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
Sunday, 23 October 2011
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)