy. After considering her options, Julie decides to break up with Randy and go back to Tommy.

For as much as he tries to act too cool for school, Randy is devastated. But if ’80s movies have taught us anything, never underestimate the power of teenage love.

So, the question then becomes, how over-the-top cheese fest do we get as Randy and Julie fight to be together? Well, if you haven’t seen Valley Girl (1983) before, now’s where you totally go fix that so you can see how it ends.

All that I knew about Valley Girl (1983) going into it is that it had Nic Cage. It was very apparent right away that what I was going to get was going to ooze ’80s high school rom-com. It’s not that that’s necessarily a bad thing, however here it felt very paint-by-numbers.

Yes, you have all the staples, your beach hangs, your high school parties, and your raging teenage hormones. But the script itself feels like it was written by a Script-Bot 9000. Just imagine the most stereotypical ’80s dialogue you can think of, that’s what we get.

Luckily, the performances from the entire cast and the soundtrack are solid enough to overcome the script. It’s also nice to be able to cross another Nicolas Cage blind spot off of my list. This movie doesn’t do anything to make it stand out from the rest, but it doesn’t do anything to make you despise it either.

It’s okay to just be pretty good and that’s where I land with Valley Girl (1983).

So, what about you? What are your thoughts on Valley Girl (1983)?

Tell me all about it in the comments below or by reaching out on social media!

By now, you know what’s next. Next Sunday will be the letter “W”. If you have a suggestion for the movie, get it in by Wednesday morning. As always, Wednesday evening the movie for the week will be revealed on my Twitter and Instagram.

The post Valley Girl (1983) appeared first on I've Scene That!.

Title: Under the Volcano

Director: John Huston

Released: June 13, 1984

Runtime: 1 hour 52 minutes

Available to stream on: HBOMAX

IMDb synopsis: A day in the life of a self-destructive British consul in Mexico on the eve of World War II.

Geoffrey Firmin (Albert Finney) is wandering the streets of Cuernavaca, Mexico, drinking himself away. In the years leading up to World War II he’s lost his position of British Consul to Mexico, he’s estranged from his wife, Yvonne (Jacqueline Bisset), and his days are spent searching for solace at the bottom of any bottle he can get his hands on.

One day, while drinking and speaking to his half-brother Hugh (Anthony Andrews), Geoffrey can’t believe that Yvonne is in the doorway. His prayers have been answered and his wife has returned to him. Together, both Yvonne and Hugh, decide to try and help Geoffrey gain some level of sobriety so that he can attempt to put his life back together.

However, despite their best efforts, Hugh and Yvonne struggle to get Geoffrey to turn things around. How do you help someone who isn’t willing to help themselves?

Under the Volcano (1984) is based on a novel of the same name, which is said to be semi-autobiographical, by Malcolm Lowry. Going into this viewing, I had no idea that it was based on a book. However, after viewing it, I’d be willing to read the novel because if nothing else it’s an interesting character study.

But that’s not to say Under the Volcano (1984) is without its issues. The cinematography is generally visually stunning. Although, there is a lack of consistency for at times that same cinematography feels out of place with what is happening in the scene.

Part of that inconsistency could be attributed to the non-linear way in which the story is told. When done right, non-linear storytelling can be captivating and add layers to the story. But when you miss the mark, it feels messy and can take away from the engagement you have with the characters. That being said, non-linear or not, we’re never really given anything to make us want to invest in any one specific character.

I say all of that to say that the performance given by Albert Finney is fantastic. Anyone who has known or spent time around an alcoholic knows that they don’t act in the over-the-top ways that are usually portrayed on screen. Instead, Finney decides to focus on the speech of his character. No, there aren’t any dramatic instances of slurring speech. Rather, the emphasis is placed on Geoffrey communicating from the heart. Trying desperately to convey his thoughts and feelings without the alcohol interfering.

It’s a shame that the pacing and lack of character investment takes away from Finney’s performance. If you have the chance to check out Under the Volcano (1984), I’d say take advantage of it. If nothing else, you’ll definitely walk away with an opinion or two.

Well, those are my thoughts. But what about yours? What did you think of Under the Volcano (1984)?

Hit me with your thoughts in the comments below or by reaching out on social media!

So, what’s up next? Next Sunday we will tackle the letter “V”.

Do you have an idea as to what the movie should be? You’ve got until Wednesday morning to get those suggestions in. Wednesday afternoon/evening the movie will be announced on Twitter and Instagram.

The post Under the Volcano (1984) appeared first on I've Scene That!.

Title: Today’s Special

Director: David Kaplan

Released: October 16, 2009

Runtime: 1 hour 39 minutes

Available to stream on: Tubi

IMDb synopsis: In this super-feel-good foodie comedy, young Manhattan chef Samir rediscovers his heritage and his passion for life through the enchanting art of cooking Indian food.

Samir (Aasif Mandvi) is a top-notch sous chef in Manhattan and figures to be a lock for a promotion. However, when his boss (Dean Winters) passes him over and tells him the reason he didn’t get the promotion was because Samir’s food lacks magic and is too paint-by-numbers. Samir decides, on the spot, that he is quitting and going to Paris where he’ll stauge (apprentice) with French chef Jacques Renaud.

However, Samir’s plan gets turned on its head when his father (Harish Patel) suffers a heart attack. In order to help the family, Samir agrees to take over his father’s restaurant, Tandoori Palace. There’s one big flaw with this plan though, Samir doesn’t know how to cook Indian food. As an interim work-around, Samir orders meals from another local Indian restaurant. His luck would change though when he happens to meet Akbar (Naseeruddin Shah).

Akbar says that he used to be a top chef in India. He agrees to mentor Samir and show him how to get back to his roots. His big lesson is that food must be cooked with your mind, your heart, and your stomach. When you cook using all three, it shows in your food and your customers can taste it.

But will Samir be able to abandon his technical cooking ways and embrace cooking with his heart and stomach as well? Will his mother (Madhur Jaffrey) stop trying to play matchmaker for him? And what happens to Tandoori Palace?

I am a sucker for any movie involving food and/or cooking. So, it was not going to take much for me to enjoy Today’s Special. Yes, the story is one that has been told numerous times before and will be told numerous times to come. But just because you’ve seen the story before doesn’t mean another variation of it can’t be enjoyable.

Aasif Mandvi, who also co-wrote the film, is thoroughly enjoyable in the lead as Samir. While mainly known for his humor, Mandvi gets a chance here to showcase his dramatic chops. His parents, Carrie, Akbar, everyone in the supporting cast, they all contribute and connect in ways that make the story feel genuine.

The family drama, the romance angle with Carrie, whether or not the Tandoori Palace will survive, and the journey into Indian cuisine taken by Samir all intertwine into an enjoyable ninety-nine minutes.

Not every movie you see has to change your world or be destined for awards success.

Sometimes a feel-good story that happens to revolve around food is all you need.

Well, those are my thoughts on Today’s Special (2009) but what are yours? Tell me all about it in the comments below or by reaching out on social media!

Next week we’ll tackle the letter “U”. If you’ve got a suggestion for what the movie should be, you’ve got until Wednesday morning to get them in!

The post Today’s Special (2009) appeared first on I've Scene That!.

Title: Scarecrow

Director: Jerry Schatzberg

Released: April 11, 1973

Runtime: 1 hour 52 minutes

Available to stream on: HBOMAX

IMDb synopsis: An ex-con drifter with a penchant for brawling is amused by a homeless ex-sailor, so they partner up as they head east together.

Max (Gene Hackman) just finished up a six-year sentence in the slammer. His goal is to get himself to Pittsburgh where he plans to open his own car wash called Maxy’s Car Wash. On his way, he wants to stop in Denver to visit his sister.

Meanwhile, Lion (Al Pacino) has spent the last five years at sea. Now that he’s back, he plans to head to Detroit to see his wife, Annie, and their child. He abandoned Annie when she was pregnant, so he has never met his child and doesn’t even know if it’s a boy or a girl. To try and make up for abandoning her, Lion has sent Annie all of his paychecks while he was at sea.

Max and Lion happen to meet each other rather early on in their travels. As a result, they decide to travel together and even go into business together on the car wash in Pittsburgh. Their journey brings with it plenty of heart, plenty of hijinks, and even some laughs along the way.

The plot is very straightforward and very thin. You can get away with that though when you have Pacino and Hackman turning in performances that don’t get talked about enough. Pacino showing his lighthearted comical side and Hackman being a quick-tempered fighter.

What hurts the story though is that we know almost right away what’s going to happen. Lion’s story of the scarecrow all but spoils the emotional mirroring that unfolds between Lion and Max. Granted, we don’t know how it’s going to happen. So, kudos for that I suppose.

Before this viewing, I had no idea that Scarecrow (1973) even existed. It’s a film you rarely hear mentioned in conversation despite the names that are in it. That’s a shame. More people should know about this movie and make it a point to watch it at least once. No, it’s not a movie that’s going to knock your socks off. But it is worth an hour and fifty-two minutes of your time simply for the performances given by Al Pacino and Gene Hackman.

Well, how about you? What do you think of Scarecrow (1973)? Tell me your thoughts in the comments below or by reaching out on social media!

You know what’s next. Next week we’ll cover the letter “T” in our challenge. You’ve got until Wednesday afternoon to get those suggestions in. Keep your eyes on Twitter and Instagram Wednesday evening for a sneak peek at what the movie will be.

The post Scarecrow (1973) appeared first on I've Scene That!.

Title: Resurrecting the Champ

Director: Rod Lurie

Released: August 24, 2007

Runtime: 1 hour 52 minutes

Available to stream on: Peacock, Tubi, Pluto, and Freevee

IMDb synopsis: Up-and-coming sports reporter rescues a homeless man (“Champ”) only to discover that he is, in fact, a boxing legend believed to have passed away. What begins as an opportunity to resurrect Champ’s story and escape the shadow of his father’s success becomes a personal journey as the ambitious reporter reexamines his own life and his relationship with his family.

Erik Kernan Jr. (Josh Hartnett) is a sportswriter for a major Denver newspaper. His father was a boxing announcer and Erik is trying to live up to the reputation of his name. One night, after leaving a boxing match he was covering, Erik hears something happening in an alley and decides to check on it. Turns out there are a couple of young kids beating on a homeless man (Samuel L. Jackson). Erik runs them off but not before they knockdown the homeless man.

When Erik walks over to check on the old man and asks if he is okay, the old man replies and says the boys were just having fun because it’s fun to beat the Champ. When Erik asks what he means when he refers to himself as “Champ”, he learns that the man he just helped is none other than Battlin’ Bob Satterfield. What’s the significance of a homeless man claiming to be Bob Satterfield? Well, everyone believes that Bob Satterfield has been dead for twenty years.

Coming into contact with Champ could not have happened at a better time for Erik. It just so happens that his editor Ralph Metz (Alan Alda) has flat out told him that his writing is boring and forgetful. Erik sees the writing on the wall and knows he’s on the chopping block. He decides that for his next assignment, another boxing match, he’ll bring Champ with him. While ringside next to Erik, Champ tells him who will win and how it will happen. Low and behold, Champ was correct, and Erik used Champ’s explanation of how he knew who would win in his article.

As Erik’s luck would have it, Metz liked the piece and said it even sounded authentic. However, Erik is still looking for that one story that will open bigger and better doors for him. So, he decides to tell the story of Bob Satterfield, getting Champ to agree to tell the world his story and that he is very much still alive. But he’s not writing the piece for Metz, he’s going behind Metz’s back and writing it for a weekly magazine the newspaper runs. In fact, Erik was promised it would be the cover story of the magazine.

Champ tells his Erik his story and all about how he used to be the number three ranked fighter in the world. He used to spar with Rocky Marciano, he even broke Marciano’s nose, not the big bone but the little one. Erik knows that he has an amazing story on his hands and runs with it. As promised, the story, titled ‘Resurrecting the Champ’, is the cover story. Donations come pouring in to help Champ, Erik gets a call to be an interviewer for Showtime Boxing, everyone is getting exactly what they needed.

So, a true story that ends with a happy ending, what’s not to love? Well, what if that isn’t the end of the story? What if there’s a story for Erik within the story about Champ?

Truth be told, I don’t remember hearing much of anything about Resurrecting the Champ when it was released. And I definitely didn’t know that it was based on a true story. So, I went into this viewing not knowing what to expect. One thing I certainly didn’t expect was the performance we get from Samuel L. Jackson. Not that I ever doubt his ability, I’m no fool, but that his performance makes this movie. The way he moves, speaks, and carries himself as a homeless down and out former contender is so convincing that you forget you’re watching an actor. While Jackson acted believable, the hair and makeup team deserves credit as well for making Jackson look believable in the role. Josh Hartnett gives one of his better performances here as Erik Kernan Jr. and the supporting cast carries their weight as well, Alan Alda especially.

For as great as the movie can be when Samuel L. Jackson is on screen; it can swing just as easily in the other direction when he’s not. That’s not to say that the story isn’t good. But, when the focus is more on Erik and his issues that he is trying to work through regarding his father, my interest started to fade.

A compelling, albeit forgettable, sports drama that deserved more.

If you’re curious to read the article the movie was based on, you can find it here.

Well, those are my thoughts. But what about yours? Have you seen Resurrecting the Champ (2007)? If so, hit me with your thoughts in the comments below or by reaching out on social media!

Next up will be the letter “S”. There’s certainly no shortage of options there. Do you have a suggestion for what the movie should be? Well, you know the drill. You’ve got until Wednesday morning to get those suggestions in!

The post Resurrecting the Champ (2007) appeared first on I've Scene That!.