Title: Lapsis

Director: Noah Hutton

Released: July 11, 2020 (South Korea – Bucheon International Fantastic Film Festival)/October 1, 2020 (United States – Nashville Film Festival)

Runtime: 1 hour 48 minutes

Available to stream on: Kanopy

Ray Tincelli (Dean Imperial) is just trying to do what’s best for his younger brother, Jamie (Babe Howard). You see, Jamie suffers from CFS (Chronic Fatigue Symptom), and the treatments are expensive, to say the least. Unfortunately for Ray, he keeps striking out with his extra side hustles and attempts to turn a quick profit. Luckily Ray isn’t completely out of options just yet.

Quantum is a tech company that is on the verge of a monopoly on both software and hardware. In the “New Economy” the quantum trading market is the way of the future. The servers for Quantum are all connected by cables that are plugged into giant black cubes, strategically placed in low-populated and desolate areas. CABLR, the company that ensures all these cables are plugged in, happens to be hiring.

What exactly does the job entail? Well, each contractor is assigned a route and along the way they unspool the cable and plug it into the cubes as they come across them. For each route accepted and successfully completed, you earn a set amount of money.

Sounds like a rather easy and straightforward way to earn some extra money, right? Maybe on paper.

As it turns out, humans aren’t the only ones that are assigned routes. CABLR also happens to be using robots to run the same routes. If a robot passes you on a route and completes it before you, you don’t receive the full payment.

Will Ray be able to complete enough routes to help Jamie?

Is there a way to outsmart the robots and eliminate the competition?

What if the fellow cablers along the trail aren’t as friendly as they appear?

Lapsis (2020) is one of those movies where after the end credits roll, you find yourself sitting there wondering if you fully grasped everything that just happened.

Noah Hutton wrote, directed, edited, and scored a clever science fiction film that pulls no punches in poking fun at the “gig economy”. It’s very easy to look at CABLR offering “financial freedom” and increased pay/better routes the more routes you complete and draw comparisons to Uber, Lyft, DoorDash, Amazon, etc. Dangle the carrot in front of those who need help the most all while working to make them obsolete.

Full disclosure, when I first saw Dean Imperial as Ray, I wasn’t sure if I could get behind him as a protagonist. Boy was I wrong. As the story unfolds, we are gaining a better understanding of what exactly is taking place at the same time as Ray is. This allows you to connect with Ray’s character and align yourself “in his corner”, if you will.

It is tough to talk about Lapsis (2020) at-length without giving too much away. If you fancy yourself a dystopian sci-fi flick, definitely seek this out. If you’re on the fence, give it a shot anyways. It is a brisk 108 minutes and who knows, you just might surprise yourself.

So, there you have it. Those are my thoughts on Lapsis (2020), but what are yours? Tell me what you thought of it in the comments below or by reaching out on social media!

See everything else that I’m watching and give me a follow over on Letterboxd.

As always, keep an eye on Threads and Instagram this Wednesday for a preview of what the letter “P” will have in store for us next week.

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

Title: The Private Life of Sherlock Holmes

Director: Billy Wilder

Released: October 29, 1970

Runtime: 2 hours 5 minutes

Available to stream on: Pluto, Prime Video, and Tubi

Sherlock Holmes (Robert Stephens) finds himself in a bit of a rut. No case that comes his way manages to excite him anymore. Little does he know; excitement is just around the corner.

Sherlock and Dr. Watson (Colin Blakely) attend a performance of Swan Lake and afterwards Sherlock has the pleasure of meeting the star of the show, Madame Petrova (Tamara Toumanova). After some small talk between the two, well three if you count who was interpreting, Sherlock realizes that this isn’t about to be just another case. Madame Petrova is retiring and wants to become a mother. Well, Sherlock is able to connect the dots and sees that he’s there for the sole purpose of becoming her baby daddy. He manages to weasel out of the situation by proclaiming that he and Dr. Watson are in a committed relationship together.

Meanwhile, Watson is living it up and dancing all around with the other ballerinas. Word spreads amongst the ballerinas that Watson and Sherlock are a thing, and they slowly distance themselves from him. Watson eventually has it explained to him why the female ballerinas have all drifted away and he is furious. He storms home and he and Sherlock have a spat.

But it seemed like Madame Petrova was persistent. I bet you’re wondering how long until she resurfaces.

Well, too bad. That’s the last we see or hear from Madame Petrova or that storyline.

Okay, now that we’re half an hour into the movie, time to get to the actual story.

Late one evening there’s a knock at the door and a cabbie is there dropping off a woman. When asked why he brought her here, the cabbie explains that he found her in the Thames River with Sherlock’s address in her hand. The woman can’t seem to speak other than the phrases, “I don’t know” and “I can’t remember”.

Sherlock, being the great detective that he is, is able to determine that she is from Belgium. Her name is Gabrielle and her husband’s name is Emile. However, despite this breakthrough, Gabrielle (Geneviève Page) still can’t recall how or when she arrived in London. She mistakes Holmes for her husband Emile, and he plays along with it in order to further his investigation.

He manages to recover her luggage and from there her memory slowly starts to come back to her. Emile worked in a copper mine and was hired by Jonah Limited. They would write each other letters constantly, until one day the letters from Emile just stopped. Gabrielle had taken it upon herself to go to the address listed on the letters from him, 32 Ashdown Street. As it turns out, 32 Ashdown Street is an empty building. Better yet, Jonah Limited doesn’t even exist. When Gabrielle reported her story to the Belgian Embassy, they suggested she contact Sherlock Holmes.

Sherlock suggests she write one more letter to Emile at the Ashdown address. Gabrielle does, leaving it as a blank letter. Why blank? Well, Sherlock believes that 32 Ashdown is a letter drop and if they sit on this blank letter, they’ll see who retrieves it.

The plan sounds great in theory, except when the mail is delivered to 32 Ashdown Street, the letter that is delivered isn’t the blank one that they wrote. No, it’s addressed to Sherlock from his brother, Mycroft (Christopher Lee). Mycroft has demanded a meeting with Sherlock and Watson at the Diogenes Club.

Mycroft demands that Sherlock and Watson immediately cease all efforts into locating Emile. But why? The reasoning given is that it’s a matter of national security. Sherlock tries pushing Mycroft, particularly on Jonah Limited. But Mycroft holds firm, reiterates that they drop it immediately, and wishes them well.

If you know anything about Sherlock Holmes, it’s that he is not about to just walk away from an intriguing case. Especially after he’s been bored by everything that’s come his way recently.

But why would Mycroft be so adamant in having Sherlock drop a case?

Does he know anything about “Jonah Limited”?

Will locating Emile help explain just how Gabrielle wound up in the Thames and who put her there?

Truth be told, prior to this week, I had zero knowledge of this movie even existing. I hadn’t heard of it, seen it mentioned anywhere online, or had it recommended by anyone. But as a child of the ’80s who loved (and still loves) The Great Mouse Detective, how could I pass up a Sherlock Holmes movie I hadn’t ever heard of?

I was a little hesitant at first as it took a bit for me to buy-in and be down for the ride. For whatever reason, I wasn’t feeling Robert Stephens as Sherlock from the start. It wasn’t until he got out of becoming the baby daddy to Madame Petrova that things changed for me, and he wound up being incredibly enjoyable as Sherlock. Colin Blakely’s Watson was just fun all throughout, super animated whether the feeling was cheer, anger, or pain.

What was really enjoyable for me is the way that everything is told. Yes, the story is from Watson’s perspective but it’s all very fresh and new. It’s not the retelling of a previous story, it’s not even a copy/paste of a previous story but with a different title. We get a more complex creature in this version of Sherlock Holmes, well at least to an extent. I wouldn’t expect a Sherlock Holmes film in 1970 to hint at Sherlock’s sexuality or that Watson would be so taken aback by the thought of it given that he spends almost every waking moment with him.

Yes, I know why the Madame Petrova scenes were there. But we could have found a different way to get there without spending the first quarter of the movie on it. The writing at times I feel could have made the twists and turns a little more complex as well. There were times where you almost feel bad for Watson. We, the viewer, has already long since figured out what Sherlock is just now realizing. Meanwhile, Watson is as clueless as he is cheerful.

That being said, once Gabrielle is brought to Baker Street, The Private Life of Sherlock Holmes (1970) becomes a fun mystery with some clever humor sprinkled in and plenty of turns along the way.

Well, those are my thoughts, but what are yours? Tell me what you thought of The Private Life of Sherlock Holmes (1970) in the comments below or by reaching out on social media!

Next week we’ll have the letter “J”. Keep an eye on Threads and Instagram on Wednesday for the reveal of who it’ll be and what movie of theirs we’ll be reviewing.

The post The Private Life of Sherlock Holmes (1970) appeared first on I've Scene That!.

Title: Insidious: Chapter 2

Director: James Wan

Released: September 13, 2013

Runtime: 1 hour 46 minutes

Available to stream on: MAX

IMDb synopsis: The Lamberts believe that they have defeated the spirits that have haunted their family, but they soon discover that evil is not beaten so easily.

If you haven’t watched Insidious (2010) yet, then brace yourself for some spoilers, which may not come as a surprise, but it’s worth mentioning anyway.

It’s 1986 and a young Lorraine Lambert (Jocelin Donahue) has decided to call Elise Rainier (younger Elise portrayed by (Lindsay Seim) to save her son, Josh (younger Josh portrayed by Garrett Ryan), who is being haunted by the spirit of an old woman. During her inspection of the home for any paranormal activity, Elise’s arm is mysteriously slashed open by an evil force.

Flashforward twenty-five years we’re smack dab in the middle of the aftermath of the first movie. Elise unfortunately is dead and now Renai Lambert (Rose Byrne) about her husband, Josh Lambert (Patrick Wilson), and whether he had a hand in it.

The Lambert’s decide their best bet is to move. So, they pack up and decide to move to Lorraine’s house. New surroundings, should mean a fresh start, right? Well…no. As their luck would have it, Lorraine’s house presents its own version of paranormal events. Dalton (Ty Simpkins) begins telling his mom about a recurring dream with a woman in a white dress.

If that wasn’t enough, the two who worked closest with Elise, Specs (Leigh Whannell) and Tucker (Angus Sampson) have found something troubling on an old VHS recording of Elise’s 1986 session with Josh. When you enhance the image, there it is, clear as day, adult Josh standing behind young Josh. Luckily, Specs and Tucker are able to get ahold of Elise’s old colleague, Carl (Steve Coulter). Surprisingly, Carl agrees to offer his assistance.

From here, we’re off to the races.

What’s the explanation for adult Josh appearing in the photo of young Josh?

Is Carl capable of helping both Josh and Dalton suppress their memories?

While Foster (Andrew Astor), doesn’t seem to be too affected by these evil spirits, is poor Dalton in for another rough go of things?

Is Renai safe under the same roof as her husband?

Now, if you haven’t seen it before, this is where your homework starts. Head on over to MAX to get the answers for yourself.

And if you’ve already seen it, simply continue reading to see my thoughts on Insidious: Chapter 2 (2013).

In any franchise, especially horror, it’s completely reasonable to be skeptical of any run of sequels that try to cash in on the success of the original.

Luckily for us, we’re given a sequel that is arguably as good as, if not better than, the original installment.

First and foremost, it does an excellent job of continuing the story and the development of the characters. There’s no point where you sit and say, “Wait, this doesn’t fit in at all.”. Everything you see and hear somehow ties in and serves a purpose.

Speaking of seeing, personally I thought Chapter 2 is much easier on the eyes than the original. Yes, a lot of the action takes place in shadows and darkness. But you aren’t struggling to try and make out what’s on the screen. The colors don’t appear muted and dull as they did in all scenes of the original either.

The score and sound effects (hey, thanks, Dawn Lunsford) add an elevated level of suspense and tension. In any movie, but especially a horror movie, having an eerie and effective score and sound effects can have such an impact on the viewer that it changes how they feel about the entire movie.

Credit to James Wan for giving us a solid horror movie and delivering it in an hour and forty-six minutes. It doesn’t overstay it’s welcome but doesn’t feel rushed either.

If you have seen the original Insidious, odds are you’ve probably already seen Insidious: Chapter 2 (2013). But if you haven’t, here’s your recommendation to go do so.

Well, now that you’ve read my thoughts, I want to read yours. What did you think of Insidious: Chapter 2 (2013)? Tell me all about it in the comments below or by reaching out on social media!

You know the drill, next up is the letter “E”. If you have a suggestion for a crew member you want highlighted whose name begins with the letter “E”, you have until Wednesday morning. Wednesday evening I’ll announce who the person is and what film of theirs we’ll be covering on Threads and Instagram.

The post Insidious: Chapter 2 (2013) appeared first on I've Scene That!.

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!.

Right away they have me hooked. “I felt her evil the second she got out of that car.” and then we see Rosalie (Madeleine McGraw). So instantly we have a “creepy kid” vibe. I am all for it, when it’s done right it is a fantastic horror subgenre.

But wait, there’s more to this one than just another “creepy kid” movie, we get the Devil and the Harbinger. We’re told that “…the Harbinger is a traveler, doomed to hell, unless he does the Devil’s bidding”. From the looks of the rest of the trailer, there is a lot of bidding to be done. The Devil, possession, a creepy kid, that’s a horror movie trifecta if I’ve ever heard one.

I went from having heard nothing about The Harbinger (2022) to looking forward to it coming out over the course of one trailer. It will be a nice edition to the 150 Days of Horror that is still going strong over on Twitter.

What about you? Are you looking forward to The Harbinger (2022)? Let me know your thoughts on this trailer in the comments below or by reaching out on social media!

• Twitter
• Instagram

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