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.
Sunday 30 October 2011
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)