Title: The Blue Lamp

Director: Basil Dearden

Runtime: 1 hour 24 minutes

Released: January 19, 1950 (United Kingdom)

Available to stream on: Kanopy

George Dixon (Jack Warner) is a kind and well-respected policeman nearing retirement. His partner, Andy (Jimmy Hanley), is an eager young rookie determined to prove himself. Fortunately, George has taken Andy under his wing, guiding him through the ins and outs of their beat in a post-WWII working-class London neighborhood.

Their routine patrols take a dramatic turn when a reckless small-time criminal, Tom Riley (Dirk Bogarde), sets off a chain of events that shocks both the police force and the community. Riley’s chaotic actions lead to a devastating incident that unites the neighborhood and law enforcement in a determined effort to bring him to justice.

Will they succeed in tracking Riley down? And how will the community cope with the aftermath of his crimes?

One thing is certain about The Blue Lamp (1950): it’s not your typical “cop chases bad guy” film. While it’s a drama, it also carries a documentary-style realism that draws you in and makes the story feel authentic and engaging.

Some might dismiss it as copaganda, and that’s an understandable perspective, one I even initially shared during the opening scenes. However, as the story unfolds, it becomes less about glorifying law enforcement and more about capturing a time when police and communities worked together for the greater good. The film also reflects the post-WWII shift in crime, moving from organized to more random and senseless acts of violence.

The story’s impact relies heavily on its performances, and Jack Warner and Dirk Bogarde deliver brilliantly. Warner’s portrayal of George Dixon is warm and heartfelt, especially in his mentor-like relationship with the younger Andy. Meanwhile, Bogarde is chilling and unforgettable as the unpredictable Tom Riley, bringing a sharp edge to the film’s tension.

If you’re a fan of crime dramas with depth and heart, The Blue Lamp is worth your time.

Now it’s your turn.

If you’ve seen The Blue Lamp (1950), let me hear your thoughts on it in the comments below!

Find me over on Bluesky and keep up with everything else I’ve been watching over on Letterboxd.

The post The Blue Lamp (1950) appeared first on I've Scene That!.

Title: The Haunting

Director: Robert Wise

Runtime: 1 hour 52 minutes

Released: August 21, 1963 (United States)

Available to stream on: MGM+ and Tubi

Hill House, as we learn from the opening narration, has quite the past. Hugh Crain had it built for his wife, but she tragically died in a freak accident when approaching the house for the first time. Hugh remarried and his second wife just so happened to take a fatal tumble down the stairs. Hugh’s daughter lived in the house until her death. Her nurse inherited the house and unfortunately hung herself from a staircase. A distant cousin of the nurse wound up inheriting the house, which has sat empty for some time.

Meanwhile, Dr. Markway (Richard Johnson) is a paranormal investigator who wishes to investigate the alleged haunting of Hill House. The current owner insists that her heir, Luke (Russ Tamblyn), be allowed to join. Markway then sends out invitations but ultimately, only two people respond, a psychic by the name of Theodora (Claire Bloom) and Eleanor (Julie Harris), a woman looking for her place to belong who also claims to have previously experienced poltergeist activity.

Soon after they arrive, the group begins to sense that something is decidedly off about Hill House. The walls, for instance, are built at strange angles, creating perspectives that feel unnervingly off-center. As they roam through the house, part of the group claims to hear loud banging on the walls, while others insist they hear nothing at all. During their exploration, they even come across a giant marble statue that eerily resembles each of them.

As time passes, it becomes increasingly clear that Eleanor, in particular, seems to be the primary target of Hill House’s strange and unsettling phenomena.

Is it all in Eleanor’s head?

Or is there a haunting in Hill House?

It’s absolutely wild to me that Robert Wise wrapped West Side Story and immediately went on to tackle this film.

The craft of The Haunting (1963) is what truly makes it stand out. Shot in black and white, it instantly makes Hill House feel even more isolating and menacing. Robert Wise and cinematographer Davis Boulton’s use of wide-angle lenses portrays off-center perspectives, giving the sense that Hill House is slowly engulfing its inhabitants.

And then, there’s the sound. Whether it’s a door creaking or banging noises from down the hall, you hear every sound explicitly, each one building an unnerving level of tension. This atmosphere continues to intensify throughout the entire runtime.

Part of what makes The Haunting (1963) so captivating is that it’s all about what you don’t see. We’re never spoon-fed jump scares or told what to believe. Instead, everything is left to your imagination, leaving you to fill in the blanks.

If you love your horror smart and atmospheric, The Haunting (1963) is exactly what you’re looking for.

Well, now it’s your turn!

If you’ve seen The Haunting (1963), leave a comment below or reach out to me on Bluesky or Instagram and tell me what you thought!

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

The post The Haunting (1963) appeared first on I've Scene That!.

Title: Bride of Frankenstein

Director: James Whale

Runtime: 1 hour 15 minutes

Released: April 19, 1935

Available on: Criterion Channel and Peacock

Picking up from where Frankenstein left off, we see that both Dr. Frankenstein (Colin Clive) and the Monster (Boris Karloff) have survived. While Dr. Frankenstein is trying to move on with his life, the Monster finds himself wandering the countryside, desperately searching for companionship. Each interaction reminds him just how alienated his existence feels.

Meanwhile, Dr. Frankenstein hasn’t been the only one experimenting with bringing a creation to life. Dr. Pretorius (Ernest Thesiger) is fascinated by the idea and winds up visiting Dr. Frankenstein. During the visit, Pretorius pressures Frankenstein into giving it another go, this time creating a female companion for the Monster.

While Frankenstein is initially hesitant to participate, things change when Pretorius goes to the extreme and kidnaps Frankenstein’s wife. In fact, he used the Monster for his own nefarious bidding in kidnapping her.

Now with both doctors hard at work, the companion for the Monster is looking more and more like a reality. However, we’ve seen what can happen with one monster. What will unfold with two of them roaming freely?

I knew Bride of Frankenstein (1935) picked up where the original left off, but the sharp left turn in tone still surprised me. While the original had a much more serious tone throughout, we see a campy comedic twist here in the sequel. By no means is it a slapstick comedy, but it does its best to try and squeeze in comedy where it can. Pretorius layering in the campiness in his performance was arguably a bit too much. While the comedy is effective, personally, I was hoping for a more serious outing.

That being said, Bride of Frankenstein (1935) still offered up plenty that I quite enjoyed. For example, being able to further explore the Monster’s journey into self-discovery. We get to see Karloff portray him in a way that shines a spotlight on the fragile humanity of the monster. And for what it’s worth, despite only being on screen for maybe 4 minutes all total, at the very end of the film, Elsa Lanchester delivers an unforgettable performance.

The film revisits many of the same themes from the original, such as loneliness, alienation, and playing God. Honestly, the film doesn’t cover much new ground or explore the themes more deeply, but I still enjoyed how it addressed them while blending in comedic elements.

The true standouts for me were the cinematography and use of lighting/shadows. Does it all hold up almost 90 years later? Eh. But you have to be able to appreciate what Bride of Frankenstein (1935) was able to accomplish and pull-off given the technical abilities of the time.

If, by chance, you have not seen Bride of Frankenstein (1935), I wouldn’t recommend dropping everything to go and watch it. However, it is the perfect time of year to cross it off your watchlist.

So, if you have seen Bride of Frankenstein (1935), I want to hear about it. Let me hear your thoughts in the comments below or by reaching out to me on social media.

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

The post Bride of Frankenstein (1935) appeared first on I've Scene That!.

Title: It’s the Great Pumpkin, Charlie Brown

Director: Bill Melendez

Runtime: 25 minutes

Released: October 27, 1966 (United States television)

Available on: AppleTV+

When you think of Halloween, what’s the first thing that comes to mind?

Candy? Costumes? Scary movies?

Well, if you’re Linus, it’s the Great Pumpkin. That’s right, the Great Pumpkin is to Halloween as Santa is to Christmas for Linus. His plans for Halloween are to wait in the pumpkin patch, certain that the Great Pumpkin will come and visit.

Seems like that would be enough to fill the runtime of twenty-five minutes, right? Well, possibly, but we are also treated to two additional subplots.

We have Lucy, Pigpen, Sally, and Charlie Brown all heading out to go trick-or-treating along with the misfortunes of Charlie Brown at each house. Additionally, we have Snoopy becoming a flying ace as he battles the Red Baron. There are even a few instances where the plotlines blend into one another.

Yes, it touches on denominational differences, in this case the differences just happen to be Christmas and Halloween. But it is done in a subtle way that doesn’t ever distract from the story.

Overall, It’s the Great Pumpkin, Charlie Brown (1966) is always an enjoyable watch for me. Whether you’ve seen it one time or a million times, go and watch it again.

A perfect way to start October and begin the countdown to the Great Pumpkin.

So, what are your thoughts on It’s the Great Pumpkin, Charlie Brown (1966)?

Let me know in the comments below or by reaching out to me on social media!

The post It’s the Great Pumpkin, Charlie Brown (1966) appeared first on I've Scene That!.

Title: Mikey and Nicky

Director: Elaine May

Runtime: 1 hour 46 minutes

Released: December 21, 1976 (United States)

Available to stream on: The Criterion Channel, Kanopy, Max, and Prime Video

Nicky (John Cassavetes) is hiding out in a hotel room. Convinced that the mob has a hit out on him, his paranoia takes control. In a desperate attempt for help, he calls up his longtime friend, Mikey (Peter Falk).

As he’s done so many times in the past, Mikey agrees to come over and help Nicky out of the latest predicament he’s gotten himself into.

Once Mikey is finally able to get Nicky to somewhat calm down, they agree they need to get out of Philadelphia. The sooner the better too, because what Nicky doesn’t know is that he’s right. A hitman by the name of Kinney (Ned Beatty) is hot on his trail.

However, what should be an easy escape out of the city turns out to be anything but easy. Mikey, unfortunately, isn’t able to keep Nicky from straying from the plan. Stopping at a bar, a late-night movie, and even his mother’s grave, Nicky is determined to do things on his schedule.

Will Mikey be able to get his friend out of one last jam?

Or will Mikey and Nicky push their friendship to a breaking point?

If you thought you’d be getting some sort of mob crime drama with Mikey and Nicky (1976), you’d be wrong. While, yes, the main plot line revolves around a mob hit being out on Nicky, that kind of ends up taking a back seat. Shoot, we never even really know for sure what the details are behind the hit.

What we get is more character study than crime thriller. For that to work, you better have two strong leads and luckily that is what we get. It is evident right away that Cassavetes and Falk have a certain chemistry together. They play off of each other brilliantly and the on-screen friendship has a natural feel to it.

Despite this though, I found Mikey and Nicky (1976) to be incredibly boring. While their performances are strong enough to keep my interest, the aimlessness of the script and overall structure worked just as hard to try and drive me away.

Definitely give it a watch though. There are plenty of people who rave about this movie. Just because I’m not a fan of it doesn’t mean you won’t be.

So, if you have seen Mikey and Nicky (1976), now it’s your turn.

Let me know what you thought of it in the comments below or by reaching out on social media!

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

The post Mikey and Nicky (1976) appeared first on I've Scene That!.

Title: Fallen Angels

Director: Wong Kar-wai

Runtime: 1 hour 38 minutes

Released: September 14, 1995 (Toronto International Film Festival)

Available to stream on: Max and The Criterion Channel

Admittedly, I am not very familiar with Wong Kar-wai’s work. I know that with him, it’s about the style, the framing, and the colors. Having enjoyed Chungking Express (1994), I was looking forward to Fallen Angels (1995).

Wong Chi-ming (Leon Lai) is a hitman who works with his business partner (Michelle Reis). Why does a hitman have a business partner? Simple, he is lazy and doesn’t want to have to do any of the planning. Show up, eliminate the target, leave, that’s his preferred way of operating. At least, that was his way of operating.

He’s decided he wants to walk away from the business. His partner is devasted. She is deeply in love with him and wants him to stay. Try as she might, he remains distant and keeps their relationship strictly professional. A sort of cat-and-mouse game of love ensues.

However, this is a Wong Kar-wai film, so will there be a coherent ending to their love story?

The answer to that question is no. And even as I’m sitting here writing this, I don’t know how I feel about that.

From a style standpoint, Fallen Angels (1995) is, for the most part, very impressive. The use of wide angles, having the colors and shadows tell more of a story than the dialogue, all look great and work well. You feel the chaotic sense of the city under the neon, to the point where it can seem overwhelming and disorienting. While at the same time, you can also get the sense of loneliness from it all.

However, there were times where the wide-angle felt like I was being forcefully drug through a music video. Just aimlessly wandering through these spaces until the needle-drop ends. I understand that it’s supposed to be about the visual journey more than anything. And yes, I can see how just wandering along, not in control, fits the overall theme. But in the moment, when I’m watching the film, it took me out of it.

Also, the entire secondary plotline with the mute character, felt entirely unnecessary and shoehorned in. It certainly didn’t do any favors in trying to make things feel somewhat cohesive.

The visual appeal of Fallen Angels (1995) is its saving grace with me. If you’re a fan of Wong Kar-wai, odds are you’ve already seen this. If you haven’t, I’d recommend it but wouldn’t rush to go cross it of your list.

So, let me hear it. If you’ve seen Fallen Angels (1995), tell me what you think of it in the comments below or on social media!

Want to see what else I’ve been watching and what my top movies of the year are?

Give me a follow over on Letterboxd!

The post Fallen Angels (1995) appeared first on I've Scene That!.

Title: Wild Tales

Director: Damián Szifron

Runtime: 2 hours 2 minutes

Released: May 17, 2014 (Cannes Film Festival)

Available to stream on: Hulu

Revenge is a dish best served with a side of dark humor and violence.

At least, that’s how Damián Szifron sees fit in Wild Tales (2014).

When I was scrolling through the IMDB Top 250 for what to watch, this one appeared as one that I hadn’t seen and was available to stream. I knew nothing about it beforehand and prior to pressing play, all I knew was that it was an anthology.

By the time the opening credits roll, you’ll know whether or not you’re going to enjoy the next two hours. However, if you find that it is your kind of humor, you’re in for a treat.

Wild Tales (2014) contains six different stories that all have one thing in common, revenge. When watching an anthology, there’s usually one or two installments that don’t seem to fit with the rest. Well, that is not the case here.

Each story is equally as wild as it’s counterparts in their own unique way. In addition, there is also a good mix across all the stories. While some are over-the-top ridiculous, there are a few where you may find yourself saying, “Huh, I mean…I get it.”.

Hopefully the roadside incident isn’t one you find yourself relating to.

I don’t want to get into each story. You should definitely go into this knowing as little as possible.

Trust me, it works best that way.

This was a pleasant surprise and I’m now going to be suggesting this to anyone who has not yet seen it, you included. If you have yet to see it, go and check it out.

So, if you have seen it, now is your time to tell me what you thought.

Leave a comment below or let me hear it on social media!

Follow me over on Letterboxd to see everything else that I’ve been watching lately.

The post Wild Tales (2014) appeared first on I've Scene That!.

Title: The Secret Life of Pets

Director: Chris Renaud

Runtime: 1 hour 26 minutes

Released: June 16, 2016 (France – Festival International du Film d’Animation d’Annecy)

Available to stream on: Peacock

Max (Louis C.K.) loves his life as a pampered city dog. He lives with his human, Katie (Ellie Kemper), in New York City and they do everything together. Well, almost everything.

Naturally, there are times when Katie needs to leave Max behind; as she goes to work, runs errands, and goes anywhere that just isn’t pet friendly. When Max is home alone, he patiently waits for Katie to return. While he waits, Max interacts with the neighborhood pets. One such pet, Gidget (‎Jenny Slate), loves chatting with Max and even has a crush on him.

All seems well in Max’s life, that is until the day he learns he has a brother now. Katie comes home one day and surprises Max with Duke (Eric Stonestreet). Instantly Max’s entire world is turned upside down. Duke is considerably larger than Max and wastes no time in establishing himself as the alpha. He steals Max’s bed, eats his food, and strikes genuine fear into Max.

Max decides to try and trash the apartment, knowing Katie won’t blame him as he’s never been destructive. His goal is that Katie will be so furious with Duke that she takes him back. Well, as a result of their hijinks and horseplay, both Max and Duke find themselves on the city streets. Furious with Max’s actions, Duke tries to abandon Max in an alley.

Unfortunately, they encounter some alley cats who, instead of roughing them up, swipe their collars. As you would expect, next thing you know they are scooped up by animal control.

Finding themselves now in even greater of a predicament, how will Max and Duke find their way back to Katie’s?

Have you ever wondered what your pet is up to when you’re not at home? Of course you have, we all have. Shoot, if I could, I’d text my dog and see what he’s up to when I’m not at home.

The Secret Life of Pets (2016) has an absolutely stacked cast of voice actors ranging from Louis C.K. (he’s good in this role but through 2024 eyes…yikes), Jenny Slate, Albert Brooks, Kevin Hart, Eric Stonestreet, Steve Coogan, and the list goes on. Each character gets their time to shine and each actor delivers.

I liked the animation style and the casting of each character. When you can picture the actor as the animated character they’re portraying, from mannerisms and character traits, it only elevates things.

Yes, there’s humor here, but there’s an overabundance of it. So much so, that it starts to feel like a constant stream of one gag after another. For what it’s worth, there’s also some surprisingly emotional moments sprinkled in. However, the biggest downfall of The Secret Life of Pets (2016) is that it’s just easily forgettable.

Now, that’s not to say that I didn’t enjoy it, because I did. But when you try to stack this up against a Kung Fu Panda, Toy Story, Shrek, etc., this doesn’t even come close to being in the same conversation.

That being said, will I watch the sequel? Probably, yeah.

Will I recommend that you watch The Secret Life of Pets (2016) if you haven’t already? You bet.

So, if you have seen The Secret Life of Pets (2016), let me hear it!

Tell me what you thought of it in the comments below or on social media!

To see what else I’ve been watching, give me a follow over on Letterboxd.

The post The Secret Life of Pets (2016) appeared first on I've Scene That!.

Title: Carnival of Sinners (originally titled La Main du Diable)

Director: Maurice Tourneur

Runtime: 1 hour 20 minutes

Released: March 21, 1943 (France)

Available to stream on: The Criterion Channel

Roland Brissot (Pierre Fresnay) bursts into the hotel, startling and surprising the guests stranded by an avalanche. He is missing his left hand and the only thing with him is a small casket.

Immediately, Brissot asks the innkeeper if there is a cemetery nearby. The innkeeper informs Brissot that there isn’t, leaving him visibly dejected as he answers a phone call. While on the phone, a blackout washes over the hotel. During the blackout, Brissot discovers that someone has stolen his casket.

The moment the power returns, the guests barrage Brissot with questions about how he arrived. Giving in, Brissot takes a seat and begins to tell his story. From this point on, the majority of the film is told through flashbacks.

As the flashback begins, we see Roland Brissot living his life as a painter. More importantly, he’s living life as a painter with both of his hands. However, Brissot is far from successful as a painter. Adding to his woes, the saleswoman posing for him breaks up with him right in the middle of a cafe.

After watching the breakup play out, the cafe chef, Mélisse (Noël Roquevert) decides to approach Brissot with an offer. Mélisse claims that he’s in possession of a talisman that can solve all of Brissot’s problems. A cure for all of his problems, all for the low price of one cent. Although, if you thought this sounded too good to be true, you’d be correct. Of course there is a catch. To avoid eternal damnation, Brissot must sell the talisman at a loss before he dies.

Brissot brushes off an old man named Angel who urges him not to purchase the talisman and follows Mélisse upstairs. Upstairs, Mélisse reveals the talisman as a severed left hand. Further, he shows Brissot that the hand obeys his commands. While skeptical of the supernatural powers, Brissot agrees to purchase the talisman. After sealing the deal, Mélisse’s left hand vanishes, and he screams in agony.

Flashforward a year and we see Brissot is now a successful artist. In fact, Brissot is now wildly successful in all aspects of his life. However, continuing the trend of something sounding too good to be true, Brissot is visited by a small man dressed in all black who informs him that he still has the Devil to pay. As Brissot’s luck would have it, the small man claims to be the Devil himself. The Devil astutely points out that since Brissot paid only one cent for the talisman, it would be impossible for him to sell it at a loss.

Therefore, the Devil offers to buy the talisman back for the same price Brissot paid, one cent. Sell it back and all is forgotten. Well, Brissot is hesitant to agree. The Devil advises that the deal remains on the table, however, the price at which he’ll accept the talisman will double with every day that passes.

Will Brissot keep the talisman and the perks that come with it?

Or will he manage to secure enough funds to rid himself of the talisman?

Well, this isn’t quite what I expected by any means. That’s not to say that I didn’t enjoy it, just not what I thought would be on a Top 250 list for Horror movies.

The use of shadows casts an eerie feeling over the entire story, especially during specific flashback sequences. The music also helps to enhance the sense of dread and worry throughout. Meanwhile, the performances are passable. They certainly aren’t anything to write home about, but at the same time, they don’t hinder the story either. And yes, you could argue that anything with the Devil automatically lands under the genre of horror.

However, despite there being elements of horror present, there could be more at play here. Granted, I’m not a historian and could be way off-base. That being said, given the time in which this was made, one could read into things and look at the talisman representing a sort of French Resistance. A Resistance that, when unified, can overcome its adversaries/enemies (Germany). Once you’ve seen the film for yourself, you can let me know if you agree with this take.

All of this combined, in my opinion, still doesn’t add up to a horror movie. A dramatic thriller with elements of fantasy? Sure. But a horror movie deserving of being on the Letterboxd Top 250? Far from it.

While I might not agree with the list it appears on, that’s not to say I don’t recommend you see it. In fact, I’m recommending the opposite. Start yourself a free trial of The Criterion Channel and be sure to give Carnival of Sinners (1943) at least one viewing.

If you’ve seen Carnival of Sinners (1943), tell me what you thought of it in the comments below or by reaching out to me on social media!

As always, stay up to date with everything else I’ve been watching by following me over on Letterboxd.

The post Carnival of Sinners (1943) appeared first on I've Scene That!.

Title: Pickpocket

Director: Robert Bresson

Runtime: 1 hour 15 minutes

Released: December 16, 1959 (France)

Available to stream on: The Criterion Channel

Michel (Martin LaSalle) is a Parisian pickpocket. When we first see him, he is at a racetrack and has his eyes set on a woman’s purse. Successfully, or so we think, he is able to lift the cash from the purse and casually walk out of the racetrack. Upon exiting, Michel is quickly apprehended. Luckily for Michel, there isn’t any evidence to prove that he stole the money, so the chief inspector releases him.

While at a bar with a friend, Michel spots the chief inspector and invites him to join them. The topic of conversation takes an interesting turn when Michel begins to ask the chief inspector about the morality of thieves. Is the act ever forgivable? Better yet, if you are someone of superior intelligence and prestige, should you be bound by the same laws as the everyman?

Quickly we learn that Michel doesn’t turn to pickpocketing because he has no other way. No, rather, he enjoys the thrill of the act.

The thrill of the act is only intensified when Michel has a fellow pickpocket act as sort of a mentor. He teaches Michel how to be more discreet as well as showing him new techniques. The two begin pickpocketing as a team and splitting the haul between them. As they hone their craft over time, they add a third man to their team as the complexity to their pickpocketing increases.

Will Michel continue on his lucky streak if caught again?

When I do these reviews, I try to go in knowing as little as possible about the film before pressing play. Sometimes, this results in my assumptions of a film being way off base, such was the case with Pickpocket (1959).

I went in assuming it would be some sort of a dramatic thriller about a pickpocket’s escapades. While, in a very roundabout way, that is kind of what I got, but Pickpocket (1959) is so much more than that. The main focal point being the morality behind the act itself.

One thing that stood out to me was the overall lack of dialogue. Yes, there is dialogue between characters, however, most of the story is told through Michel’s narration. By telling the story primarily through narration, it allows the characters to kind of blend in with their surroundings. If you’re a pickpocket such as Michel, that is exactly what you want.

Bresson chooses to use music and blocking to tell his story. There is no small talk between Michel and any of his targets. Instead, all we see is an expressionless Michel as he deftly attempts to unlatch a purse, lift a wallet from a coat, or remove a watch from someone’s wrist. Despite there being no emotion on Michel’s face, you can feel the tension building with each breath and movement.

Pickpocket (1959) happened to be the first film directed by Robert Bresson that I’ve seen. I can confidently say that it certainly won’t be my last.

If you’ve seen Pickpocket (1959), what did you think of it?

Let me know in the comments below or by reaching out to me across social media!

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

The post Pickpocket (1959) appeared first on I've Scene That!.