Title: Perfect Sense

Director: David Mackenzie

Released: January 24, 2011 (Sundance)

Runtime: 1 hour 32 minutes

Available to stream on: Tubi and Kanopy

Michael (Ewan McGregor) is a chef at a busy upscale restaurant. One day, when stepping out back on break, Michael bums a smoke from Susan (Eva Green), who lives in a flat adjacent to the restaurant.

Susan works as an epidemiologist. She is currently investigating a new epidemic that is causing people to lose their sense of smell. Before the sense of smell goes, people are overcome with grief. When the grief subsides is when one realizes so is their sense of smell. But it gets worse. Every memory that you have that is in any way linked to a specific smell, well those memories begin to vanish as well.

Being that Michael works so close to where Susan lives, they begin chatting as they see each other before eventually becoming involved with one another. They are very cautious and try not to be the reason the other becomes infected. One night, in the kitchen of Michael’s restaurant, Susan bursts into tears. Later, while consoling her in bed, Michael too breaks down. Cut to the next morning and neither one of them has their sense of smell anymore.

Meanwhile, the epidemic continues to evolve. After the sense of smell, next up is the sense of taste. Like before, there are warning signs. A sudden onset of anxiety followed by insatiable hunger. Once the hunger fades, you realize you no longer have the sense of taste.

As quarantines take effect, Michael and Susan realize that they’re in this together until the end, whatever that might be. They, along with the rest of society, begin to adapt to life without certain senses.

But there is only one problem with that.

What happens when you run out of senses to lose?

As someone who considers themselves a fan of both Ewan McGregor and Eva Green, I really wanted to like Perfect Sense (2011). If we are only going to look at Max Richter and his score, then yes, I really liked Perfect Sense (2011). In fact, his score is arguably the best part of the movie. Consistently good from beginning to end.

However, the same cannot be said for the movie itself.

Watching this through 2023 eyes is pretty wild. An epidemic that results in the loss of smell? Hits a little close to home, eh?

The idea of losing all of your senses, one by one, and not knowing when it’ll happen until you randomly succumb to the odd behaviors that occur right before the sense goes, that’s absolutely terrifying. There is a thriller movie for the ages in there somewhere that I was so hoping we’d lean hard into. Instead, we got a half thought-out love story thrown onto us.

We are expected to be invested in the relationship of Susan and Michael but aren’t given nearly enough to want to be invested in them as individuals, let alone a couple. I’m not saying I wouldn’t be here for that story. Ewan and Eva had good chemistry, yeah, let’s explore that more. But don’t try and force that story into the epidemic story and have it be the focal point.

Perfect Sense (2011) needed to decide what type of movie it wanted to be. Unfortunately, we weren’t given enough substance or time to warrant combining the epidemic thriller with the love story. Extra half a star for Max Richter’s work.

Have you seen Perfect Sense (2011)? What did you think of it? Tell me in the comments below or by reaching out on social media!

Well, there you have it. Thirteen letters down and thirteen left to go. Next week we’ll have the letter “N”. Want to get a sneak peek at who the crew member will be and what movie of theirs we’ll review? Keep an eye on Threads, Instagram, and if you’re over there…Bluesky, this Wednesday.

The post Perfect Sense (2011) 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: Little Shop of Horrors

Director: Frank Oz

Released: December 19, 1986

Runtime: 1 hour 34 minutes

Available to stream on: MAX

IMDb synopsis: A nerdy florist finds his chance for success and romance with the help of a giant man-eating plant who demands to be fed.

Seymour Krelborn (Rick Moranis) is a florist at Mushnik’s Flower Shop located in the Skid Row district of New York. Due to poor sales, Mr. Mushnik (Vincent Gardenia) decides to close up shop. As a last-ditch effort to try and save their jobs, Seymour’s co-worker Audrey (Ellen Greene) suggests displaying Seymour’s new plant in the window.

This might seem like a bizarre way to try and save the shop, but Seymour’s plant isn’t just another average plant. He bought the plant, which he named Audrey II (voiced by Levi Stubbs), during a solar eclipse from a Chinese flower shop. Audrey II is a hit and Mushnik’s Flower Shop is once again filled with customers.

After a period of time, Audrey II begins to wilt. Seymour tries everything from fertilizers, water, minerals, to sunlight, but nothing seems to bring nourishment to Audrey II. That is until one day Seymour inadvertently pricks his finger and draws blood. Seeing Audrey II come to life, Seymour begins to wonder if blood is what Audrey II needs. Against his better judgment he gives the plant a few drops, Audrey II’s health improves almost instantly.

Audrey II’s remarkable recovery and subsequent massive growth spurt gives Seymour his time in the spotlight. However, Seymour can’t reveal the true secret to Audrey II’s success. But he also can’t keep feeding the plant blood forever. Someone is bound to catch on to what is happening, and the growth of Audrey II is already out of control. This doesn’t stop Audrey II though; having formed the ability to speak, the plant demands more blood from Seymour.

How does Seymour deal with a sentient plant’s demands for human blood? Will he give into Audrey II’s demands and murder someone? Can Audrey II even be stopped at this point?

Going into Little Shop of Horrors (1986), all that I knew was that it was an adaptation of a Broadway play (which itself was an adaptation of a 1960 film), that it was a cult classic, and that Rick Moranis was in it. Honestly, I was a little worried that it would be one of those instances where you try to watch something heralded as a “cult classic” and you just don’t see what the hype is about.

Luckily that is not the case here as I had an absolute blast watching this. The musical numbers are campy yet catchy. The use of horror without the use of blood and gore is effectively done. And with Frank Oz at the helm, you knew you were in for a treat with the visual effects, specifically with Audrey II. That’s not to mention that the production design and the way Little Shop of Horrors (1986) is shot makes it feel like you’re watching a Broadway play, but I mean that in the best possible way.

But you can’t praise a movie like this without also heaping praise onto the cast. Yes, Moranis and Greene are great together. However, the cameos that we get arguably steal the show. We’re treated to John Candy, Jim Belushi, Bill Murray, and Steve Martin in a role I don’t hear discussed enough. No, I didn’t get into these at all earlier. But that’s because if you’re like me and haven’t seen the movie before, you’re in for a treat and I don’t want to spoil anything for you.

While I don’t have the nostalgic ties to it that some may have, I still found Little Shop of Horrors (1986) to be a fun and enjoyable watch.

If you’ve already seen it, give it a rewatch. If you haven’t seen it, do yourself a favor and seek it out.

Just be careful. Don’t feed the plants.

Well, those are my thoughts on Little Shop of Horrors (1986), but what are yours?

Give me your thoughts in the comments below or by reaching out on social media including my account on Threads! While I will still post updates on Twitter, Threads is where I will be the most active moving forward.

Next week brings us the letter “C”. You know the drill. Get suggestions for crew members whose name starts with “C” in by Wednesday morning. Wednesday evening I’ll announce on Instagram, Twitter, and Threads who the person is and what film of theirs we’ll be looking at next Sunday.

The post Little Shop of Horrors (1986) 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!.

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: 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: The Quick and the Dead

Director: Sam Raimi

Released: February 10, 1995

Runtime: 1 hour 48 minutes

Available to stream on: Netflix

IMDb synopsis: A female gunfighter returns to a frontier town where a dueling tournament is being held, which she enters in an effort to avenge her father’s death.

Herod (Gene Hackman) is the man who “runs things” in town from his house at the end of Main Street. He collects a fifty percent tax on all businesses, has his henchmen eliminate anyone who steps out of line, and he also enjoys a friendly competition. What is his competition of choice, you ask? Quick draw competition. Anyone can enter, the last man standing wins the cash prize.

Surprisingly, there’s no shortage of entrants eager to get their hands on the cash prize, knowing they almost face a certain death, including the likes of Ace Hanlon (Lance Henriksen), Scars (Mark Boone Junior), and Sergeant Clay Cantrell (Keith David). We also have Kid, (Leonardo DiCaprio), a quick-talking cocky individual who enters into the competition confident that he’ll be taking home the cash prize of $123,000.

But what’s a competition without a few surprises? There’s Herod entering the competition himself, Ellen (Sharon Stone) surprising and humoring everyone in the saloon by announcing that she’s in, and then we have the priest, Cort (Russell Crowe), who is forced into the competition by Herod.

As the competition gets under way and begins to progress, motives become clear. Yes, everyone wants the cash prize, but some people want more. For instance, we learn that Kid is the son of Herod and determined to prove his worth to him. Then there’s Cort, he used to run with Herod before turning to a life of nonviolence. And then there’s Ellen. We know she’s here to get revenge on Herod for killing her father, Marshall (Gary Sinise). But as the flashbacks have shown us, we don’t know yet exactly how that situation unfolded. We’re teased with a little bit more each time she progresses in the competition.

To the surprise of no-one, the final four competitors wind up being Cort, Kid, Ellen, and Herod. Who takes home the cash prize? More importantly, who gets to settle their score? Well, you know I won’t be the one to spoil it for you.

Honestly, going into a western with Sharon Stone as the lead, I was admittedly skeptical. But when looking at the rest of the cast, it becomes easy to want to watch it just to see how everyone fits into their respective roles. It’s insane to see the who’s who of names that are here. Let’s look at where this was in the timeline of everyone’s career.

Sharon Stone – This was released in February and in November of the same year she’d have Casino release.

Gene Hackman – This was released between Wyatt Earp and Crimson Tide.

Russell Crowe – Up to this point he hadn’t been in much outside of Romper Stomper. Later this same year he had Virtuosity release and was still two years out from L.A. Confidential releasing.

Leonardo DiCaprio – The Basketball Diaries had just been released.

Yes, Sharon Stone had Basic Instinct prior to this, but Gene Hackman was really the only “established” star of the top-billed when this was released. And Hackman had the ability to just be great in everything. Doesn’t matter what the role was or what the scene called for, he had a knack to always be able to deliver and make it believable. Overall, the weakest of the group was probably Stone. Not for the performance itself but more so how she went about the performance. Ellen is here because she’s a bad ass who is hellbent on revenge. However, Stone gives this breathy soft-spoken delivery of each line of dialogue that seems out of place for the character.

Sam Raimi and cinematographer Dante Spinotti give us a stylistically visual treat. From the camera work focusing on sunlight shining through a hole, whether it be in the brim of a hat or the body of a human, to the way the shots are framed to give this town a bleak and depressed feel. Not to mention there are two of the coolest looking character deaths that I think I’ve seen in a western.

Yes, the plot here is paper thin. But when you have this cast and Sam Raimi at the helm, you don’t need an overly intricate plot. It is well paced and keeps you engaged throughout. And you know what, sometimes that’s all you need. The Quick and the Dead (1995) is a unique twist on the standard western and one worth watching.

So, what say you? What are your thoughts on The Quick and the Dead (1995)? Did you enjoy it as much as I did? Tell me all about it in the comments below or by reaching out across all of my social media!

Next up on our journey is the letter “R”. Do you have any suggestions for what the movie should be? You know the drill, get those suggestions in by Wednesday morning! Wednesday evening I’ll reveal the movie on my Twitter and Instagram.

The post The Quick and the Dead (1995) appeared first on I've Scene That!.

Title: Lymelife

Director: Derick Martini

Released: April 8, 2009

Runtime: 1 hour 35 minutes

Available to stream on: Tubi

IMDb synopsis: A family unit begins to bow under the pressure of a failing marriage.

Scott Bartlett (Rory Culkin) is coming of an age in late 1970s Long Island. Growing up in a suburb seems like nothing out of the ordinary, right? Wrong. Not only is Scott able to see the cracks in the marriage between his parents, Mickey (Alec Baldwin) and Brenda (Jill Hennessy), but the hysteria surrounding Lyme disease has taken the community by storm.

Unfortunately, Charlie Bragg (Timothy Hutton) has recently been diagnosed with having Lyme disease. The Bragg’s have lived next door to the Bartlett’s for some time now. Knowing that Melissa (Cynthia Nixon) now must provide for the family on her own, Mickey, her boss, decides to get her more involved in the real estate development project he is in the middle of. Yes, what you think happens is exactly what happens. Mickey and Melissa start having an affair. Brenda isn’t blind, she knows what is going on but tries to stay strong and rise above it all.

Scott on the other hand, not quite as quick to pick up on things, finds it odd that one day while hanging out with Adrianna Bragg (Emma Roberts), who he’s had a crush on for years, he sees his father and Mrs. Bragg come up from the basement of the Bragg’s house together. Adrianna breaks it down for Scott by telling him that Mickey isn’t the man he thinks he is before bluntly telling him that his dad and her mom are sleeping together.

Scott’s older brother Jimmy (Kieran Culkin) comes home from the Army before being shipped off to the Falkland Islands. While he’s home, Jimmy makes sure to look out for Scott. That bully at school giving Scott a hard time, well let’s just say that Jimmy took care of things. And when Mickey carelessly flaunts his affection for Melissa in-front of Scott, Brenda, and the whole town, Jimmy confronts Mickey and tries to get him to at least behave for Scott’s sake. But not even Jimmy is what he seems. He’s miserable in his role in the Army and ran off to join just so he could get away from life at home.

In addition to watching his family crumble right before his eyes, Scott is trying to manage the feelings he has for Adrianna all while entering his formative years. Sounds reasonable, right? Well, no, not at all. Especially when the stereotypical “American dream” is no longer the dream for you.

The fun part about picking random movies to review is coming across a diamond in the rough like Lymelife (2008). Now no, this isn’t a movie that is going to stick with you for days after viewing it. There is no profound message to take away. And it won’t soar up the rankings in any “best of lists”. It’s just a solid story with incredibly strong performances from everyone in the cast. Yes, Lyme disease plays a role in the movie. However, the disease itself isn’t the focal point. The main focus is on family life and how nothing is ever as it seems.

The Culkin kids are a talented bunch and I’ll watch anything that they happen to pop up in. I got lucky here with a one-two punch as we get Rory and Kieran playing brothers. I like the choice of seeing everything through the eyes of Scott and Rory was perfect in this role. He has a naturally soft and innocent look about him that gels seamlessly with the character of Scott. In rounding out the Bartlett bunch, Kieran, Alec Baldwin, and Jill Hennessy all play their respective roles admirably. So much so that we’re left almost wanting more from the characters than what we’re given, but not necessarily in a bad way.

Besides Rory, the other star who does a fair share of heavy lifting here is Emma Roberts in her role as Adrianna Bragg. She has her own family issues to cope with, her dad having Lyme disease and her mom sleeping with Mickey, but still, she manages to look out for Scott. Yes, she has feelings for him that she struggles with but there’s also a sort of sympathetic and nurturing nature to how she treats Scott.

All in all, I would have liked to have seen a bit more depth to each character. Yes, it was a tight ninety-five minutes that doesn’t overstay its welcome. But we could have just as easily added some layers to the story, and I would have happily hung around for another thirty minutes or so. That being said, this is absolutely worth a watch, and I recommend checking it out on Tubi.

So, what do you think of Lymelife (2008)? Have you seen it? Tell me what you thought of it in the comments below or by reaching out on social media!

What’s next? Next Sunday as we continue on in the A-to-Z challenge we’ll have the letter “M”. Do you have a suggestion as to what I should cover? Let me hear it! You’ll have until Wednesday morning to get suggestions in. Wednesday evening, I will announce on social media what the movie for next Sunday will be.

The post Lymelife (2008) appeared first on I've Scene That!.

Title: I Want Someone to Eat Cheese With

Director: Jeff Garlin

Released: April 28, 2006

Runtime: 1 hour 20 minutes

Available to stream on: Kanopy and Hoopla

IMDb synopsis: About a man who has trouble with his job, trouble with women, and uses food to deal with it all.

James (Jeff Garlin) is having a rough go of things. He’s 39, living at home with his mother, and still hoping for his big break with as a Second City performer. To add insult to injury, James was recently dumped. Not just by his girlfriend, but his agent was her brother. While speaking at career day, James has an existential meltdown when speaking to the children. Single, no real prospects, living at home with his mother, James turns to food to cope and deal.

However, things begin to look up for James when he encounters Beth (Sarah Silverman) at the local ice cream shop. Beth and James begin spending time together which proves to work wonders for James. But will a renewed sense of confidence be enough? Can James pull it all together and find happiness? At the very least, will he find someone to eat cheese with?

So, I Want Someone to Eat Cheese With (2006) is an interesting watch. On one hand, it’s a lighthearted feel-good story. The script itself is incredibly light as well. There isn’t much to it, not a lot to read into or pontificate on once the credits roll. Although, that’s not always a bad thing. Sometimes a movie can just be straightforward and not require a lot of thought on your part.

On the other hand, the entire movie, including the score, feels like an episode of Curb Your Enthusiasm. If you had an episode without Larry that was set in Chicago and focused on Jeff, you’d have this movie.

But that’s not to say that there isn’t anything to enjoy here. Despite the PG rating, there is plenty of humor to be found. Sarah Silverman still manages to work in her style of comedy as Beth, and it doesn’t feel horribly out of place. I said earlier that everything feels like an episode of Curb and well, if you like that style of humor than you’ll enjoy the humor here. It’s the same conversational off-beat comedy just in a PG setting rather than TV-MA.

Every now and then you find a movie that you enjoy well enough when watching it, but after a few days go by nothing really has “stuck” with you from the movie. Well, I Want Someone to Eat Cheese With (2006) is exactly that type of movie. I can find worse ways to spend eighty minutes. If you’re looking for a feel-good story that gets in and gets out without a lot of fluff, this is for you.

Well, what do you think? If you’ve seen I Want Someone to Eat Cheese With (2006) tell me about your thoughts on it in the comments below or by reaching out on social media!

So, what’s next? Well, I’ve got some travel coming up, so I’ll take your suggestions for the letter “J” and “K” through this coming Wednesday morning. We’ll stay with Sunday releases; I just need to get a jump on the letter “K” to keep with the Sunday release schedule. Don’t wait, get those suggestions in now. Wednesday evening I’ll announce the movie for the letter “J”.

The post I Want Someone to Eat Cheese With (2006) appeared first on I've Scene That!.