Title: The Novice

Director: Lauren Hadaway

Released: June 13, 2021 (Tribeca Film Festival)

Runtime: 1 hour 37 minutes

Available to stream on: Showtime

Alex Dall (Isabelle Fuhrman) is a freshman at Wellington College who decides to join the school’s novice rowing team. All it takes is one visit to a training class and Alex is obsessed. No matter what she’s doing or where she’s going, she’s thinking about rowing. “Arms body legs. Legs body arms. Arms body legs. Legs body arms.”

While Alex works hard to become the top novice, she is continuously bested by fellow-freshman, Jamie Brill (Amy Forsyth). Jamie is equally as competitive as Alex, especially since she views rowing as her path to an academic scholarship. There’s one big difference between them though; while Alex has to work hard and push herself to her limits in order to get better, rowing seems to just come naturally to Jamie.

Whether it is in practice with everyone else or alone during school breaks, Alex pushes herself to unhealthy limits in order to become the best. The goal is the varsity team, and nothing is going to stop her from achieving that goal.

Alex’s health, friendships, and overall well-being further deteriorate. But it is all worth it in the end as long as she proves, through hard work and tenacity, that she is the best.

Isn’t it?

What if I told you that this was the feature debut for writer/director Lauren Hadaway? Pretty wild, huh?

Isabelle Fuhrman is perfectly cast as Alex. There’s something slightly terrifying about her obsession, but at the same time, you are just as stressed as she is in hopes that she succeeds. You forget that “oh hey, it’s Esther from Orphan.” and instead are completely engulfed in the character of Alex Dall.

While Fuhrman gives an outstanding performance, there are three aspects of The Novice (2021) that really stole the show. The music, the sound, and the editing are all absolutely phenomenal. This makes a lot of sense as to why once you learn that Lauren Hadaway was the sound editor for Whiplash. While Lauren did have a hand in the editing here, let’s not overlook to the entire sound team, Alex Weston (composer), Todd Martin (director of photography), and Nathan Nugent (editor) who all deserve just as much credit.

I learned a lot about a sport I knew very little of. It was refreshing to see the “troubled artist” trope used with a student athlete being said troubled artist. Most of all, there is something to be said of a movie that is ninety-seven minutes long without a single ounce of fat on it.

If you have not seen The Novice (2021), please use your arms, body, and legs to fix that.

Well, those are my thoughts on it. But what are yours? Tell me what you thought of The Novice (2021) in the comments below or by reaching out on social media!

So, what will be next for the letter “O”? We’ll have Ori Gilady (Hairstylist) and the movie of Ori’s being reviewed will be Lapsis (2020).

Want to get a sneak peek at what’ll be coming up for the letter “P”? Keep an eye on Threads and Instagram this Wednesday!

The post The Novice (2021) appeared first on I've Scene That!.

Title: Monument

Director: Jagoda Szelc

Released: August 2, 2018 (Poland – New Horizons Film Festival)

Runtime: 1 hour 48 minutes

Available to stream on: Shudder

A large group of young adults are ready to start their internship at a secluded resort. We’re led to believe that they should consider themselves lucky for the opportunity of interning there. When they arrive, they find themselves to be slightly disoriented before realizing that the driver is no longer in the van. Almost immediately upon arrival they realize this won’t exactly be a walk in the park.

The Manager (Dorota Lukasiewicz) is quick to inform the interns that things are going to be different now. Their names, they don’t matter. Every boy will have the same name, same thing goes for every girl. Each individual will get a turn at doing each task in the hotel. These tasks can range from doing laundry, cleaning rooms, working in the kitchen, cleaning the grounds, or even being on garbage duty.

Each individual has been stripped of all identity, trained to care about nothing but the upkeep of the resort and the satisfaction of the customers. However, strange behaviors begin to emerge. Behaviors and actions that are out of the norm for each character and ones that they can’t seem to explain.

What is it that is causing these behaviors?

Does it have something to do with the resort itself?

Is it a result of the Manager and her training?

Or is there something more sinister behind it all?

Sometimes you come across a movie that you know you’ll need to watch two or three times before you are able to fully wrap your head around it, such is the case with Monument (2018).

First and foremost, it is impressive that this was made as part of a graduation film for acting students from the Łódź Film School in Poland. We’re told this upfront in the opening credits but fear not, don’t let the fact that this is a “student film” fool you. Despite there not necessarily being a “lead” character, you find yourself, at the very least, mildly intrigued by, and invested in, each character and their outcome.

Writer and director Jagoda Szelc is now on my radar. The atmosphere created in Monument (2018) is what drives the movie. All throughout you find yourself just as disoriented as the characters on the screen. Not only will you feel disoriented, but you’ll also carry an uneasy feeling of dread for the length of the film. You feel tense when someone’s work is questioned, you hold your breath when you see a dark hallway, you’re kept on edge the entire time.

Despite streaming on Shudder, this is not your “typical” horror movie. It’s not a blood fest. There is no clear cut “bad guy”. And in the end, the payoff is entirely up to you and your interpretation of the film.

For that reason, Monument (2018) is definitely deserving of at least one viewing. Although, I wouldn’t blame you if you went back for a second or third viewing either.

Well, there you have it. That’s what I thought of Monument (2018), but what about you? If you’ve seen it, tell me what you thought in the comments below!

You can follow me across social media and see what else I’ve been watching on Letterboxd.

Keep an eye on Threads and Instagram this Wednesday to see the crew member we’ll spotlight for the letter “M” and the movie they worked on that’ll be reviewed.

The post Monument (2018) appeared first on I've Scene That!.

Title: The Guilty

Director: Antoine Fuqua

Released: October 1, 2021

Runtime: 1 hour 30 minutes

Available to stream on: Netflix

Joe Baylor (Jake Gyllenhaal) is an LAPD officer assigned to the overnight shift at the 911 call center. No, it’s not his normal assignment. He’s working the call center while awaiting a court date for an on-duty incident.

What’s the incident? Well, we aren’t quite sure. The good news for Joe though, the court date is tomorrow. All he has to do is get through one more shift and it’ll all be behind him.

During his shift he receives a call from an Emily Lighton (Riley Keough). Emily sounds terrified and is talking as though she’s speaking to a child. Joe catches on and advises her to keep acting like she’s talking to her child while he asks her yes or no questions.

Joe is able to determine that Emily has been abducted by the father of her children in a white van and that the children are not with her. That’s it, no more details. Not enough to be able to track down the van. Joe calls Emily’s home number and a little girl named Abby answers. Abby reveals that she is six years and nine months, she’s home with her brother, and that daddy took mommy.

Continuing to talk with Abby, Joe is able to get the father’s, Henry Fisher (Peter Sarsgaard), cell number. Using that, he’s able to track down the license plate number of the white van. Joe calls Henry, who says very little, and hangs up when Joe begins asking questions accusing Henry of taking Emily.

Miraculously, Emily is able to get back on the line with Joe. Joe instructs her to put her seatbelt on and yank the hand brake as hard as she can. You can hear the screeching of tires and then the line goes dead.

Will the police and paramedics be able to get to Emily? What about her children?

But more importantly, what about Joe’s court date?

In a movie where the whole premise is “guy is working at a call center and is very determined”, you need to have a lead who can put the movie on his/her back. This is exactly what we got here with Jake Gyllenhaal. His subtle changes in tone along with his facial expressions keep you hanging on every word, which is good considering all but maybe 2 minutes don’t have Jake’s face and/or voice in it.

I was not aware of the original, a Dutch film from 2018 of the same name. So, while I can’t speak to how true to the original it is, I can speak to how it stands as its own thing. While I enjoyed the movie overall, my biggest gripe is with Joe’s story.

An officer’s pending court date over an incident that landed him where he is for the entirety of the film, that deserves a little more attention. Yes, we ultimately find out what happened. Yes, we see how the weight of the incident weighs on Joe. However, it is hard to believe that the whole Emily situation was enough for him to have his own come-to-Jesus moment and decide to change his approach to his court appearance.

That gripe aside, The Guilty (2021) is a fun ninety minutes. There’s tension throughout, twists that you might see coming but may not expect, and Jake Gyllenhaal shines. If you haven’t seen it yet, it’s definitely worth at least one viewing.

Well, there you have it. Another letter in the books. What did you think of The Guilty (2021)? Tell me in the comments below or by reaching out on social media!

Follow me on Letterboxd to see what else I’m watching.

Keep an eye out on Threads and Instagram on Wednesday for the reveal of who we’ll be covering next Sunday for the letter “K” and which movie we’ll be reviewing.

The post The Guilty (2021) 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!.

Whoa, hang on a second. What the heck is a Picture Car Coordinator?

Any car that shows up on-screen in a movie is the responsibility of the Picture Car Coordinator. But responsible how? Well, in our case, Gilles Camy made sure that the vehicle(s) got to set, that they were customized as needed for the scene, and that they were all in good running order. So, now that we have a better understanding of what Gilles Camy does, let’s get to Athena (2022).

Title: Athena

Director: Romain Gavras

Released: September 2, 2022, at the Venice Film Festival and September 23, 2022, on Netflix

Runtime: 1 hour 39 minutes

Available to stream on: Netflix

Abdel (Dali Benssalah), an Algerian-French soldier, announces at a press conference outside of a police station, that his brother, Idir, has passed away. The reason for the press conference? Idir, who was only thirteen years old, is believed to have died at the hands of policemen who beat him and left him for dead.

Observing quietly from the back of the crowd is Abdel’s other brother, Karim (Sami Slimane) along with a group who look to Karim as a leader. Abdel is urging everyone to remain calm and protest in a peaceful manner, however, Karim has other ideas.

He, and the youth that comprise his group, are tired of the unchecked police brutality that keeps occurring against them. Peaceful protests have not produced any results. Once he sees his opening, Karim launches a Molotov cocktail. As one would expect, chaos ensues. Karim and his group storm the station, stealing guns and a police van. Now armed with guns, the youth flee back to their suburb of Athena and prepare for battle.

Karim has an entire community that stands behind him and is ready to fight alongside him. He believes that the only way justice can be served is if the officers responsible for his brother’s death are publicly identified. If getting those answers requires violence and unrest along the way, so be it.

However, Abdel is not convinced that violence is necessarily the right answer. He believes that cooler heads will ultimately prevail. He’s also hesitant because he’s herd that the police have reason to believe a far-right group is behind the murder of Idir, not the police themselves. The extremist group carried out the vicious attack as a war to incite racial unrest.

But this isn’t the first time the community has had issues with the police. Trust is everything. And the trust between the police and the residents of Athena was broken a long time ago.

So, how can the residents of Athena be expected to believe anything that the police tell them?

How much blood will have to spill for peace to prevail?

Go.

Watch.

This.

Movie.

Even if nothing in the brief and simplified synopsis sounded interesting to you, you need to watch Athena (2022) for the camera work and editing alone.

The way that Matias Boucard shot, and Benjamin Weill edited this is nothing short of jaw dropping. You feel like you are right there in the middle of the action from the first frame all the way through the end credits. However, it’s not done in a herky-jerky way where you find yourself feeling nauseous. Instead, you feel as if you’re standing side-by-side with whoever is the focal point of the scene.

What’s better than a film that’s shot incredibly well? One that is also brilliantly edited. So many of the scenes, like the beginning where Karim launches the Molotov cocktail, are designed to look like one-shots. Well, spoiler alert, they aren’t. Everything is masterfully edited together to make it look as seamless as possible.

You could have only given me the cinematography and editing, and I would have had fun watching Athena (2022). But, Romain Gavras, Elias Belkeddar, and Ladj Ly made sure we also were given a story that would keep us captivated. Despite being swept up in the chaos unfolding, we also find ourselves having varying degrees of emotional investment in each main character.

Please, if you have not seen Athena (2022), fix that as soon as possible.

So, that’s what I think, but what about you? What are your thoughts on Athena (2022)?

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

By now, you know what’s next. Keep an eye out on Threads and Instagram on Wednesday. That is when next week’s crew member for the letter “H” will be revealed along with the movie they worked on that we’ll be covering.

The post Athena (2022) 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!.

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

Director: Roger Corman

Released: September 19, 1963

Runtime: 1 hour 19 minutes

Available to stream on: Kanopy and Tubi

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Title: Witness

Director: Peter Weir

Released: February 8, 1985

Runtime: 1 hour 52 minutes

Available to stream on: Showtime

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Title: 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!.