Film: Dumbo
Year: 1941
Where I Saw It: DVD
So here we are with another Disney film and like many of you, this film was a staple of my early childhood. When I got to this film in my book, I had to skip over it because I hadn't seen it in such a long time. I probably saw it last over twenty years ago and I wanted to watch it again before I wrote my review. I could only remember vague memories from the film and when I went searching for it I was surprised a bit to find how difficult it was to track down. After all, it is a Disney movie so therefore it should be easy to find. Three nights ago I found it, watched it and promptly wept for my childhood. Yes, it's list time and here are the top ten reasons why you should never let your child watch Dumbo.
1. Dumbo's mother is thrown in jail. Not only thrown in jail, but Dumbo is forced to watch every other animal in the circus snuggle up to their mom's in a constant reminder to Dumbo that HIS MOM'S IN JAIL!!!
2. If you are in any way a supporter of animal rights, just- Umm... Look, just don't watch it. Unless you've thought to yourself recently, "Gee, my blood pressure sure has been on the low side lately".
3. The putting up the circus scene is oddly scary. I mean, really scary. I mean, why did you make this scene so scary? You're putting up a circus!
4. Dumbo gets wasted on a combination of soap and cheap booze.
5. While he's drunk, he experiences the most frightening cartoon sequence I have ever scene. This scene would make Tim Burton say "Hey Walt. Tone it down will ya?"
6. The lesson of the movie is "Hey kids! Do you have big ears? Then throw yourself off a building and you'll fly!"
7. Speaking of flying, I know it's a cartoon but it really seems like they were grasping at straws here. Here's how I imagine the conversation went.
Walt - Alright everybody, we need a new film.
Writer - How about the story of a monkey that can fly?
Walt - No, there's already a movie with flying monkeys. Think bigger.
Writer - Umm... An Elephant that can fly?
Walt - BRILLIANT!!!
8. Dumbo's mouse sidekick is the poor man's Jimney Cricket
9. Dumbo's mouse sidekick is just Mickey Mouse who hit puberty voice-wise.
10. Dumbo's crow friends are voiced by black people. The cartoon could have made them sparrows or cardinals or song birds or ANYTHING ELSE, but no, that wouldn't be racist enough.
One Last Point - The crows really are too much. Youtube Dumbo Crow Scene and you'll see what I mean. This is not a case of "accidental" racism or "we didn't know any better then" racism. It's just flat out racism. They even have the "Jim Crow" voice.
Thanks for reading! - Scott Scene
Sunday 11 December 2011
Sunday 4 December 2011
The Great Train - OK I Have No Idea About What's Going On
Film: The Great Train Robbery
Year: 1903
Where I Saw It: DVD
My friend The Projectionist gave me a call again this week. He had found another film I was looking for. This one was a Western and arguably the first one ever made. Again, if your not a fan of the genre still check it out. Even though it's a three parter, it still clocks in at just under fifteen minutes. It's neat to see how with such a short amount of time and no sound, a story (well, most of it) can still be told through film. It's also worth noting that at the beginning of the film (or end depending what version you find) there's a short scene where one of the gunfighters points his gun towards the audience and fires. This was one of the first attempts to make the audience really feel like they were part of the movie.
Having no sound though does have it's drawbacks. With everyone wearing cowboy hats and the film being in black and white, it's very hard to tell who's who. Some of the plot points are hard to follow as well. At one point, the telegraph operator seems to die for no real reason and at another point you see a group of people dancing right after the train robbery and you're left wondering if they are the robbers celebrating or are these people really happy that their train was hijacked. Turns out it was neither of those options.
The people dancing were the pose hired to kill the robbers and this is where it gets really confusing. You have no idea who is fighting who. There's one scene where it looks like the pose is shooting themselves and another scene where everyone is falling down and then the movie ends. It's very confusing.
One Last Point - This Western was entirely filmed just outside of New Jersey. I don't know why I find that so funny but I do.
Thanks for reading! - Scott Scene
Year: 1903
Where I Saw It: DVD
My friend The Projectionist gave me a call again this week. He had found another film I was looking for. This one was a Western and arguably the first one ever made. Again, if your not a fan of the genre still check it out. Even though it's a three parter, it still clocks in at just under fifteen minutes. It's neat to see how with such a short amount of time and no sound, a story (well, most of it) can still be told through film. It's also worth noting that at the beginning of the film (or end depending what version you find) there's a short scene where one of the gunfighters points his gun towards the audience and fires. This was one of the first attempts to make the audience really feel like they were part of the movie.
Having no sound though does have it's drawbacks. With everyone wearing cowboy hats and the film being in black and white, it's very hard to tell who's who. Some of the plot points are hard to follow as well. At one point, the telegraph operator seems to die for no real reason and at another point you see a group of people dancing right after the train robbery and you're left wondering if they are the robbers celebrating or are these people really happy that their train was hijacked. Turns out it was neither of those options.
The people dancing were the pose hired to kill the robbers and this is where it gets really confusing. You have no idea who is fighting who. There's one scene where it looks like the pose is shooting themselves and another scene where everyone is falling down and then the movie ends. It's very confusing.
One Last Point - This Western was entirely filmed just outside of New Jersey. I don't know why I find that so funny but I do.
Thanks for reading! - Scott Scene
Sunday 27 November 2011
TO THE MOOOOOOON!!!!
Film: Le Voyage Dans La Lune (A Trip To The Moon)
Year: 1902
Where I Saw It: DVD
So my buddy The Projectionist gives me a call and says, "I've got one of those films you're looking for. In fact, I think it's the first one." So I head over to his house and we throw it on. This is the first science fiction film ever made and at fifteen minutes long, even if you're not a fan of the genre, it's still well worth a watch. It's truly like watching a piece of history. The techniques used in this film may look cheesy now but at the time, they were brand-spank'n new and jaw dropping to watch.
But I do have to make fun of a few points and as much as I respect this film, there are a whole lotta things that don't make sense. So here are a few things you need to know if you ever go to the moon.
1. Make sure your spaceship is just a big bullet.
2. To launch your spaceship, just load it into a massive canon and point it at the moon. Make sure your cannon fires like a cannon you would see on a pirate ship.
3. When you are on the moon, all you will need is a coat, hat and umbrella.
4. Watch out for moon men, but if you do run into them, just hit them with your umbrella and they'll explode.
5. To get back to Earth, just push your bullet off a moon cliff and you'll drop back to the planet.
One Last Point - To become an astronomer/astronaut, all you need is a pointy hat.
Thanks for reading and thanks again to The Projectionist! - Scott Scene
Year: 1902
Where I Saw It: DVD
So my buddy The Projectionist gives me a call and says, "I've got one of those films you're looking for. In fact, I think it's the first one." So I head over to his house and we throw it on. This is the first science fiction film ever made and at fifteen minutes long, even if you're not a fan of the genre, it's still well worth a watch. It's truly like watching a piece of history. The techniques used in this film may look cheesy now but at the time, they were brand-spank'n new and jaw dropping to watch.
But I do have to make fun of a few points and as much as I respect this film, there are a whole lotta things that don't make sense. So here are a few things you need to know if you ever go to the moon.
1. Make sure your spaceship is just a big bullet.
2. To launch your spaceship, just load it into a massive canon and point it at the moon. Make sure your cannon fires like a cannon you would see on a pirate ship.
3. When you are on the moon, all you will need is a coat, hat and umbrella.
4. Watch out for moon men, but if you do run into them, just hit them with your umbrella and they'll explode.
5. To get back to Earth, just push your bullet off a moon cliff and you'll drop back to the planet.
One Last Point - To become an astronomer/astronaut, all you need is a pointy hat.
Thanks for reading and thanks again to The Projectionist! - Scott Scene
Sunday 20 November 2011
Old and Bold
Film: To Be Or Not To Be
Year: 1942
Where I Saw It: Netflix
Now, I know what you may be thinking. 1942? I thought Mel Brooks made that film in the 1980's. I KNOW! I thought that too! I was just as surprised to find out it was a remake. Having seen both films, I'll say this. The Mel Brooks one is funnier but this film is edgier.
For those of you who don't know the story, it's about a failing acting troupe in Poland right before the Germans take over. When war breaks out, the troupe must now use their acting skills to impersonate Nazis in order to help members of the Polish underground. This is what what I mean by edgier. LOOK AT WHEN THIS FILM WAS MADE!!! Can you imagine even pitching a film with a plot line like this during that time? It would be like pitching a comedy about 9/11 in 2002 or filming a slapstick about Afghanistan.
This film is also incredibly funny. It's got that touch of camp mixed with vindictiveness that only older films of that time can deliver (if you're confused by that statement watch The Three Stooges Meet The Nazis, you'll see what I mean). The whole plot is outrageous and the characters are fantastic. It's a great film. I don't think Mel Brooks remade it with thoughts of making it better, but as an homage to it.
One Last Point - I'm really blown away by the balls of this film. We like to think our time is a lot more edgier when it comes to content of films but after watching this film, I would say we have a long way to go in order to match the issues and content of the past.
Year: 1942
Where I Saw It: Netflix
Now, I know what you may be thinking. 1942? I thought Mel Brooks made that film in the 1980's. I KNOW! I thought that too! I was just as surprised to find out it was a remake. Having seen both films, I'll say this. The Mel Brooks one is funnier but this film is edgier.
For those of you who don't know the story, it's about a failing acting troupe in Poland right before the Germans take over. When war breaks out, the troupe must now use their acting skills to impersonate Nazis in order to help members of the Polish underground. This is what what I mean by edgier. LOOK AT WHEN THIS FILM WAS MADE!!! Can you imagine even pitching a film with a plot line like this during that time? It would be like pitching a comedy about 9/11 in 2002 or filming a slapstick about Afghanistan.
This film is also incredibly funny. It's got that touch of camp mixed with vindictiveness that only older films of that time can deliver (if you're confused by that statement watch The Three Stooges Meet The Nazis, you'll see what I mean). The whole plot is outrageous and the characters are fantastic. It's a great film. I don't think Mel Brooks remade it with thoughts of making it better, but as an homage to it.
One Last Point - I'm really blown away by the balls of this film. We like to think our time is a lot more edgier when it comes to content of films but after watching this film, I would say we have a long way to go in order to match the issues and content of the past.
Sunday 13 November 2011
Lessons from Pinocchio
Film: Pinocchio
Year: 1940
Where I Saw It: DVD
This week I saw Pinocchio, another childhood standard. This was Walt Disney's second feature length film and even though it was created so long ago, it still holds up as one of the best animated films of all time. Let's take a look back and review some of the life long lessons it taught us.
1. Smoking will turn you into a donkey.
2. If you get a bunch of kids to smoke, after they turn into donkeys, they will provide an excellent cheap labour force.
3. A favourite snack of whales is people.
4. If you do get eaten by a whale, you can live quite comfortably inside it providing you have a raft of some sort.
5. When you wish upon a star, a strange woman claiming to be the "Blue Fairy" will appear in your room.
6. The preferred choice of clothes for crickets is upper class Victorian wear.
7. Making fun of other cultures is OK providing you do it with marionettes.
8. It is easier to build a wooden puppet, pray for him to come to life and chase him around on a series of whacky adventures instead of adopting a real child.
9. Gepetto is a greedy jerk. He's got a cat AND a fish and he STILL wants company? Bastard.
10. The Blue Fairy can change a wooden boy to a real boy but refuses to end world hunger.
One Last Point: Disney is pretty good at drawing animals but I feel they dropped the ball on Jiminy Cricket. He looks nothing like a cricket. He has a closer resemblance to ET.
Thanks for reading! - Scott Scene
Year: 1940
Where I Saw It: DVD
This week I saw Pinocchio, another childhood standard. This was Walt Disney's second feature length film and even though it was created so long ago, it still holds up as one of the best animated films of all time. Let's take a look back and review some of the life long lessons it taught us.
1. Smoking will turn you into a donkey.
2. If you get a bunch of kids to smoke, after they turn into donkeys, they will provide an excellent cheap labour force.
3. A favourite snack of whales is people.
4. If you do get eaten by a whale, you can live quite comfortably inside it providing you have a raft of some sort.
5. When you wish upon a star, a strange woman claiming to be the "Blue Fairy" will appear in your room.
6. The preferred choice of clothes for crickets is upper class Victorian wear.
7. Making fun of other cultures is OK providing you do it with marionettes.
8. It is easier to build a wooden puppet, pray for him to come to life and chase him around on a series of whacky adventures instead of adopting a real child.
9. Gepetto is a greedy jerk. He's got a cat AND a fish and he STILL wants company? Bastard.
10. The Blue Fairy can change a wooden boy to a real boy but refuses to end world hunger.
One Last Point: Disney is pretty good at drawing animals but I feel they dropped the ball on Jiminy Cricket. He looks nothing like a cricket. He has a closer resemblance to ET.
Thanks for reading! - Scott Scene
Sunday 30 October 2011
The Grapes of - HEY! There's No Grapes Here!
Film: The Grapes of Wrath
Year: 1940
Where I Saw It: Netflix
When I first had to read this book for a university course, I was hoping it would be about angry fruit wanting to get revenge on the human race for eating so many of its comrades. Maybe they would roll into people's mouths while they slept thus causing the person to choke to death. Sadly, this wasn't the case. I still enjoyed the book but I still feel Steinbeck missed the bigger picture. Why write a book about the trials and tribulations of the Great Depression when you can write about grapes with a vendetta?
When I sat down to watch this movie, I still had the old hope that I was about to be treated to two hours of people being attacked by fruit. Again though, this was not to be. But as with the book, I still enjoyed this film. It has great characters, an excellent plot and really gives you an insight to just how much people put up with back then. I can't imagine myself doing half of what the family in the film does in order to make a living and provide for themselves.
My one warning (if you want to call it that) about this film though is that the script follows the play version of the book more than the book itself. The result is you feel like you're watching a movie of a play. There's minimal scene changes and more often than not, the camera is in a fixed point as apposed to multiple camera angles in a single scene. This sometimes makes the film feel longer than it is. But if you're familiar with the play, it's great to see some big name actors of the time tackle a fantastic piece of literature.
One Last Point - To see if my idea had any subsistence to it I threw a grape at my brother. It hit him in the face. I definitely would be able to watch two hours of that. No problem.
Year: 1940
Where I Saw It: Netflix
When I first had to read this book for a university course, I was hoping it would be about angry fruit wanting to get revenge on the human race for eating so many of its comrades. Maybe they would roll into people's mouths while they slept thus causing the person to choke to death. Sadly, this wasn't the case. I still enjoyed the book but I still feel Steinbeck missed the bigger picture. Why write a book about the trials and tribulations of the Great Depression when you can write about grapes with a vendetta?
When I sat down to watch this movie, I still had the old hope that I was about to be treated to two hours of people being attacked by fruit. Again though, this was not to be. But as with the book, I still enjoyed this film. It has great characters, an excellent plot and really gives you an insight to just how much people put up with back then. I can't imagine myself doing half of what the family in the film does in order to make a living and provide for themselves.
My one warning (if you want to call it that) about this film though is that the script follows the play version of the book more than the book itself. The result is you feel like you're watching a movie of a play. There's minimal scene changes and more often than not, the camera is in a fixed point as apposed to multiple camera angles in a single scene. This sometimes makes the film feel longer than it is. But if you're familiar with the play, it's great to see some big name actors of the time tackle a fantastic piece of literature.
One Last Point - To see if my idea had any subsistence to it I threw a grape at my brother. It hit him in the face. I definitely would be able to watch two hours of that. No problem.
Sunday 23 October 2011
We're Off To See The Wizard, Cause We Got Some Questions!
Film: The Wizard of Oz
Year: 1939
Where I Saw It: Mpix OnDemand
This movie makes me smile. I've seen it about four times through out my life and it never fails to make me laugh. Sometimes in a good and honest way ie. everything the Lion says (Come on! Put'em up! Put'em up!). Sometimes in a cheezy way ie. the flying monkey costumes. But there are some questions to be posed. To pose a few:
1. Where does the red brick road go?
2. Why does the Wicked Witch of The Easy wear socks and The Wicked Witch of The West doesn't? Also, red and white striped socks do not scream evil.
3. What does the witch of the south call herself? I like to think it's The Lazy Witch of The South... It's why she's not in the movie.
4. Why build your city out of emerald?
5. What do witches do when it rains?
6. Did Dorthy ever realize that rainbows are a visual effect in which distance is needed so therefore you can never get somewhere over the rainbow?
7. What purpose could the Lollipop Guild possibly serve besides singing hello to people?
8. Did Dorthy develop a habit of jumping in tornadoes in order to get back to Oz?
9. How come the Tinman never uses his axe to kill the flying monkeys?
10. Why flying monkeys? Why not flying bears? Bears would be much better.
One Last Point - If anyone needs me this week I'll be in the lab making flying bears.
Thanks for reading! - Scott Scene
Year: 1939
Where I Saw It: Mpix OnDemand
This movie makes me smile. I've seen it about four times through out my life and it never fails to make me laugh. Sometimes in a good and honest way ie. everything the Lion says (Come on! Put'em up! Put'em up!). Sometimes in a cheezy way ie. the flying monkey costumes. But there are some questions to be posed. To pose a few:
1. Where does the red brick road go?
2. Why does the Wicked Witch of The Easy wear socks and The Wicked Witch of The West doesn't? Also, red and white striped socks do not scream evil.
3. What does the witch of the south call herself? I like to think it's The Lazy Witch of The South... It's why she's not in the movie.
4. Why build your city out of emerald?
5. What do witches do when it rains?
6. Did Dorthy ever realize that rainbows are a visual effect in which distance is needed so therefore you can never get somewhere over the rainbow?
7. What purpose could the Lollipop Guild possibly serve besides singing hello to people?
8. Did Dorthy develop a habit of jumping in tornadoes in order to get back to Oz?
9. How come the Tinman never uses his axe to kill the flying monkeys?
10. Why flying monkeys? Why not flying bears? Bears would be much better.
One Last Point - If anyone needs me this week I'll be in the lab making flying bears.
Thanks for reading! - Scott Scene
Monday 17 October 2011
Of Sitcoms and Dead Horses
Film: Stagecoach
Year: 1939
Where I Saw It: Netflix
If you're not a fan of Westerns, I'd still give this one a chance. It's John Wayne's first major hit film and it's kind of neat to see a young version of him. The story's about a stagecoach carrying a bunch of people from different backgrounds across Indian territory. All the classic stereotypes are there, the greedy banker, the drunk, the hero with a slightly dirty past but still has a heart of gold, (guess which one John plays). Throw in a pregnant girl and you've got one stagecoach packed with subplots (also you have one hell of an idea for a sitcom... I'd call it Three's Company And Also There's A Pregnant Lady).
As I said, if you're not a fan of Westerns, after John Wayne's character is introduced, you should fast forward to the end if you're not intrigued and watch the last fight scene. The stagecoach is barreling towards it's final destination and the Indians are all around trying to kill them. This scene features some of the best horse rider stunt work I've ever seen. One guy gets shot off one of the lead horses pulling the stagecoach and falls between the horses, allowing the rest of the horses to pass on either side of him and the stagecoach over him. You can almost see him praying the stunt will work.
I've never understood though why the Indians don't just shoot the horses. Seems like a no brainer to me. Stagecoach can't go anywhere without horses pulling it. Or even some of the horses. There's a lot of people on that stagecoach. They would only have to kill four out of ten horses. Six horses carrying all those people plus four dead horses because they're tied in? Pfft. Forget about it. Game over. Roll credits.
One Last Point - Does anyone have ten horses? I wanna try this out.
Thanks for reading! - Scott Scene
Year: 1939
Where I Saw It: Netflix
If you're not a fan of Westerns, I'd still give this one a chance. It's John Wayne's first major hit film and it's kind of neat to see a young version of him. The story's about a stagecoach carrying a bunch of people from different backgrounds across Indian territory. All the classic stereotypes are there, the greedy banker, the drunk, the hero with a slightly dirty past but still has a heart of gold, (guess which one John plays). Throw in a pregnant girl and you've got one stagecoach packed with subplots (also you have one hell of an idea for a sitcom... I'd call it Three's Company And Also There's A Pregnant Lady).
As I said, if you're not a fan of Westerns, after John Wayne's character is introduced, you should fast forward to the end if you're not intrigued and watch the last fight scene. The stagecoach is barreling towards it's final destination and the Indians are all around trying to kill them. This scene features some of the best horse rider stunt work I've ever seen. One guy gets shot off one of the lead horses pulling the stagecoach and falls between the horses, allowing the rest of the horses to pass on either side of him and the stagecoach over him. You can almost see him praying the stunt will work.
I've never understood though why the Indians don't just shoot the horses. Seems like a no brainer to me. Stagecoach can't go anywhere without horses pulling it. Or even some of the horses. There's a lot of people on that stagecoach. They would only have to kill four out of ten horses. Six horses carrying all those people plus four dead horses because they're tied in? Pfft. Forget about it. Game over. Roll credits.
One Last Point - Does anyone have ten horses? I wanna try this out.
Thanks for reading! - Scott Scene
Monday 10 October 2011
The Adventures of Ignoring History
Film: The Adventure of Robin Hood
Year: 1938
Were I Saw It: DVD
To preface: I like this film. But this film has always held a special place in my heart. It has sword fighting and over-the-top acting as only early Hollywood can deliver. However, you need to watch this movie with a sense of irony or as you would watch a cartoon. If you don't, you'll hate everything about this one. Most of all, you'll hate the blatant disregard for history in general. Here are eight things historically wrong with Robin Hood.
1. Green nylons were not readily available.
2. I know he's ageless, but I don't think Patrick Stewart was also King Rich- Ooops, wrong Robin Hood.
3. Nowhere in Medieval England were there jungle-esk vines for people to swing on.
4. I know Sherwood's a big forest, but I really don't think the merry men would be that hard to find. They're a large group of men who apparently do nothing at camp except drink and laugh.
5. Robin Hood was a person not a fox- Ooops, wrong Robin Hood.
6. King Richard was not a good guy. King Richard was a douche.
7. Robin: Who are you friend?
John : My name's John Little.
Robin: I shall call you Little John!
John: And I shall call you Dickweed.
8. I know he's ageless but I don't think Morgan Freeman was- Ooops, wrong Robin Hood.
One Last Point: QUIT REMAKING THIS FILM!!!
Thanks for reading! - Scott Scene
Year: 1938
Were I Saw It: DVD
To preface: I like this film. But this film has always held a special place in my heart. It has sword fighting and over-the-top acting as only early Hollywood can deliver. However, you need to watch this movie with a sense of irony or as you would watch a cartoon. If you don't, you'll hate everything about this one. Most of all, you'll hate the blatant disregard for history in general. Here are eight things historically wrong with Robin Hood.
1. Green nylons were not readily available.
2. I know he's ageless, but I don't think Patrick Stewart was also King Rich- Ooops, wrong Robin Hood.
3. Nowhere in Medieval England were there jungle-esk vines for people to swing on.
4. I know Sherwood's a big forest, but I really don't think the merry men would be that hard to find. They're a large group of men who apparently do nothing at camp except drink and laugh.
5. Robin Hood was a person not a fox- Ooops, wrong Robin Hood.
6. King Richard was not a good guy. King Richard was a douche.
7. Robin: Who are you friend?
John : My name's John Little.
Robin: I shall call you Little John!
John: And I shall call you Dickweed.
8. I know he's ageless but I don't think Morgan Freeman was- Ooops, wrong Robin Hood.
One Last Point: QUIT REMAKING THIS FILM!!!
Thanks for reading! - Scott Scene
Sunday 2 October 2011
Listen Up Y'all It's a Sabotage!
Film: Sabotage
Year: 1936
Where I Saw It: Netflix
It always amazes me how much a film can truly put you on "the edge of your seat". What amazes me more is Alfred Hitchcock's ability to do this even 75 years later. When you hear he's the "Master of Suspense", you don't truly appreciate that title until you see some of his work and this movie REALLY shows how richly deserved that title is.
The film follows a family who own a movie theatre in London. The father has been carrying out acts of sabotage while the rest of the family suspects nothing. (Side Note: check out the father's eyebrows. They look like they'll fly away the first chance they get.) I can't give away too much else without spoiling anything, but I assure you it's worth watching despite my crappy description of it. In particular one scene featuring the son of the family on a bus. Again, crappy description but loads of suspense.
The last scene also plays with you sense of right and wrong. Like all good films do (at least films which I think are good) there is a sense of uneasiness at the end. I always enjoy it when a film doesn't feel the need to tie up every single loose end. It makes you think and it forces you to imagine other possible outcomes. It's this plot device which made me love "M" so much. There are no easy answers so you have to decide what you would do in that situation.
One Last Point - There is quite the age difference between the wife and the father. I literally spent half the film thinking the family consisted of a single father and his daughter and son.
Thanks for reading! - Scott Scene
Year: 1936
Where I Saw It: Netflix
It always amazes me how much a film can truly put you on "the edge of your seat". What amazes me more is Alfred Hitchcock's ability to do this even 75 years later. When you hear he's the "Master of Suspense", you don't truly appreciate that title until you see some of his work and this movie REALLY shows how richly deserved that title is.
The film follows a family who own a movie theatre in London. The father has been carrying out acts of sabotage while the rest of the family suspects nothing. (Side Note: check out the father's eyebrows. They look like they'll fly away the first chance they get.) I can't give away too much else without spoiling anything, but I assure you it's worth watching despite my crappy description of it. In particular one scene featuring the son of the family on a bus. Again, crappy description but loads of suspense.
The last scene also plays with you sense of right and wrong. Like all good films do (at least films which I think are good) there is a sense of uneasiness at the end. I always enjoy it when a film doesn't feel the need to tie up every single loose end. It makes you think and it forces you to imagine other possible outcomes. It's this plot device which made me love "M" so much. There are no easy answers so you have to decide what you would do in that situation.
One Last Point - There is quite the age difference between the wife and the father. I literally spent half the film thinking the family consisted of a single father and his daughter and son.
Thanks for reading! - Scott Scene
Sunday 25 September 2011
Snow White and The Seven Reasons Why I Didn't Like This Movie
Film: Snow White
Year: 1937
Where I Saw It: DVD
Let me start out by saying that yes, as a child, I did enjoy this film. And yes, I do respect it as the first feature film which launched many great children's films and even more children's- WHY THE HELL WOULD ANYONE MAKE CINDERELLA 2!?! THAT DOESN'T EVEN MAKE SENSE!!! Anyhoo... Have you seen Snow White recently? And tried to watch it without the goggles of nostalgia? Let's do this.
1. If a creepy old woman came up to you and offered you an apple, would you ever even consider eating it?
2. This is one of those movies which is a staple for little girls and her sole job is to clean the house for seven men.
3. Dopey puts a cymbal on his head and imitates a Chinese person.
4. Snow White seems to be afraid of trees.
5. The queen has a magic mirror which can tell her ANYTHING she could ever want to know, and the best ideas she could come up with is to find out who's prettier than she is.
6. The dwarfs mine for gems but we never hear for what reason.
7. If the queen can change her appearance, why doesn't she just turn herself into someone prettier than Snow White?
One Last Point - Is it just me, or is the Prince wearing lipstick?
Thanks for reading! - Scott Scene
Year: 1937
Where I Saw It: DVD
Let me start out by saying that yes, as a child, I did enjoy this film. And yes, I do respect it as the first feature film which launched many great children's films and even more children's- WHY THE HELL WOULD ANYONE MAKE CINDERELLA 2!?! THAT DOESN'T EVEN MAKE SENSE!!! Anyhoo... Have you seen Snow White recently? And tried to watch it without the goggles of nostalgia? Let's do this.
1. If a creepy old woman came up to you and offered you an apple, would you ever even consider eating it?
2. This is one of those movies which is a staple for little girls and her sole job is to clean the house for seven men.
3. Dopey puts a cymbal on his head and imitates a Chinese person.
4. Snow White seems to be afraid of trees.
5. The queen has a magic mirror which can tell her ANYTHING she could ever want to know, and the best ideas she could come up with is to find out who's prettier than she is.
6. The dwarfs mine for gems but we never hear for what reason.
7. If the queen can change her appearance, why doesn't she just turn herself into someone prettier than Snow White?
One Last Point - Is it just me, or is the Prince wearing lipstick?
Thanks for reading! - Scott Scene
Sunday 18 September 2011
The 39 Steps and- Just Watch The Play... It's way better.
Film: The 39 Steps
Year: 1935
Where I Saw It: Netflix
This week we have a film which is part film noir, part thriller and part romantic comedy. It actually pulls off all these roles quite well. There's just one problem. The play is leaps and bounds way better. I saw this show on Broadway and there were at least three times I couldn't stop laughing and I had tears running down my face. The movie is funny, but since I saw the play first, it really fell flat. It's hard to explain why the play is so much funnier without ruining the plot but I'll just say there is stuff the actors do on stage which would NEVER translate on film.
But back to focusing on the movie. The chemistry between the two leads is wonderful and makes the romantic comedy parts of the film really enjoyable to watch. There's nothing worse than watching a movie where the two romantic leads are supposed to be all lovey-dovey and it's clear the two actual actors can't stand each other (for the best example of this see Yes Man).
The film works as a thriller too. It was directed by Alfred Hitchcock (which surprised the hell out of me) and although the movie is unlike any other film I've seen of his, he still adds elements of suspense which still proves that nobody does it better. Whether it's the two leads handcuffed together escaping the police, or just wondering who's going to betray who next, the film really moves along. It's one of those few films that when it's over, you're surprised to see how much time has passed.
One Last Point - If you're interested in seeing the play, it's running right now at The Gladstone.
Thanks for reading! - Scott Scene
Year: 1935
Where I Saw It: Netflix
This week we have a film which is part film noir, part thriller and part romantic comedy. It actually pulls off all these roles quite well. There's just one problem. The play is leaps and bounds way better. I saw this show on Broadway and there were at least three times I couldn't stop laughing and I had tears running down my face. The movie is funny, but since I saw the play first, it really fell flat. It's hard to explain why the play is so much funnier without ruining the plot but I'll just say there is stuff the actors do on stage which would NEVER translate on film.
But back to focusing on the movie. The chemistry between the two leads is wonderful and makes the romantic comedy parts of the film really enjoyable to watch. There's nothing worse than watching a movie where the two romantic leads are supposed to be all lovey-dovey and it's clear the two actual actors can't stand each other (for the best example of this see Yes Man).
The film works as a thriller too. It was directed by Alfred Hitchcock (which surprised the hell out of me) and although the movie is unlike any other film I've seen of his, he still adds elements of suspense which still proves that nobody does it better. Whether it's the two leads handcuffed together escaping the police, or just wondering who's going to betray who next, the film really moves along. It's one of those few films that when it's over, you're surprised to see how much time has passed.
One Last Point - If you're interested in seeing the play, it's running right now at The Gladstone.
Thanks for reading! - Scott Scene
Thursday 8 September 2011
M and WOW!!!
Film: M
Year: 1931
Where I saw it: Netflix
OK, so you know how last post I said I was surprised how much Pandora's Box pushed the envelope? Well that's NOTHING compared to M. This film is about a serial child killer! You don't see anything (no gore or brutal special effects) but the imagery sure gives you a lot to think about and in the end, is almost more effective than anything we could cook up now. And here's the messed up part. In the end, you actually feel sorry for the murderer!
This film was CRAZY!!! You have good guys going after the murderer, bad guys going after the murderer and the murderer himself preparing his latest victim. All of these events create one of the most suspenseful films I have seen in a long time. It's subtitled though, so for those of you who don't like that sort of thing, you've been warned. But even if you're not a fan of subtitles, you might still want to give this one a go. You won't be disappointed.
The only thing that's a little off with this movie is how they identify the murderer. The murderer is always whistling the same tune and a blind beggar recognizes it. The tune isn't some unique song or combination of notes. It's a really well known song. It makes you think about what if someone else had just happened to whistle the same tune. The poor sap would have half the city chasing him down and he'd have no idea why.
One Last Point - Once the murderer is identified, they track him by drawing a M on his jacket. I would have made a sign that says "this guy kills children" then follow him around. Fun fact: this is also a great way to meet people.
Thanks for reading! - Scott Scene
Year: 1931
Where I saw it: Netflix
OK, so you know how last post I said I was surprised how much Pandora's Box pushed the envelope? Well that's NOTHING compared to M. This film is about a serial child killer! You don't see anything (no gore or brutal special effects) but the imagery sure gives you a lot to think about and in the end, is almost more effective than anything we could cook up now. And here's the messed up part. In the end, you actually feel sorry for the murderer!
This film was CRAZY!!! You have good guys going after the murderer, bad guys going after the murderer and the murderer himself preparing his latest victim. All of these events create one of the most suspenseful films I have seen in a long time. It's subtitled though, so for those of you who don't like that sort of thing, you've been warned. But even if you're not a fan of subtitles, you might still want to give this one a go. You won't be disappointed.
The only thing that's a little off with this movie is how they identify the murderer. The murderer is always whistling the same tune and a blind beggar recognizes it. The tune isn't some unique song or combination of notes. It's a really well known song. It makes you think about what if someone else had just happened to whistle the same tune. The poor sap would have half the city chasing him down and he'd have no idea why.
One Last Point - Once the murderer is identified, they track him by drawing a M on his jacket. I would have made a sign that says "this guy kills children" then follow him around. Fun fact: this is also a great way to meet people.
Thanks for reading! - Scott Scene
Monday 29 August 2011
Pandora's Box and Why is Jack The Ripper Here?
Film: Die Buchse Der Pandora (Pandora's Box)
Year: 1929
Where I saw it: Netflix
This film was great! Little bit love story, little bit femme fatal story and all mixed in the setting of the Roaring Twenties. I was surprised at some of the content of this film. I had always assumed older films were held to more rigorous censorship and therefore could tackle topics which were considered "blue". The main character is a prostitute and the film follows her exploits. Now, the next question is, "Do we get to see boobs?" Nope, but you do see her many clients and how they all fall for her and MUST have her to themselves.
Another controversial point (for the time) in this film is the fact that one of her admires is a lesbian. And at one point they even (gasp) dance together. The question of boobs is probably coming up again and I have to say no.
So the prostitute eventually marries one of her admirers and right after (and I MEAN right after) the groom realizes this may have not been the best idea and he shoots himself. The police think she killed him and the second half of the film is how she lives on the streets and keeps ahead of the law.
And here's where things get weird. This film takes place in the Twenties but for the last scene the film takes place in the late 1800's. "Oh, do you mean a prequel of sorts?" Nope. No prequel, no dream sequence, no Doc showing up in a Delorean. Just for some reason we are now in the late 1800's. And who does she meet? Jack The Ripper. Spoiler Alert: she dies.
One Last Point - If you want to see some boobs, go to a Strip Joint, but do not marry her.
Thanks for reading! - Scott Scene
Year: 1929
Where I saw it: Netflix
This film was great! Little bit love story, little bit femme fatal story and all mixed in the setting of the Roaring Twenties. I was surprised at some of the content of this film. I had always assumed older films were held to more rigorous censorship and therefore could tackle topics which were considered "blue". The main character is a prostitute and the film follows her exploits. Now, the next question is, "Do we get to see boobs?" Nope, but you do see her many clients and how they all fall for her and MUST have her to themselves.
Another controversial point (for the time) in this film is the fact that one of her admires is a lesbian. And at one point they even (gasp) dance together. The question of boobs is probably coming up again and I have to say no.
So the prostitute eventually marries one of her admirers and right after (and I MEAN right after) the groom realizes this may have not been the best idea and he shoots himself. The police think she killed him and the second half of the film is how she lives on the streets and keeps ahead of the law.
And here's where things get weird. This film takes place in the Twenties but for the last scene the film takes place in the late 1800's. "Oh, do you mean a prequel of sorts?" Nope. No prequel, no dream sequence, no Doc showing up in a Delorean. Just for some reason we are now in the late 1800's. And who does she meet? Jack The Ripper. Spoiler Alert: she dies.
One Last Point - If you want to see some boobs, go to a Strip Joint, but do not marry her.
Thanks for reading! - Scott Scene
Tuesday 23 August 2011
Metropolis and Woman Who Seems to be Afraid of Flashlights
Film: Metropolis
Year: 1927
Where I saw it: Netflix
Unless you are a science fiction fan and want a strong dose of "you've come a long way baby" or you are interested in the history of special effects, I wouldn't recommend this one. Being a silent film which clocks in at almost two and a half hours long, it can easily lose your interest. Now don't get me wrong. I liked it. The effects by today's standards may seem hokey but must have blown the minds of people back in the day. It's a neat blend of future society and medieval imagery. But if you're not a fan of the genre, then you might want to let this one pass.
The main female lead does an amazing job. She plays two parts. One, a serine priestess trying to bring comfort to her people and the other being an evil robot clone. (This is why I say you have to be a fan. Me: Evil robot clone? LET'S DO THIS THING!!! My wife: Evil robot clone? You're an idiot.) She does seem to be afraid of flashlights though. There's one scene where the bad guy is going to catch her. He does this by shining what looks to be a flashlight on the floor and on the walls in order to scare her into his trap. It's great. The main male lead is awful. If one of your goals in life is to over act everything you do then this guy would be a great role model. For example, in one scene someone knocks at the door. His reaction to this is equivalent to someone telling him that they just slowly ran over his dog and then stuffed it with candy and gave it to the parents of a small child because they needed a pinata.
One last point - The film takes place in the year 2026. Get on it science! I'm still waiting for my hoverboard!
Thanks for reading! - Scott Scene
Year: 1927
Where I saw it: Netflix
Unless you are a science fiction fan and want a strong dose of "you've come a long way baby" or you are interested in the history of special effects, I wouldn't recommend this one. Being a silent film which clocks in at almost two and a half hours long, it can easily lose your interest. Now don't get me wrong. I liked it. The effects by today's standards may seem hokey but must have blown the minds of people back in the day. It's a neat blend of future society and medieval imagery. But if you're not a fan of the genre, then you might want to let this one pass.
The main female lead does an amazing job. She plays two parts. One, a serine priestess trying to bring comfort to her people and the other being an evil robot clone. (This is why I say you have to be a fan. Me: Evil robot clone? LET'S DO THIS THING!!! My wife: Evil robot clone? You're an idiot.) She does seem to be afraid of flashlights though. There's one scene where the bad guy is going to catch her. He does this by shining what looks to be a flashlight on the floor and on the walls in order to scare her into his trap. It's great. The main male lead is awful. If one of your goals in life is to over act everything you do then this guy would be a great role model. For example, in one scene someone knocks at the door. His reaction to this is equivalent to someone telling him that they just slowly ran over his dog and then stuffed it with candy and gave it to the parents of a small child because they needed a pinata.
One last point - The film takes place in the year 2026. Get on it science! I'm still waiting for my hoverboard!
Thanks for reading! - Scott Scene
Sunday 21 August 2011
Nosferatu and Harker's Creepy Boss
Film: Nosferatu
Year: 1922
Where I saw it: DVD
So here goes nothing. Nosferatu. This film is creepy. I mean everything's creepy. The vampire's creepy, the other cast members are creepy and I have no proof, but I'm pretty sure the crew must be creepy as well. But the creepiest person by far in the film is not the vampire but Harker's boss Reinfield. Just watch the opening scene and you'll see what I mean. No one would work for this guy much less do anything he says. Picture yourself at where ever you work then picture your boss saying to you, "Hey, your next assignment may cause a little pain and blood." Unless you work for the UFC or you happen to star on Deadliest Catch, you would probably be concerned. Never mind the fact that your boss looks like a gremlin crossed with one of the Keebler elves with a dash of Humpty Dumpty.
Being a silent film, you might think it would have trouble holding your attention but it doesn't. I enjoyed it very much. But I did have trouble telling whether scenes took place in the day or at night (all films had to be shot in the day or well lit area's at the time because of camera limitations). For example, there's one scene where the vampire is walking down the street carrying his coffin under his arm in what looked to be the middle of the day and no one seemed to care or even notice.
One last point, Van Helsing, is not the Vampire Hunter we all know and love in this film. In this film, he only teaches Biology to some extras and then we never see him again.
Thanks for reading! - Scott Scene
Year: 1922
Where I saw it: DVD
So here goes nothing. Nosferatu. This film is creepy. I mean everything's creepy. The vampire's creepy, the other cast members are creepy and I have no proof, but I'm pretty sure the crew must be creepy as well. But the creepiest person by far in the film is not the vampire but Harker's boss Reinfield. Just watch the opening scene and you'll see what I mean. No one would work for this guy much less do anything he says. Picture yourself at where ever you work then picture your boss saying to you, "Hey, your next assignment may cause a little pain and blood." Unless you work for the UFC or you happen to star on Deadliest Catch, you would probably be concerned. Never mind the fact that your boss looks like a gremlin crossed with one of the Keebler elves with a dash of Humpty Dumpty.
Being a silent film, you might think it would have trouble holding your attention but it doesn't. I enjoyed it very much. But I did have trouble telling whether scenes took place in the day or at night (all films had to be shot in the day or well lit area's at the time because of camera limitations). For example, there's one scene where the vampire is walking down the street carrying his coffin under his arm in what looked to be the middle of the day and no one seemed to care or even notice.
One last point, Van Helsing, is not the Vampire Hunter we all know and love in this film. In this film, he only teaches Biology to some extras and then we never see him again.
Thanks for reading! - Scott Scene
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)