Post by: Tom on February 25, 2009, 11:32:00 PM
Alfred Hitchcock Marathon
| Deadline | Year | Title | Reviewers |
| 2009-04-12 | 1926 | Easy Virtue | Dragonfire  |
| 2009-04-12 | 1927 | The Lodger: A Story of the London Fog | Dragonfire  |
| 2009-04-12 | 1934 | The Man Who Knew Too Much | Dragonfire , Jon |
| 2009-04-12 | 1935 | The 39 Steps | Dragonfire , Jon  , Rich  , Tom |
| 2009-04-19 | 1936 | Secret Agent | Dragonfire  , Jon , Tom |
| 2009-04-26 | 1936 | Sabotage | Dragonfire , Tom |
| 2009-05-03 | 1937 | Young and Innocent | Dragonfire |
| 2009-05-10 | 1938 | The Lady Vanishes | Achim , Dragonfire , Jon , Tom |
| 2009-05-17 | 1940 | Rebecca | Dragonfire , Jon |
| 2009-05-17 | 1940 | Foreign Correspondent | Jon |
| 2009-05-24 | 1941 | Suspicion | Dragonfire , Jon |
| 2009-05-31 | 1942 | Saboteur | Dragonfire, Achim , Jon , Tom |
| 2009-06-06 | 1943 | Shadow of a Doubt | Dragonfire , Jon , Rich , Tom |
| 2009-06-08 | 1944 | Lifeboat | Dragonfire , Jon |
| 2009-06-15 | 1945 | Spellbound | Dragonfire , Jon |
| 2009-06-22 | 1946 | Notorious | Dragonfire , Rich , Jon |
| 2009-06-29 | 1947 | The Paradine Case | Dragonfire |
| 2009-07-06 | 1948 | Rope | Achim , Dragonfire , Jon , Tom |
| 2009-07-13 | 1950 | Stage Fright | Jon , Tom |
| 2009-07-20 | 1951 | Strangers on a Train | Dragonfire , Jon , Tom |
| 2009-07-27 | 1953 | I Confess | Jon , Tom |
| 2009-08-03 | 1954 | Dial M for Murder | Dragonfire , Jon , RossRoy, Tom |
| 2009-08-10 | 1954 | Rear Window | addicted2dvd , Dragonfire , Jon , Rich , RossRoy, Tom |
| 2009-08-17 | 1955 | The Trouble with Harry | Jon , Tom |
| 2009-08-23 | 1955 | To Catch a Thief | Achim , Dragonfire , Jon |
| 2009-08-30 | 1956 | The Man Who Knew Too Much | Achim , Dragonfire , Jon , Tom |
| 2009-09-07 | 1956 | The Wrong Man | Jon , Tom |
| 2009-10-18 | 1958 | Vertigo | Dragonfire , Jon , Rich , RossRoy, Tom |
| 2009-11-30 | 1959 | North by Northwest | Achim , Dragonfire , Jon , Rich , Tom |
| 2009-11-30 | 1960 | Psycho | Achim, Dragonfire , Jon , Rich , RossRoy, Tom |
| 2009-12-31 | 1963 | The Birds | Dragonfire , Jon , Rich , RossRoy, Tom |
| 2009-12-31 | 1964 | Marnie | Achim , Jon , Tom |
| 2010-02-21 | 1966 | Torn Curtain | Achim , Jon , Tom |
| 2010-03-07 | 1969 | Topaz | Achim , Jon , Tom |
| 2010-03-21 | 1972 | Frenzy | Achim , Jon , Rich , Tom |
| 2010-04-04 | 1976 | Family Plot | Achim , Dragonfire , Jon , Tom |
Post by: Tom on February 25, 2009, 11:32:13 PM
Here are the movies that as far as I can tell are relevant for the participants who have signed on so far.
Dial M for Murder
Family Plot
Foreign Correspondent
Frenzy
I Confess
Lifeboat
Marnie
Mr and Mrs Smith
North by Northwest
Notorious
Psycho
Rear Window
Rebecca
Rope
Sabotage
Saboteur
Shadow of a Doubt
Spellbound
Stage Fright
Strangers on a Train
Suspicion
The Birds
The Lodger
The Man Who Knew Too Much (1956)
The Paradine Case
The Trouble with Harry
The Wrong Man
Topaz
Torn Curtain
Vertigo
Young and Innocent
I will put up a time table listing these movies chronologically in time.
Please tell me, if there are some missing. Also please list Hitchcock movies not yet in the list, with which you can and want to join in in this marathon.
Edit:
Other wished inclusions:
The Lady Vanishes
To Catch a Thief
The 39 Steps
Secret Agent
The Man Who Knew Too Much (1934)
Jamaica Inn
Blackmail
Post by: Achim on February 26, 2009, 05:05:42 AM
I guess I might want to proceed to purchase the Premiere Collection. Or better the Signature Collection (I already own North By Northwest though)? Or both (which would make it a rather steep total)? :hmmmm:
Post by: Dragonfire on February 26, 2009, 06:58:55 AM
Post by: Najemikon on February 26, 2009, 07:41:30 PM
The 39 Steps
Secret Agent
The Man Who Knew Too Much (there are two versions: 1934 and 1956)
I finally have an excuse to add a couple of ones I'm missing. Apart from some already listed, I would like Jamaica Inn and Blackmail hopefully (the latter being Hitch's first sound film). :thumbup:
Post by: MEJHarrison on February 27, 2009, 06:46:27 PM
Post by: Tom on February 27, 2009, 07:26:12 PM
As I can only jump in with the 14th movie so far, the ones who want to watch the early movies should give the starting signal.
Also should we adhere strictly to a one movie per week rule, or make it more dynamic? I.e. should we change the pace throughout the marathon?
For example faster in the beginning (depending on the early participants).
Post by: Najemikon on February 27, 2009, 07:39:02 PM
Is The Paradine Case really worth having? I've heard it's weak, mainly because Hitchcock only did it to complete his contract with Selznik.
Alert for people who can receive BBC4! Tomorrow, 28th Feb, 9pm, Paul Merton is doing a programme about Hitchcock, with some focus I would guess on his earliest work. Click Here (http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00j09r4)
Paul Merton is a fairly decent comedian, but you may be unsure if he could do a documentary like this, but actually I can't think of anyone better. He did a short series about classic silent comedians last year, maybe a touch earlier. It was wonderful. He really knows his stuff and hopefully this will be similar and will form a nice intro to the marathon.
EDIT: My earliest is the 1934 The Man Who Knew Too Much. If someone else has anything earlier and wants to play, I'll let them set the pace...
Post by: richierich on February 28, 2009, 01:50:21 AM
Post by: Najemikon on February 28, 2009, 02:07:51 AM
There is a programme on BBC tomorrow evening, hosted by Paul Merton, profiling Hitchcocks early film career
???
I even put in bold! :whistle: :hysterical:
Post by: Dragonfire on February 28, 2009, 03:25:24 AM
I haven't seen The Paradine Case and really have no clue about it..it was just part of the set I got last week.
Post by: Tom on February 28, 2009, 01:10:01 PM
A colleague (who has now also bought the two Hitchcock sets I have bought, when I told him the price ;D ) says, that he remembers an early Hitchcock movie, where a woman on a train sees a crime, but nobody believes her. She is getting more and more hysterical throughout the movie. He couldn't remember the title, but he knew, that it is not "Strangers on the Train". Which movie did he mean?
Post by: addicted2dvd on February 28, 2009, 01:25:54 PM
Post by: Najemikon on February 28, 2009, 02:18:20 PM
Which one is it?
A colleague (who has now also bought the two Hitchcock sets I have bought, when I told him the price ;D ) says, that he remembers an early Hitchcock movie, where a woman on a train sees a crime, but nobody believes her. She is getting more and more hysterical throughout the movie. He couldn't remember the title, but he knew, that it is not "Strangers on the Train". Which movie did he mean?
Ahhh, that's the wonderful The Lady Vanishes. A bit dated, but along with The 39 Steps, still pretty amazing. You'll know the story. It's been refilmed by lesser mortals a couple of times (a really odd version with Elliot Gould in the 70s) and the format taken by other films, most recently, Flightplan with Jodie Foster (daughter goes missing). In the Fox Film Noir series, there is a pretty good take on it in Dangerous Crossing (hubby goes missing).
The hysterical lady meets a nice old lady on the train. Then, the lady vanishes... ;) and no-one believes her because none of her evidence of the ladies existence can be corroborated. Soon she's dismissed as a loon, except one fellow passenger helps her, not because he necessarily believes her, but simply thinks if she gets to a conclusion of any sort, she'll be content. And he fancies getting in her knickers, but this was 1938 and one doesn't think about such things! :P
There are some classic Hitchcock touches, where the viewer just starts to wonder if the woman was ever there... except for the heart traced in condensation on the window. :o A move Foster used in Flightplan.
Post by: Tom on February 28, 2009, 02:54:53 PM
So have now ordered this set (http://www.amazon.de/Alfred-Hitchcock-Box-Peter-Lorre/dp/B001E7TLJE/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=dvd&qid=1235828966&sr=8-1) for €9.95.
Looks like a public domain set. I couldn't find any decent info on this (there is also no Profiler profile), so I hope that it does have at least English soundtrack. It includes, going by the Amazon description:
- 39 Steps
- Sabotage
- The Secret Agent
- The Lady Vanishes
- Spellbound
- The Paradine Case
Post by: Najemikon on February 28, 2009, 02:56:19 PM
I hope you enjoy this marathon! :fingerchew:
Post by: Dragonfire on February 28, 2009, 09:36:51 PM
(http://www.invelos.com/mpimages/68/683904200310f.jpg)
This is what is in the set - taken from the back of the case.
ALFRED HITCHCOCK PRESENTS: THE CHANNEY VASE - An elderly woman finds herself a prisoner in her own home. Starring Darrin McGavin (1955-1962) B&W 24 Minutes Unrated
ALFRED HITCHCOCK PRESENTS: THE SORCERER'S APPRENTICE - A young drifter is befriended by a carnival magician and his beautiful assistant, who don't realize who they've gotten themselves involved with. Starring Brandon De Wilde (1955-1962) B&W 24 Minutes Unrated
BLACKMAIL - A shopkeeper's daughter seeks to keep her involvement in a murder away from her Scotland Yard detective boyfriend. Starring Anny Ondra (1929) B&W 84 Minutes Unrated
CHAMPAGNE (SILENT) - A wealthy Wall Street philanthropist is exasperated with his daughter's behavior so he looks to teach her a lesson. Starring Betty Balfour (1928) B&W 86 Minutes Unrated
EASY VIRTUE (SILENT) - A woman has an affair with an artist painting her portrait and is subsequently caught by her boorish husband, who drove her into the artist's arms due to his lack of attention. Starring Isabel Jeans (1926) B&W 79 Minutes Unrated
THE FARMER'S WIFE (SILENT) - A lonely widowed farmer is looking for a new bride, not realizing the housekeeper helping him with his search is secretly in love with him. Starring Jameson Thomas (1928) B&W 98 Minutes Unrated
JAMAICA INN - A gang of ship wreckers using the local inn as their base of operations must try to keep their activities hidden from a gang member's niece and also a Lloyd's of London investigator who have recently arrived. Starring Charles Laughton (1939) B&W 93 Minutes Unrated
JUNO AND THE PAYCOCK - A mother of a family of Dublin tenement dwellers tries to hold the family together in spite of the chaos surrounding her. Starring Marie O'Neil (1930) B&W 95 Minutes Unrated
THE LADY VANISHES - During a transcontinental train trip in Europe, a young woman is alarmed to discover a passenger has disappeared. Starring Margaret Lockwood (1938) B&W 97 Minutes Unrated
THE LODGER (SILENT) - In Alfred Hitchcock’s first thriller, the city of London is in the grips of fear as a killer known as "The Avenger" murders young blonde women during foggy evenings. Starring Ivor Novello (1926) B&W 80 Minutes Unrated
THE MAN WHO KNEW TOO MUCH - A vacationing British businessman and his family find themselves in great danger when they witness the murder of a French secret agent. Starring Peter Lorre (1934) B&W 76 Minutes Unrated
THE MANXMAN (SILENT) - A romantic tale of intrigue involving a love triangle concerning three residents of the Isle of Man. Starring Carl Brisson (1926) B&W 83 Minutes Unrated
NUMBER SEVENTEEN - A group of visitors at a vacant house finds they all have some connection to a jewel heist. Starring Leon M. Lion (1932) B&W 63 Minutes Unrated
RICH AND STRANGE - A couple living in a working-class section of town that receives an inheritance and decides to use their windfall to take a cruise. While abroad ship, the couple ends up losing all of their funds. Star: Henry Kendall (1932) B&W 83 Minutes Unrated
THE RING (SILENT) - A fighter boxes in small venues and his marriage is eroding, due to the advances of a champion fighter upon her. Star: Carl Brisson (1927) B&W 89 Minutes Unrated
SABOTAGE - The classic Alfred Hitchcock thriller centers upon the operator of a local cinema who also works with a group of sabotages and hides his secret life from his wife and brother-in-law. Staring Oskar Homolka (1936) B&W 76 Minutes Unrated
SECRET AGENT - Set during World War I, a British author is recruited to assassinate a German spy operating our of Switzerland. Starring John Gielgud (1936) B&W 86 Minutes Unrated
THE SKIN GAME - A land use dispute comes to the English countryside and pits a land speculator and his family against the tradition-bound local landowner and his family. Starring C.V. France (1931) B&W 77 Minutes Unrated
THE THIRTY-NINE STEPS - The classic Alfred Hitchcock thriller tells the story of a Canadian gentleman visiting London, who gets mixed up with some foreign espionage. Starring Robert Donat (1935) B&W 83 Minutes Unrated
YOUNG AND INNOCENT - A writer accused of murdering his girlfriend escapes police custody with a young woman in tow and the two fugitives attempt to find the real killer to prove the man's innocence. Starring Derrick DeMarney (1937) B&W 80 Minutes Unrated
Post by: Tom on February 28, 2009, 10:12:46 PM
I somehow completely forgot that I had this other Hitchcock set. I found it at WalMart in the bargin bin for $5.00. So now I have some more I can watch. I have newer versions of a few of them, but there are still a bunch of others on here.
I have updated the list. I hope you don't mind, but I left off the "ALFRED HITCHCOCK PRESENTS..." episodes.
Post by: Najemikon on February 28, 2009, 11:17:25 PM
I'm not too familiar with a lot of these. Of course Hitch started in silent films, before creating the first British talkie in Blackmail. Through these you'll see him developing all sorts of visual flair that would come to characterise his films. But after Blackmail, he seemed to "go backwards", as Merton put it. There are still moments of note, especially fantastic model work at the end of Number 17 for a train chase. However, it's The Man Who Knew Too Much in 1934 that can be marked as the first recognisably Hitchcock film.
Essentially then, it's anything between 1930 and 1934. Looking at the set Dragonfire posted, I think you should be aware that these might be a bit of a chore:
Quote
JUNO AND THE PAYCOCK - A mother of a family of Dublin tenement dwellers tries to hold the family together in spite of the chaos surrounding her. Starring Marie O'Neil (1930) B&W 95 Minutes Unrated
NUMBER SEVENTEEN - A group of visitors at a vacant house finds they all have some connection to a jewel heist. Starring Leon M. Lion (1932) B&W 63 Minutes Unrated
RICH AND STRANGE - A couple living in a working-class section of town that receives an inheritance and decides to use their windfall to take a cruise. While abroad ship, the couple ends up losing all of their funds. Star: Henry Kendall (1932) B&W 83 Minutes Unrated
THE SKIN GAME - A land use dispute comes to the English countryside and pits a land speculator and his family against the tradition-bound local landowner and his family. Starring C.V. France (1931) B&W 77 Minutes Unrated
Hopefully you'll find them wonderful and this post is a waste of time! Number 17 is at least notable for being Hitch's only whodunnit (I think it was that one Merton said); in most of his films involving crime, he makes the viewer complicit.
Post by: Dragonfire on March 01, 2009, 12:40:47 AM
I have updated the list. I hope you don't mind, but I left off the "ALFRED HITCHCOCK PRESENTS..." episodes.
I don't mind at all. I just included those to show everything that is on the set.
Post by: Dragonfire on March 01, 2009, 12:42:07 AM
I've just watched the documentary that Paul Merton did on Hitchcock's early British career. It was excellent and very insightful, but has given me cause to issue a warning to those of you diving into this period. There's a period of rubbish! ???
I'm not too familiar with a lot of these. Of course Hitch started in silent films, before creating the first British talkie in Blackmail. Through these you'll see him developing all sorts of visual flair that would come to characterise his films. But after Blackmail, he seemed to "go backwards", as Merton put it. There are still moments of note, especially fantastic model work at the end of Number 17 for a train chase. However, it's The Man Who Knew Too Much in 1934 that can be marked as the first recognisably Hitchcock film.
Essentially then, it's anything between 1930 and 1934. Looking at the set Dragonfire posted, I think you should be aware that these might be a bit of a chore:QuoteJUNO AND THE PAYCOCK - A mother of a family of Dublin tenement dwellers tries to hold the family together in spite of the chaos surrounding her. Starring Marie O'Neil (1930) B&W 95 Minutes Unrated
NUMBER SEVENTEEN - A group of visitors at a vacant house finds they all have some connection to a jewel heist. Starring Leon M. Lion (1932) B&W 63 Minutes Unrated
RICH AND STRANGE - A couple living in a working-class section of town that receives an inheritance and decides to use their windfall to take a cruise. While abroad ship, the couple ends up losing all of their funds. Star: Henry Kendall (1932) B&W 83 Minutes Unrated
THE SKIN GAME - A land use dispute comes to the English countryside and pits a land speculator and his family against the tradition-bound local landowner and his family. Starring C.V. France (1931) B&W 77 Minutes Unrated
Hopefully you'll find them wonderful and this post is a waste of time! Number 17 is at least notable for being Hitch's only whodunnit (I think it was that one Merton said); in most of his films involving crime, he makes the viewer complicit.
I've never heard of most of the ones in this set, but I knew at least a few of them were supposed to be good, so I figured it was worth the $5.
Post by: Tom on March 01, 2009, 01:04:37 AM
Therefore I would be able to start my marathon beginning of April with "The 39 Steps". So it is up to you guys who are watching the 12 movies before that, when to start and how to set the pace for the first bunch.
Post by: Najemikon on March 01, 2009, 01:54:35 AM
I've never heard of most of the ones in this set, but I knew at least a few of them were supposed to be good, so I figured it was worth the $5.
Definitely. Even a bad Hitchcock is better than most and always worth seeing.
As I have bundled my latest Hitchcock order with a preorder Blu-ray to save the shipping cost, it will arrive later than usual (end of March). Except if Amazon decides to ship it seperately anyway.
Therefore I would be able to start my marathon beginning of April with "The 39 Steps". So it is up to you guys who are watching the 12 movies before that, when to start and how to set the pace for the first bunch.
That's fine with me. Looks like Dragonfire sets the pace so far! ;D
Post by: Dragonfire on March 01, 2009, 02:53:34 AM
I've never heard of most of the ones in this set, but I knew at least a few of them were supposed to be good, so I figured it was worth the $5.
Definitely. Even a bad Hitchcock is better than most and always worth seeing.As I have bundled my latest Hitchcock order with a preorder Blu-ray to save the shipping cost, it will arrive later than usual (end of March). Except if Amazon decides to ship it seperately anyway.
Therefore I would be able to start my marathon beginning of April with "The 39 Steps". So it is up to you guys who are watching the 12 movies before that, when to start and how to set the pace for the first bunch.
That's fine with me. Looks like Dragonfire sets the pace so far! ;D
I do? Well..I'll have to go look at the list again and figure out when to get started. I may go ahead and start soon then.
Post by: Achim on March 02, 2009, 05:41:01 AM
So, I guess it's time to compensate and order the Hitchcock sets plus some Blu-rays... :stars: If things go to plan (meaning the items are In Stock) I should be ready by early April as well.
Post by: Dragonfire on March 02, 2009, 07:09:01 AM
Post by: Najemikon on March 02, 2009, 08:38:23 PM
Post by: MEJHarrison on March 03, 2009, 06:30:14 PM
I think mark was the only other one who had some really early stuff...
And I'm not sure I'll have time for this.
Post by: Tom on March 13, 2009, 10:01:07 PM
Does anyone mind, that we start the general marathon in the first week of April beginning with "The 39 Steps (1935)"?
Post by: Dragonfire on March 13, 2009, 10:24:45 PM
That should work ok for me. I'll try to get through some of the older ones I have before then.
Post by: Achim on March 15, 2009, 11:32:37 AM
Post by: Tom on March 29, 2009, 06:24:27 PM
How should we go about this? Should we set a pace, or should anybody just go along at their own pace? With the first way we would have some, who would have to sit out if they do not have the movie which is currently on. With the latter we would have some who are already reviewing movies at the end of the list while others are still at the beginning.
Either way I propose, that anyone has to view the movies they own chronologically.
We could do mixture of both ways. Anyone goes at their own pace, but we set time periods for each decade.
E.g. first we watch the 30s movies until a specific time, then the 40s and so on. This way we wouldn't diverge too much.
Post by: Najemikon on March 29, 2009, 07:54:07 PM
Post by: Tom on March 29, 2009, 08:05:12 PM
Yes, set a pace, that would be better. Not sure what pace though... :headscratch: Just give me a days notice so I can slot The Man Who Knew Too Much in before 39 Steps. :P
Okay, let's start with 39 Steps on the next weekend.
Everyone, please post until then, which movies you will be watching. I will then put up a schedule for the other movies next weekend. Pace depending of how many people are watching a particular movie.
Post by: Dragonfire on March 30, 2009, 05:03:33 AM
Post by: Achim on March 30, 2009, 06:04:12 AM
Post by: RossRoy on March 30, 2009, 03:08:00 PM
Dial M for Murder
Rear Window
Vertigo
Psycho
The Birds
Post by: Tom on March 30, 2009, 06:15:07 PM
I own the Masterpiece Collection which has 14 of movies, mostly later ones, To Catch a Thief, North By Northwest and The Lady Vanishes. I have watched 3 or 4 of the collection, but otherwise I'll follow when I see you guys watch something I own.
I assume your Masterpiece Collection contains the same 14 movies as my 14-movie collection. I have put you down for these in my first post. Please tell me which 3 or 4 I need to remove again.
Post by: Dragonfire on March 31, 2009, 02:13:20 AM
:yawn:
Post by: Achim on March 31, 2009, 06:17:20 AM
I assume your Masterpiece Collection contains the same 14 movies as my 14-movie collection. I have put you down for these in my first post. Please tell me which 3 or 4 I need to remove again.Yes, the ones you marked are the ones from my collection.
Oops, actually I already watched more than I thought:
Shadow of a Doubt
Rear Window
The Trouble with Harry
Vertigo
The Birds
And maybe Psycho, but heck, I'll just watch it again, maybe.
Seeing the items listed made me look forward to actually watching them. Bring it on!
Post by: Tom on April 03, 2009, 07:06:30 PM
Everyone, please post until then, which movies you will be watching. I will then put up a schedule for the other movies next weekend. Pace depending of how many people are watching a particular movie.
Reminder:
Please post your lists until tomorrow. I will put up a schedule on Sunday.
Post by: Najemikon on April 04, 2009, 01:27:30 AM
1934 The Man Who Knew Too Much
1935 The 39 Steps
1936 Secret Agent
1938 The Lady Vanishes
1940 Foreign Correspondent
1940
1941
1941 Suspicion
1942 Saboteur
1943 Shadow of a Doubt
1944 Lifeboat
1945 Spellbound
1946 Notorious
1948 Rope
1950 Stage Fright
1951 Strangers on a Train
1953 I Confess
1954 Dial M for Murder
1954 Rear Window
1955 To Catch a Thief
1955 The Trouble with Harry
1956 The Man Who Knew Too Much
1956 The Wrong Man
1958 Vertigo
1959 North by Northwest
1960 Psycho
1963 The Birds
1964 Marnie
1966 Torn Curtain
1972 Frenzy
Post by: Achim on April 04, 2009, 04:24:21 AM
1938 The Lady Vanishes
1942 Saboteur
1948 Rope
1955 To Catch a Thief
1956 The Man Who Knew Too Much
1959 North by Northwest
1960 Psycho
1964 Marnie
1966 Torn Curtain
1969 Topaz
1972 Frenzy
1976 Family Plot
Post by: Dragonfire on April 04, 2009, 09:51:26 PM
1926 - Easy Virtue - WATCHED (I'll look up the date I watched this later) :yawn:
1927 - The Lodger: A Story of the London Fog WATCHED
1934 - The Man Who Knew Too Much - WATCHED ;D
1953 - The 39 Steps - WATCHED ;D
1936 - Secret Agent - WATCHED :-\
1936 - Sabotage - WATCHED ;D
1937 - Young and Innocent - WATCHED - ;D
1938 - The Lady Vanishes - WATCHED - ;D
1940 - Rebecca - WATCHED - :thumbup:
1944 - Lifeboat - WATCHED - :thumbup:
1945 - Spellbound - WATCHED - ;D
1946 - Notorious - WATCHED - :thumbup:
1947 - The Paradine Case
1948 - Rope
1954 - Rear Window
1955 - To Catch a Thief
1956 - The man Who Knew Too Much
1958 - Vertigo
1959 - North by Northwest
1960 - Psycho
1963 - The Birds
There are a few more that I might pick up in the next few weeks, but these are the ones I'll attempt..for now anyway. :)
Post by: richierich on April 05, 2009, 12:36:12 AM
1943 Shadow of a Doubt
1946 Notorious
1954 Rear Window
1958 Vertigo
1959 North by Northwest
1963 The Birds
1972 Frenzy
Post by: Tom on April 05, 2009, 07:17:12 PM
Starting of with "The 39 Steps", I will give each movie one week until the deadline to view it passes. Should all reviewers of the movie (listed in the first post) have posted their reviews of the current movie before the deadline comes up, we move on to the next movie with a new week starting until the deadline.
Dragonfire and Jon, you are welcome to post your reviews of the movies listed before "The 39 Steps" also in this first week.
Deadline for "The 39 Steps" is April 12th.
Post by: Tom on April 06, 2009, 10:37:37 PM
Title: The 39 Steps (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_39_Steps_(1935_film)) (http://www.invelos.com/images/DVDLogo.png)
Year: 1935
Director: Alfred Hitchcock
Length: 82 Min.
Video: Full Frame 1.33:1
Audio: German: MPEG-2 Mono, English: MPEG-2 Mono
Subtitles:
Stars:
Robert Donat
Madeleine Carroll
Lucie Mannheim
Godfrey Tearle
Peggy Ashcroft
My Thoughts:
My first Hitchcock movie that I have ever watched. The movie was alright. Of course the story is not something new from today's standpoint, but I can see, that for its time the movie was innovative.Rating:
Post by: Najemikon on April 09, 2009, 09:25:09 PM
The Man Who Knew Too Much (1934)
4 out of 5
(http://www.jonmeakin.co.uk/images/hitch/hitch01.jpg)
Bob Lawrence (Leslie Banks), is holidaying in Switzerland with his wife Jill (Edna Best) and daughter Betty (Nova Pilbeam). A Frenchman they have befriended is murdered in front of him, whispering about a planned assassination that wil put the British government in jeopardy. Betty is abducted to ensure Bob's silence until after the assassin (Peter Lorre) has carried out his grim task in the planned setting of the Albert Hall. How can Bob do his patriotic duty but at the same time keep his daughter out of danger?
Paul Merton recently called this the first proper Hitchcock movie, after his run of silent films culminated in using sound for the first time in the previous film, Blackmail. That’s as maybe, but it has dated in many respects.
The first half is quite laborious, with the very strange overly relaxed 30s attitudes; a young girl almost causes a fatal accident, then ruins her mum’s chances in a shooting competition, yet they all just laugh and call her a cheeky scamp. Relationships are fuzzy, though I bet if you watch closely enough, that must have been shocking to 30s sensibilities. Later, our reluctant hero on the trail of the kidnappers never forgets his polite humour with Peter Lorre’s fantastic villain, without a trace of irony, even in the middle of a scrap. It’s the old British spirit taken a little too far! In The Lady Vanishes, there are two cricket fans that fall into this style, but they’re funny because of the contrast. Still, a cracking cast able to produce a lot of humour from a serious yarn.
Once the plot is firmly underway though and the action moves back to England, it’s a tour de force displaying many of what would become signature traits. Normal people in terrible peril and involved in a plot much bigger than them (causes a tangible moral dilemma here); fully rounded supporting characters (check out the character details in people turned out of their homes by the police); gags before violence (a wonderful, indulgent scene with wool); gags during violence (chair fight!); an East End gun-fight with police that Michael Mann has probably seen a few times and the magnificent Albert Hall just before it (a plot point recently borrowed for Eagle Eye).
It is a great story, with a delicious premise, in many ways a definitive Hitchcock template, balancing several big set-pieces in multiple locations. It’s just tough for modern audiences to watch and I think one of Hitchcock’s greatest traits has yet to really show: the deep, black humour, which can verge on cruel.
Post by: Najemikon on April 09, 2009, 11:41:39 PM
Post by: Dragonfire on April 10, 2009, 05:30:57 AM
Post by: Tom on April 13, 2009, 07:54:34 PM
Post by: Najemikon on April 13, 2009, 08:09:53 PM
Post by: Tom on April 13, 2009, 09:55:20 PM
Title: Secret Agent (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secret_Agent_(1936_film)) (http://www.invelos.com/images/DVDLogo.png)
Year: 1936
Director: Alfred Hitchcock
Length: 86 Min.
Video: Full Frame 1.33:1
Audio: German: MPEG-2 Mono, English: MPEG-2 Mono
Stars:
John Gielgud
Peter Lorre
Madeleine Carroll
Robert Young
Percy Marmont
My Thoughts:
This movie didn't keep much of my attention. It may be because of the relative poor quality of the transfer. But what I liked about this movie is something, which most of the modern English-language movies seem not to be able to do anymore: Use actors who actually speak real German for the German roles.
Rating:
Post by: Dragonfire on April 13, 2009, 11:31:14 PM
The deadline for "The 39 Steps" passed yesterday. Deadline for "Secrect Agent" is next Sunday. Of course you are still welcome to post reviews for "The 39 Steps".
I know I'm already behind. I'll get caught up as soon as I can.
Post by: richierich on April 14, 2009, 05:14:47 PM
(http://img516.imageshack.us/img516/9341/4502medium.jpg)
The best known of Hitchcock's British films, this civilized spy yarn follows the escapades of Richard Hannay (Robert Donat), who stumbles into a conspiracy that involves him in a hectic chase across the Scottish moors—a chase in which he is both the pursuer and the pursued. Adapted from John Buchan's novel, this classic Hitchcock "wrong man" thriller encapsulates themes that anticipate the director's biggest American films (especially North by Northwest), and is a standout among his early works.
Fairly uncomplex Hitchcock thriller in comparison to later efforts, this has all the ingredients of action, dark comedy and suspense to make it work. It is clearly filmed too much within a studio, and you would be disappointed having read the book to see how far this strays from the original storyline, but the interesting camera angles, lighting, lead acting and direction keep this films head above water.
:D
Post by: Najemikon on April 14, 2009, 06:11:04 PM
I may be going mad (going?, you say :P) but I could have sworn I'd read someones review of 39 Steps, but Tom is the only one so far and there were specific points mentioned that aren't there... er... "anymore"... :stars: I'm confused. :hmmmm:
Post by: Najemikon on April 14, 2009, 06:22:41 PM
5 out of 5
(http://www.jonmeakin.co.uk/images/hitch/hitch02.jpg)
Richard Hannay (Robert Donat) picks up Annabella Smith (Lucie Mannheim) at a music hall, but he finds her behaviour strange. She tells him she is a spy and warns he is now involved. Indeed, she is soon murdered and he is the only suspect and on the run to Scotland, with the one lead she gave him. Along the way he meets Pamela (Madeleine Carroll) and soon she is also caught up in discovering just what The 39 Steps are.
What a difference a year makes! My only real problem with The Man Who Knew Too Much was the quaint attitudes of the thin characters that severely dated the story. Here there is no such problem and it has stood the test of time as well as any film from the period. It’s a rollicking good thriller that has been an inspiration to so many and still is. They could do with watching a bit closer though, because it has so much more invention and ambition. It's as watchable now as any other spy caper.
Take the sequence of the maid discovering the body and her scream being the train whistle. So soon after sound had been introduced to film and already Hitchcock is pushing the technique. In fact the whole train sequence is a joy to watch for the details. As always, plenty of characters like his fellow passengers that add little to the plot, but enrich the film nonetheless. Throughout the film, there are endless grace notes making the plot both thrilling and fun. It’s magnificent.
More of Hitchcock’s regular quirks are appearing, for instance, sexual obsession is rearing its head but balanced by the wonderful chemistry between Donat and Carroll. Once more the action follows a normal guy dragged into extraordinary events, manipulated by a woman; perhaps he should have thought with his head? :devil: Later, while he is handcuffed to Carroll (a blonde, of course), the brilliant rollercoaster farce (fence!) gives way to the very famous moment with the stockings. It’s ingenious. Morals of the day would never have allowed such unresolved contact, except, how could he help it, being chained to her? Ooh, bit Freudian that! ;)
It’s a gloriously theatrical film as well, from the dramatic murder, the twist in the sheriff’s office (followed by an enthusiastic dive out the window!) to the finale, literally on a stage. Hitchcock spent a lot of time with German filmmakers and their expressionistic methods have had a huge influence. Add to this that he was the master of audience manipulation, so the irony of the story concluding theatrically on a stage in front of a horrified audience should not be lost.
That you can watch this for nerdy film anorak material and/or as a purely exciting thriller, is testament to Hitchcock’s immense skill.
Post by: Najemikon on April 17, 2009, 10:53:23 PM
2 out of 5
(http://www.jonmeakin.co.uk/images/hitch/hitch03.jpg)
Novelist Edgar Brodie (John Gielgud) has his death faked by British Intellgence. Giving him a new identity as Richard Ashenden, they persuade him to undertake an espionage commission in Switzerland. Accompanied by beautiful Elsa Carrington (Madeleine Carroll), posing as his wife, and the General (Peter Lorre), an insane professional killer, Brodie/Ashenden becomes embroiled in murder, intrique and a pursuit through the Swiss Alps.
A misleading poster, whimsical unfocused plot, poorly cast, indifferent directing; there’s little to recommend this oddity. Hitchcock seemed to have several gears, and though he was never a bad director, his first gear was “bored”! I think you can really tell when he isn’t passionate about the story he’s filming.
Lack of an everyman getting in too deep is the first difference, but Hitchcock’s plots are usually about a love affair with adventure and crime conspiring to keep them apart that only really becomes acknowledged in the final moments. The 39 Steps was a perfect example with fantastic chemistry, but the small fact he was on the run as a suspected murderer had to come first. Secret Agent is almost the opposite with a ridiculously obvious romance being hindered by a pesky spy story!
I do like John Gielgud and was looking forward to seeing this early role, but undercover war hero novelist doesn’t suit him in the slightest! It’s an oddly written character from the start, but I did enjoy a moment that may have inspired James Bond: Arrogant English agent arrives at hotel to be told his wife is already there, and he enjoys the potentially dangerous situation so much he plays up to it. Sadly it didn’t deliver much more.
It did have some potential in the middle section when an innocent man is murdered. It is a truly awful moment after all the light-hearted whimsy. Unfortunately, rather than dig into the damaged psyches, the plot goes back to silly double-crosses and way too much Peter Lorre. His was the best character, but he really overplayed it and the ending was one of the most contrived moments I’ve ever seen on film.
Post by: Tom on April 21, 2009, 06:27:02 PM
Post by: Najemikon on April 21, 2009, 08:04:26 PM
I forgot to post the deadline for "Sabotage". It's on 2009-04-26.
I'm disappointed not to have this in time to watch for the marathon because it's a small milestone in Hitchcock's career in that it contains a scene that he considered to be a mistake and one he would never repeat. I don't know when people started to refer to him as the Master of Suspense, but I think this moment was instrumental in his own perception of what suspense should be.
Although I haven't seen the film properly, I've heard the story behind it several times and often think of it because so many new films would benefit from that same understanding instead of going for the short shock every time.
Hopefully you have no idea which bit I'm talking about! ;)
Post by: Tom on April 21, 2009, 09:18:53 PM
Year: 1936
Director: Alfred Hitchcock
Rating:
Length: 76 Min.
Video: Full Frame 1.33:1
Audio: German: MPEG-2 Mono, English: MPEG-2 Mono
Subtitles:
Stars:
Slyvia Sydney
Oscar Homolka
Desmond Tester
John Loder
Joyce Barbour
My Thoughts:
Sadly, the video and audio quality of my DVD release again put a damper on my enjoyment of another Hitchcock movie.The scene, of which Hitchcock thinks, it was a mistake, is the best bit of the movie. I like how this scene ends and I am glad, Hitchcock couldn't pull a George Lucas on it and change it to the way he thinks would be better.
Here an interview with Hitchcock about the famous scene:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-dhbSUP9mhk
Rating:
Post by: Najemikon on April 21, 2009, 10:22:33 PM
It's the build-up without a reward that caused the problem. Films were structured much better back then in general and audiences were far more invested emotionally in characters, so doing it like that was like punching the viewer in the stomach! I doubt Hitchcock suffered from nostalgia much so he'd never dream of altering it even if he filmed it today. Probably the closest he came to a similar experiment was Psycho and he did it perfectly there...
(click to show/hide)
Ironically, demonstrating you could still go too far, Michael Powell released Peeping Tom that same year and destroyed his own career. The killer had this trick of filming his own murders, making the audience see them from his POV and therefore making them complicit in the crimes. Then, they were horrified, now it's a masterpiece. And sadly if the same trick was used today, we'd barely notice!
Post by: Achim on April 22, 2009, 02:52:14 AM
The scene, of which Hitchcock thinks, it was a mistake, is the best bit of the movie. I like how this scene ends and I am glad, Hitchcock couldn't pull a George Lucas on it and change it to the way he thinks would be better.I think it's like Jon said, that the audiences simply weren't ready for it at the time. Cinema was much more escapism at the time and the audience was left hanging (or worse, actually, they were kicked in the stomach) at the end of the scene. Nowadays "we've seen it all" and it would not enrage an audience as much.
You simply mean the switch in style he pulls for From Dusk Till Dawn...? Otherwise I don't remember Tarantino using the Psycho method in that one...(click to show/hide)
(click to show/hide)
Quote
Ironically, demonstrating you could still go too far, Michael Powell released Peeping Tom that same year and destroyed his own career. The killer had this trick of filming his own murders, making the audience see them from his POV and therefore making them complicit in the crimes. Then, they were horrified, now it's a masterpiece. And sadly if the same trick was used today, we'd barely notice!Good call here! Main actor was German, as you certainly knew. Seen it once in the past and have the Criterion release on my Wish List...
Post by: Najemikon on April 22, 2009, 12:06:48 PM
Thanks for the interview, Tom! I have once read the nook with the famous interview by Francois Tuffaut but rarely got to hear Hitch speak...
Those interviews were originally recorded and the audio pops up on one of the DVDs at least. Rebecca, I think it was. They're great.
You simply mean the switch in style he pulls for From Dusk Till Dawn...? Otherwise I don't remember Tarantino using the Psycho method in that one...(click to show/hide)(click to show/hide)
Dusk Till Dawn's pitch is far broader by affecting the whole narrative rather than one or two characters, but I think the method is similar at least. You think you're watching one story, but actually, no, it's something entirely different. More importantly, you could argue that the stories central character changes, which is very unusual.
Death Proof I think is definitely more Psycho in style...
(click to show/hide)
I do think Death Proof is hugely underrated, but it's possible without Hitchcock's deft touch, audiences got pissed off that it happened. Also, the change in pace is too jarring. But Tarantino has always been interested in proper audience manipulation; I remember an interview with him explaining the ear slicing moment. He plays Stuck in the Middle With You and has Madsen do a silly dance to make the viewer have fun, then wham! The violence kicks in with barely any warning forcing said viewer to "pay" for the fun.
Good call here! Main actor was German, as you certainly knew. Seen it once in the past and have the Criterion release on my Wish List...
It might be worth checking if the Criterion is really the best release now. I have a special R2 Optimum edition and it's very good. Optimum are inconsistent, but sometimes pull together a really nice edition.
Post by: richierich on April 23, 2009, 11:19:16 AM
Post by: Achim on April 23, 2009, 12:35:12 PM
Post by: Najemikon on April 23, 2009, 04:36:54 PM
I was really surprised by the writers wish for another Vertigo. Why not do a tracing of the Mona Lisa as well then? :slaphead: Mind you I really lost all respect for him when he had a good word for Psycho, the most pointless of pointless remakes! :shrug:
Hitchcock films are generally too identifiable for a remake to work. He did miss Flightplan, which is pretty much The Lady Vanishes and as I've said before, Dangerous Crossing is obviously inspired by that. There's another one in the Film Noir series called The House on Telegraph Hill with more than a passing resemblance to Rebecca.
Rebecca and The 39 Steps crop up from time to time, but the books in both cases are as well known as the films, so often they'll go back to source.
In general you're more likely to see Hitchcockian elements in other films. One of the more recent was What Lies Beneath, full of paranoia and secret agendas, affecting seemingly normal people and ending with a decent chase sequence. Hitch would have had a field day and it would have been much better! Still, decent enough though.
Carol Reed is no slouch and it would be cheap to compare him directly to Hitchcock, however I do think Fallen Idol is the best film Hitchcock never directed. ;) To be fair, I think Reed was better suited to it, with warmer characters than Hitchcock usually has.
Post by: Jimmy on April 23, 2009, 05:31:40 PM
I love Throw Momma From The Train, it's a marvellous comedy.Are you seriously talking and I mean really about the Stallone's movie with a title like this :o
If this is the case, the only thing I can say is :o
Post by: RossRoy on April 23, 2009, 05:41:35 PM
Are you seriously talking and I mean really about the Stallone's movie with a title like this :o
You're thinking of Stop! Or My Mom Will Shoot (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0105477/)
Jon is talking about this (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0094142/) (I think)
;)
Post by: Najemikon on April 23, 2009, 05:52:30 PM
Are you seriously talking and I mean really about the Stallone's movie with a title like this :o
You're thinking of Stop! Or My Mom Will Shoot (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0105477/)
Jon is talking about this (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0094142/) (I think)
;)
:hysterical: Correct!
Post by: Jimmy on April 23, 2009, 05:54:04 PM
Post by: Tom on April 27, 2009, 07:24:46 PM
Only one watching this time. Marie, do you hope to still be able to catch up? :)
I don't mind sitting this week out, if it helps you to catch up. Otherwise I will include the next movie in this deadline, but that would add another movie to your "to watch" queue.
Post by: Tom on May 03, 2009, 06:34:22 PM
Registered reviewers for this one: Achim, Dragonfire, Jon, Tom
Post by: Dragonfire on May 04, 2009, 10:11:23 AM
I know I'm horribly behind...but I do still want to watch the movies...so hopefully I can get caught up soon...or at least start to make some progress.
Post by: Jimmy on May 04, 2009, 06:57:41 PM
Yes I do still want to get caught up with this....anyone know how to add some extras hours to my days so I can manage that? :laugh:There always my old trick that keept me awake for 2 or 3 days that I was using many years ago. But it's costly and certainly not a good recommandation :laugh:
6 years now that I haven't touch it or any other ;D
Unless we have to include the cigarette and the coffee :laugh:
Post by: Dragonfire on May 04, 2009, 09:39:29 PM
THE LODGER: A STORY OF THE LONDON FOG
In this "hallmark" (Los Angeles Times) silent nail-biter, a rash of murders evokes a family's suspicions about their tenant, a man fascinated with their beautiful daughter.
Restored and Remastered! Includes Audio Commentary, Audio Interviews with Peter Bogdanovich and Francois Truffaut, Making-Of Featurette and More!
My Thoughts
I ended up enjoying this one even though I'm still not overly fond of silent movies. Hitchcock also didn't use many of the title things throughout the movie, so you have relie on just on the visuals. Most of the time that ends up working fine with this one, though with a few scenes earlier in the movie I was left wondering why a scene or two was included.
The movie starts off showing the discovery of a victim. She was the seventh victim. Blonde women in London are scared with some of them seeming to plan to change their hair color. A young woman, Daisy, works in some sort of musical. she lives with her older parents. Soon after she arrives home that night, a man arrives wanting to rent the room her parents have available. The Lodger, never identified by a name, acts mysterious, seeming to sneak around, flipping out over things that happen in the house. He also becomes attracted to Daisy and she is returning the feelings even though she had been somewhat involved with an older police officer, Joe, who didn't like the Lodger on sight.
I thought the plot was very interesting even though I'm still not sure why a few things were done. There is a good amount of suspense in the movie and mystery in the movie. The cast all handled their roles well and were very expressive, something absolutely essential in a silent movie. There are some very good, interesting visuals in the movie, like when Hitchcock filmed up through plate glass to show someone pacing upstaris. This is a black and white movie that didn't really seem to be in black and white to me. Just about every scene had a blue or sort of golden hue to them. The scenes set indoors have the golden hue and the ones outside have the bluish cast to them. One scene late in the movie had a pinkish/purplish cast to it. All the color hues was a bit odd to me since I'm use to black and white movies that are truly black and white. One sequence, set in the house late at night, was in what I consider true black and white, but that didn't last long at all.
I think the picture quality is good, especially considering the age of the movie. I think some restoration had been done on it for this DVD release. I still have to watch more of the extras. I did watch the one on the making of the movie which was interesting. A lot of people who have written books about Hitchcock talked about the movie and how it was one of the first he directed - I think it was the third. Hitchcock's granddaughter talked a little bit as well. I've seen his daughter in several extras, but never his granddaughter before. Peter Bergdaovich - no clue how to spell his name at the moment - talked a lot about the movie and Hitchcock too. Some clips from interviews that Bergdaovich did with Hitchcock in 1962.
This is a good movie overall, though I know it won't appeal to a lot of people because it is silent. It's still worth seeing. I've heard it described as the first true Hitchcock movie since it was the first suspense type of movie he did.
;D
Oh..by the way, I did watch Easy Virtue already..back in March I think.. :laugh: I didn't write as much about it because it wasn't as interesting to me. Anyway, I rated that one :yawn:
Post by: Najemikon on May 04, 2009, 11:26:40 PM
This is a black and white movie that didn't really seem to be in black and white to me. Just about every scene had a blue or sort of golden hue to them. The scenes set indoors have the golden hue and the ones outside have the bluish cast to them. One scene late in the movie had a pinkish/purplish cast to it. All the color hues was a bit odd to me since I'm use to black and white movies that are truly black and white. One sequence, set in the house late at night, was in what I consider true black and white, but that didn't last long at all.
You're being a bit quick to label it black & white! ;) Films from this era were often tinted sepia and the other tones. It's cheap transfers down the years that have presented them as basic black and white, probably to avoid confusion, but it isn't what was intended. They really were far more colourful than you might think and would literally dye the film. But restorers now try to go back to how they would have looked. I seem to remember Nosferatu having a choice between original sepia or black and white when the restored version was released.
I found this article on The Lodger. Looks like an excellent release you have, considering the interviews as well. I must look out for it...
Silent Era: The Lodger (http://www.silentera.com/DVD/lodgerDVD.html)
It doesn't mention if they restored to Hitchcock's original colour choices, but I think it must be almost impossible to distinguish between the choices like this made by anyone from the directors to the producers.
Nice to see you joining us, Marie. :D
Post by: Dragonfire on May 04, 2009, 11:53:57 PM
I got mine as part of the one set that has like 8 of his movies. I picked up the set when I found it on sale at Amazon. I've seen some of the other movies in the set available alone, so maybe this one is as well.
At least I'm slightly less behind than I was. :)
I did go check out that page you found. Lots of interesting information there.
Post by: Dragonfire on May 06, 2009, 01:55:41 AM
Bob Lawrence (Leslie Banks), is holidaying in Switzerland with his wife Jill (Edna Best) and daughter Betty (Nova Pilbeam). A Frenchman they have befriended is murdered in front of him, whispering about a planned assassination that wil put the British government in jeopardy. Betty is abducted to ensure Bob's silence until after the assassin (Peter Lorre) has carried out his grim task in the planned setting of the Albert Hall. How can Bob do his patriotic duty but at the same time keep his daughter out of danger?
My Thoughts
My copy of this movie is part of the set I have that has like 20 different movies and some television show episodes. The picture quality isn't too bad considering the age of the movie, but it could have been better. It's obvious that no restoration had been done for this release.
I've seen most of the remake with Jimmy Stewart, but that was so long that I've forgotten most of it. I think the basic plot is the same, though this movie is shorter, so less happens. It does get off to a slower start showing the family on vacation. The way the family interacts makes it seem like they aren't that close at times..but that changes once Betty is taken. Once the friend is killed, the pace starts pick up and things get more interesting. It wasn't that smart for Bob to sent Betty off to the room alone. I think there is a decent amount of mystery and suspense in the movie. I did notice a few techniques that Hitchcock would use in his future movies. The climax of the movie is very well done and works well.
Overall I enjoyed this movie and think it is worth seeing.
;D
Post by: Achim on May 08, 2009, 02:27:30 PM
MOVIE / DVD INFO:
(http://www.invelos.com/mpimages/03/037429122129f.jpg) Title: The Lady Vanishes
Year: 1938
Director: Alfred Hitchcock
Rating: NR
Length: 95 Min.
Video: Full Frame 1.33:1
Audio: English: Dolby Digital Mono, Commentary: Dolby Digital Stereo
Subtitles:
Stars:
Margaret Lockwood
Michael Redgrave
Paul Lukas
Dame May Whitty
Cecil Parker
Plot:
In this best-loved of Hitchcock's British-made thrillers, a young woman on a train meets a charming old lady (Dame May Whitty), who promptly disappears. The other passengers deny ever having seen her, leading the young woman to suspect a conspiracy. When she begins investigating, she is drawn into a complex web of mystery and high adventure.
Extras:
Scene Access
Audio Commentary
Featurettes
Production Notes
My Thoughts:
This must have been the first Hitchcock film I ever saw. It used to play on German TV often I possibly saw it each and every time. It has, however, been at least 20 years since I saw it last.
It is a great little film. It has lots of Hitchcock's typical ingredients: MacGuffin, suspense, witty dialogue and plays out with a rather high pace that the 90min pass by very quickly. The first 30min we are slowly and ingeniously (because of the way the focus is passed on from one to the other) introduced to all main characters. This bit plays mostly like a comedy with light hearted humor and only a hint (well, a murder) that this is not a comedy at all. The second 30min are the mysery section, where "The Lady Vanishes" (I don't think I need a spoiler tag here :laugh:) and the conspiracy plays out. The last third is the suspense section, where we finally gain more knowledge than the characters in the film and Hitchcock has us worried about how it will end!
I was rather surprised how well put together this film was. Considering its age the "special effects" (some matte painting mixed with miniature work) looked quite convincing and appropriate. The dialogue, I keep finding in all the Hitchcock films I rediscover (I used to watch these as a teenager and in a dubbed version!) is quite sharp and the sarcasm(?) is great fun for modern audiences and feels fresh. I especially enjoyed the bits with the two English gentlemen. The only cringe worthy moment was when some piece of evidence "flew by" rather conveniently...
Hitchcock does appear, but near the end of the film, so I missed him. :bag:
Post by: Tom on May 08, 2009, 09:25:18 PM
Title: The Lady Vanishes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Lady_Vanishes_(1938_film)) (http://www.invelos.com/images/DVDLogo.png)
Year: 1938
Director: Alfred Hitchcock
Rating:
Length: 91 Min.
Video: Full Frame 1.33:1
Audio: German: MPEG-2 Mono, English: MPEG-2 Mono
Subtitles:
Stars:
Margaret Lockwood
Michael Redgrave
Paul Lukas
Dame May Whitty
Cecil Parker
My Thoughts:
A good movie. I liked the middle part best. But again the video and audio quality made me loose my complete attention to the movie, so I must have missed a lot of important information. How come, that all passengers covered the disappearence of the lady? Some of them, as far as I gathered, did it, to get not involved in any interogations and because they didn't want to hold up the journey.Good use of rear projection for its time.
Rating:
Post by: Tom on May 10, 2009, 09:19:56 PM
| 2009-05-17 | Rebecca | Dragonfire |
| 2009-05-17 | Foreign Correspondent | Jon |
Post by: Dragonfire on May 12, 2009, 12:19:33 AM
Richard Hannay (Robert Donat) picks up Annabella Smith (Lucie Mannheim) at a music hall, but he finds her behaviour strange. She tells him she is a spy and warns he is now involved. Indeed, she is soon murdered and he is the only suspect and on the run to Scotland, with the one lead she gave him. Along the way he meets Pamela (Madeleine Carroll) and soon she is also caught up in discovering just what The 39 Steps are.
My Thoughts
I was a little distracted when I first started watching this one, but I ended up really enjoying the movie overall. The plot was interesting and there is a decent amount of suspense with what is going on. The characters were interesting and seemed more..likable at times as well. It does seem like Hitchcock was trying to push the limits of what he got in the movie, especially with that scene involving the stockings. That had to be shocking when the movie first came out.
My copy is part of my set with several Hitchcock movies and a few episodes of television shows. The picture quality really isn't that bad even though it hasn't been restored.
;D
I'm making progress on getting caught up at least even though I'm still behind. lol But I've made progress. :)
Post by: Najemikon on May 12, 2009, 12:52:50 AM
Post by: Dragonfire on May 12, 2009, 02:33:25 AM
I'm dropping behind in sympathy! :P I will get both The Lady Vanishes and Foreign Correspondent in by the end of the week though... :training:
:laugh:
I'm still further behind though..I think I still have like 4 to get through before The Lady Vanishes. But at least I've started to catch up, so that's something. Though it may still take me till December to finish. :laugh:
Post by: Dragonfire on May 14, 2009, 03:27:51 AM
Novelist Edgar Brodie (John Gielgud) has his death faked by British Intelligence. Giving him a new identity as Richard Ashenden, they persuade him to undertake an espionage commission in Switzerland. Accompanied by beautiful Elsa Carrington (Madeleine Carroll), posing as his wife, and the General (Peter Lorre), an insane professional killer, Brodie/Ashenden becomes embroiled in murder, intrigue and a pursuit through the Swiss Alps.
My Thoughts
This one is interesting, though not one of Hitchcock's best. The set up is interesting, though it isn't the most logical for British Intelligence to turn an author into a spy on a mission to kill someone. He had no training in that sort thing, so it seemed rather out of place to me. Elsa added more believability to the cover, but that was about all she did. She acted like she was on a fun adventure without any thoughts of the consequences of what was going on. She seemed to start to feel bad about certain things, but that wasn't fully explored. Then, even when she knows everything, tries to prevent something ..and even threatens to do something that seemed rather...illogical. The General was an odd character..very odd. The movie has an odd mix of humor and more serious moments that doesn't fully work that well.
My version of this is part of the set with a bunch of the older Hitchcock movies. The picture and audio quality wasn't that great, and in some parts it was so dark it was hard to tell what was being shown.
Overall, I thought this one was just average. :-\ I think that is the icon I want.
Post by: Najemikon on May 14, 2009, 12:08:43 PM
...though it isn't the most logical for British Intelligence to turn an author into a spy on a mission to kill someone. He had no training in that sort thing, so it seemed rather out of place to me...
Bear in mind he was supposed to be in military service during WWI where they faked his death, so it's at least implied he had the background. I think there were a lot of other far more implausible things before you get to that! :laugh:
I did mention in my review how I thought it may have been a forerunner for Bond, based on the way he books into the hotel and the rather whimsical mood despite the gravity of the situation. Since then I read a comment that the boss was known by a single letter (I never noticed though) and this was an influence on Ian Fleming.
Good grief. Even a misfiring Alfred Hitchcock can inspire the longest and most successful franchise of all-time... :slaphead:
Post by: Jimmy on May 14, 2009, 04:24:10 PM
Overall, I thought this one was just average. :-\ I think that is the icon I want.You can use this tools to rate your review. You just enter a number between 1 and 5, the correct rating icon will be used.
(http://img28.picoodle.com/img/img28/2/5/14/f_Clipboard01m_73dd20e.jpg)
Maybe you weren't here yet when this icon was create :hmmmm:
Post by: Kathy on May 14, 2009, 06:15:35 PM
Post by: Tom on May 14, 2009, 07:49:06 PM
You can use this tools to rate your review. You just enter a number between 1 and 5, the correct rating icon will be used.
It's between 0 and 5 (though 0 hasn't been used very often. I only used it once so far)
0 =
1 =
2 =
3 =
4 =
5 =
Post by: Dragonfire on May 14, 2009, 09:32:27 PM
...though it isn't the most logical for British Intelligence to turn an author into a spy on a mission to kill someone. He had no training in that sort thing, so it seemed rather out of place to me...
Bear in mind he was supposed to be in military service during WWI where they faked his death, so it's at least implied he had the background. I think there were a lot of other far more implausible things before you get to that! :laugh:
I did mention in my review how I thought it may have been a forerunner for Bond, based on the way he books into the hotel and the rather whimsical mood despite the gravity of the situation. Since then I read a comment that the boss was known by a single letter (I never noticed though) and this was an influence on Ian Fleming.
Good grief. Even a misfiring Alfred Hitchcock can inspire the longest and most successful franchise of all-time... :slaphead:
That's true...I forgot about him being in military intelligence.
A lot of it was sort of like Bond, including how he was flirting with Elsa when he was supposed to be there on a series mission.
I do remember them referring to the guy in charge just as R.
Post by: Dragonfire on May 14, 2009, 09:34:51 PM
Overall, I thought this one was just average. :-\ I think that is the icon I want.You can use this tools to rate your review. You just enter a number between 1 and 5, the correct rating icon will be used.
(http://img28.picoodle.com/img/img28/2/5/14/f_Clipboard01m_73dd20e.jpg)
Maybe you weren't here yet when this icon was create :hmmmm:
I didn't realize that tool was there. I'll have to try to remember to use it in the future.
I generally remember the ones for 4 and 5..and even 3 most of the time. I didn't think this one was quite worthy of :D so I was rounding down and went with :-\. I guess my true rating would be somewhere in the middle of those too.
Post by: Tom on May 18, 2009, 09:17:32 PM
2009-05-24 Suspicion (Dragonfire, Jon)
Post by: Najemikon on May 21, 2009, 02:09:02 AM
4 out of 5
(http://www.jonmeakin.co.uk/images/hitch/hitch04.jpg)
While travelling home alone by train, Iris is shocked when a lady she befriended has completely vanished and the other passengers deny she ever existed. Only the annoying Gilbert and a charming surgeon are willing to help.
This great film has inspired and delighted for generations, with a water-tight screenplay that moves effortlessly between thriller, romance and comedy, never overplaying any moment and as Marie said it fairly bats along too, making short work of the 90 minutes. They seem to spend as much time in the hotel, establishing characters, than on the train.
The premise is delicously simple and Hitch enthusiastically presents it as a magic trick; surely no accident that one supporting character is a traveling magician and typically, I don't think he needed to be except for a fantastic farcical set piece. But then the whole film is full of little touches that if left out would have made little difference to the plot, but give the film a spirit that defies its age. He's always been theatrical, with The 39 Steps and The Man Who Knew Too Much both ending on large stages with a huge audience. Here he seems to relish having to force his showmanship onto a small train with no audience at all. There is a brilliant moment with two brandy glasses, pivotal to the scene, and to make them loom large in the foreground, he had two giant versions made for certain angles! The model work on the opening shot is above average for the time too.
With Secret Agent, we suggested that Hitchcock may well have been the inspiration for Bond. Here I wonder if he was one of the founding fathers of the disaster movie? Ok, this one doesn't have a disaster, but it does have a group of characters whose only function is to be trapped on a train. Trains were popular in cinema around this time and it wasn't the first he had used them and it definitely wouldn't be the last. Probably Agatha Christie is the real one to blame because of Murder on the Orient Express, but I do love how individual and detailed each passenger is and their reasons for denying the existence of Miss Froy are quite brilliant in how they fit together, never feeling contrived. Apart from the wonderful lead couple of Michael Redgrave and the lovely Margaret Lockwood, my favourites were predictably the hilarious English gents trying to get back to England for the cricket, far more put out by a lack of dignity with the cheeky maid in the hotel, than the gunplay on the train! Although the opening scene suggested for a moment their concerns may have been for country rather than team. Considering the film was made in 1938, that was really quite audacious. To be honest, the background plot is too whimsical and has dated, considering that warring European countries was about to be a lot more than Boys Own adventure. Maybe I'm misreading it though; what better "up yours" statement to Hitler is there than presenting an England so capable, frail pensioners and pompous cricket fans were ready to dismiss murder as a mere nuisance? You can't put anything past Hitchcock.
The thing I really enjoy about his films though is the sheer confidence he directs them with. He actually embraces the flaws, raising them up as shoow-pieces instead of trying to disguise them. So it is then, in a film that has several nerve jangling moments (the name on the window; the brandy), it also has lunacy and silliness so we accept the more absurd moments. Because really, the whole central plot surrounding a little old lady (the fantastic Dame May Whitty) is daft. She can't half move fast, even without a stairlift! ;)
Did I say central plot? Sorry, that's wrong. It's actually just another of his famed MacGuffins. No, like The 39 Steps, The Lady Vanishes is really a romance with a thriller getting in the way. And so one of the very best examples of film writing ends rather too neatly; except was that another two-fingered salute to potential aggressors?
Post by: Achim on May 21, 2009, 06:16:43 AM
Here he seems to relish having to force his showmanship onto a small train with no audience at all.Wasn't it his dream to make a movie entirely shot in a phone booth? I think the closest he got to making such films were Lifeboat and Rope... Seems Joel Schumacher ultimately got closest to making Alfred's dream movie...
Post by: Najemikon on May 21, 2009, 08:20:24 PM
Here he seems to relish having to force his showmanship onto a small train with no audience at all.Wasn't it his dream to make a movie entirely shot in a phone booth? I think the closest he got to making such films were Lifeboat and Rope... Seems Joel Schumacher ultimately got closest to making Alfred's dream movie...
I don't think I'd heard that before! I can imagine though. Sadly Phone Booth was very flat. I'd love to have seen something like that by Hitchcock.
Post by: Najemikon on May 22, 2009, 01:42:04 AM
Both films also continue the wonderful intricate model work I think Marie first noticed in The Lady Vanishes.
Rebecca (1940)
5 out of 5
(http://www.jonmeakin.co.uk/images/reb.jpg)
”Last night, I dreamt I went to Manderlay again.”
Rebecca is the story of a young girl (Joan Fontaine) who marries Maxim de Winter (Lawrence Olivier) after a whirlwind romance, but is unsuited to the role of mistress in the imposing Manderlay, especially dealing with the stern maid, Mrs. Danvers (Judith Anderson), and a husband still haunted by his first wife’s terrible death.
This, the most un-Hitchcock of Hitchcock films, was a Best Picture winner in a difficult year, coming out against The Grapes of Wrath, Hitch’s own Foreign Correspondent and The Philadelphia Story. The last in particular would have been as worthy a winner, but at least James Stewart got a deserved nod for his role.
As it is Rebecca is an excellent film and I have no issue with its quality. It is elegant, powerful and memorable, one of the very best suspense dramas ever made. But its production was troubled and just who was responsible for the end product very confusing! There’s little in the aesthetics that immediately mark it as a “Hitchcock Film”, but the story is thematically suited to him; jealousy, guilt, mysterious past, deaths and cruelty. And he’d used Daphne Du Maurier’s work before in Jamaica Inn and would again in The Birds. However, she hated the way he treated Jamaica Inn and here is where the problems start.
According to memos from David Selznick on the superb Criterion DVD, he had to step in to make sure Hitchcock produced a faithful script, something he had promised Du Maurier (aside from one moral concession to the Hays Office). I agree with his sentiments on how novels should be adapted (although that does result in mind-numbing, paint by numbers Gone With the Wind!), but he was essentially strangling the director who couldn’t inject any of the traits, including humour, he would become so famous for. Where I stop agreeing with Selznick is how he continued to treat Hitchcock, using spies on set and so forth. No wonder their relationship has been documented before. It’s fascinating!
Still, Hitchcock did find some room to show off, especially in the later sections and there are some extraordinary moments; the tension at a ball is unbearable and the confession scene outstanding. Such an unavoidably talky scene is made very exciting by the camera moving as if re-enacting the past. Manderlay, the building is similarly a character in its own right (not my words, as that was the intention), at once threatening and welcoming to the young bride. The pressure on her is tangible, not least from the terrifying Mrs. Danvers. Hitch makes her one of cinemas classic villains and even manages to sneak a hint of lesbianism past the Hays Office.
Without the attraction of a Hitchcock working at full power for at least the first half, we must turn to the cast and they do not disappoint. Aside from stone faced villain Judith Anderson, Lawrence Olivier is marvellous, which is no lazy complement. He’s one of the greatest actors ever, but more suited to stage and has been known to devour sets and co-stars alike! So it’s to his credit he keeps his performance in check and has a great chemistry with the timid and nervy Joan Fontaine. This is one of my favourite female roles. She’s absolutely lovely and conveys both the nervousness and later, the steel, the character needs. Other stand-outs include George Sanders who just couldn’t be any smoother or despicable. By the way, the DVD includes Hitch’s typical comments on other actresses testing for Fontaine’s part. ”More suited to the part of Rebecca…”, I think one said. Bear in mind we never see Rebecca! ;)
Essentially this is a ghost story, except Du Maurier’s wonderful story and Hitchcock’s brilliant staging generates a haunting without an actual spirit. Don’t watch it as an early example from one of cinemas greatest directors, but as one of the best adaptations of book to film, an exemplary display of screen acting, and as the immensely satisfying drama it is.
Post by: Dragonfire on May 22, 2009, 02:35:11 AM
(http://www.invelos.com/mpimages/I5/I585E8D19140659FDf.jpg)
n this "emotionally daring" (Los Angeles Times] shocker, a wife suspects her unassuming London theater owner husband of being a serial killer.
Restored and Remastered! Includes Audio Commentary, Audio Interview with Peter Bogdanovich and More!
My Thoughts
I enjoyed this one overall. The plot is interesting even during the slower scenes. The attacks going on around London don't seem too bad at first, but of course all that changes later in the movie. The husband seems a bit overbearing most of the time, and I didn't like him at all. His wife is more likable - I can't remember their names at the moment - though she seems naive at times. Hitchcock did a good job of building the suspense later in the movie, especially leading up to the.....shocking scene. Another scene a bit later also builds up a good amount of suspense. More of the techniques that Hitchcock would use in future movies turn up as well as some more interesting shots. Some aspects of the plot could have been stronger, but the movie is still really good overall.
My copy is part of the one set I got a few months ago. The movie has been restored, so the picture and audio quality is wonderful. There aren't as many extras with this one as there were with The Lodger: A Tale of the London Fog. There are interviews and a comparison showing some footage before and after the restoration process.
;D
Post by: Najemikon on May 22, 2009, 11:41:20 PM
4 out of 5
(http://www.jonmeakin.co.uk/images/hitch/hitch05.jpg)
An impressionable, but passionate American newspaper reporter (Joel McCrea) is sent on assignment to Europe, to get a real story about rumours of war. In London he meets representatives of a peace organisation, and is soon drawn into a kidnapping conspiracy.
Foreign Correspondent, Hitchcock's first proper American film, is easier to describe as an early version of North By Northwest (coming soon, to a thread near you! ;D). At heart it is a breezy spy caper, huge in ambition and jet-setting across several locations. And I hate to bang on about it, but if Fleming was inspired by Secret Agent, he must have been absolutely convinced by this. The plot could easily be used as a Bond story.
It's notable for being Hitchcock's biggest film so far. He really lets loose with his new American producers and the difference in scope from previous pictures suggests he was pushing himself. The joy being that it never feels like he's over-reaching, in fact it often has the wonderful sense that the screen isn't big enough! An Amsterdam sequence in particular is superb, moving from a wonderfully composed scene of umbrellas and trams into a thrilling chase, ending in a huge windmill and the end set-piece in a plane is a true thrill ride with yet another excellent use of models, way ahead of its time. It's much more exciting than a lot of modern action films, because Hitchcock still understood the importance of suspense, even when moving fast.
It does flag in the middle with a silly sub-plot that kills the pace (although it does give more screen time to the brilliant George Sanders) and I was especially disappointed because it fell into the trap of my pet hate of American movies from this era: marriage proposals. It hamstrings every film it happens in! The barest suggestion of attraction must be validated by marriage. Within seconds of Joel McCrea and Laraine Day admitting mutual affection, they're discussing a honeymoon. Ridiculous considering the plot they were mixed up in. It has to be the Hays Office ramming this moral crap down American throats and I can only assume that in a rare moment Hitchcock was caught out by the rules, or realising he must toe the line to get the resources he came to Hollywood for in the first place. For a while the film seriously suffers because of it.
I've enjoyed Joel McCrea from the wonderful Preston Sturges movies, like Sullivan's Travels, and here he was very funny (the hat sequences are especially good), if a bit too dumb, even though that was the point. An American who can deal very well with what is right in front of him, but is ignorant of the bigger picture would be a political metaphor about America's flawed "wait and see" attitude at the beginning of World War II, just as much as the Europeans who are shown to work in shadowy corners, suspicious of each other and even unable to share languages, allowing themselves to be overrun.
In that sense, this is an astonishing film. Considering that it was directed by an Englishman in 1939, who must have felt real pain at what was happening back home, it is humble and focused, while still being masses of fun and aggresive in its set-pieces. It's always exciting, but there is a definite change of mood when war is announced. Heroes and villains alike still have their plotlines to run, but now they do so with grim resignation that their efforts mounted to nothing. Also, it's interesting that Hitchcock refuses to slip into an easy good versus evil commentary. The final scenes will really make you think, even while a torture scene will make you squirm (despite it not being on-screen!). And the very last moments sent a shiver down my spine. I hope it did so to a few people at the time.
This should be a five star Oscar winner, but that bloated middle section derails it. But it's still a better film and a far more important film than Rebecca. That got its Oscar for playing safe and not upsetting anyones naive political motives. Rebecca is still a great film, but not a Hitchcock film.
Alternative review: "A masterpiece of propaganda, a first-class production which no doubt will make a certain impression upon the broad masses of the people in enemy countries." Joseph Goebbels, Nazi Propaganda Minister
:laugh:
Post by: Najemikon on May 24, 2009, 03:02:47 AM
Nice bit of trivia came out of it. The supporting actors in Foreign Correspondent were incredible (Albert Basserman was deservedly Oscar nominated for his performance), including Robert Benchley (the hilarious London-based correspondent) who apparently wrote much of his own dialogue and possibly some of the other touches of humour. But his grandson is Peter Benchley, author of Jaws... remember that one for your pub quizzes!
Meanwhile I've also finally realised who the gorgeous Laraine Day reminds me of; Andie McDowell (Groundhog Day, Four Weddings and a Funeral). Tell me I'm wrong... :hmmmm:
Post by: Najemikon on May 24, 2009, 04:00:08 AM
4 out of 5
(http://www.jonmeakin.co.uk/images/hitch/hitch07.jpg)
Lina (Joan Fontaine) is madly in love with Johnnie (Cary Grant), despite his immaturity and lack of responsibility. They marry, but steadily Lina begins to wonder how far Jonnie is willing to go to pay off debts and fun his playboy lifestyle. And how long can she risk standing by?
This is a high quality, resourceful production, bursting with energy, despite being fundamentally a melodramatic romance. Hitchcock injects so much into scenes of people really doing very little. No batting around Europe here! It has a wonderful premise with plenty of scope for Hitchcock to both use and abuse conventions of the day, including that naive view of marriage I’ve complained about before. Sadly it’s undone in the final moments, but that doesn’t detract from the execution.
The cast are faultless. Joan Fontaine delivered one of my favourite performances in Rebecca and this is a very similar character and she won the Oscar for it. Although I was annoyed at moments as she forgives too many indiscretions, it takes nothing away from her gorgeous performance. The film is exclusively from her point of view, so she’s never off-screen. While this was very rare in the era, it would become a trait of Hitchcock’s. And usually repressed blondes!
The story could be what Hitchcock had wanted to do with Rebecca as the situation is similar, right down to a potential lesbian! But the main plot at least is the same; besotted wife suspects her new husband of murder. Instead of Olivier though, we have Cary Grant, and he brings his usual smoothness and machine-gun speech. He could switch between moods very quickly which makes him a dangerous character. I never fail to enjoy his performances and he’s one of cinemas most underrated actors. It’s a great start to the relationship that would see him make three more movies with the director.
Special mention must be made of Nigel Bruce as the naive friend, Beaky. He has wonderful chemistry with both leads and their scenes together are the best parts of the film. The plot switches between comedy and drama beautifully and he is often the key to Fontaine’s delivery, so important when the plot is focused on her so much.
It’s also this singular consciousness that allows Hitchcock and cinematographer Harry Stradling to perform a tour de force in the use of light and shade throughout the house, reflecting Fontaine’s paranoia, culminating in the famed sequence with a glass of milk. The house would be a character itself like Manderlay in Rebecca, but for no-one thought to name it. I think the shadows in particular mark this as one of the best lit films of the era.
Sadly, while the ending is good, it fails to deliver on this build up. There was an original ending that would have made the film an absolute classic, rather than a near forgotten gem.
(click to show/hide)
Post by: Tom on May 25, 2009, 11:28:10 PM
2009-05-31, Saboteur: Achim, Jon, Tom
Post by: Najemikon on May 26, 2009, 12:36:47 AM
Post by: Najemikon on May 26, 2009, 12:38:20 AM
4 out of 5
(http://www.jonmeakin.co.uk/images/hitch/hitch08.jpg)
Alfred Hitchcock's exciting 1942 wartime thriller star Robert Cummings as a Los Angeles aircraft factory worker who witnesses his plant's firebombing by a Nazi agent. During the deadly explosion, Cummings best friend is killed and he, himself, is wrongly accused of sabotage. To clear his name Cummings begins a relentless cross-country chase that takes him from Boulder Dam to New York's Radio City Music Hall, and finally, to a harrowing confrontation atop the Statue of Liberty.
Saboteur is a 39 Steps style cross-country thriller for Americans and largely doesn’t disappoint. It’s a slick adventure story with a wronged man on the run and Hitch, probably aware he’s been here before, finds ways to experiment and colour the film.
Alan Cummings' fugitive meets some great characters. Otto Kruger's slimy villain is introduced in a brilliant scene with a toddler and a resourceful if slightly nutty maid. It’s a surreal moment, and one of several. Later, Vaughan Glaser's kindly blind man lays it on a bit thick, but it’s beautifully written and introduces Priscilla Lane. Her character has a bit more spark than the previous females. Once the couple are alone, there’s some fun to be had with her attempts to turn him in before we have to go through the usual romantic guff. Happily it doesn't slow the film down like it did in Foreign Correspondent, and I think Hitch managed to avoid the "L" word which meant he could also avoid the "M" word! :laugh:
Soon they are helped by a travelling circus troupe in another bonkers scene, but it is notable for the hilarious midget who is determined to turn them in. He is entirely ineffectual, despite the noise he makes, and has a little moustache and slick hair. No prizes for guessing who he represents! ;)
The couple have to split during a great scene with a slightly perverse villain in an empty desert town and the film really picks up. You may think I'm insinuating they aren't a good couple, but they are and it cleverly forces the plot to have some more immediacy because when they get back together, things are more desperate and their love story can now add to the suspense rather than detract. From here the film is uniformly excellent, with great scenes in a variety of locations, from a nerve-shredding attempt to escape during a ball-dance (a fairly regular Hitchcock motif) to the finale atop the Statue of Liberty (amazing, and won't be the last American monument Hitch dangles someone from). Inbetween, Hitchcock returns to the idea of stages and audiences with much of the plot resolved in a cinema with a complicated and inventive use of a film within a film. Marvellous stuff.
While the first half at least is regular Hitchcock fare that hardly stretches him, his experiments with shots over distance are incredible. He establishes several scenes from about half-a-mile away, or uses large interior, heavily detailed rooms. He could easily have free-wheeled a plot like this, but he worked constantly to challenge himself with these new compositions and the more colourful scenes.
The DVD has a nice interview largely with Norman Lloyd who played the villain Fry. He’s a great story teller about his work with Hitch that went on to last many years. He also describes Hitchcock’s “camera logic”, the way he blended newsreel footage in, and the trouble Hitch had working while Europe was going up in flames, unable to ring his mother because calls to England were blocked.
Post by: Tom on May 30, 2009, 11:31:54 AM
Sadly I don't remember it anymore, only that I really liked it and would have given it a 4 or even a 5 star rating. I hope this is a foreshadowing of what's to come ;D
Post by: Najemikon on May 30, 2009, 02:58:54 PM
Stop dreamin'! Start watchin'!
:hysterical:
Post by: Achim on May 30, 2009, 05:20:34 PM
Saboteur (1942) ****Well, I was disappointed...
4 out of 5
[...]
Saboteur is a 39 Steps style cross-country thriller for Americans and largely doesn’t disappoint. It’s a slick adventure story with a wronged man on the run and Hitch, probably aware he’s been here before, finds ways to experiment and colour the film.
On the good side, the first 45-60 minutes are mostly fun to watch with the story following one of Hitchcock's favorite theme: the innocent everyman wrongly accused and on the run to proof his innocence. Shot nicely and in typical Hitchcock manner the film has the poor chap escape the grasp of the police several times and, also typical for Hitchcock, confront the actual wrong doers (whodunnit this is not). Unfortunately this film hasn't aged well. Even the first half is broken repeatedly by overly patriotic black and white conversations trying to tell the audience how good Americans do and do not behave. This only get worse in the second half, besides getting way too talkative n general that I was struggling to pay attention. The climax is nowhere near suspenseful, with the bad guys making obvious mistakes
(click to show/hide)
Post by: Najemikon on May 30, 2009, 05:51:06 PM
The bad guys were very odd, but I quite liked the atmosphere they created. That said, it was definitely, overall average, but I rated it higher for the final act which I thought was superb. He does tend to end films abruptly (see North By Northwest with a rather similar plot).
You're probably right about the propaganda nature, but I don't think Hitchcock did anything just for the money (actually he was inder contract anyway) and if anything, he would have supported it. Bear in mind the US were not involved in WWII (Pearl Harbour was attacked during the making of the film, I think) and he must have been feeling very cut off, especially when he wasn't able to phone England, so I wouldn't be surprised if this was his way of asking American's to not be complacent.
In any case because of similarities with his other work, it can't be dismissed as pure propaganda.
Post by: Tom on May 30, 2009, 05:53:33 PM
Well, thank goodness for you, Achim! I was worried no-one else would join in.
I have already watched it, but I didn't have time yet to write a little review. I had to wait for my brother to visit this weekend because he wanted to join in watching it.
Post by: Jimmy on May 30, 2009, 06:58:47 PM
Today I dreamt about watching another Hitchcock movie. :laugh:I dream often about the movies that I've or will reviewed... But this isn't different of the time I wasn't a review writter :devil:
Post by: Achim on May 30, 2009, 08:27:08 PM
Also, I don't mind an abrupt ending so much (in fact, I quite agree with whichever director once said "when the monster is dead, the movie is over"), I just didn't think it was build up properly and didn't feel exciting at all.
Post by: Tom on May 30, 2009, 08:34:57 PM
Deadline: 2009-06-06, Shadow of a Doubt for Jon, Rich, Tom
Post by: Tom on May 31, 2009, 09:46:51 AM
Title: Saboteur (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saboteur_(film)) (http://www.invelos.com/images/DVDLogo.png)
Year: 1942
Director: Alfred Hitchcock
Rating: PG
Length: 104 Min.
Video: Full Frame 1.33:1
Audio: English: Dolby Digital Mono, German: Dolby Digital Mono
Subtitles: Danish, Dutch, English, Finnish, German, Norwegian, Swedish
Stars:
Priscilla Lane
Robert Cummings
Otto Kruger
Alan Baxter
Clem Bevans
Plot:
Alfred Hitchcock's exciting 1942 wartime thriller stars Robert Cummings as a Los Angeles aircraft factory worker who witnesses his plant's firebombing by a Nazi agent. During the deadly explosion, Cumming's best friend is killed and he, himself, is wrongly accused of sabotage. To clear his name, Cummings begins a relentless crosscountry chase that takes him from Boulder Dam to New York's Radio City Music Hall, and finally, to a harrowing confrontation atop the Statue of Liberty.
Hitchcock's first film with an all-American cast moves with breakneck speed towards its spine-tingling climax to create a riveting masterpiece of suspense.
Extras:
Featurettes
Hitchcock Sketches
Photo Gallery
Scene Access
Storyboard Comparisons
Trailers
My Thoughts:
I enjoyed this movie a lot. I liked the humor in it. Especially fun was how the woman constantly did try to turn him in and that it took a while until she finally believed him.I agree with Achim, that in a few scenes it was overly patriotic (the worst part where the woman mentions, that she couldn't believe that an American could ever be a saboteur), but I just took it as part of its time.
Rating:
Post by: Tom on May 31, 2009, 09:47:34 AM
Title: Shadow of a Doubt (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shadow_of_a_Doubt) (http://www.invelos.com/images/DVDLogo.png)
Year: 1942
Director: Alfred Hitchcock
Rating: PG
Length: 103 Min.
Video: Full Frame 1.33:1
Audio: English: Dolby Digital Mono, German: Dolby Digital Mono
Subtitles: Danish, Dutch, English, Finnish, German, Norwegian, Swedish
Stars:
Teresa Wright
Joseph Cotten
Macdonald Carey
Henry Travers
Patricia Collinge
Plot:
When Uncle Charlie comes to visit his relatives in the sleepy town of Santa Rosa, the foundation is laid for one of his most engaging and suspenseful excursions. Joseph Cotton stars as the charming Uncle Charlie, a beguiling killer who travels from Philadelphia to California just one step ahead of the law.
But soon his unknowing niece and namesake, "Young Charlie" (Teresa Wright), begins to suspect her uncle of being the Merry Widow murderer, and a deadly game of cat-and-mouse begins. As his niece draws closer to the truth, the psychopathic killer has no choice but to plot the death of his favourite relative in one of Hitchcock's most riveting psychological thrillers.
Extras:
Featurettes
Photo Gallery
Scene Access
Trailers
My Thoughts:
It was great performance of how Little Charlie gradually turns from admiring uncle Charlie to suspect him and then fearing him. The weak point in the cast was the little girl Ann.Rating:
Post by: richierich on May 31, 2009, 12:18:12 PM
(http://img33.imageshack.us/img33/1267/4555medium.jpg)
A naive high-schooler named Charlie enjoys a symbiotic relationship with her favorite uncle, also named Charlie (Joseph Cotten). When young Charlie "wills" that Uncle Charlie pay a visit to her family, her wish comes true. Uncle Charlie is his usual charming self, but seems a bit secretive and reserved at times, and Charlie soon suspects the horrible possiblity that her beloved Uncle is the Merry Widow Murderer, who has been preying upon wealthy old women. Alfred Hitchcock's own personal favorite of his 54 films.
This may have been Hitchcock's favourite, but it is not mine.
It is a less engrossing thriller than I anticipated, although I felt on the whole the characterisations were superb. The uncle was suitably creepy, and I just loved Joe and Herb's amateur crime detective act. The first half was a bit tediuos, but it did kick-off and get more interesting as the film wore on. The ending was cleverly shot for its time, although the suspense was a disappointment.
I didn't spot Hitch in this one?
:-\
Post by: Najemikon on June 01, 2009, 08:29:54 PM
5 out of 5
(http://www.jonmeakin.co.uk/images/hitch/hitch09.jpg)
Charlie (Teresa Wright) is excited by the prospect of her beloved namesake Uncle Charlie (Joseph Cotten) coming for a visit. But her natural curiosity causes her to suspect he is not all she expected, and he could in fact be the notorious Merry Widower, a killer being hunted by detectives across America.
Even with so many better known classics to come, it’s easy to see why Shadow of a Doubt was Hitchcock’s personal favourite. It builds on the promise of Suspicion to be his most realistic and feasible story, while perfectly capturing the fascination he had for normal people having to deal with terrifying situations. Murder, right at home, on the doorstep of the most typical family! What if you realised your most beloved relative could be responsible for evil?
Like Suspicion, though not as strict, the story is almost exclusively told from the niece’s perspective. Again the lighting often mirrors the mood with the shadows more than a mere title, while the gorgeous photography around the town is bright and sharp, benefiting from real locations. It is broadly speaking Hitchcock’s highest quality film so far, with almost no gimmicks; the powerful visual style is perfectly matched to the substantial writing. Watch the incredible dinner scene, where Uncle Charlie reveals his darker side, while the camera focuses closer and closer, until his face fills the screen. I think this is my favourite Hitchcock moment so far. It’s a powerful performance by Cotten, willing to go the extra mile over Cary Grant, unencumbered by a fragile movie star image. The film has a confidence because of him, especially when there are no set-pieces. The agonising over whether he’s a killer is devastating enough without chase sequences and fisticuffs.
That agonising is all on Teresa Wright’s shoulders, as she shields her family from the truth. I found her very annoying in the first half! But she gets better as she gets more frightened. There’s a romance angle that was toned down, thank goodness, after a re-write by Patricia Collinge (the wonderful actress playing Emma so memorably, but an accomplished writer herself). She and Wright were concerned that Charlie wouldn’t be swept away so easily by the detective. The result is a lovely scene that makes sense and now I have to wonder if Hitch was a soppy bugger that needed reigning in occasionally! :D
The rest of the cast are rounded out by great characters, including Ann, who I thought did very well, but the stars are dad, Henry Travers, and his friend, Hume Cronyn. They give the film a focused, but much needed dose of humour with their hilarious discussions about how best to commit murder! Just the sort of macabre conversations that got Hitchcock into this career, I bet...
Post by: Najemikon on June 01, 2009, 08:55:39 PM
I didn't spot Hitch in this one?
:-\
Check 'em off here... ;) (http://www.dvdcollectorsonline.com/index.php/topic,5299.0.html)
You'll do brilliantly to spot the one in Lifeboat without help...
Post by: Tom on June 01, 2009, 09:12:52 PM
2009-06-08 , "Lifeboat" for Dragonfire, Jon
Post by: Dragonfire on June 02, 2009, 07:38:58 AM
Oh. By the way, Amazon has a bunch of older movies on sale, and that includes some of the Hitchcock movies. I think I'm going to order a few more.
Post by: Najemikon on June 04, 2009, 12:59:37 AM
5 out of 5
(http://www.jonmeakin.co.uk/images/hitch/hitch10.jpg)
After their ship is torpedoed, a mixed group of shipwrecked survivors are brought together in one lifeboat. Perhaps more than physically, their beliefs and morals are tested while they hold out for rescue.
After Shadow of a Doubt, Hitchcock must have felt like a challenge! Working from a short story written for him by John Steinbeck, he seems to back himself into a corner (of a small boat) just to see if he can get out again.
Released in 1943, there is no escaping an air of propaganda in a story about survivors of a German attack, who go on to rescue one of the U-boat crew, but that doesn’t stop it being audacious, balanced and challenging. It’s a morality tale, a deconstruction of humanity. The survivors have one of the enemy in their midst, but he’s also a human being and the most able and experienced seaman who could get them organised to survive the ordeal, but is he plotting against them and can they afford to question his motives?
And they certainly need organising! In what would now be a cliché, the group is of mixed backgrounds, class and beliefs that force them apart. I’m not sure if Hitch created the cliché as I said before in The Lady Vanishes, but he probably created the template of the disaster movie here. Yet don’t dismiss this as over familiar, because it’s anything but. Hitchcock is a genius in how he choreographs and meshes the characters together beautifully.
It’s never boring, which it easily could have been, in fact it’s sometimes laugh out loud funny and there’s a rather grimy scene toward the end, part horror, part farce that may make your jaw drop! There’s little action apart from the last moments where the rickety craft is caught right in the middle of another attack, but I was always engrossed and loved the atmosphere he created of a small boat in a big sea. A parable for the war, maybe, but Cast Away touched on that same mood.
All the cast are excellent, especially Tallulah Bankhead as the over-privileged one who likes a bit of rough (John Hodiak in particular) and has managed to rescue all her luxuries, which she will steadily lose to hilarious effect! It really is an outstanding performance. Bit Bette Davis. Nice to see Heather Angel (the maid in Suspicion) making the most of a small role in a devastating performance as a grieving mother, and Hume Cronyn in his second Hitchcock picture, despite a dodgy accent. Walter Slezak is perfect as Willy, the German, and such a key part.
My favourite moment though belongs to Joe (Canada Lee), a reformed thief, when he eloquently recites the Lord’s Prayer. It’s a perfect example of the composition I spoke of earlier, and the switch between moods.
Highly recommended. It’s a successful experiment that uses its limitations as strengths. Perhaps if all directors imagined they were trapped in a much smaller set, we’d have much higher standards. I think I see a lot of Spielberg’s style in here actually; the very close camera work and smooth movement between characters, talking over one another, but still with an impeccable sense of detail.
It’s nteresting that I considered describing the Connie character as “all fur coat and no knickers”. I wonder if that expression was inspired by this character, because apparently, Tallulah did in fact have no underwear on! Filthy mare. Hitchcock said, "I don't know if this is a matter for the costume department, makeup, or hairdressing."
:hysterical:
Post by: Dragonfire on June 04, 2009, 04:19:07 AM
(http://www.invelos.com/mpimages/02/025192831324f.jpg) (http://www.invelos.com/mpimages/02/025192831225f.jpg)(http://www.invelos.com/mpimages/08/085391115625f.jpg)
Post by: Tom on June 08, 2009, 01:39:47 PM
2009-06-15 Spellbound for Dragonfire, Jon, Tom
Post by: Dragonfire on June 10, 2009, 03:15:02 AM
YOUNG AND INNOCENT
The young daughter of a police chief protects an escaped murder suspect in this "crisply paced, excellently performed" (The New York Times) thriller.
Restored and Remastered! Includes Audio Commentary, Audio Interviews with Peter Bogdanovich and Francois Truffaut and More!
My Thoughts
This is another entertaining movie overall. The set up and plot are interesting, though there are a few scenes that move a bit slower. There is a good amount of suspense in several scenes. There are a few impressive shots, like the long tracking shot - I think that is the right term - late in the movie that goes through a large set until it stops on something important. The characters are interesting for the most part.
The woman playing Erica had played the daughter in The Man Who Knew Too Much. I read that in the book thing that is with the set this movie is part of that I have. There weren't many extras for the movie.
;D
Post by: Dragonfire on June 10, 2009, 03:21:18 AM
During a transcontinental train trip in Europe, a young woman is alarmed to discover a passenger has disappeared. Starring Margaret Lockwood
My Thoughts
This one does start off slower while the various characters are introduced. I was wondering briefly where the train was..lol. Anyway, the movie has a unique group of characters and there are some humorous moments with some of them. There is a good amount of tension and suspense throughout the movie, especially once the woman has vanished and everyone denies ever having seen her. The mystery is decent and helps to make things interesting. The explanations for what happened as well as why everyone denied seeing the woman ultimately work. Many of the passengers have their own somewhat selfish reasons for denying seeing the woman. There is decent chemistry between the main characters and their developing relationship is believable.
Overall, the movie is very entertaining and I enjoyed it.
;D
Post by: Tom on June 10, 2009, 09:56:43 AM
Post by: Dragonfire on June 10, 2009, 10:54:31 PM
Post by: Tom on June 13, 2009, 06:30:00 PM
Post by: Najemikon on June 13, 2009, 06:39:34 PM
Post by: Dragonfire on June 14, 2009, 02:09:05 AM
Post by: Najemikon on June 15, 2009, 08:18:19 PM
3 out of 5
(http://www.jonmeakin.co.uk/images/hitch/hitch11.jpg)
The chief doctor (Leo G. Carroll) of Green Manors Mental Asylum has been forced to step down. His replacement, the young Dr. Edwardes (Gregory Peck) is not all what he seems. Dr. Constance Peterson (Ingrid Bergman) cannot help but fall in love with him, despite realising he is not the real Dr. Edwardes, but an amnesiac imposter who may be guilty of murder.
Spellbound? No, not really. One of the best premises of a Hitchcock film so far is ruined by a melodramatic, laborious and unfocused plot, full of psychobabble and not enough psycho. As always, the romance is the real story, but as so with Secret Agent, it suffocates the rest. None of the cast standout, except for Michael Chekov as Alex, and Ingrid Bergman is a favourite actress of mine, yet here she’s saddled with a boring character in an oddly anti-women story; several times the dialogue makes a point of saying how women are basically useless once they’re in a relationship.
Turning into a road trip, like 39 Steps again, was surely unnecessary. Paranoia within a mental asylum should be perfect for suspense (see Vincent Price in Shock), but they run about the countryside instead. Lacking the touches of humour you can normally rely on, it’s mind-numbingly predictable, and lazy, judging by a horrible montage sequence leap-frogging months. It plods along to the inevitable conclusion, but the last act does pick-up when you know who is behind it all. Hitchcock does like the viewer to be complicit usually, so maybe that’s why it felt smoother.
Visually Hitchcock does little to give the film an identity, except for a final shot within Green Manors which was complicated, audacious and quite brilliant, especially for its time. It’s a plot point that has become a cliché, but I don’t think I’ve ever seen it done like that! ;) That, and the incredible Salvador Dali dream sequence lift the film above average. Sadly for every decent moment there’s a dodgy one as well. Hitch always liked back-projection which tends to date his films in some cases and this contains the worst I’ve ever seen!
Selznick was producer and I don’t know how involved he was, but this reeks of Oscar-baiting as it brushes the nastier aspects of the story to one side to concentrate on the love story. The score is torture until the last act. It plays the same bloomin’ melody over and over again! Similar to the same theme used across many Fox noir pictures.
It’s definitely a case of ticking boxes to make an identikit film that will appeal to awards. Rebecca could also be so accused, but at least that had a story that relished this sort of thing. Spellbound should have been a straightforward shocker and I can only assume Hitchcock was not the driving force and was perhaps letting Selznick ease him back in after his return to America.
By the way, the DVD is a clumsy release, but there's some great material on Hitchcock. So, I can recommend this: Dali, last shot, extras. Job done. :)
Post by: Tom on June 15, 2009, 08:21:27 PM
2009-06-22: "Notorious" for Dragonfire, Rich, Jon
Post by: Najemikon on June 15, 2009, 08:22:12 PM
Post by: Tom on June 15, 2009, 08:23:34 PM
Have you been sat there, waiting for me to post? :laugh:
:laugh:
No. I just happened to see your post and remembered that I had to post the next deadline today :)
Post by: richierich on June 16, 2009, 11:51:41 AM
Post by: Dragonfire on June 16, 2009, 09:26:44 PM
I did consider either Rebecca or Goldeneye last night, but I wasn't in the mood for either at that time.
Post by: richierich on June 18, 2009, 10:37:18 AM
(http://img30.imageshack.us/img30/5930/3209medium.jpg)
In Notorious, a brilliant allegory of love and betrayal, Hitchcock fuses two of his favorite elements: suspense and romance. A beautiful woman with a tainted past (Ingrid Bergman) is enlisted by American agent Devlin (Cary Grant) to spy on a ring of Nazis in post-war Rio. Her espionage work becomes life-threatening after she marries the most debonair of the Nazi ring, Alex (Claude Rains). Only Devlin can rescue her, but to do so, he must face his role in her desperate situation and acknowledge that he's loved her all along. Stunning performances, Ben Hecht's excellent script, and Hitchcock's direction at its best make Notorious a perfect film.
I will leave it to Jon to wax lyrical over this film, my knowledge of Hitchcock is very narrow in comparison and would not do it justice.
Briefly, it was clear to see the genius of Alfred in the direction of this film, some fantastic shots and suspense expertly delivered. Some truly chilling moments are handled perfectly, particularly impressive was the filming of Bergman, who portrayed so much with a look or close-up of her eyes. Cary Grants performance was edgy and masterful. Bergman was absolutely gorgeous and fitted the role perfectly, simmering and fervent.
Espionage, love story and betrayal, served up expertly.
;D
Post by: Najemikon on June 18, 2009, 08:05:34 PM
Post by: Najemikon on June 21, 2009, 05:38:30 PM
5 out of 5
(http://www.jonmeakin.co.uk/images/hitch/hitch12.jpg)
A beautiful, but supposedly immoral woman and daughter (Ingrid Bergman) of a convicted war criminal, is persuaded to spy on Nazis at work in Rio. Before the job begins, she and her agent contact, Devlin (Cary Grant), fall in love. Their real feelings must be hidden, even from each other when she marries one of the group, Alex (Claude Rains), and her situation grows desperate.
This phenomenal and intense film is a milestone in Hitchcock’s career, with a distinct shift in style and confidence; every shot and setup is full of invention, yet never feels experimental while he stamps his authority on the suspense genre. Look the word up in the dictionary and it should say, “watch Notorious, and try not to hold your breath”. He puts Bergman and Grant through absolute torment and the sequences with the wine cellar key are particularly nerve shredding.
The plot is delivered similar to Shadow of a Doubt, in that there are no big set-pieces and it is driven by subtleties of human character, while defining earlier themes. We have a secretive Gentleman’s Club of Fifth Columnists (or SPECTRE perhaps. Still watching, Mr. Fleming? ;)), with an older woman (Leopoldine Konstantin) possibly at their head, such as the ones in Saboteur, except these have real menace behind their formal exterior (mainly down to Ivan Triesault) and none of the silliness. Although the motivation is completely different, the wonderful Bergman has similar situations to deal with as seen in both Rebecca and Suspicion, and delivers a spellbinding performance, especially well-judged with Casablanca co-star Claude Rains.
Rain’s is one of several characters that could have gone quite wrong, but ends up very much the opposite. Another is Cary Grant’s, here with a character that he deserves, playing up to, rather than against his romantic movie star image while allowing him to get his teeth into the role. It suggests that had Suspicion been allowed to unfold properly, it would still have felt wrong. He was a very good, but underrated actor and this is amongst his best work. Just watch his face as he delivers “one below the belt” to Bergman. They work together beautifully, enhanced by Ted Tetzlaff’s gorgeous photography, creating a tangible sense of longing. As Rich commented, Bergman's eyes are hypnotic. Once again the myth that Hitchcock didn’t work well with actors is shamed.
The dialogue is note-perfect and sophisticated, especially when Grant is dealing with his superiors who dismiss Bergman as a drunken tart. Or later, in the nail-biting finale on the stairs.
This was a Selznick production and I don’t think they ever worked together better, with the producer successfully negotiating with Hollywood’s morals and even J. Edgar Hoover! You would never know several concessions had to be made to the script, as usual.
The Criterion disc is predictably superb and the booklet theorises that Notorious was Hitchcock’s first true American thriller, but he wouldn’t again capture the heart and sympathy he has here. I don’t think that’s true, but certainly the balance between romance and thriller is rarely so well executed by anyone, never mind Hitchcock. This is a cinematic milestone as well.
Post by: Achim on June 22, 2009, 06:38:45 AM
:hmmmm: seems there was an updated release last October (http://www.dvdempire.com/Exec/v4_item.asp?item_id=1418223) which I wasn't aware of. I'll place that in my Wish List for the DeepDiscount sale... /(I hope the fact that DVD Epmire has it on order doesn't mean it's OOP again...)
Post by: Tom on June 22, 2009, 08:07:31 PM
2009-06-29 "The Paradine Case" for Dragonfire. I am not skipping it. It will give you a little time for catching up :)
Post by: Najemikon on June 22, 2009, 08:24:29 PM
I had been after that Criterion for quite some time, unfortuenaly I only started looking after it had already gone OOP. :weep:
:hmmmm: seems there was an updated release last October (http://www.dvdempire.com/Exec/v4_item.asp?item_id=1418223) which I wasn't aware of. I'll place that in my Wish List for the DeepDiscount sale... /(I hope the fact that DVD Epmire has it on order doesn't mean it's OOP again...)
:( doesn't look promising... hopefully Criterion will reissue it in Blu-Ray...
Post by: Najemikon on June 22, 2009, 08:25:02 PM
Next deadline:
2009-06-29 "The Paradine Case" for Dragonfire. I am not skipping it. It will give you a little time for catching up :)
Now there's a challenge, Marie! Reckon I've got time to buy it myself... :devil:
Post by: Dragonfire on June 22, 2009, 08:28:19 PM
Well I hope to get through a few more soon. Just been a busy few weeks for me.
Post by: Najemikon on June 22, 2009, 08:38:14 PM
http://www.play.com/DVD/Region_1/4-/101407/Alfred-Hitchcock-Notorious/Product.html
£35? Hmmmm... I'd be very tempted if I hadn't already got it. Ahem: :tease:
Post by: Achim on June 23, 2009, 06:50:05 AM
:( doesn't look promising... hopefully Criterion will reissue it in Blu-Ray...Why you feel it doesn't look promising...? Sure, being compared to Criterion it's in a tough spot... Problem I see is, since MGM released it themselves just last year I doubt they will pass the rights to Criterion aghain any time soon for a Blu-ray release; maybe they'll do it themselves though?
PlayTrade looks like eBay handled by play.com...? I don't think I want to spend £35.00 for the film, then I'd rather get the MGM version for approx $12. It's a bit of a gap in my collection, but not that big.
EDIT:
Found your rant against eBay and the included explanation of PlayTrade...
Post by: Najemikon on June 23, 2009, 07:18:38 PM
:( doesn't look promising... hopefully Criterion will reissue it in Blu-Ray...Why you feel it doesn't look promising...? Sure, being compared to Criterion it's in a tough spot... Problem I see is, since MGM released it themselves just last year I doubt they will pass the rights to Criterion aghain any time soon for a Blu-ray release; maybe they'll do it themselves though?
I'm a silly sod. :bag: Misread your post. I thought you meant you'd found stock of the Criterion. But that MGM release looks good. MGM do tend to release decent editions of their titles that have already appeared on Criterion. It's like they frown and say, "oops, I suppose we could put a little more effort in"
PlayTrade looks like eBay handled by play.com...? I don't think I want to spend £35.00 for the film, then I'd rather get the MGM version for approx $12. It's a bit of a gap in my collection, but not that big.
EDIT:
Found your rant against eBay and the included explanation of PlayTrade...
Yeah, Play is seller friendly. The guy knows it doesn't exist now so he charges what he likes! Meanwhile, I just sold a seven year old DVD of Babylon 5 (pilot and another TV movie) that cost me £10, for £7.50 (after fees)! :whistle:
Post by: Achim on June 24, 2009, 06:17:22 AM
Good, I thought you had info the MGM had problems or such. I'll keep on the Wish List then and probably add it to the order during the DeepDiscount.com sale (hopefully 20% rather than the rumored 15%).
Post by: Dragonfire on June 28, 2009, 10:22:51 PM
Post by: Tom on June 30, 2009, 12:08:51 AM
2009-07-06 "Rope" for Achim, Dragonfire, Jon, Tom
Post by: Dragonfire on July 02, 2009, 06:18:04 AM
REBECCA
Laurence Olivier, Joan Fontaine and Judith Anderson headline this Best Picture Oscar® Winner based on Daphne Du Manner's novel about a man's fatal obsession with his late wife.
Restored and Remastered! Includes Audio Commentary, two Featurettes, Screen Tests, Audio Interviews with Peter Bogdanovich and Francois Truffaut and More!
My Thoughts
I really enjoyed this one. Some scenes do move a tad slower, but that works since it allows for the suspense and tension to build up more. The movie has a rather creepy atmosphere overall, which is established during the first few minutes with the shot following the very long drive up to Manderley. The house was actual a model, which looked amazingly realistic. There are a few other elements that Hitchcock is known for, but none of the bits of humor. Hitchcock had a ...well...complicated working relationship with the producer, Selznick. The one extra on my copy that is focused on the making of the movie does share a lot about the tensions between the two men.
Only a little bit of time is taken to show the characters meeting and spending some time together before they decide to get married. Then they go to Manderley, where she is very overwhelmed by the huge house, staff, and especially Mrs. Danvers, the housekeeper. Many things around the house have been kept the same since Rebecca died, which only adds to the new bride's feelings of inadequacy. Most of the movie takes place around Manderley, and the house is very imposing and important to what is going on, almost like another character. Things in the house do seem a bit creepy, especially when Mrs. Danvers gives a tour of Rebecca's room. Mrs. Danvers is downright creepy, but in a subtle way. She acts like she is being helpful when she isn't. The woman does not seem stable and ends up being a wonderful villain. There is no way any sane person would want her for a housekeeper.
My copy of the DVD has a featurette on the making of the movie and one of Daphe Du Maurier, both of which are entertaining and interesting.
:thumbup:
I have a longer review in progress that I'm going to post on Epinions.
Post by: Najemikon on July 02, 2009, 11:57:47 AM
Hitchcock had a ...well...complicated working relationship with the producer, Selznick. The one extra on my copy that is focused on the making of the movie does share a lot about the tensions between the two men.
My Criterion edition has memos that Selznick sent to Hitch and they're fascinating, but interestingly, as I said in my review, I think Selznick was right in one respect because Hitchcock was trying to alter the novel. Possibly for the better as this is as un-Hitchcock a film as he would make, but still, you either do the novel or you don't. I don't agree with his spies on the set though. That's completely out of order. Still, it seemed by Notorious at least that they worked very well together. Again the Criterion has memos from Selznick and he was quite brilliant at handling the production.
Post by: Achim on July 02, 2009, 05:20:03 PM
MOVIE / DVD INFO:
(http://www.invelos.com/mpimages/IE/IEEC54ED1DB73E88Af.jpg) Title: Rope
Year: 1948
Director: Alfred Hitchcock
Rating: PG
Length: 81 Min.
Video: Full Frame 1.33:1
Audio: English: Dolby Digital Mono, Spanish: Dolby Digital Mono, French: Dolby Digital Mono
Subtitles: English
Stars:
Dick Hogan
His Friends
John Dall
Farley Granger
Their housekeeper
Plot:
'James Stewart', 'Farley Granger' and 'John Dall' star in this macabre spellbinder, which was inspired by a real-life case of murder. Two thrill-seeking friends (Granger and Dall) strangle a classmate and then hold a party for their victim's family and friends, serving refreshments on a buffet table fashioned from a trunk containing the lifeless body. When dinner conversation revolves around talk of "the perfect murder," their former teacher (Stewart) becomes increasingly suspicious that his protégés have turned his intellectual theories into brutal reality.
Extras:
Scene Access
Trailers
Featurettes
Gallery
Production Notes
My Thoughts:
I remember watching this many years ago but I didn't remember that is was this awesome. Great direction by the master (the reveal of the dinner table, the swinging kitchen door partly concealing the view, the reveal of the books Mr. Kentley wants to take home), good acting and sharp dialog make this a pleasure to watch. And that despite the fact that it all looks a bit fake, just like theater, due to the fact it plays out in real time and the few cuts that are there are made invisible by smart camera movement (Hitchcock wanted the film to be entirely without cuts but was restricted by the length of a camera magazine being approx. 10min).Nice touch how they kept changing the painted background slightly each time it became visible to make it's static nature less obvious.
Post by: Dragonfire on July 03, 2009, 05:55:22 AM
Hitchcock had a ...well...complicated working relationship with the producer, Selznick. The one extra on my copy that is focused on the making of the movie does share a lot about the tensions between the two men.
My Criterion edition has memos that Selznick sent to Hitch and they're fascinating, but interestingly, as I said in my review, I think Selznick was right in one respect because Hitchcock was trying to alter the novel. Possibly for the better as this is as un-Hitchcock a film as he would make, but still, you either do the novel or you don't. I don't agree with his spies on the set though. That's completely out of order. Still, it seemed by Notorious at least that they worked very well together. Again the Criterion has memos from Selznick and he was quite brilliant at handling the production.
My extras didn't have the memos..those would be interesting to see. You do have a point about Selznick wanting to stay closer to the book..and I can see the point. I know I've been highly annoyed with movies that were based on books only to have the movie be nothing like the book. The one extra on mine talked about Selznick wanting to see everything rehearsed before it was filmed. It didn't mention the spies on the set though. Sheesh..that is going overboard.
Post by: Tom on July 04, 2009, 05:06:21 PM
Title: Rope (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rope_%28film%29) (http://www.invelos.com/images/DVDLogo.png)
Year: 1948
Director: Alfred Hitchcock
Rating: PG
Length: 77 Min.
Video: Full Frame 1.33:1
Audio: English: Dolby Digital Mono, German: Dolby Digital Mono
Subtitles: Danish, Dutch, English, Finnish, German, Norwegian, Swedish
Stars:
Dick Hogan
John Dall
Farley Granger
Edith Evanson
Douglas Dick
Plot:
James Stewart stars with Farley Granger and John Dall in a highly-charged thriller inspired by the real-life Leopold-Loeb murder case. Granger and Dall give riveting performances as two friends who strangle a classmate for intellectual thrills, then proceed to throw a party for the victim's family and friends - with the body stuffed inside the trunk they use for a buffet table. As the killers turn the conversation to committing the "perfect murder", their former teacher (Stewart) becomes increasingly suspicious. Before the night is over, the professor will discover how brutally his students have turned his academic theories into chilling reality in Hitchcock's spellbinding excursion into the macabre.
Extras:
Featurettes
Photo Gallery
Scene Access
Trailers
My Thoughts:
Technically a fun film to watch. Playing it like a stage play with long shots. Great camera work switching between the different parts of the set. Great acting. The conceiled cuts are very obvious but for its time a good achievement.But I didn't really like the story. Two men who think have done the perfect crime, but make the stupidest mistakes. I know it's part of the characters presumptuousness, but it didn't work for me.
And is this plays in real-time, the party was awfully short. Probably about 40 minutes long. Those poor guests who probably were longer on the road then the party took.
And did one of the lead characters also remind you of Ben Affleck?
Rating:
Post by: Tom on July 10, 2009, 09:18:15 PM
2009-07-13 "Stage Fright" for Jon, Tom
Is this okay with you, Jon? Or do you need extending because of the late notice?
Post by: Dragonfire on July 10, 2009, 09:50:36 PM
This riveting wartime thriller stars Robert Cummings as Barry Kane, a Los Angeles aircraft factory worker who witnesses a Nazi agent firebombing his plant. However, it is Barry who is accused of the fiery sabotage, and to clear his name he sets off on a desperate, action-packed cross-country chase that takes him from Boulder Dam to New York's Radio City Music Hall to the top of the Statue of Liberty. Hitchcock's first film with an all-American cast moves with breakneck speed towards its final heart-pounding confrontation and remains a suspense classic.
My Thoughts
Overall I did enjoy this one. Some scenes move a bit slower, and the patriotism did get a bit heavy handed at times - like when Pat kept going on about it being the duty of every American to turn in Barry or how she couldn't believe the villain was messed up in sabotage. She went on to say how she had trouble believing that any American would do something like that, yet she'd had no trouble deciding that Barry was guilty. There is a decent amount of mystery and some suspense in the movie, though I don't think it is one of Hitchcock's most suspenseful movies. The plot is interesting overall. There are a few little bits of humor added in here and there, though the tone of the movie is serious overall. Having the characters travel all across the country in an effort to figure out what is really going on is something that was done in other Hitchcock movies as well.
Overall, I enjoyed the movie, though it isn't my favorite Hitchcock movie. ;D
Post by: Najemikon on July 10, 2009, 10:46:42 PM
I just noticed that I forgot to give the next deadline:
2009-07-13 "Stage Fright" for Jon, Tom
Is this okay with you, Jon? Or do you need extending because of the late notice?
No, that's fine, as I will be catching up soon!
Post by: Tom on July 11, 2009, 10:06:36 AM
Title: Stage Fright (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stage_Fright_%28film%29) (http://www.invelos.com/images/DVDLogo.png)
Year: 1950
Director: Alfred Hitchcock
Rating: PG
Length: 105 Min.
Video: Full Frame 1.33:1
Audio: English: Dolby Digital Mono, French: Dolby Digital Mono, Italian: Dolby Digital Mono
Subtitles: Arabic, Bulgarian, Dutch, English, French, Italian
Stars:
Jane Wyman
Marlene Dietrich
Michael Wilding
Richard Todd
Alistair Sim
Plot:
In Alfred Hitchcock's world, theatres are where danger stalks the wings, characters are not what they seem and that "final curtain" can drop any second. The droll Stage Fright springs from that entertaining tradition.
Jane Wyman plays drama student Eve Gill, who tries to clear a friend (Richard Todd) being framed for murder by becoming the maid of flamboyant stage star Charlotte Inwood (Marlene Dietrich).
Filming in his native England, Hitchcock merrily juggles elements of humour and whodunit and puts a game ensemble (Alastair Sim, Sybil Thorndike, Joyce Grenfell, Kay Walsh and daughter Patricia Hitchcock) through its paces. No one turns a theatre into a bastion of dread like Hitchcock and Stage Fright is proof positive.
Extras:
Featurettes
Scene Access
Trailers
My Thoughts:
This movie was very boring to me. I couldn't keep my attention to it. The idea behind it is not bad. The direction is good. But I didn't care about the screenplay.Rating:
Post by: Tom on July 13, 2009, 06:19:10 PM
2009-07-20 "Strangers on a Train" for Jon, Tom
Post by: Tom on July 19, 2009, 09:29:28 AM
Title: Strangers on a Train (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strangers_on_a_Train_%28film%29) (http://www.invelos.com/images/DVDLogo.png)
Year: 1951
Director: Alfred Hitchcock
Rating: PG
Length: 97 Min.
Video: Full Frame 1.33:1
Audio: English: Dolby Digital Mono, French: Dolby Digital Mono, Italian: Dolby Digital Mono, Commentary: Dolby Digital Mono
Subtitles: Arabic, Bulgarian, Dutch, English, French, Italian
Stars:
Farley Granger
Ruth Roman
Robert Walker
Leo G. Carroll
Patricia Hitchcock
Plot:
'STRANGERS ON A TRAIN', based on the Patricia Highsmith novel, quickly became one of Alfred Hitchcock's most successful thrillers and remains one of his most popular films. En route from Washington, D.C., champion tennis player Guy Haines (Farley Granger) meets pushy playboy Bruno Anthony (Robert Walker). What begins as a chance encounter turns into a series of morbid confrontations, as Bruno manipulates his way into Guy's life. Bruno is eager to kill his father and knows Guy wants to marry a senator's daughter (Ruth Roman) but cannot get a divorce from his wife, Miriam (Laura Elliot). So Bruno suggests the men swap murders, which would leave no traceable clues or possible motives. Though Guy refuses, it will not be so easy to rid himself of the psychopathic Bruno. The film is tightly paced and disturbing from beginning to end, an effect heightened by Hitchcock's inventive camera work, including a terrifying sequence shot through a pair of eyeglasses that have been knocked to the ground.
This picture quickly became one of Alfred Hitchcock's most successful thrillers and remains one of his most popular films. Undoubtedly one of his finest films, 'STRANGERS ON A TRAIN' transforms a highly improbable situation into a series of logical events that inexorably lead to murder. A psychopathic man plans what he thinks is an "exchange murder" with a stranger he meets on a train.
Extras:
Commentary
Featurettes
Preview & Final Release Versions; Vintage Newsreel
Scene Access
Trailers
My Thoughts:
An interesting premise which was often copied. But the movie itself was rather boring to me. And why are the murderers in Hitchcock movies always so stupid?Rating:
Post by: Jimmy on July 19, 2009, 10:25:00 AM
Post by: Tom on July 19, 2009, 10:31:57 AM
Because most of them are in real life :hmmmm:
Yes, but in a movie the fun is guessing how they will get caught. But when they make such obvious mistakes, then the whole suspense is gone.
Post by: Najemikon on July 19, 2009, 01:40:37 PM
Because most of them are in real life :hmmmm:
Yes, but in a movie the fun is guessing how they will get caught. But when they make such obvious mistakes, then the whole suspense is gone.
When I finally catch-up I'll tell you why you were wrong... :tease:
Post by: Tom on July 19, 2009, 06:49:03 PM
When I finally catch-up I'll tell you why you were wrong... :tease:
In your eyes I am usually wrong :P
Post by: Najemikon on July 20, 2009, 05:03:18 PM
4 out of 5
(http://www.jonmeakin.co.uk/images/hitch/hitch13.jpg)
Farley Granger and John Dall play two friends who have committed an audacious murder in their own apartment, shortly before a party with several friends and relatives of the recently deceased David, who is hidden inside a chest which they have made the centre-piece. Amongst the guests is James Stewart, the moral but unwitting inspiration for the plan.
In Rope, Hitchcock set himself a challenge by using a single set (the apartment) and one camera. He also intended to use one take, but as Achim already mentioned, was limited by 10 minute reels. But you have to look for the joins to spot them and they are very clever. Far from a mere experiment, Rope is a dark little moral tale that’s great fun to watch unfold.
So overall, it feels like a play, though far more dynamic and Hitchcock doesn’t waste a second. The screenplay (by Hume Cronyn) and actors are so good that the story would have worked if the camera was static, but he moves it around like an invisible guest, treating the chest with the body inside like an axis. Every time it is in shot the tension is tightened, none more so than when the maid starts to clear it towards the tail end of the evening.
The screenplay is brilliant at following two broad themes: the murderers getting a thrill from hiding David and the others considering David’s role in their lives and where he could be, subconsciously turning detective between them. The camera works to smoothly switch the emotional focus between the discussions and uses the chest to twist the audience’s perceptions.
Key to this is Rupert (James Stewart in his first Hitchcock role). While there are scenes similar to earlier films like Lifeboat, which overlap dialogue, he is the only one who can join in on both sides, especially as he has the least connection to David. He wonders where he is, but can consider all the evidence rationally, and it’s his own theories Brandon (John Dall) has used as inspiration for the murder; that it is ones moral right to kill someone inferior. So it is he who makes the link between his hosts’ strange behaviour and the possibility of a crime. Rupert is the closest character for the viewer and probably the director himself. While the subject could become pompous, he is a safety net for the audience in more ways than one. He enjoys the idea of murder, but could he actually go that far? Stewart is fantastic, quickly establishing himself as an intelligent, but rather manipulative and mischievous character (the discussion about Grant and Bergman is particularly funny).
The rest of the cast are excellent too, but Granger and Dall are particularly good because they are so different. They sort of represent each other, with Dall enjoying the thrill and Granger falling apart, while only hinting that they share the emotions. Interestingly it is Granger that actually did the throttling.
Rope is an excellent example of cinema and demonstrates how well all the elements can blend. Acting, writing and direction have to balance for a film like this to work. By restricting the action to one set, there’s no room for prevarication or indulgence, yet it is so much fun.
I thought it a nice touch that all the credits were centred on the most important character: David’s friends, David’s Aunt, David’s this, etc. :)
Post by: Najemikon on July 20, 2009, 05:10:36 PM
...the swinging kitchen door partly concealing the view
I loved this shot! Brilliant, considering the length of the takes.
And is this plays in real-time, the party was awfully short. Probably about 40 minutes long. Those poor guests who probably were longer on the road then the party took.
I thought it was a natural length. The combination of worrying about David and realising how manipulative Brandon was being was enough to kill the atmosphere.
Post by: Achim on July 20, 2009, 06:56:42 PM
I loved this shot! Brilliant, considering the length of the takes.Most certainly!
Although, the problem that Hitchcock should have foreseen: If the viewer is beginning to be amazed with the technical brilliance then it takes away from the immersion.
Post by: Najemikon on July 21, 2009, 02:13:47 PM
I loved this shot! Brilliant, considering the length of the takes.Most certainly!
Although, the problem that Hitchcock should have foreseen: If the viewer is beginning to be amazed with the technical brilliance then it takes away from the immersion.
While that's true, it's only nerds like us that marvel at such things because the average viewer just gets the subconscious affect the director was after. I mean, here's a nerd test: did you spot the crack at the top of the doorway to the main room? That's where the set could slide apart to allow the camera to move around! :P
That's a trick I'd first seen with Citizen Kane and I wonder how much of an influence Welles had on Hitchcock. After all, the whole sequence at the Kane childhood home is a revelation; one long take starting outside and moving in, regardless of walls and furniture. And I haven't done the review yet, but there's a moment in Stage Fright that's a bit Kane-y as well...
Post by: Achim on July 21, 2009, 02:20:26 PM
While that's true, it's only nerds like us that marvel at such things because the average viewer just gets the subconscious affect the director was after. I mean, here's a nerd test: did you spot the crack at the top of the doorway to the main room?You got me there :bag:
I have, however, watched the highly interesting featurette on my disc, which showed the monster of a camera.
Post by: Najemikon on July 21, 2009, 05:04:08 PM
4 out of 5
(http://www.jonmeakin.co.uk/images/hitch/hitch14.jpg)
Eve (Jane Wyman) is an aspiring actress determined to clear her friend Jonathan (Richard Todd). He is accused of murdering the husband of his lover (Marlene Dietrich), also an actress.
In many ways Stage Fright feels like a step backwards. The format is similar to the cross-country, framed for murder plots Hitchcock has done so well before and features one of those romances that always come across so naive, especially after Notorious. It doesn’t help that Jane Wyman’s Eve can’t seem to make her mind up. Key moments are played out to an audience or on stage, something that has always fascinated Hitchcock, from The 39 Steps to Saboteur. Although the rather gruesome (implied, anyway) end is a new development!
So it is disappointingly old-fashioned and even more of a letdown if you read the DVD case and might have been expecting Hitch’s take on Phantom of the Opera. It seems a bit messy and not very exciting overall, but it rewards repeat viewings as Hitchcock’s intentions become clear and you find this is typically ambitious and technically superb.
The story is about duplicity and the theatre is not just a location this time, but is fundamentally woven into the plot. Everyone is playing a part. Charlotte, a classic femme fatale, is fooling everyone into believing she is the brave widow, while Eve takes on the role of her maid and dresser to gain information. By the end, several others are involved in a complicated plot to prove Jonathan’s innocence without involving the police. But beyond the plot, the screenplay is structured brilliantly to be duplicitous to the audience as well. Aside from the opening and closing conceit of the curtain, the flashback sequence was reminiscent of Citizen Kane.
(click to show/hide)
Kane was also noted for keeping focus, even in a deep depth of field. Hitchcock has played with this sort of thing before (the huge glass in The Lady Vanishes) and achieves a similar effect by super-imposing Dietrich into the foreground with Richard Todd in the back. Very clever and shows how he shared Welles’ determination to not be limited by mere physics!
The complicated structure perhaps kills the suspense, but the early chase (Safety Glass!), the finale and especially the wonderful sequence with Wyman trying to avoid Detective Smith (Michael Wilding) when she’s pretending to be the maid, are standouts. Perhaps it can be dismissed as a light and breezy caper, but overall the film is very entertaining, mainly thanks to British comedy legend Alistair Sim, who is a joy in every scene. Joyce Grenfell pops up too in a hilarious sequence at a shooting gallery. If you enjoyed these two, you must look them up in their home turf of Ealing and St. Trinian’s comedies.
The rest of the cast are excellent too. Jane Wyman is essentially playing two roles, while Richard Todd plays up to and against his reputation. I tend not to enjoy Dietrich’s performances and I could certainly have done without the musical interludes, but still, she was perfectly cast here. I did enjoy how she kept undermining Eve’s complicated ruse; refusing to read what must have been a carefully forged letter and constantly getting her ironically false name wrong!
This is not essential viewing so far as Hitchcock films go, but it’s a lot of fun if you don’t take it seriously, with bonus points for actually being pretty radical in its structure.
Post by: Najemikon on July 21, 2009, 11:37:33 PM
5 out of 5
(http://www.jonmeakin.co.uk/images/hitch/hitch15.jpg)
Tennis ace Guy Haines (Farley Granger) meets Bruno Anthony (Robert Walker) by chance during a train journey. At first he appears to be a fan who knows a little too much about Guy, including his wish for a divorce so he can marry Anne Morton (Ruth Roman). He suggests a bizarre plan to “swap murders”, thereby eliminating motive. Guy pays him no heed until his wife is found strangled.
Strangers on a Train is one of the many timeless gems in Hitchcock’s career. Based on a novel by Patricia Highsmith, it’s a fantastic premise and it is executed in a watertight screenplay that ramps up the tension throughout. Like Shadow of a Doubt and Notorious, there is little that stands out as all the elements fit together perfectly balanced in a believable drama. It’s a thriller masterpiece.
Robert Walker is superb as the unhinged, but intelligent Bruno and comes across as a viable threat. As in several of Hitchcock’s films, most recently Rope, Bruno talks about murder like some sort of socially acceptable pastime. Farley Granger was in Rope as one of those thrill seekers, but Guy dismisses it here as a joke. He convinces as the privileged individual about to join high society, but otherwise a perfectly normal man we can all identify with. And so his situation is terrifying. That his everyday comments about throttling someone should come back to haunt him, and the murderer has him over a barrel, with possibly the only feasible way out is to consider following the madman’s plan. With the added unspoken twist of course, that Bruno has done him a favour! Guy can’t avoid the fact he wanted Miriam out of the way. Luckily for the viewer, we want her out the way too as she is awful. Trust Hitch to make the audience feel just as guilty as the characters!
The rest of the cast don’t really stand-out except for Hitch’s own daughter, Patricia, as Barbara Morton. She is the stock character who is obsessed with stories about murder, probably like her dad, and she is very funny.
The murder scene is one of the best, as we see Miriam throttled in a reflection on one of the lenses of her glasses. There are few other obvious touches like this, except Hitchcock is expanding on the depth of field trick from Stage Fright (at least). This films real power though is in the pacing and editing. The final sequence is far more exciting that Wimbledon as Guy races through a tennis match, while Bruno is desperately trying to retrieve the all-important lighter. The great thing is, the whole sequence of him losing it temporarily is superfluous, but nail biting all the same. The finale on the merry-go-round is absurd, but utterly fantastic anyway. A stand-out set-piece.
The DVD includes a “preview” version. There is very little difference, except this was the British version I believe. It was apparently edited to play down the homosexuality theme. It’s hardly explicit, but I can see where the story could be emphasised about two men and their clandestine plans binding them together. Apparently in the book, Guy goes ahead with his side of the bargain after all, which I find silly, but would twist their lives together even tighter.
Post by: Najemikon on July 21, 2009, 11:44:50 PM
Because most of them are in real life :hmmmm:
Yes, but in a movie the fun is guessing how they will get caught. But when they make such obvious mistakes, then the whole suspense is gone.
Ok, now I've caught up, explain yourself! :laugh:
But seriously, what mistake did Bruno make? :shrug:
(click to show/hide)
Post by: Tom on July 21, 2009, 11:58:43 PM
But seriously, what mistake did Bruno make? :shrug
(click to show/hide)
Post by: Najemikon on July 22, 2009, 12:20:46 AM
(click to show/hide)
(click to show/hide)
Post by: Najemikon on July 22, 2009, 10:23:32 PM
Post by: Tom on July 22, 2009, 11:00:53 PM
Is I Confess due for this coming Monday? I can't believe I've caught up! :headscratch:
Yes, sorry, I forgot again to post the deadline :bag:
Post by: Dragonfire on July 23, 2009, 07:12:40 AM
Hitchcock collaborated with renowned playwright 'Thornton Wilder' ('Our Town') to create this psychological tale of family drama, suspicion … and murder. 'Joseph Cotton' shines as Uncle Charlie, a seemingly charming man visiting his relatives in their small and peaceful hometown. But when his namesake niece, “Young Charlie” ('Teresa Wright'), suspects that he may in fact be the psychopathic Merry Widow killer, Uncle Charlie must plot the death of his favorite relation in order to remain one step ahead of the law in this murderous game of cat-and-mouse.
My Thoughts
Overall I enjoyed this movie. The plot is interesting, though there were slower spots in it made it harder for me to get interested and stay interested in what was going on. The pace did pick up more later in the movie and it was more interesting then. The characters are interesting and Uncle Charlie makes a good, creepy villain. Charlie is a decent main character as well. I didn't feel like there is as much suspense in the movie, but there is still some.
:D
Post by: Najemikon on July 23, 2009, 01:39:46 PM
It's a theme he used often, from Rebecca and Suspicion, to more recently Rope and Stage Fright, where someone's trust is tested to the limit and sometimes beyond. It's also similar to Strangers on a Train in a sense that a normal, peaceful life is being fundamentally threatened.
For me, in both these scenarios, the slower the better! It makes the contrast far more tangible.
Post by: MEJHarrison on July 23, 2009, 07:29:11 PM
Is I Confess due for this coming Monday? I can't believe I've caught up! :headscratch:
I confess that I Confess is my favorite Hitchcock movie. I'm looking forward to seeing the reviews. ;D
Post by: Najemikon on July 23, 2009, 07:54:11 PM
Is I Confess due for this coming Monday? I can't believe I've caught up! :headscratch:
I confess that I Confess is my favorite Hitchcock movie. I'm looking forward to seeing the reviews. ;D
Nice to hear, considering it isn't one of the well-known ones. I hadn't heard of it before I got my boxset and I am looking forward to seeing it again. But looking at the past opinions, where do you think they'll fall? ;)
Surely you could add your own to the topic as well though?
Post by: Dragonfire on July 24, 2009, 12:47:58 AM
I am surprised. I'd expected Shadow to be one of the earlier films in this marathon to get almost universal praise, but it appears to have fallen flat. I didn't think it was dated -beyond the obvious- but maybe it has. For me the slower parts simply emphasise the normality of family life and pace, and makes Charlie's integration all the more terrifying, knowing he could turn at any moment.
It's a theme he used often, from Rebecca and Suspicion, to more recently Rope and Stage Fright, where someone's trust is tested to the limit and sometimes beyond. It's also similar to Strangers on a Train in a sense that a normal, peaceful life is being fundamentally threatened.
For me, in both these scenarios, the slower the better! It makes the contrast far more tangible.
That's true. and I haven't minded the slower parts in the other movies. I think part of it for me was I got distracted when I started watching it and it was just hard for me to get as interested after that. Though I did like the movie overall.
Post by: MEJHarrison on July 24, 2009, 06:51:05 PM
Is I Confess due for this coming Monday? I can't believe I've caught up! :headscratch:
I confess that I Confess is my favorite Hitchcock movie. I'm looking forward to seeing the reviews. ;D
Nice to hear, considering it isn't one of the well-known ones. I hadn't heard of it before I got my boxset and I am looking forward to seeing it again. But looking at the past opinions, where do you think they'll fall? ;)
Surely you could add your own to the topic as well though?
If I can find time to watch it, I'd be happy to chime in. Not sure if I'll find the time or not. And it's been too long since I've last seen it to off up any comments. I don't even remember why I enjoyed it so much the first time around. But I do remember being surprised since as you say, it's not one of his more popular movies.
Post by: Najemikon on July 24, 2009, 10:13:09 PM
4 out of 5
(http://www.jonmeakin.co.uk/images/hitch/hitch16.jpg)
Father Logan (Montgomery Clift) hears the confession of a murderer, Keller (O.E. Hasse), and urges him to turn himself in. Instead he stands by as helpless Father Logan himself is suspected of the crime and unable to tell the wily Inspector Larrue (Karl Malden) the truth.
Hitchcock must have relished this plot, expanded from a play. It’s an ingenious conceit to trap a priest within his own belief system, unable to reveal anything he heard in confession, with lots of margin to turn the screws on both the characters and viewer! From the simplicity of that central theme, the story unfolds gracefully, revealing a compelling motive for Father Logan to have actually done the crime.
In Montgomery Clift, Hitchcock has the perfect lead. Clift was the original method actor and a controversial choice, apparently causing some issues on set, but still, it suited the role. There isn’t a glimmer of doubt in his eyes, except when he walks the picturesque Canadian town alone, and even then it is implied he is considering turning in his frock, not the confessor.
He is never judgmental or emotional. All we see is a man willing to accept whatever fate is laid out. This is an excellent depiction of faith and sacrifice, and Logan is a heroic character to rival Atticus Finch, especially given that Keller is German and Logan an ex-soldier. It's criminal that such a character is not more well known and makes this one of the most underrated Hitchcock films.
Clift is ably supported by Hasse as the nervy Keller, and the late Karl Malden who is typically superb as the Inspector barely hiding his glee when he has the scent. The scene with the two of them in Larrue’s office is wonderful. The other main role is Anne Baxter as Logan’s ex-lover and potential motive. She’d recently won an Oscar for All About Eve, but this is a warmer, if simpler, role. Still the plot twists around her brilliantly as she unwittingly digs Logan in deeper while undermining her own marriage to Roger Dann. Mind you, he is a bit of wet blanket anyway, perhaps the weakest character.
The film seems to lose a lot of energy during the courtroom sequence (thankfully still much better than the method used in Spellbound), as it can’t help but repeat a lot of what we already know, but the story still has a couple of twists and it’s fascinating to see how Logan still doesn’t condemn Keller, not even with a mere glance. Apparently the subject of much discussion with the Catholic savvy censors.
A key to Baxter’s story is a flashback sequence which compares to Stage Fright as it is also subjective and open to interpretation because it is strictly from her point of view. Not just a technical theme, it suits the narrative in that it does not specifically explain Clift's reasons for becoming a priest and keeps him enigmatic. It’s an interesting break of pace from Hitchcock because it is so bright and romantic! He even uses slow motion at one point.
The rest of the film compares with Shadow of a Doubt. It is beautifully lit, with real locations and nothing flashy, but just solid, efficient quality revolving around character, not least at its most potent during Logan’s walk. After an ironic start with road signs, it settles for an overall serious, nourish tone, but it is very compelling throughout. Interestingly, it finishes as Hitchcock often likes to do, on a stage. But this time there is no audience. I'm not sure what to make of that, if anything.
There’s a quote in the making of which is worth remembering throughout this marathon: “a bad film is a photograph of people talking; a Hitchcock film is a photograph of people thinking”.
Post by: Tom on July 27, 2009, 09:04:49 AM
"Dial M for Murder" for Dragonfire, Jon, RossRoy, Tom
Post by: Najemikon on July 30, 2009, 08:53:26 PM
4 out of 5
(http://www.jonmeakin.co.uk/images/hitch/hitch17.jpg)
Having found out about Margot’s (Grace Kelly) affair with Mark (Robert Cummings), Tony (Ray Milland) meticulously plans the perfect murder, blackmailing an old college acquaintance, Swan (Anthony Dawson), into doing the deed.
I have seen Dial M for Murder once before and I wasn’t expecting to enjoy it as much as I did this time around. It is in many ways dated, talky and staged (although that wasn’t a problem for Rope). Strangest of all, it often feels over-directed by Alfred Hitchcock, who by all accounts was bored and only doing this to honour his Warners contract. After all, to paraphrase the quote I mentioned in I Confess, this is a photograph of people talking more than thinking! It doesn’t help that he had to make it for 3D, which the Master had rightfully little faith in. As such there are multiple strange angles, cuts, cluttered foregrounds, and one bloody huge thumb! ;) Thankfully there are only a couple of scenes obviously staged for 3D action and one in particular works brilliantly well anyway.
In retrospect it’s a strange story for 3D and the compositions are therefore ingenious, making the most of the almost single set (again, like Rope). No morals this time though, just cold, hard logic in a simple, but incredibly detailed and ingenious plot, developed from a play. It hasn’t lost its roots, so it’s very much an actor’s film, but it’s never less than engrossing and is brought to life by its marvellous cast.
There are essentially four main sequences, mostly shouldered by the smoothly brilliant Ray Milland as the despicable Tony. His delivery of what could be a boring screenplay demands attention, not least in his long scene with Anthony Dawson as he maps out every intricate detail of the murder he has inveigled him into committing. Then we have the murder itself, giving the luminous Grace Kelly a chance to shine as she fights back; her hand stretching out to the audience is the 3D moment I referred to earlier. It must have been shocking to the viewer for the victim to reach out to them! It’s no spoiler to say that she turns the tables and kills Swan, and that is one of Hitch’s more memorable murders from this stage of his career.
It’s a fairly passive role for Kelly, but she is marvellous. Then again, she can do no wrong in my eyes, able to convey fragility and strength in equal measure. There's a lovely moment with a key between her and Milland, which reminds you of Notorious. Cummings has fun with a great character in Mark; who better to try and solve the plot than a thriller writer? Well, John Williams as the Inspector would disagree and he has to be my favourite. He is an absolute joy, appearing at first to be rather stiff and old fashioned, he can’t contain his glee every time one of his questions trips someone up. He's a similar character to the Detective in I Confess, but far less passionate, yet just as funny. And though his dedication is ultimately absurd, he’d give Columbo a run for his money and the scene of one-upmanship between him and Cummings is hilarious.
Part of me feels this is more average than the tighter, more ambitious I Confess, but what could have been a dry, humourless technical experiment, ends up being great fun, with a proper villain to boo. He doesn't even do the dirty work! The remake, A Perfect Murder, is competent, if overly-serious, but you can’t find a cast like this one anymore. Should you ever be framed for murder, pray you have someone like Inspector Hubbard ready to fight your corner!
Post by: Dragonfire on July 30, 2009, 10:25:18 PM
I will get them all watched eventually. I'll just probably finish up ages after everyone else. :laugh:
Post by: Tom on August 01, 2009, 09:17:55 AM
Title: I Confess (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_Confess_%28film%29) (http://www.invelos.com/images/DVDLogo.png)
Year: 1953
Director: Alfred Hitchcock
Rating: PG
Length: 91 Min.
Video: Full Frame 1.33:1
Audio: English: Dolby Digital Mono, French: Dolby Digital Mono, Italian: Dolby Digital Mono
Subtitles: Arabic, Bulgarian, Dutch, English, French, Italian
Stars:
Montgomery Clift
Anne Baxter
Karl Malden
Brian Aherne
O. E. Hasse
Plot:
In Alfred Hitchcock's I Confess, Father Michael Logan (Montgomery Clift,) apparently a model of clerical piety, hears a killer's confession. Eyewitnesses point to a priest as the murderer and the sacrament of penance forbids Logan to speak out - even in his own defense - when circumstantial evidence targets Logan as the prime suspect!
Academy Award® winners* Anne Baxter and Karl Malden co-star as a former flame and a police inspector whose attempts to clear Logan only entrap him further. Filmed in Quebec on locations highlighting that city's Old World traditions, I Confess races toward a climax that's unforgettable. And in true Hitchcock fashion, you'll confess to being hooked all the way.
*Baxter: Best Supporting Actress (1946) for The Razor's Edge, Malden: Best Supporting Actor (1951) for A Streetcar Named Desire.
Extras:
Featurettes
Scene Access
Trailers
My Thoughts:
When I first read the premise of this movie, I thought this one could really be interesting. It was to a certain degree, but somehow it did not really click with me. The actors did a fine job, especially the priest.This time, the dumb character moment comes from the love interest: How could she not see from the beginning, that her story will not really give an alibi to the priest, but only give him a motive in the first place?
Rating:
Post by: Najemikon on August 01, 2009, 02:05:57 PM
Title: I Confess (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_Confess_%28film%29) (http://www.invelos.com/images/DVDLogo.png)
When I first read the premise of this movie, I thought this one could really be interesting. It was to a certain degree, but somehow it did not really click with me. The actors did a fine job, especially the priest.
This time, the dumb character moment comes from the love interest: How could she not see from the beginning, that her story will not really give an alibi to the priest, but only give him a motive in the first place?
While I watched it, I was thinking the same, but in retrospect I thought it was very clever. Hitchcock had the opportunity to do that amazing flashback sequence, but you're right in that it convinces the police of the motive and even she acknowledges it later ("why did they let me go on?"). But she had to convince them that a priest had a valid, deep enough reason to be out with a married woman and she assumed the times overlapped. The wily old copper was perfectly aware throughout though that they didn't, and so we could all watch an excruciating scene of her inadvertently digging Logan in deeper and deeper!
You seem to focus on the stupidity of some characters as a narrative flaw, but I wouldn't go so far as that (naivety, panic, maybe). In any case, Hitchcock does it on purpose, to make it more shocking for the viewer, because that moment in particular was a "No! Shut up, you daft cow!" moment. That's why he stays away from mysteries; he prefers us to understand all the levels of torment.
In fact, according to the making of on the DVD, Hitchcock developed the screenplay from a play which didn't feature the romance plot at all. He just put it in to be even more cruel to the Logan character...
Post by: Tom on August 04, 2009, 07:38:27 PM
Also I am one week behind (I watch the Hitchcock movies together with my brother and I'll have to wait until his next visit).
Post by: addicted2dvd on August 04, 2009, 07:43:29 PM
Besides.... would love to see a couple reviews before mine arrives... kinda help get me ready and more eager to watch it when it does arrive! :P
Post by: Tom on August 04, 2009, 07:48:22 PM
Besides.... would love to see a couple reviews before mine arrives... kinda help get me ready and more eager to watch it when it does arrive! :P
Mine you will probably not get this week anyway. I will have to watch "Dial M for Murder" first when my brother visits this week. Also I on the other hand avoid reading the reviews of the others in this marathon, if I haven't watched the movie yet myself.
Post by: Najemikon on August 04, 2009, 08:38:36 PM
Besides.... would love to see a couple reviews before mine arrives... kinda help get me ready and more eager to watch it when it does arrive! :P
Mine you will probably not get this week anyway. I will have to watch "Dial M for Murder" first when my brother visits this week. Also I on the other hand avoid reading the reviews of the others in this marathon, if I haven't watched the movie yet myself.
Has your brother been enjoying the marathon? Or is he thinking, "oh no, I've got to go to Tom's and he'll make me watch another of his crappy old films!" :P ;)
Post by: Tom on August 04, 2009, 08:48:02 PM
Has your brother been enjoying the marathon? Or is he thinking, "oh no, I've got to go to Tom's and he'll make me watch another of his crappy old films!" :P ;)
He wanted to watch them, I don't force him. His reason is, that he wants to see himself why this Hitchcock fellow is so highly regarded. Until now we had about the same opinions about the Hitchcocks we watched so far.
Post by: Rogmeister on August 04, 2009, 10:14:54 PM
Post by: Tom on August 04, 2009, 10:46:08 PM
Just tell me which ones you plan to review and I will update the list in the first post.
Post by: Najemikon on August 04, 2009, 11:44:53 PM
Is it too late for a newcomer like me to join in on this marathon? I only joined this site a few months ago but I do have most of Hitch's better movies, including Rear Window, of course. :tv:
Hey, this isn't an exclusive club! The more the merrier. :thumbup: And don't be put-off including any we've already reviewed.
Post by: addicted2dvd on August 05, 2009, 12:46:04 AM
Post by: Rogmeister on August 05, 2009, 03:39:35 AM
Post by: Najemikon on August 05, 2009, 04:49:25 PM
I actually watched Rope about a week ago...I know we've passed that one. I had seen bits of it before but for the first time, I sat down and watched the whole thing, even though it was on commercial TV (you know, with commercial interruptions). It was interesting but rather gimmicky, I thought. It's not the kind of film I'm going to want to see all the time.
It was far better than I remembered, but still, based on a play and done as the basis of a technical experiment. It is technically superb, but I think I prefer the story of Dial M for Murder, which touches on similar things.
Post by: Najemikon on August 07, 2009, 12:44:02 AM
Post by: Najemikon on August 07, 2009, 12:46:37 AM
5 out of 5
(http://www.jonmeakin.co.uk/images/hitch/hitch18.jpg)
James Stewart plays L.B. Jeffries, and injured photographer, wheelchair-bound and bored. He fills his time watching his neighbours and becomes convinced that one (Raymond Burr) may have murdered his wife.
My favourite films are the ones with the simplest of plots because there’s plenty of room for great writers to fill the time with detail that may not be necessary, but colours the story nonetheless. This is one of Hitchcock’s skills as a director anyway, so John Michael Haye’s wonderful adaptation of a short story is the perfect screenplay because it gives both of them plenty of room to play. The result is a cheeky, poignant, playful and eventually thrilling film that is a definitive example of the Hitchcock style.
It opens theatrically, with the blinds rolling up and the story unfolds slowly, as we observe Stewart observing his neighbours, making voyeurs of the audience, now complicit in the rude hobby of nosey-parkers! Don’t expect an immediate thrill-ride as the real focus of the film is way off, but watching the lives behind those windows is fascinating and the apartments are all exquisitely detailed. There is no score, as the noise from the street (that we can just see, and is almost another window in itself), the records played by the sexy blonde dancer or the lonely piano player provide a diegetic theme, intriguingly linking the neighbours without them ever really meeting.
There’s plenty to keep the attention during the languid pace before we need to consider the strange behaviour of Lars Thorwald. Has he committed murder or is it all in Jeffries’ mind? We have to rely on Jeff’s point of view and sometimes he frustrates us by falling asleep, but the circumstantial evidence piles up.
He steadily convinces the two women his life that all is not well. Thelma Ritter (All About Eve) as his nurse turns in another dryly witty performance and every one of her lines is a cracker; she describes Grace Kelly as “the right girl for any man with half a brain who can get one eye open”! Why he should need convincing, I have no idea. Her entrance is possibly the most entrancing of any actress, beautifully photographed as she wakes Jeff from a nap, the camera confident in its intimacy. The part was written for Kelly so of course, she is beyond perfect. She is still the delicate and strong character from Dial M for Murder, but now smoother and livelier. If you don’t feel anything as she first fills the screen, check your pulse... ;)
As usual, their relationship is the real story and it feels like the most genuine Hitchcock did. I heard a comment regards Notorious that he wouldn’t make a film again with such heart, but that’s rubbish if the performance between Stewart and Kelly is taken into account. It’s an adult situation, focused by the efforts to catch out Thorwald. Just watch Stewarts expression when Kelly returns from a daring reconnaissance mission! Wordlessly, he completes a subplot and allows the film to move into fifth gear.
There isn’t a lot of suspense until the final act, but it more than makes up for it as the helpless Jeff can only watch events take an awful and serious turn as maybe he has gone too far in his amateur sleuthing. Stewart might be stuck in one place for the entire film, but he really makes you feel it. But then he has always been the ultimate everyman and this is a classic performance. Hitchcock too seems to be willing to be more ruthless and messy in depicting violence. There are a couple of brief but very uncomfortable moments.
A hard sell on paper as there isn’t really a plot, Rear Window is one of the absolute essential Hitchcock films and epitomises his fascination with murder right on your doorstep. It feels like a shift into another level of confidence that will see him create his most famous films over the next few years.
Post by: addicted2dvd on August 07, 2009, 01:19:34 AM
I think you convinced me. Rear Window should be the first movie I watch tomorrow for my weekend movie marathon. :thumbup:
Post by: Tom on August 07, 2009, 08:13:41 AM
Next deadline 2009-08-10
"Rear Window" for addicted2dvd, Dragonfire, Jon, Rich, RossRoy, Tom
Post by: richierich on August 07, 2009, 10:11:34 AM
Let's make it official:
Next deadline 2009-08-10
"Rear Window" for addicted2dvd, Dragonfire, Jon, Rich, RossRoy, Tom
I hope everyone remembers how significant August 13th is??
Yes - it is my birthday - I accept cash, cheques and dvds :P
More importantly, I share my birthday with the great Hitch, so I trust everyone will watch one of his masterpieces next Thursday to celebrate his achievements. :thumbup:
Post by: Najemikon on August 07, 2009, 11:31:07 AM
Next week is Trouble With Harry, which is a change of pace, but quite wonderful. I see only Tom and I are down for that one, but if you can get it, I really recommend it...
Post by: addicted2dvd on August 07, 2009, 12:44:46 PM
Let's make it official:
Next deadline 2009-08-10
"Rear Window" for addicted2dvd, Dragonfire, Jon, Rich, RossRoy, Tom
If I would have seen this before I posted I would have did my review here... So I will just give a link here to my review...
REAR WINDOW REVIEW (http://www.dvdcollectorsonline.com/index.php/topic,5477.msg92389.html#msg92389)
Post by: addicted2dvd on August 07, 2009, 12:45:27 PM
Well, it's mine today, so "same month" will have to do for me! :drunk:
Next week is Trouble With Harry, which is a change of pace, but quite wonderful. I see only Tom and I are down for that one, but if you can get it, I really recommend it...
Happy Birthday to you Jon! :cheers:
Post by: richierich on August 07, 2009, 02:07:43 PM
Well, it's mine today, so "same month" will have to do for me! :drunk:
Next week is Trouble With Harry, which is a change of pace, but quite wonderful. I see only Tom and I are down for that one, but if you can get it, I really recommend it...
Happy birthday fellow Leo :cheers:
You share your birthday with Charlize Theron, David Duchovny, James Randi and Melanie Sykes
Post by: Rogmeister on August 07, 2009, 03:58:14 PM
I got a notice today from Amazon.com about a new release of The 39 Steps...of course, I have an earlier edition of that (the set from The Criterion Collection)... ::)
Post by: richierich on August 07, 2009, 04:51:14 PM
I'm not sure but I think I have The Trouble With Harry...I've been meaning to go into my stored DVDs and pull out my Hitchcock films...
I got a notice today from Amazon.com about a new release of The 39 Steps...of course, I have an earlier edition of that (the set from The Criterion Collection)... ::)
Hi Roger
Do you not use dvdprofiler to catalogue your dvds?
Sorry if this has been asked before and I've missed it
cheers
Rich
Post by: Najemikon on August 07, 2009, 05:04:24 PM
Happy Birthday to you Jon! :cheers:
Happy birthday fellow Leo :cheers:
You share your birthday with Charlize Theron, David Duchovny, James Randi and Melanie Sykes
Thanks you two!
And apparently, Charlize was born in 75 like me! Now obviously that's a reason to get in touch, eh? :devil:
Post by: Achim on August 07, 2009, 11:07:03 PM
Happy Birthday, Jon! All the best Wishes to you.
Post by: goodguy on August 07, 2009, 11:52:25 PM
Well, it's mine today, so "same month" will have to do for me! :drunk:
:cheers: Happy birthday from me as well!
(Almost too late to the party, because the frontpage continues to say upcoming birthday and then it suddenly vanishes).
Post by: Tom on August 08, 2009, 09:10:00 AM
Title: Dial M for Murder (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dial_M_for_Murder) (http://www.invelos.com/images/DVDLogo.png)
Year: 1954
Director: Alfred Hitchcock
Rating: PG
Length: 101 Min.
Video: Anamorphic Widescreen 1.85
Audio: English: Dolby Digital Mono, French: Dolby Digital Mono, Italian: Dolby Digital Mono
Subtitles: Arabic, Bulgarian, Dutch, English, French, Italian
Stars:
Ray Milland
Grace Kelly
Robert Cummings
John Williams
Anthony Dawson
Plot:
Alfred Hitchcock's screen version of Frederick Knott's stage hit Dial M for Murder is a tasty blend of elegance and suspense casting Grace Kelly, Ray Milland and Robert Cummings as the points of a romantic triangle. Kelly won the New York Film Critics and National Board of Review Best Actress Awards for this and two other acclaimed 1954 performances (Hitchcock's Rear Window and her Oscar®-honoured work in The Country Girl). She loves Cummings; her husband Milland plots her murder. But when he dials a Mayfair exchange to set the plot in motion, his right number gets the wrong answer and gleaming scissors become a deadly weapon. Dial "M" for the Master of Suspense at his most stylish.
Awards:
| AFI | 1954 | Won | 100 Years... 100 Thrills (2001) | |
| AFI | 1954 | Nominated | 100 Years... 25 Scores (2005) | "Composer": Dimitri Tiomkin |
| BAFTA | 1954 | Nominated | Foreign Actress | Grace Kelly |
Extras:
Featurettes
Scene Access
Trailers
My Thoughts:
It started really boring and I feared that I am watching a big stinker. To much boring talk in the beginning. This seems to be a trademark for Hitchcock. His movies often start out with a lot of exposition talk, where I can't help that my mind wanders off to other things. The movie picked up when the murder happened. It really got great when the inspector came in. It really reminded me of a good Columbo episode. The inspector really behaved a lot like a mix between Columbo and John Cleese. He even had the famous "one more question" Columbo scene. How the inspector unraveled the mystery was really fun to watch. In retrospect even the beginning was like a Columbo episode. Also there I often find the first half an hour boring, where the murder plans and commits the murder. And also there it only picks up when Columbo first appears.Rating:
Post by: Tom on August 08, 2009, 09:10:42 AM
Title: Rear Window (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rear_Window) (http://www.invelos.com/images/DVDLogo.png)
Year: 1954
Director: Alfred Hitchcock, The Restoration
Rating: PG
Length: 110 Min.
Video: Anamorphic Widescreen 1.66
Audio: English: Dolby Digital Mono, German: Dolby Digital Mono
Subtitles: Danish, Dutch, English, Finnish, German, Norwegian, Swedish
Stars:
James Stewart
Grace Kelly
Wendell Corey
Thelma Ritter
Raymond Burr
Plot:
None of Hitchcock's films has ever given a clearer view of his genius for suspense than Rear Window. When professional photographer J.B. "Jeff" Jeffries (James Stewart) is confined to a wheelchair with a broken leg, he becomes obsessed with watching the private dramas of his neighbours play out across the courtyard. When he suspects a salesman may have murdered his nagging wife, Jeffries enlists the help of his glamourous socialite girlfriend (Grace Kelly) to investigate the highly suspicious chain of events... Events that ultimately lead to one of the most memorable and gripping endings in all of film history.
Awards:
| Academy Award | 1954 | Nominated | Best Cinematography, Color | Robert Burks |
| Academy Award | 1954 | Nominated | Best Director | Alfred Hitchcock |
| Academy Award | 1954 | Nominated | Best Sound Recording | Loren L. Ryder (Sound Director, Paramount Studio Sound Department) |
| Academy Award | 1954 | Nominated | Best Writing, Adapted Screenplay | John Michael Hayes |
| AFI | 1954 | Won | 100 Years... 100 Movies (1998) | |
| AFI | 1954 | Won | 100 Years... 100 Movies (2007) | |
| AFI | 1954 | Won | 100 Years... 100 Thrills (2001) | |
| BAFTA | 1954 | Nominated | Film And British Film |
Extras:
Featurettes
Photo Gallery
Scene Access
Trailers
My Thoughts:
I went into it with high expectations. Probably this is why I was disappointed. I have seen this story hundred times now, and I expected to have it more impact coming from Hitchcock. But it didn't for me. I even go so far to say, that I enjoyed the Due South version I watched recently more.Rating:
Post by: Najemikon on August 08, 2009, 02:12:11 PM
I think you'd been led to expect the wrong thing by seeing diluted versions. The stories I've seen based on it always make the murder plot and catching the bad guy the focus. While that's fun, it's short-lived so it's never the most important thing in a Hitchcock film; it's about how the murder affects people, how a community handles the dark side of life that they would never dream would actually happen. That's why the real story in his films are usually romances. I haven't seen the Due South one, but I can't imagine it had detailed neighbours with their own mini-sub-plots.
I really thought Rear Window would win you over, because so far you don't seem to have been blown away by much. You even seemed to have enjoyed Dial M for Murder more and Hitchcock resented having to do that one! So accusing him of having a trademark of "boring talk" was especially ironic in that case... :laugh:
Post by: Tom on August 14, 2009, 03:25:56 PM
2009-08-17
"The Trouble with Harry" for Jon, Tom
I will switch back to annouce the new deadlines on Sundays, because chances are better that I remember to do it then.
Post by: Tom on August 15, 2009, 06:55:41 PM
Title: The Trouble with Harry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Trouble_with_Harry) (http://www.invelos.com/images/DVDLogo.png)
Year: 1955
Director: Alfred Hitchcock
Rating: PG
Length: 95 Min.
Video: Anamorphic Widescreen 1.85
Audio: English: Dolby Digital Mono, German: Dolby Digital Mono
Subtitles: Danish, Dutch, English, Finnish, German, Norwegian, Swedish
Stars:
Edmund Gwenn
John Forsythe
Mildred Natwick
Mildred Dunnock
Jerry Mathers
Plot:
Master of Suspense Alfred Hitchcock directs a delightful comedy-mystery set in New England. It stars John Forsythe, Academy Award® winner Edmund Gwenn, Mildred Natwick, and little Jerry Mathers. In addition it marks the noteworthy screen debut of Academy Award® winner Shirley MacLaine. What is The Trouble With Harry? Well, it's the fact that he's dead, and while no one really minds, everybody thinks they are responsible.
After several unearthings of the corpse, plenty of humour a la Hitchcock, and love affairs between the major characters, the real cause of death is revealed, and Harry troubles no one again. It's a delightful romp and a decidedly different movie from the Master of Suspense.
Awards:
| AFI | 1955 | Nominated | 100 Years... 100 Laughs (2000) | |
| BAFTA | 1956 | Nominated | Film And British Film | |
| BAFTA | 1956 | Nominated | Foreign Actress | Shirley MacLaine |
| Golden Globe | 1954 | Won | New Star of the Year - Female | Shirley MacLaine |
Extras:
Featurettes
Photo Gallery
Scene Access
Trailers
My Thoughts:
I enjoyed this little comedy. It was fun how they constantly dug up Harry just to bury him again. You can see that Hitchcock made this movie just for the fun of it. Rating:
Post by: Tom on August 16, 2009, 11:57:12 AM
2009-08-23 "To Catch a Thief" for Achim, Dragonfire, Jon
Post by: Najemikon on August 17, 2009, 01:35:46 AM
Next deadline:
2009-08-23 "To Catch a Thief" for Achim, Dragonfire, Jon
Whoops! We got them the wrong way around. To Catch a Thief came before Harry... :-[
Post by: Achim on August 17, 2009, 07:07:52 AM
Whoops! We got them the wrong way around. To Catch a Thief came before Harry... :-[So we can't watch it anymore...? :headscratch:
(click to show/hide)
Post by: richierich on August 18, 2009, 01:06:07 AM
(http://img181.imageshack.us/img181/1865/4554medium.jpg)
None of Hitchcock's films has ever given a clearer view of his genius for suspense than Rear Window. When professional photographer J.B "Jeff" Jeffries (James Stewart) is confined to a wheelchair with a broken leg, he becomes obsessed with watching the private dramas of his neighbors play out across the courtyard. When he suspects a salesman may have murdered his nagging wife, Jeffries enlists the help of his glamorous socialite girlfriend (Grace Kelly) to investigate the highly suspicious chain of events...Events that ultimately lead to one of the most memorable and gripping endings in all of film history.
Everything I like in Hitch on display in one classic movie. Suspense in lumps, leading up to the hold your breath flat searching by the captivating Grace Kelly, a barrage of wit and sarcasm with Jimmy Stewart, and a masterclass in storytelling by the big man himself.
This movie has aged brilliantly, it is incredibly watchable and you can't help but be absorbed in following Stewarts peeping tom antics. I had a sense of claustraphobia watching this, and a suspicion of all the neighbours! Great set, great cast, and a scene-juggling finalé to savour.
No better proof that simple and cheap can be made into a masterpiece in the right hands.
:thumbup:
Post by: Achim on August 18, 2009, 02:45:19 PM
MOVIE / DVD INFO:
(http://www.invelos.com/mpimages/09/097361207346f.jpg) Title: To Catch a Thief
Year: 1955
Director: Alfred Hitchcock
Rating: NR
Length: 106 Min.
Video: Anamorphic Widescreen 1.85:1
Audio: English: Dolby Digital Surround, English: Dolby Digital Mono, French: Dolby Digital Mono, Commentary: Dolby Digital Stereo
Subtitles: English
Stars:
Cary Grant
Grace Kelly
Jessie Royce Landis
John Williams (1903)
Charles Vanel
Plot:
Cary Grant plays John Robie, a reformed jewel thief who was once known as "The Cat," in this suspenseful Alfred Hitchcock classic thriller. Robie is suspected of a new rash of gem thefts in the luxury hotels of the French Riviera, and he must set out to clear himself. Meeting pampered heiress Frances (Grace Kelly), he sees a chance to bait the mysterious thief with her mother's (Jessie Royce Landis) fabulous jewels. His plan backfires, however, but Frances who believes him guilty, proves her love by helping him escape. In a spine-tingling climax, the real criminal is exposed. Three Academy Award® nominations, including an Oscar® for "Best Cinematography."
Extras:
Scene Access
Audio Commentary
Trailers
Featurettes
Closed Captioned
My Thoughts:
Hmmm, a bit (just a bit though) disappointed here. I remembered this way more exciting than it was, from when I saw it numerous time as a kid. Well, if The Trouble With Harry was Hitchcock's take on a comedy then To Catch a Thief is his attempt at a romance. There is hardly any suspense, really, except for the exciting roof top scene at the end. Heck, technically this is even a "whodunnit", something Hitchcock normally despised (at least didn't care about) and avoided to do. He could have improved it a bit by fleshing out some of the other suspects a little better.Disappointed aside, this is a very good film (just not what you'd expect from the master of suspense...). The dialog is extremely good, delivered with excellent timing, especially by the three lead cast members. The first half is also very comedy-like, where Cary Grant even gets to do his schtick a few times. The characters are all quite well motivated and the romance developed quite nicely and even for today's standards considerably believable. Of course Cary Grant was actually much too old to be the love interest (yes, you read that right), but he sure was still extremely handsome.
The fireworks scene was much better in my memory than what I saw on screen. :-\
Post by: Najemikon on August 19, 2009, 01:52:07 AM
4 out of 5
(http://www.jonmeakin.co.uk/images/hitch/hitch20.jpg)
Harry is dead, and his body is causing trouble for the various people who come across him!
This is nice change of pace for Hitchcock and although it doesn't have anything to really mark it out in visual terms (apart from the gorgeous Vermont location), it is joyfully mischeivous.
Apparently it took a while to find an audience in America and certainly this is much more an English story. Perhaps Hitch was feeling a little homesick for some Ealing! The macabre, yet delightful plot isn't so far removed from The Ladykillers, with the rather matter-of-fact attitude the various characters have to Harry's condition. The way they bury him and dig him up again multiple times is hilarious, but must have been quite shocking to those not used to such ideas being used for comedy (apparently Hitchcock wanted to see how the US would react). But comedy it is and a fine one at that, subtly performed by a small cast, including Shirley MacClaine in her first screen role (and adorable she is too). The other stand-out was Edmund Gwenn, the stories first suspect (not that anyone cares!). It stars John Forsyth, but in this second viewing for me, I couldn't help but find him annoying at first. He won me over though, despite another daft sub-plot of instant marriage proposals! Mind you, I say sub-plot, but as usual, the body is not the real concern. Treating poor old Harry as more of an inconvenience underlines this.
For such an unassuming film, it also has another notable first in the score by Bernard Herrmann. Though this is probably the least known of his collaborations with Hitch, it was apparently the directors favourite and it is wonderfully playful. Perhaps because the camera was lazier than normal and there was no suspense to speak of (as it should be in comedy), maybe it was easier for the composer to match the characters more closely, like in a cartoon. There's a lovely moment where the Captain tries to hide his rifle from the deputy sherrif!
I've read in other reviews that some critics felt there was something deeper going on. A treatise on death and religion, perhaps? Maybe, if you like, but it still doesn't stop this being one of Hitch's more harmless and infinitely watchable films.
Post by: Tom on August 21, 2009, 07:27:27 PM
2009-08-30
"The Man Who Knew Too Much" for Achim, Dragonfire, Jon, Tom
Post by: Tom on August 22, 2009, 06:47:31 PM
Title: The Man Who Knew Too Much (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Man_Who_Knew_Too_Much_%281956_film%29) (http://www.invelos.com/images/DVDLogo.png)
Year: 1956
Director: Alfred Hitchcock
Rating: PG
Length: 115 Min.
Video: Anamorphic Widescreen 1.85
Audio: English: Dolby Digital Mono, German: Dolby Digital Mono
Subtitles: Danish, Dutch, English, Finnish, German, Norwegian, Swedish
Stars:
James Stewart
Doris Day
Brenda de Banzie
Bernard Miles
Ralph Truman
Plot:
James Stewart and Doris Day, in a rare dramatic role, are superb in this brilliant suspense thriller from the undisputed master. Stewart and Day play Ben and Jo MacKenna, innocent Americans vacationing in Morocco with their son, Hank. After a French spy dies in Ben's arms in the Marrakech market, the couple discovers their son has been kidnapped and taken to England. Not knowing who they can trust, the McKennas are caught up in a nightmare of international espionage, assassinations and terror. Soon, all of their lives hang in the balance as they draw closer to the truth and a chilling climactic moment in London's famous Royal Albert Hall.
Awards:
| Academy Award | 1956 | Won | Best Music, Song | "Whatever Will Be, Will Be (Que Sera, Sera)": Jay Livingston, Ray Evans (Music/Lyrics) |
| AFI | 1956 | Won | 100 Years... 100 Songs (2004) | "Song": Whatever Will Be Will Be (Que Sera Sera) |
Extras:
Featurettes
Photo Gallery
Scene Access
Trailers
My Thoughts:
I don't know, but this movie was rather boring (*waiting for Jon to put me right* :tease:).Jon will probably want to strangle me, but I prefer to watch Bill Murrey's "The Man Who Knew Too Little" any day :laugh:
I like James Stewart, but I feel his acting range is not very wide. He always seems to be playing the same character.
Rating:
Post by: richierich on August 22, 2009, 07:45:18 PM
I don't know, but this movie was rather boring (*waiting for Jon to put me right* :tease:).
Jon will probably want to strangle me, Rating:
(http://img30.imageshack.us/img30/4319/runforhills.gif)
Post by: Najemikon on August 22, 2009, 09:17:54 PM
Actually, you might be surprised to hear that I'll probably agree with you. Not about Jimmy Stewart; you're off your meds if you can't include him in a top ten of all-time actors, but whatever... ;)
Unless I'm presently surprised when I watch it again, I've always thought of The Man Who Knew Too Much as a story that eluded Hitchcock. The original is dated, but certainly better than this one which struck me as lazy. You can tell Hitch's (and probably Stewarts) heart wasn't in it and was probably forced into it by a studio wanting to capitalise on Doris Day. She probably had the finest singing voice of anyone, but Que bloody Sara has no place in the middle of a proper thriller... :yellowcard:
You'll find in any unbiased appreciation of Hitchcock's career that this and To Catch A Thief get a kind of "meh" response. But look at his rate of output. I always had the impression that he did one for the money while concentrating on the next.
I've never got around to watching The Man Who Knew Too Little, but I'm in no doubt that it probably is the more satisfying film. It has a very affectionate following...
Post by: Dragonfire on August 27, 2009, 03:19:27 AM
This was the first time I had seen this one, though I had heard of it before.
The plot works well even though it isn't as complex as some of Hitchcock's other movies. It is just dealing with the survivors in the lifeboat, but since one of them is German, that does add some issues that get dealt with. There is a bit of mystery tied to if Willy is really trying to help or if he has something else in mind like at least one of the others believes. There are a few confrontations that help to keep things interesting. One rather drastic thing is done at one point, though nothing much is shown, it is still clear what is going on. A few somewhat disturbing things happen, though they all make sense given what is going on in the movie. There isn't as much shared about most of the characters. Constance seems the most developed even though still many things remain a mystery about her.
Overall, I really enjoyed the movie.
:thumbup:
I even managed to review of it posted on Epinions. :)
Lifeboat (http://www.epinions.com/review/mvie_mu-1012330/content_482470760068)
Post by: Najemikon on August 30, 2009, 04:22:48 PM
4 out of 5
(http://www.jonmeakin.co.uk/images/hitch/hitch19.jpg)
I remembered To Catch a Thief as as underwhelming, but watching it again I found it to be far more enjoyable. It's light and unassuming, with little to mark it out technically, but very well played and quite fun. The romance is more obvious than usual and is fundamentally in place earlier than Hitchcock's usual man-wrongfully-accused-on-the-run-falls-in-love setup.
The man in question this time is the brilliant Cary Grant, one of Hitch's most dependable leading men. Here he has a chance to show off his cat-like grace properly as a cat-burglar. He was the best actor to never play Bond and once again, I have to wonder how much influence Hitchcock had on the choices made in the early years of that franchise. Certainly the plot could easily be suited to an average Bond entry, complete with infiltrating high society using a false name and a scene set in a casino (very funny too, in Hitchcock's typically cheeky style!). Grace Kelly complements Grant and does enough as a slightly spoilt rich kid, but adds a little sassiness that only she could pull off. The scene where she is convinced of Grant's guilt is brilliantly staged.
That follows the famous fireworks moment and it is one of the films highlights. While the fireworks themselves are a bit limp, it's the staging in the room, both lighting and acting, that really impress. The climax also impresses with Grant hiding in the shadows of a rooftop, but overall there's nothing flashy, just beautiful landscapes to wonder at. The last time I saw it, I rather dismissed it as a holiday brochure, but it has far more substance than that. Not enough to be amongst the Master's best, but a very enjoyable way to pass a couple of hours.
Post by: Najemikon on August 30, 2009, 04:29:10 PM
technically this is even a "whodunnit", something Hitchcock normally despised (at least didn't care about) and avoided to do. He could have improved it a bit by fleshing out some of the other suspects a little better.
There's the thing though. He never took whodunnits seriously and barely tolerates them here. His understanding of audiences was second-to-none. Whodunnits are self-defeating because the viewer can get too involved in the possibilities and might not appreciate what is right in front of them. Knowing that Cary Grant is not to blame is all we need to know... :D
Post by: Achim on August 30, 2009, 05:51:23 PM
I will watch it tomorrow.
Post by: Achim on August 31, 2009, 02:49:52 PM
MOVIE / DVD INFO:
(http://www.invelos.com/mpimages/ID/ID52AD49C5787361Ff.jpg) Title: The Man Who Knew Too Much
Year: 1956
Director: Alfred Hitchcock
Rating: PG
Length: 120 Min.
Video: Anamorphic Widescreen 1.85:1
Audio: English: Dolby Digital Mono, French: Dolby Digital Mono
Subtitles: English, Spanish
Stars:
James Stewart
Doris Day
Brenda de Banzie
Bernard Miles
Ralph Truman
Plot:
Hollywood icons 'James Stewart' and 'Doris Day' are Ben and Jo MacKenna, an innocent American couple vacationing in Morocco with their young son. But their simple plans turn into a nightmare after a French spy dies in Ben's arms in a Marrakesh market, and their son is kidnapped and taken to another country. The classic "Que Sera, Sera," from the film's chilling climax in London's Royal Albert Hall, won the Academy Award® for Best Song. See Doris Day in a rare dramatic role and James Stewart as 'The Man Who Knew Too Much' in this thrilling tale of international espionage, assassinations and terror.
Extras:
Scene Access
Trailers
Featurettes
Gallery
Production Notes
My Thoughts:
Tom said he found this film rather boring and I know what he means: Hitchcock misses the mark a bit in the pacing department. The film is too long and could have used some additional trimming. The story is good (typical Hitchcock with an innocent guy getting caught in a bigger scheme) and there is several scenes which allow for suspense (notice my wording...). It seems, however, that suspense was not what Hitchcock was after. The whole affair feels more like a family drama with a tacked-on assassination plot. Many scenes drag on too long when things should rather move on creating, as Tom said, boredom in the viewer. In one scene I was noticing that Jimmy Stewart's pamts seemed too short rather then anticipating where he was going...The actual climax of the film in the Albert Hall (which is not where Que Sera, Sera is sung, the cover blurb got that wrong) is awesome and exciting. Doris Day's acting here is wonderful, showing us a mother torn by her emotions. The editing is also excellent and the use of the music drowning out the dialog works great. Unfortunately there is a second climax which could have had the film going out woth a little bang at least, but somehow they manage to have everything grind to a halt and suddenly it's over.
Jon already mentioned in response to Tom that apparently this was a contractual job by Hitchcock and unfortunately that notion comes through almost all the way.
(if it wasn't for the concert scene it would have been
)
Post by: Tom on September 01, 2009, 07:10:34 PM
2009-09-07 "The Wrong Man" for Jon, Tom
Post by: Dragonfire on September 02, 2009, 09:01:29 AM
A dedicated psychiatrist (Ingrid Bergman) falls for a man (Gregory Peck) who may or may not be a cold-blooded murderer.
My Thoughts
I enjoyed this movie overall. Some scenes do move slower and there it almost seems at times if the psycho babble stuff is tossed in more often to make the movie longer, but I still think it is entertaining overall. The characters are interesting for the most part and I was interested in finding out the truth about Peck's character. I did think that the relationship between Constance and Dr. Edwards progressed faster than was believable, but I still enjoyed the movie.
The dream sequence is interesting and a bit..bizarre...which works. I do wonder what the sequence would have been like if Selznick hadn't cut much of it.
The extras on my version of the DVD are interesting. There is one about Dali and the dream sequence and it also covers the fact that Selznick cut a lot of the scene. A few little memos from Selznick are shown. Another one talks about psychoanalysis and how it was used in the movie. There is also one about an actress. I can't remember her name at the moment, but she talks about being discovered. The extras were interesting.
Overall I really enjoyed this movie.
I did get a review posted on Epinions.
Spellbound (http://www.epinions.com/review/mvie_mu-1019609/content_483462188676)
Post by: Tom on September 08, 2009, 11:01:55 PM
Post by: Najemikon on September 08, 2009, 11:05:14 PM
As I am not the only one behind in this marathon and I am not sure, if I get to watch "The Wrong Man" this weekend, I will wait with announcing the next deadline, until Jon has watched "The Man Who Knew Too Much" and "The Wrong Man". Provided of course that noone minds.
I will catch up soon. ;) bad shift at work for movies...
Post by: Dragonfire on September 09, 2009, 04:45:58 AM
Post by: Tom on September 09, 2009, 07:31:18 AM
I'm still working to catch up..though I'm no longer sure how far behind I am.
About three months. You can see it in the first post which I have updated yesterday.
Post by: Dragonfire on September 09, 2009, 09:40:27 PM
I'm still working to catch up..though I'm no longer sure how far behind I am.
About three months. You can see it in the first post which I have updated yesterday.
3 months? Wow...I didn't realize it was that bad. Well...I will finish..eventually. Just like I will eventually finish the Bond movies.
Post by: Dragonfire on September 10, 2009, 07:24:14 AM
Oscar® Winner Ingrid Bergman, Gary Grant and Claude Rains sizzle in this chiller in which a beauty infiltrating a German spy ring finds herself in love and in peril.
My Thoughts
I really enjoyed this movie. I think the plot works well and is interesting overall even though the Nazi element to it is a bit dated. There are some suggestive things going on without anything explicit being shown. The pace is slower, but that works to help set up everything that is going on. Bergman and Grant are wonderful in their parts and they have a decent amount of chemistry. Alex works as the villain even though not a lot about him is shared. The way his mother dominates him did make me think of Norman's relationship with his mother in Psycho..or at least what it was like earlier. There is a decent amount of suspense and mystery in the movie even though the mystery could have been slightly stronger.
Overall I really liked this movie and thing it is another very well done Hitchcock movie.
:thumbup:
I did get a review posted on Epinions today...or yesterday. Whatever. :laugh:
Notorious (http://www.epinions.com/review/mvie_mu-1015287/content_484431138436)
Post by: Najemikon on September 19, 2009, 05:37:16 PM
But in any case, get a shift on! I'm just about to catch up. Ish. :tease:
Post by: Najemikon on September 19, 2009, 06:18:50 PM
3 out of 5
(http://www.jonmeakin.co.uk/images/hitch/hitch21.jpg)
On holiday in Marakesh with his wife, Jo (Doris Day), Dr. McKenna (James Stewart) is the only one to hear the dying words of a French spy, dragging him into an assassination plot. Soon, his young son is kidnapped and they travel to London, desperate to get him back.
This was a pleasant surprise as it was far more enjoyable than I remember. I’ve always considered it one of Hitchcock’s lesser films of this period, but it just goes to prove, Hitchcock couldn’t make a bad film if he tried.
He certainly wasn’t trying here, either, despite my misgivings. Ok, it’s a remake of one of his own films which smells of studio meddling to me, but while that film was very good for its time, this improves the story and pace. It loses the originals sometimes wicked humour, but the characters are so much more believable.
I had originally considered Doris Day’s role as lazy; a world-class singer playing an ex-world class singer? That’s a stretch! However, the original 1934 version of the role was also a figure in the public eye and it’s a nice touch that a famous face suddenly has to hide real heartbreak of losing their child. Plus Doris Day is superb at putting across that emotion and I haven’t been fair by dismissing her in the past. Still, the song Whatever Will Be still sounds a bit out of place, but I don’t suppose you can feature one of the finest female singers of all time and just make her cry! But there’s the catch-22. Apparently Hitch didn’t want the song (another sign of studio control), but typically he pulls it off, especially on the second performance with Day singing it within earshot of her locked up son. Written for the film, it went on to be one of her most famous songs. He never did half-measures, did he? :laugh:
Hitchcock’s best moment though is the incredible Albert Hall sequence, still an influence today (Eagle Eye). Once again, a key part of the film is acted in front of an on-screen audience as well as off. The whole thing is nail-biting and it’s great to have Bernard Herrman conducting the orchestra! My favourite though is how he let the music come to the fore so you can’t hear any dialogue, despite everyone having a lot to say. It makes it visually powerful and a throw-back to the silent days.
My main problem with the film is the plot. It’s a good premise and a nightmarish situation, but there’s no substance. Normally, as we have seen so often before, Hitchcock’s real interest lay in a sub-plot while the chase/murder/conspiracy is a diversion tactic. Here, there is no sub-plot! No romance, no development, it just is what it is.
Still, such empty plotting has been the typical Hollywood method for years (in fact, it’s normally sub-plots that ruin such films! coughEagle Eyecough. Again. ;)) and this is as much fun as any of them, mainly down to Stewart’s expert everyman performance. I do miss the bonkers dentistry or the chair-throwing scenes from the first one. I suppose that does demonstrate how Hitch has developed from macabre farce to colder violence though.
Post by: Dragonfire on September 19, 2009, 09:34:35 PM
I have to say, Marie, I'm a bit disappointed we only get the highlights of your review. Why not post the whole lot here as well? :shrug:
But in any case, get a shift on! I'm just about to catch up. Ish. :tease:
The rules at Epinions have changed at different times over the years about posting things on additional sites. I know for a long time, it was against the TOS there to post the same review somewhere else on the net. Then it was changed to where you could, but they wanted there to be a 100 word difference...they are trying to keep the content on Epinions more unique I think. I'm not completely sure what the full rule on this is now, though I do know there is something in there that if people who are Top Reviewers - which I am in movies - post the same reviews on other sites, they could lose the title. I know the title doesn't mean a whole lot, but I worked hard to get it and I want to keep it. I don't want to violate the rules there. And I we do make a little money off the reviews there too...I still have no clue how they figure it - the company keeps that quiet - but it does add up. It is fine for us to share links and discuss the reviews other places though, so that's what I stick with doing.
Post by: Najemikon on September 19, 2009, 09:50:42 PM
Post by: Dragonfire on September 19, 2009, 10:21:25 PM
Post by: Achim on September 20, 2009, 08:55:39 AM
Yup. For most of the reviews it is a few cents here and there...but some of them have done well for me. And with over 1100 reviews posted now, it adds up.I was not aware of this (you mentioned the rules, but not the money I think). Certainly sounds like something you wouldn't want to risk to loose.
Post by: Dragonfire on September 20, 2009, 10:31:39 PM
I was not aware of this (you mentioned the rules, but not the money I think). Certainly sounds like something you wouldn't want to risk to loose.
I think I forgot to mention the possibility of earnings when I talked about posting reviews there before.
Post by: Najemikon on October 02, 2009, 10:25:35 PM
5 out of 5
(http://www.jonmeakin.co.uk/images/hitch/hitch22.jpg)
Henry Fonda plays musician Manny Balestrero, arrested for a crime he didn’t –could never- commit. His wife (Vera Miles) feels the pressure as the evidence mounts.
This is a very different Hitchcock film as he tones everything down to follow the true story of Manny (Henry Fonda), who’s misfortune it is to look very like a man wanted for several robberies. While the style is not so much Cinema Verite, it is certainly reminiscent of Italian Neo-realism, especially Bicycle Thieves from 1948.
Like that film the story is terribly bleak, but differs in that it isn’t quite so unremitting and has a natural drama to it (neo-realism kind of just happens). It’s ideal for Hitchcock, because if it hadn’t have been a true story, he’d have eventually written it! It just happens to have similar beats to one of his thrillers and the central conceit of a normal everyday man taken away from his family is just the sort of thing he relished. It bears comparison with I Confess, especially as there is an undercurrent of Catholic faith.
Henry Fonda is nothing short of perfect in this role. Such a gentle man, he has boiling emotions behind his eyes, conveying frustration, exhaustion, terror, anger and in a most poignant scene, just desperately sad. Vera Mills matches him in the scenes of her mind breaking down. I bemoaned The Man Who Knew Too Much for not having something to focus on, other than the main plot, where usually he would have a romance building. Cleverly, Hitch hooks onto how Manny’s relationship with his wife breaks down and how he has to fight for it as well as clear his name. It doesn’t matter how innocent you are, there will always be consequences in an ordeal like this.
Apparently Hitchcock regretted showing what happens to her, but it’s powerful stuff. It is his most serious film, but don’t be put off as it isn’t a trial to watch; it’s important to note that it’s paced like any drama and ultimately positive. As piece of suspense, it is superb, especially considering the different approach.
It’s quite brilliant how he chooses to avoid any kind of obvious direction or editing. I’ve heard people describe it as being like a documentary, but I disagree, because if anything a documentary is even more manipulative. This just feels honest, which is why the cast was so important here. Where normally there might be jump-cut or a zoom, now it’s purely lighting and expression. There are still moments of genius that match the fluidity of the story; note how the camera refuses to be blocked by doorways as we follow Manny into his house and later, the cell. Bernard Herrmann too produces a low-key score; his partnership couldn’t have been more in tune with the director across all their films. I continually defend Quentin Tarantino, but partnerships like that do demonstrate how he could be missing out by steadfastly refusing to let others score his work.
Hermann went on to score Taxi Driver and I just read this film was a big influence on Martin Scorcese. It’s obvious now I think about it. This is a very special film and a milestone I think for Hitchcock. It’s a reliable testament to his humility; how he was always able and willing to adapt to new methods that would then continue to inform his work.
Post by: Dragonfire on October 02, 2009, 11:06:42 PM
Post by: Tom on October 10, 2009, 11:12:21 AM
Title: The Wrong Man (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wrong_Man) (http://www.invelos.com/images/DVDLogo.png)
Year: 1956
Director: Alfred Hitchcock
Rating: PG
Length: 101 Min.
Video: Anamorphic Widescreen 1.85
Audio: English: Dolby Digital Mono, French: Dolby Digital Mono, Italian: Dolby Digital Mono
Subtitles: Arabic, Bulgarian, Dutch, English, French, Italian
Stars:
Henry Fonda
Vera Miles
Anthony Quayle
Harold J. Stone
John Heldabrand
Plot:
The Wrong Man is like 'and' unlike any other Alfred Hitchcock movie. The story packs tension, the images are spellbounding and the dilemma genuinely frightening. But this time the master of suspense dramatizes the harrowing true experiences of a man tried for crimes committed by a lookalike robber.
Henry Fonda plays musician Manny Balestrero, a man full of visible but unspoken rage at his wrongful arrest.
Vera Miles is his distraught wife Rose, driven to madness by the ordeal. And the right man to bring the unsetting facts of the case to vivid screen life with documentary precision is Hitchcock. He made New York City a star of the film and cast real-life Balestrero case witnesses in small roles. He shot in many actual locations, among them the Stork Club, Manny's jail cell and Rose's sanitarium.
Awards:
| AFI | 1956 | Nominated | 100 Years... 100 Thrills (2001) |
Extras:
Featurettes
Scene Access
Trailers
My Thoughts:
I just don't seem to get into the Hitchcock movies. This movie executed well, even though I feel that the female lead is overacting. In many scenes I feel like she is the embodiment of the many parodies you see about bad acting. Henry Fonda is great though.Rating:
Post by: Tom on October 10, 2009, 11:13:43 AM
2009-10-18, "Vertigo" for Dragonfire, Jon, Rich, RossRoy, Tom
Post by: Najemikon on October 26, 2009, 02:50:40 PM
5 out of 5
(http://www.jonmeakin.co.uk/images/hitch/hitch23.jpg)
James Stewart plays Scotty, a recently retired detective crippled by Agoraphobia (fear of heights), hired by an old friend to trail his wife (Kim Novak). After rescuing her from San Francisco bay, Scotty becomes obsessed.
Vertigo is Alfred Hitchcock’s most powerful film and amongst the very best of all time. These days, words are cheap and “Masterpiece” is bandied around without really considering what it means. If I had to pick one from his incredible career, Vertigo would be Hitchcock’s.
A traditional Film Noir, the plot is very straightforward. Unusually for Hitch there is little to be gleaned from the premise; a retired detective follows a woman at the behest of her husband, who happens to be an old friend. If anything, it’s obvious. Anyone who understands Noir will immediately think they have the whole thing sown up!
Vertigo is very ambitious though. That basic story is pretty much done inside 80 minutes starting from the most memorable opening of his films (the much imitated dolly-cam shot), but the fallout is devastating to Scotty. Still it feels like an ending with a wonderful dream sequence reminiscent of Spellbound and certainly the film changes aesthetically, with deep primary colours lighting the hotel room where Scotty’s obsession dangerously manifests and the narrative delicately shifts to Novak’s character as roles are reversed in a superb sequence. It’s a master-class for anyone interested in film writing. Later we return to the room and attention moves back to Scotty for an unforgettable finale after typically Noir-ish revelations following another “false” ending.
The two leads are incredible in the most demanding roles of their careers. That either can hold the audiences sympathy while they suffer from deep rooted obsession and guilt is testament to their skill. Stewart is the less surprising given his prolific career (although some may be surprised who dismiss him as an everyman), but Novak is fantastic in what is at least a dual role. Almost forgotten is Barbara Bel Geddes as Scotty’s very close friend. It isn’t her fault, but the screenplay bravely uses her without giving her a resolution.
I say the screenplay bravely uses her, because this isn’t an audience friendly film. There's more than a few elements that wouldn't have got passed the studios that couldn't allow Cary Grant to be a villain just a few years before. No-one gets treated well during this film, least of all the viewer! There is little-to-no humour, no set-pieces, no gimmicks, no showing off; even the famous dolly-cam shot feels integral. Hitch commented in an interview that he’d tried to do it for Rebecca, but perfecting it for 15 years pays off by using it so perfectly here.
Vertigo is a powerful study of a man losing his marbles while trapped in a doomed love affair and it’s as pretty as it sounds. But like the central character, you can’t help but lose yourself and it rewards the multiple viewings you will surely have with hitherto unseen layers. This is down to the incredible skill of the director, supported by Robert Burk’s photography and Bernard Hermann’s score (script notes show his absolute faith in Hermann). While the middle act really cuts lose with colour, the finest moment is possibly Novak’s sublime introduction in a club with daring contrasts (to signify the heart of the story perhaps), fluid shots and a gorgeous theme. Hitch really knew how to photograph women and like Grace Kelly before her, gives Novak an entrance to die for.
There has been much said about this film showing up Hitchcock’s own obsessions and dark-side, especially with blondes, but I think that’s rubbish. He was a master technician who enjoyed playing with perception and he couldn’t have pulled this off if he wasn’t at his most potent and self-critical. He does treat the characters more bleakly than he has ever done before, which is proper Film Noir, but even more powerful than the average example. It’s interesting that he follows The Wrong Man with this. Perhaps doing that true story gave him the confidence to trust the audience to follow a character down a darker path than before. Certainly the way he plays with the narrative is very audacious for the time and sets the scene for what he did with Psycho, although that was much more a genre piece.
It may be that you won’t enjoy Vertigo, but don’t dismiss it. It isn’t trying to entertain you. It’s one of the most important films ever made, so if you come out of it with a frown, invest another couple of well-spent hours watching it again.
The marvellous DVD contains several easter eggs, including an alternative (or at least additional) ending that Hitchcock was forced to add on originally. Pesky studios like closure! Still it is an excellent scene and he does very well to add a splash of humour and keep it in the mood of the film. To see it, select 'Bonus Features', the 'Obsessed with Vertigo' documentary and then the chapter list. Go to the last two pages and after the last marker for the actual documentary, there are more chapter stops. As well as the ending, there are also trailers and production art.
Post by: richierich on October 26, 2009, 03:31:06 PM
Going by Jons review though this viewing won't be much of a chore (although we seldom agree over films of a certain age) :voodoo:
Post by: Najemikon on October 26, 2009, 10:25:33 PM
oops, thats a reminder to me. :-[
Going by Jons review though this viewing won't be much of a chore (although we seldom agree over films of a certain age) :voodoo:
Only because you're wrong! :tease:
I was annoyed to have dropped off the pace. I was planning to finish the Horror marathon with a Psycho/Birds double-bill. Maybe still will, but that would mean watching North By Northwest this week as well and considering how far ahead that would put me, I think it's just vulgar! :training:
Post by: Achim on October 27, 2009, 05:22:38 AM
I was annoyed to have dropped off the pace. I was planning to finish the Horror marathon with a Psycho/Birds double-bill. Maybe still will, but that would mean watching North By Northwest this week as well and considering how far ahead that would put me, I think it's just vulgar! :training:´
I just read yesterday that the North By Northwest Blu-ray is supposed to have a marvelous transfer and upgrade/purchase is recoemmended practically for everyone. Now I am wondering if I should get it despite the fact that my DVD version of it is still unwatched. :headscratch:
Post by: Najemikon on October 30, 2009, 10:57:38 PM
:devil:
Of course, that comment could not be more false. No, I remembered an easter egg that's really worth seeing, so I added the instructions. :D
I was annoyed to have dropped off the pace. I was planning to finish the Horror marathon with a Psycho/Birds double-bill. Maybe still will, but that would mean watching North By Northwest this week as well and considering how far ahead that would put me, I think it's just vulgar! :training:´
I just read yesterday that the North By Northwest Blu-ray is supposed to have a marvelous transfer and upgrade/purchase is recoemmended practically for everyone. Now I am wondering if I should get it despite the fact that my DVD version of it is still unwatched. :headscratch:
You swine. I'd convinced myself it wouldn't be worth upgrading and then you come along, with your la-di-da, "ooh, the rumours", "best blu-ray ever", blah, blah. Do you have any idea of what you've done? Do you? :redcard:
:slaphead: One way ticket to Double-Dip City please.
Post by: Achim on November 01, 2009, 05:37:38 AM
You swine. I'd convinced myself it wouldn't be worth upgrading and then you come along, with your la-di-da, "ooh, the rumours", "best blu-ray ever", blah, blah. Do you have any idea of what you've done? Do you? :redcard::devil:
:slaphead: One way ticket to Double-Dip City please.
Well, don't just take my word for it: Blu-ray.com (http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/North-by-Northwest-Blu-ray-Review/762/). Unfortunately a DVDTalk review is not yet available (although they do praise the DVD...)
Post by: Najemikon on November 01, 2009, 06:05:11 PM
In fact, is there anyone else left? Have I worn you all out? :whistle:
Post by: Tom on November 01, 2009, 06:12:59 PM
In fact, is there anyone else left? Have I worn you all out? :whistle:
I plan to watch Vertigo, North by Northwest and Psycho for the November marathon.
If watching the Hitchcock movies wouldn't feel so much like a chore, I would have continued watching them sooner :P
Post by: Achim on November 01, 2009, 06:35:03 PM
Post by: Tom on November 01, 2009, 06:39:43 PM
My next one is North By Northwest (although probably still the DVD) and I have merely been waiting for everyone else to catch up...
I have set the next two deadlines to end of November.
Feel free to go even further if you like.
2009-11-30 "North by Northwest" for Achim, Dragonfire, Jon, Rich, Tom
2009-11-30 "Psycho" for Achim, Dragonfire, Jon, RossRoy, Tom
Post by: Dragonfire on November 01, 2009, 09:57:49 PM
I'm seriously considering it. Play have it for £12, released on 16th. I seriously doubt the other marathon runners will have caught up by then! :tease:
In fact, is there anyone else left? Have I worn you all out? :whistle:
No you have not worn me out..I'm just still horribly behind. :laugh: I will try to catch up this month, though once some work stuff starts up, I'll have to see..it is irritating how work interferes with my movie watching and review writing.
Post by: richierich on November 01, 2009, 10:52:04 PM
Title: Vertigo
Runtime:129
Certificate:PG
Year:1958
Genres:Suspense/Thriller, Classic
Plot:Considered by many to be director 'Alfred Hitchcock's' greatest achievement comes this fully restored and remastered version of the haunting film classic. This special release also contains a restoration trailer and revealing documentary footage.
Set in San Francisco, 'James Stewart' portrays an acrophobic detective hired to trail a friend's suicidal wife ('Novak'). After he successfully rescues her from a leap into the bay, he finds himself becoming obsessed with the beautifully troubled woman.
One of cinema's most chilling romantic endeavors: it's a fascinating myriad of haunting camera angles shot among some of San Francisco's renowned landmarks. This film is a must for collectors; Leonard Maltin gives 'Vertigo' four stars and hails it as "A genuinely great motion picture that demands multiple viewings."
My Review:
Ponderously slow at times, unnecessarily long, but captivating totally and ridiculously advanced technically for its time. You watch this film and you have to hold your hands up and admit that Hitch was a true genius behind the camera. It's not the greatest storyline, it hasn't got my favourite cast, there are a few appalling romance scenes - but what it does have that keeps you glued to the movie is masterful direction and cinematography, bringing alive deceipt, lies, intrigue, suspense and unhealthy love.
A very psychological film, was it about JS's phobia, was it a sad series of twists in a love story, was it exploring unrequitted love and betrayal, was it highlighting schizophrenia, or possibly male dominance? Whichever you choose you would probably be right, and you find yourself through Hitch's in depth characterisations feeling sorry for JS, Novak and even Bel Geddes at different times.
Not my favourite Hitchcock, but one I most respect, it is dizzying and compulsive. How did he never win an oscar??
My Rating
:D
:D
Post by: Najemikon on November 02, 2009, 01:14:51 AM
Ok, I should be pleased you obviously enjoyed it and it's a great review, Rich, but... :tease: "ponderously slow"? Watch it again sometime and I think it will pace better. The opening sets you up for a rollercoaster. Certianly I didn't love it the first time; "appalling romantic scenes"? I'd be interested to know where, because the thing that did annoy me in Hitch's older films are the daft love affairs, but that doesn't happen here:
(click to show/hide)
The final point I don't even know how to question it: "not the greatest storyline"? What was wrong with it? An audacious and brilliant narrative that took the conventions of Film Noir and subverted them.
By the way, I'm not trying to pick on you, it's just lately I can't help feeling we just do random reviews when we used to talk about them a bit more. So I want to be a bit picky and thrash things out more! :2cents:
Post by: richierich on November 02, 2009, 01:40:45 AM
:hmmmm:Expanding on my opinions for Jon :cheers:
Ok, I should be pleased you obviously enjoyed it and it's a great review, Rich, but... :tease: "ponderously slow"? Watch it again sometime and I think it will pace better. The opening sets you up for a rollercoaster. Certianly I didn't love it the first time; "appalling romantic scenes"? I'd be interested to know where, because the thing that did annoy me in Hitch's older films are the daft love affairs, but that doesn't happen here:(click to show/hide)
The final point I don't even know how to question it: "not the greatest storyline"? What was wrong with it? An audacious and brilliant narrative that took the conventions of Film Noir and subverted them.
By the way, I'm not trying to pick on you, it's just lately I can't help feeling we just do random reviews when we used to talk about them a bit more. So I want to be a bit picky and thrash things out more! :2cents:
Ponderously slow (130mins) - the set-up was dragged out, with the whole trailing by Scottie of Madeleine too repetitive. IMO this could have put a less determined viewer off.
Appalling romantic scenes - rewatch their first kiss, as she 'melts' in his arms at the touch of his lips - come on!!! it's the worst part of older films, they used to bump and grind in them days same as we do now. And the 'swooning' when he puts his arms round her :yucky: The later depiction of his romantic obsession is not what I was referring to.
Not the greatest storyline - it isn't? I don't know about film noir or it's conventions, I just know what i like and don't. It's a good storyline, it isn't great.
And 2 other points for me that stop this being a masterpiece and what I didn't mention before; what a disappointing ending, you cannot dispute that! And WTF happened to Midge????
Post by: Achim on November 02, 2009, 05:57:33 AM
I'm seriously considering it. Play have it for £12, released on 16th. I seriously doubt the other marathon runners will have caught up by then! :tease:Here is another positive review from High-Def Digest (http://bluray.highdefdigest.com/309/northbynorthwest.html). In case you weren't clear in your decision yet :devil:
Post by: Najemikon on November 02, 2009, 09:30:29 AM
Ponderously slow (130mins) - the set-up was dragged out, with the whole trailing by Scottie of Madeleine too repetitive. IMO this could have put a less determined viewer off.
First time I saw it, I wondered where it was going, but since then it works. If you're interested in such things, it's actually very intricate and there are no wasted moments. It is supposed to repetitive, so this can't be a fault.
Appalling romantic scenes - rewatch their first kiss, as she 'melts' in his arms at the touch of his lips - come on!!! it's the worst part of older films, they used to bump and grind in them days same as we do now. And the 'swooning' when he puts his arms round her :yucky: The later depiction of his romantic obsession is not what I was referring to.
But the first part as I said is tough to pin down.
(click to show/hide)
Not the greatest storyline - it isn't? I don't know about film noir or it's conventions, I just know what i like and don't. It's a good storyline, it isn't great.
And 2 other points for me that stop this being a masterpiece and what I didn't mention before; what a disappointing ending, you cannot dispute that! And WTF happened to Midge????
All these are connected and are conventions of Film Noir. Fair enough you watched it as it stands, but it is a masterpiece precisely because of how it's structured. You might not like the ending, but...
(click to show/hide)
You might appreciate the alternate ending. Check out the instructions in my review for finding it.
Certainly I do auto-adjust my brain to account for the age of a film, such as things like melodrama, but in this case I think it's both conventional and cancels itself out. Nope, definitely his masterpiece! ;)
Suggested further viewing: Chinatown and Double Indemnity. More typical Noirs, and more modern in Chinatown. You may enjoy it more and after watching Vertigo, some of the elements should stick out like a sore thumb, which they are supposed to do.
I'm seriously considering it. Play have it for £12, released on 16th. I seriously doubt the other marathon runners will have caught up by then! :tease:Here is another positive review from High-Def Digest (http://bluray.highdefdigest.com/309/northbynorthwest.html). In case you weren't clear in your decision yet :devil:
:redcard: Behave!
Post by: Achim on November 02, 2009, 10:01:24 AM
:redcard: Behave!:bag:
(click to show/hide)
Post by: Achim on November 06, 2009, 09:10:31 AM
I already prepared an order, just need to actually place it. Problem is, I filled the "basket" with so much stuff that I am now over my limit for one order :surrender: Update: order placed
Post by: Dragonfire on November 06, 2009, 10:17:48 AM
Post by: Achim on November 07, 2009, 11:56:25 AM
And now you've made me want it and I don't even have a Blu-ray player yet. :laugh::thumbup:
You can always get it first and the player later ;)
Post by: Tom on November 08, 2009, 07:37:12 PM
Title: Vertigo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vertigo_(film)) (http://www.invelos.com/images/DVDLogo.png)
Year: 1958
Director: Alfred Hitchcock
Rating: PG
Length: 124 Min.
Video: Anamorphic Widescreen 1.85
Audio: English: Dolby Digital 5.1, German: Dolby Digital Surround, French: Dolby Digital Mono, Italian: Dolby Digital Mono, Spanish: Dolby Digital Mono, Commentary: Dolby Digital Stereo
Subtitles: Czech, Danish, Dutch, English, Finnish, French, German, Norwegian, Polish, Portuguese, Swedish
Stars:
James Stewart
Kim Novak
Barbara Bel Geddes
Tom Helmore
Henry Jones
Plot:
Set in San Francisco, James Stewart portrays an acrophobic detective hired to trail a friend's suicidal wife (Kim Novak). After he successfully rescues her from a leap into the bay, he finds himself becoming obsessed with the beautifully troubled woman.
One of cinema's most chilling romantic endeavors: its fascinating myriad of haunting camera angles shot among some of San Francisco's renowned landmarks. This film is a must for collectors; Leonard Maltin gives Vertigo four stars and hails it as "A genuinely great motion picture that demands multiple-viewings."
Awards:
| Academy Award | 1958 | Nominated | Best Art Direction | Hal Pereira, Henry Bumstead (Art Direction); Sam Comer, Frank McKelvy (Set Decoration) |
| Academy Award | 1958 | Nominated | Best Sound | George Dutton (Sound Director, Paramount Studio Sound Department) |
| AFI | 1958 | Won | 100 Years... 100 Movies (1998) | |
| AFI | 1958 | Won | 100 Years... 100 Movies (2007) | |
| AFI | 1958 | Won | 100 Years... 100 Passions (2002) | |
| AFI | 1958 | Won | 100 Years... 100 Thrills (2001) | |
| AFI | 1958 | Won | 100 Years... 25 Scores (2005) | "Composer": Bernard Herrmann |
| Directors Guild of America | 1959 | Nominated | Outstanding Directorial Achievement in Motion Pictures | Alfred Hitchcock |
Extras:
Commentary
Featurettes
Production Notes
Scene Access
Trailers
My Thoughts:
I enjoyed this movie more than I had expected. Mainly due (click to show/hide)
This time around it was mainly the story that kept me interested, not so much the actors. James Stewart was okay, but I didn't much care for Kim Novak. Part of that is not really her fault: I really hated the look of her bleached hair.
So overall I enjoyed this movie. So far it is one of the better Hitchcocks I have seen. But I am not sure if I will watch it again in the future.
Rating:
Post by: Najemikon on November 08, 2009, 07:50:55 PM
Post by: Jimmy on November 08, 2009, 08:33:59 PM
It's a good thing that it isn't spoiler worthy :tease:(click to show/hide)
edit to add the spoiler since it is now corrected in the initial post
Post by: Tom on November 08, 2009, 08:39:09 PM
It's a good thing that it isn't spoiler worthy :tease:(click to show/hide)
:bag:
Though I still think it is a spoiler, if you know to expect a plot twist. With this I mean, if a movie hinges on such a twist.
Post by: Najemikon on November 08, 2009, 09:02:37 PM
If you're really nerdy, you can consider how it breaks the Western conventions of narrative equilibrium (or at least plays with it) and then it becomes of specific interest to other nerds.
But of course, there's no-one like that here... :bag:
:laugh:
Post by: Tom on November 15, 2009, 10:29:23 PM
Title: Psycho (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psycho_(1960_film)) (http://www.invelos.com/images/DVDLogo.png)
Year: 1960
Director: Alfred Hitchcock
Rating: 15
Length: 104 Min.
Video: Anamorphic Widescreen 1.85
Audio: English: Dolby Digital Mono, German: Dolby Digital Mono, Polish: Dolby Digital Mono
Subtitles: Dutch, English, Swedish
Stars:
Janet Leigh
Anthony Perkins
Vera Miles
John Gavin
Plot:
Alfred Hitchcock's landmark masterpiece of the macabre stars Anthony Perkins as the troubled Norman Bates, whose old dark house and adjoining motel are not the place to spend a quiet evening. No one knows that better than Marion Crane (Janet Leigh), the ill-fated traveller whose journey ends in the notorious "shower scene". First a private detective, then Marion's sister (Vera Miles) searches for her, the horror and the suspence mount to a terrifying climax where the mysterious killer is finally revealed. It took seven days to shoot the shover scene, seventy camera setups for the forty-five seconds of this now famous footage - and not an actual bare breast or plunging knife is to be found in the final cut, just illusion through montage.
Awards:
| Academy Award | 1960 | Nominated | Best Art Direction, Black-and-White | Joseph Hurley, Robert Clatworthy (Art Direction); George Milo (Set Decoration) |
| Academy Award | 1960 | Nominated | Best Cinematography, Black-and-White | John L. Russell |
| Academy Award | 1960 | Nominated | Best Director | Alfred Hitchcock |
| Academy Award | 1960 | Nominated | Best Supporting Actress | Janet Leigh |
| AFI | 1960 | Won | 100 Years... 100 Movies (1998) | |
| AFI | 1960 | Won | 100 Years... 100 Movies (2007) | |
| AFI | 1960 | Won | 100 Years... 100 Quotes (2005) | "Quote": A boy's best friend is his mother. |
| AFI | 1960 | Won | 100 Years... 100 Thrills (2001) | |
| AFI | 1960 | Won | 100 Years... 25 Scores (2005) | "Composer": Bernard Herrmann |
| Directors Guild of America | 1961 | Nominated | Outstanding Directorial Achievement in Motion Pictures | Alfred Hitchcock |
| Golden Globe | 1960 | Won | Actress in a Supporting Role | Janet Leigh |
| Writers Guild of America Awards | 1961 | Nominated | Best Written American Drama | Joseph Stefano |
Extras:
Featurettes
Production Notes
Scene Access
Trailers
My Thoughts:
This is the first time I have watched this classic (I have never watched a Hitchock movie before this marathon). The best Hitchcock movie I have seen so far. I enjoyed this one from beginning to end. I must admit it took longer figuring out the ending than I expected. I had an inkling at the time of the famous shower scene, but I wasn't convinced yet. I finally guessed it in the scene, where Bates carries his mother downstairs.The only thing I knew about this movie is, that with the famous shower scene,
(click to show/hide)
Rating:
Post by: snowcat on November 15, 2009, 10:52:39 PM
(click to show/hide)
Post by: Najemikon on November 15, 2009, 11:41:08 PM
Superbly written.
(click to show/hide)
1960 was a great year for horror. While Hitch was testing audiences in his way, Michael Powell was doing it his and destroying his career in the process. Peeping Tom was I think the first film to show it from the killers point of view, so the audience were forced to be complicit in the killings. Whether it was a step too far or it was just that no-one expected it of that nice Mr. Powell, I'm not sure. Powerful film though and worth seeing.
Post by: Tom on November 22, 2009, 05:41:47 PM
Title: North by Northwest (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_by_Northwest) (http://www.invelos.com/images/DVDLogo.png)
Year: 1959
Director: Alfred Hitchcock
Rating: PG
Length: 131 Min.
Video: Anamorphic Widescreen 1.85
Audio: English: Dolby Digital 5.1, French: Dolby Digital Mono, Commentary: Dolby Digital Surround, Music Only: Dolby Digital Surround
Subtitles: Arabic, Dutch, English, French, German, Italian, Spanish
Stars:
Cary Grant
Eva Marie Saint
James Mason
Jessie Royce Landis
Leo G. Carroll
Plot:
Roger Thornhill [Cary Grant] is not a spy. And he's certainly no murderer. Nevertheless, Thornhill's a wanted man: enemy agents want him dead, the police want him arrested, and a cool, mysterious blonde [Eva Marie Saint] just plain wants him. A victim of mistaken identity, Thornhill can't afford to make any mistakes of his own - so he embarks on a death-defying run for his life. Relentlessly pursued by plane, train and automobile, Thornhill's cross-country chase finally ends atop Mt. Rushmore where, if he doesn't watch his step, he could be in for a terrible fall.
Nominated for three 1959 Academy Awards®, Alfred Hitchcock's North by Northwest is a masterful blend of suspense and romance, one of the best and most thrilling movie adventures ever created.
Awards:
| Academy Award | 1959 | Nominated | Best Art Direction, Color | William A. Horning, Robert Boyle, Merrill Pye (Art Direction); Henry Grace, Frank McKelvy (Set Decoration) |
| Academy Award | 1959 | Nominated | Best Film Editing | George Tomasini |
| Academy Award | 1959 | Nominated | Best Writing, Original Screenplay | Ernest Lehman |
| AFI | 1959 | Won | 100 Years... 100 Movies (1998) | |
| AFI | 1959 | Won | 100 Years... 100 Movies (2007) | |
| AFI | 1959 | Won | 100 Years... 100 Thrills (2001) | |
| AFI | 1959 | Nominated | 100 Years... 25 Scores (2005) | "Composer": Bernard Herrmann |
| Directors Guild of America | 1960 | Nominated | Outstanding Directorial Achievement in Motion Pictures | Alfred Hitchcock |
| Writers Guild of America Awards | 1960 | Nominated | Best Written American Comedy | Ernest Lehman |
Extras:
Commentary
Featurettes
Photo Gallery
Scene Access
Trailers
My Thoughts:
This movie has some great scenes in it, like the biplane scene, but overall I found the movie boring. I had to force myself to stay awake (okay I was a little tired to begin with).My brother and I are always bothered by minor scenes in Hitchcock movies, which are just not realistic. The scene which caused my brother to exclaim this time, that he thinks Hitchcock had lost his grip on reality, was very early on. A car was chased by the police. The car stops and the police crashes into it. That in itself is a little unrealistic, but what follows is just stupid: Another car crashes into the police car. Why would this car follow a police car which had sirens on? And doing it keeping such a close distance to the police car, that he cannot avoid hitting it? It are scenes like this which always pull us out of the Hitchcock movies.
Rating:
Post by: Najemikon on November 22, 2009, 06:41:21 PM
This movie has some great scenes in it, like the biplane scene, but overall I found the movie boring. I had to force myself to stay awake (okay I was a little tired to begin with).
My brother and I are always bothered by minor scenes in Hitchcock movies, which are just not realistic. The scene which caused my brother to exclaim this time, that he thinks Hitchcock had lost his grip on reality, was very early on. A car was chased by the police. The car stops and the police crashes into it. That in itself is a little unrealistic, but what follows is just stupid: Another car crashes into the police car. Why would this car follow a police car which had sirens on? And doing it keeping such a close distance to the police car, that he cannot avoid hitting it? It are scenes like this which always pull us out of the Hitchcock movies.
:hysterical: :slaphead:
But Tom, that's the sort of film he was making! You're taking it too seriously. This is what would become the template for action movies which are invariably built on set-pieces. He wants you to abandon logic just as much as him.
Throughout this marathon I've found more and more evidence that Hitch was a big influence on Bond. Every Bond film is stuffed with things like that; abandoning logic is part of the fun of that sort of film. To base your entire review on one point seems a shame when people that enjoy NbN already understand why it's there. :shrug:
Post by: Tom on November 22, 2009, 06:51:29 PM
Post by: Najemikon on November 22, 2009, 07:26:35 PM
Well, at least you liked Psycho. The Birds should be palatable too... ;)
Post by: richierich on November 23, 2009, 02:44:57 AM
Title: North by Northwest
Runtime:136
Certificate:NR
Year:1959
Genres:Suspense/Thriller, Adventure, Classic
Plot:Cary Grant teams with director Alfred Hitchcock for the fourth and final time in this superlative espionage caper judged one of the American Film Institute's Top-100 Films and spruced up with a new digital transfer and remixed Dolby Digital Stereo. He plays a Manhattan advertising executive plunged into a realm of spy (James Mason) and counterspy (Eva Marie Saint) and variously abducted, framed for murder, chased and in another signature set piece, crop-dusted. He also holds on for dear life from the facial features of the Presidents on Mount Rushmore (backlot sets were used). But don't expect the Master of Suspense to leave star or audience hanging.
My Review:
Of all my recent Hitchcock films watched recently, this one I found the hardest to sit through without distraction.
It is unnecessarily long, if the various action, intrigue and romance had been filtered into a shorter offering it may have held my interest more.
The acting is good, Grant is convincing and suave in the lead, Saint is wholesome enough to attract (although the slutty first meeting on train was unbelievable). Mason of course is professional, but Landau didn't work for me.
Plenty of famous landmarks and milking the 'innocent accused theme' so common in Hitch's films. The best scenes are clearly the most infamous - the crop dusting plane, and the Rushmore finale, but unfortunately there are several beyond belief or poorly shot moments which are unusual in his work.
NBN is a well directed suspense/chase movie, but tediously dull in too many parts to give it a good mark.
My Rating
:-\
:-\
Post by: Achim on November 23, 2009, 05:41:01 AM
Well, it is the most iconic Hitchcock I rememeber from my past (seen it way before I was allowed to see Psycho) and hope it'll hold up. Obviously the police chase will now never be the same :hysterical:
Post by: Tom on November 23, 2009, 06:35:04 AM
Post by: Achim on November 23, 2009, 06:43:36 AM
Post by: richierich on November 23, 2009, 11:06:01 AM
Thanks, Rich! Now I don't feel so alone with my opinion :)
Pure coicidence of course, but we can only review a film to how we personally find it. If it had been cut by 45 minutes, and a few sloppy scenes were tidied up (especially near the end) I would have said i enjoyed it. But as it stood it didn't grab me and maybe that had come from some higher expectations of the movie than normal. :headscratch:
Post by: Achim on November 23, 2009, 04:13:30 PM
MOVIE / DVD INFO:
(http://www.invelos.com/mpimages/88/883929064953f.jpg) Title: North by Northwest
Year: 1959
Director: Alfred Hitchcock
Rating: NR
Length: 136 Min.
Video: Widescreen 1.85:1
Audio: English: Dolby Digital TrueHD, French: Dolby Digital Mono, German: Dolby Digital Mono, Italian: Dolby Digital Mono, Spanish: Dolby Digital Mono, Portuguese: Dolby Digital Mono, Commentary: Dolby Digital Surround, Music Only: Dolby Digital 5.1
Subtitles: Danish, English, Finnish, French, German, Italian, Norwegian, Portuguese, Spanish, Swedish
Stars:
Cary Grant
Eva Marie Saint
James Mason (1889)
Jessie Royce Landis
Leo G. Carroll
Plot:
Cary Grant is the screen's supreme man-on-the-run in his fourth and final teaming with Master of Suspense Alfred Hitchcock. He plays a Manhattan adman plunged into a realm of spy (James Mason) and counterspy (Eva Marie Saint) and variously abducted, framed for murder, chased, and in a signature set-piece, crop-dusted. He also hangs for dear life from the facial features of Mount Rushmore's Presidents. Savor one of Hollywood's most enjoyable thrillers ever in this State-of-the-Art Restoration. It's Renewed Picture Vitality will leave you just as breathless as the chase itself.
Extras:
Scene Access
Audio Commentary
Trailers
Featurettes
Gallery
Production Notes
My Thoughts:
It has been many many years (darn, I just had to put two "many"...) since I last saw this and unfortunately I remembered it faster paced than it presented itself today. This could, of course, be a problem of changed perception due to the film making we are surrounded by today (with it's flash cutting and "MTV sensibilities"). However, even the slower bits were held up by good dialog and some thrown in comedy bits. Yet again, I agree that the film would not be any worse if it had some additional cuts here and there.The plot is Hitchcock's beloved "wrong man" theme, where an everyday guy is mistaken for someone else and finds himself running from everyone (police and crooks). I think in past viewings I had always missed the point where he is mistaken, was glad to see today how well that was actually handled. Also, seeing the film sees it's 50th anniversary this year, I found it surprising just how much sexual innuendo, to the point where it almost wasn't just innuendo anymore, there was. Hitchcock varies whether to keep us slightly ahead of the film's main character or with the same knowledge for good effect and heightened suspense. There is little less suspense than one might expect though, as much room is given to the love story (almost like in To Catch a Thief, also with Cary Grant; maybe it was him who made the master plot a different course...?)
Cary Grant was a great choice for Roger Thornhill, providing the comedic timing needed for the role. James Mason amazes with his cool display of the bad guy. We also have the reliable Martin Landau as the henchman, the beautiful Eve-Marie Saint as the love interest and Leo G. Carrol.
The Blu-ray comes with a stunning picture, providing marvelous detail and mostly very sharp images. Given that the film is 50 years old I was highly impressed; I have seen terrible transfers on far more recent films. Also on the disc are four documentaries in total length of more than 3 hours and an audio commentary.
Post by: richierich on November 23, 2009, 07:57:43 PM
Runtime:116
Certificate:R
Year:1972
Genres:Suspense/Thriller
Plot:In modern-day London, a sex criminal known as the Necktie Murderer has the police on alert, and in typical Hitchcock fashion, the trail is leading to an innocent man, who must now elude the law and prove his innocence by finding the real murderer. Jon Finch, Alec McCowen and Barry Foster head this British cast in the thriller that alternates suspense scenes with moments of Hitchcock's distinctive black humor. Screenplay by Anthony Shaffer.
My Review:
There are huge chunks of Hitch under the surface of this movie - wrong man, comedy couple, suspense, intrigue, good pace, showdown scene etc. But there are some elements that just didn't fit right, full frontal nudity, rape scene, swearing, boobs aplenty etc. and I wonder if he was forced to add these into the film to satisfy the more liberated 70's audience, or what he wished to view as an ageing man?
As a standalone film without analysing too deeply it was really enjoyable, the script was quality, and the black comedy elements eased the serial killer heaviness of the film. The casting was good with several now famous British actors making early small appearances, although I didn't spot Hitch in this one?
I expected not to enjoy this, but was pleasantly surprised that such a quality piece was delivered as his penultimate film.
My Rating
:D
:D
Post by: richierich on November 23, 2009, 08:07:57 PM
Title: Psycho
Runtime:108
Certificate:R
Year:1960
Genres:Suspense/Thriller, Horror
Plot:Alfred Hitchcock's masterpiece of the macabre stars Anthony Perkins as the troubled Norman Bates, whose "old dark house" and adjoining motel are not the place to spend a quiet evening. No one knows that better than Janet Leigh, the film's ill-fated heroine who is victimized in the now-notorious "shower scene." Vera Miles, Martin Balsam, John Gavin and John McIntire co-star in Hitchcock's most compelling and terrifying film. Screenplay by Joseph Stefano.
My Review:
I saved the best til last of my Hitchcock films, one I have seen a few times and really enjoy, and which still in places makes the hairs on the back of my neck go up and my arms get goosebumps.
This to me is the first true scary film, everything since has been an attempt to match its absolutely perfect suspense, psychological tension, storyline, choreography and pace. The less is more gore aspect appeals to me, the innovative camera angles, and the way Hitch twists it so as a viewer you begin to side with Norman against the authorities is masterful.
Excellent acting, perfect dialogue, plausible characters, Hitch's greatest movie and a masterpiece I shall never tire of.
My Rating
:thumbup:
:thumbup:
Post by: Achim on November 24, 2009, 05:38:02 AM
There are huge chunks of Hitch under the surface of this movie - wrong man, comedy couple, suspense, intrigue, good pace, showdown scene etc. But there are some elements that just didn't fit right, full frontal nudity, rape scene, swearing, boobs aplenty etc. and I wonder if he was forced to add these into the film to satisfy the more liberated 70's audience, or what he wished to view as an ageing man?Interesting point, especially since Jon just discussed recently about Hitchcock innuendos in North by Northwest vs. the explicitness of Ang Lee's Lust Caution. If I remember correctly those scenes were not forced onto Hitch (not at that state of his carreer for sure) and he rather wanted them in there himself. Question that this brings is, if Hitchcock was still around today, how explicit would he have become...?
Post by: Najemikon on November 24, 2009, 08:43:27 PM
I'm tempted to think he simply had a chameleon like ability to pick up on what an audience expected. He could be technical to a clinical level. If he was giving into base instincts, he'd have been unable to disguise it as well in earlier films, American or not. To be fair, he was often accused of being obsessed with blondes, but after watching them all like this, I honestly believe he was looking for contrasts. Blondes are shinier! :laugh:
Post by: Tom on December 03, 2009, 12:00:22 AM
Therefore I am setting the deadline for the next two movie in line:
2009-12-31
The Birds (Dragonfire, Jon, Rich, RossRoy, Tom)
Marnie (Achim, Jon, Tom)
Post by: Najemikon on December 03, 2009, 12:48:55 AM
Post by: Najemikon on December 09, 2009, 07:10:54 PM
5 out of 5
(http://www.jonmeakin.co.uk/images/hitch/hitch24.jpg)
Cary Grant is the screen's supreme man-on-the-run in his fourth and final teaming Suspense Alfred Hitchcock. He plays a Manhattan adman plunged into a realm of spy (James Mason) and counterspy (Eva Marie Saint) and variously abducted, framed for murder, chased, and in a signature set-piece, crop-dusted.
Coming as it does fairly late in Alfred Hitchcock’s career, and his most successful period, it seems fitting that North By Northwest works as a greatest hits, aided by regular contributors, including composer Bernard Herrmann. Ernest Lehman’s screenplay is most closely related to Saboteur, itself a development of several earlier plots, with its wrong man on the run chased by gentlemen villains belonging to a sort of Fifth Columnist group, but there are many motifs from Hitch’s other films. The whole thing is faster and bigger than ever before, with Hitch revelling in the absurdity. Even the title doesn’t make sense and yet the plot manages to follow it!
It is probably the film that really started set-piece cinema, with the hero moving from one danger spot to the next. Certainly if Hitchcock can be credited with a hand in creating the Bond franchise, this is the final and most obvious piece of the puzzle; a cross-country thriller with a smart-arse hero and a suave villain. And I’d say fundamentally better than any Bond from that early period. Incidentally he was offered the first Bond script, Thunderball, but passed to make Psycho.
With the wisecracks and insistence on a freshly pressed suit for every occasion, Cary Grant is the closest to an American Bond too, though he is better as the permanently perplexed everyman, who can never quite grasp just how this ridiculous situation arose. He adds another level throughout, especially to the fantastic crop-duster sequence (recently voted the number one movie moment by Empire) and the wonderful banter at the auction. Grant was one of cinema’s greatest movie stars and he uses the persona brilliantly. He even convinces when he turns hero-proper for the final act, normally the point the modern descendants of North By Northwest falter (except those with Harrison Ford, another classic everyman) and keeps the story grounded throughout.
Usually the romance sub-plot turns out to be the real story in Hitchcock films. That may be the case here, but it is left much later to give the films drive and conclusion in the final act and Eva Marie-Saint is as important to the plot as she is to the hero. She makes a great Femme Fatale and the early seduction is a highlight of the movie. The very final shot is pretty cheeky too! Rounding out the cast, James Mason is the smoothest of criminal masterminds and Martin Landau impresses as his sly right-hand man.
As with the best of this sort of movie, the main plot points are dealt with efficiently leaving a huge margin to play with. Some may see it as extravagant, but I say not at all. So it is Hitchcock’s slickest and most fun work, but no less ambitious, with some incredible compositions, thanks in part to regulars Robert Burks’ photography and George Tomasini’s editing. The crop duster opening and the escape from the UN (following a very theatrical murder!) stand out in particular.
It pounds along at a fast pace and has dated very little, except the writing; it just isn't the modern way to slow down action movies with all that pesky character stuff, is it? Except Bond... ;)
Post by: Najemikon on December 09, 2009, 07:15:52 PM
Oh well. You're all nuts.
:tease:
Post by: goodguy on December 09, 2009, 07:32:25 PM
North By Northwest(1959)
5 out of 5
Not sure what to make of that, especially since I did re-read your 4-star Eagle Eye review (with the comparisons to NbNW). I guess I'm kinda over Hitchcock. I have seen a lot of his movies about 20 or more years ago. I did like them then, mind you, but somehow I'm not really interested to revisit them, even if I've mostly forgotten which "signature scene" belongs to which one. I still have a fond memory of Vincent Gallo re-enacting the crop-duster scene during a talent competition in Kusturica's Arizona Dream, though. ;)
Post by: Najemikon on December 09, 2009, 07:48:51 PM
North By Northwest(1959)
5 out of 5
Not sure what to make of that, especially since I did re-read your 4-star Eagle Eye review (with the comparisons to NbNW). I guess I'm kinda over Hitchcock. I have seen a lot of his movies about 20 or more years ago. I did like them then, mind you, but somehow I'm not really interested to revisit them, even if I've mostly forgotten which "signature scene" belongs to which one. I still have a fond memory of Vincent Gallo re-enacting the crop-duster scene during a talent competition in Kusturica's Arizona Dream, though. ;)
Hitchcock is one of my favourite directors because he represents the perfect film for me. I grew up watching his movies and already loved this, and Psycho and The Birds. Now I put more effort in, they still reward because they are constructed as well as any film can be. I can either be a nerd about them or just watch them for the hell of it. I think I can watch Psycho any time.
I'm not familiar with the parody. Is Arizona Dream worth seeing?
Post by: Antares on December 09, 2009, 07:51:09 PM
As I expected, I think I'm one of the only ones to think NbN simply could not of been improved.
You sir, are not alone. :yu:
Post by: Najemikon on December 09, 2009, 08:37:14 PM
Post by: goodguy on December 09, 2009, 08:56:32 PM
Hitchcock is one of my favourite directors because he represents the perfect film for me.
I'm pretty sure it is my fault. And what you say is probably exactly why I'm not interested as I seem to prefer imperfect films, films that search for something, films where the tone, the atmosphere is more important than the story.
I'm not familiar with the parody. Is Arizona Dream worth seeing?
Not for the parody alone, although there are a few more riffs on other classics. It has Kusturica's special brand of magical realism, melodrama and humor, made more accessible by a well-known cast. But it meanders quite a bit and someone who doesn't like Kusturica's seemingly inconsequential and absurdist style might find it boring. I love it, of course.
Post by: Najemikon on December 28, 2009, 02:07:25 PM
5 out of 5
(http://www.jonmeakin.co.uk/images/hitch/hitch25.jpg)
Alfred Hitchcock's landmark masterpiece of the macabre stars Anthony Perkins as the troubled Norman Bates, whose old dark house and adjoining motel are not the place to spend a quiet evening. No one knows that better than Marion Crane (Janet Leigh), the ill-fated traveller whose journey ends in the notorious shower scene. First a private detective (Martin Balsam), then Marion's sister (Vera Miles) search for her as the horror and suspense mount to a terrifying climax where the mysterious killer is finally revealed.
By 1960 Hollywood had changed a great deal. The strict studio system was all but broken and the Golden Age was over. Although Alfred Hitchcock had fought the producers on many of his pictures during this time, he had also flourished. He was shrewd enough to play them at their own game and often his films were more interesting because of some awkward compromise, so it was always possible he would falter while a new breed of filmmaker would overtake. In fact, brilliant though North By Northwest was, had he continued in that vein he would have quickly become a bloated self-parody.
The reason I say this is because Psycho more than any of his others from this time, looks and feels like a classic Golden Age studio film. Its black and white, stark photography by John L. Russell, and nourish premise regress it by 10 years at least, more suitable to the time of Shadow of a Doubt and is as sharp and lean as that film. It must have been refreshing for an audience of a certain age to settle into such a familiar style. Of course, Hitchcock is lulling the viewer into a false sense of security, brilliantly using the familiar conventions to support a brave screenplay.
Hitch, The Master of Suspense, had been tightening the screws on the viewer and his lead character, Marion Crane (Janet Leigh) as she wrestled with the paranoia and guilt of stealing her boss’s money so she could run away for a new life with her lover, Sam Loomis (John Gavin). By his own definition, nothing could happen to her until that last act because that wouldn’t be suspense. But then he takes away the safety net in the spectacular and still effective classic shower scene, pulling the bath mat from under the audience, so to speak! That moment hasn’t dated at all. In fact, I’d go so far as to say it is still the most powerful screen murder. Hermann’s classic theme is set aside for the moment; George Tomasini’s frantic editing, the awful screeching and those lingering final seconds are all the more heartbreaking because we’ve come to know the character so well.
From this point on all bets are off and the film is unquestionably superb with Hitchcock clearly relishing finally being able to test the viewer. The narrative had already gently shifted focus to the nervy-perv Norman Bates (Anthony Perkins) in a clever scene where he brings Marion something to eat (it stops being her story when she joins him for lunch) which is audacious enough for a classic plot and Perkins excels under the uncomfortably close focus of the camera that reveals all the tics of one of cinemas greatest characters, the ultimate mummy’s boy, cleaning up after his bonkers parent who we only see fleetingly, in shadows, or hear her grating voice. Repeat viewings reveal layers upon layers in his performance.
The final act has a couple more shocks in store and the brilliant thing is, they are fundamental. Nothing is contrived and it withstands scrutiny. The ending is unusually indulgent for a Hitchcock movie, with Simon Oakland as Dr. Richmond revealing the intricacies of Mrs. Bates like a ghost story! But of course, she has the last word in a beautifully judged final shot that lives on long after the film.
This isn’t suspense, but a true properly scary horror, which in itself was a shock for the Hitchcock faithful, especially considering his regret over Sabotage (the difference being Psycho lingers on the horror). If you think I’m being over dramatic, consider Peeping Tom, released the same year, with a similar attempt to test the viewers willpower. Sadly, although a brilliantly successful film with a recent re-evaluation, the experiment backfired and destroyed director Michael Powell’s career.
Some say Psycho is Hitchcocks best film and although I don’t quite agree, it’s difficult to argue against. It is as least his most memorable, a milestone in the horror genre and one of the finest films ever made, finding new fans in every generation. As Rich said, it'll still make your skin crawl!
Oh yes, and it was the first film to show a flushing toilet! Told you it was a new age... ;)
Post by: Najemikon on January 02, 2010, 06:25:14 PM
4 out of 5
(http://www.jonmeakin.co.uk/images/hitch/hitch26.jpg)
As beautiful blonde Melanie Daniels (Tippi Hedren) rolls into Bodega Bay in pursuit of eligible bachelor Mitch Brenner (Rod Taylor), she is inexplicably attacked by a seagull. Suddenly thousands of birds are flocking into town, preying on schoolchildren and residents in a terrifying series of attacks. Soon Mitch and Melanie are fighting for their lives against a deadly force that can't be explained and can't be stopped in one of Hollywood's most horrific films of nature gone berserk.
This could be Alfred Hitchcock's most unusual film, although perhaps it's even stranger that such a taut horror comes from Daphne Du Maurier (Rebecca). Although he had already handled horror in Psycho, that was really a logical extension of his thrillers. The Birds on the other hand is more typical of the paranoid sci-fi b-movies of the 50s, with a small town facing an absurd threat that can't be explained. So they don't! The closest they come is a great scene in a cafe as the townsfolk argue over the reasons for the birds strange behaviour. It's like a high class Twilight Zone with some classic moments and a wonderful atmosphere that borders on post-apocalyptic.
It stars Tippi Hedren in her first role and she's very good as the Paris Hilton of her day, but that side of the story comes across as a bit odd. The first part is about her pursuing Mitch Brenner (Rod Taylor) to Bodega Bay on a sort of whim, and the absurd lengths she goes to get two Lovebirds to his little sister after a brief meeting in a San Francisco pet shop. The story is about the dangers of complacency, so a bored socialite having no purpose in life heralding the attacks is ironic, but certainly not obvious. It is very witty though and her scenes with Taylor are great fun. He provides substantial support, along with the superb Jessica Tandy who brings another level of class to the whole production.
There's a sense of heightened reality from the start in Hitchcock's most consistently colourful film since The Trouble With Harry, with the sound design unusually prominent (overdone tyre screeching, etc) in place of an entirely absent score and used to grating effect when the birds start attacking. Those attack scenes are all brilliantly and indulgently staged with some very clever "yellow screen" effects. The moment when the gas station blows up is a highlight and followed with a wonderful aerial shot. Other stand-outs are the quieter scenes, like Jessica Tandy finding the body with the eyes pecked out in a fantastic three step zoom and her strangled scream shortly after conveys more terror than Wes Craven has ever managed in his entire career. The crows gathering on the climbing frame behind Hedren and the resultant attack on the kids is incredible, outdone only by the last act, with a frenzied, claustrophobic attack on one character followed by the classic final shots, most brilliantly parodied in a Simpsons episode!
Now I look again, I think this rather unassuming bit of fun has proved to be very influential. The aerial shot and Tandy's scream, notable again for there being no theme, in particular contribute to an atmosphere you can pick up on elsewhere, like in Jaws maybe, whose story mirrors this one very closely in many respects.
This is a classic, simple horror that still has the power to turn your stomach in knots.
Post by: Critter on January 02, 2010, 11:02:19 PM
Anyway what do you think, for someone who can't even watch Signs or even The Blair Witch Project without properly freaking out, (yes, it's true) do you think I could tackle this one on my own or should I wait for a nice sunny day and watch it with a friend to make it easier on myself?
Post by: Najemikon on January 03, 2010, 01:19:30 AM
It is possible you will find it tame, but I have a gut feeling that you will respect it enough to see past the black and white, and the old style, to find the core story. And maybe it will creep you out just a tad. Usually there is a safety net in these sort of stories where you recognise a contrived plot point or a writers leap of faith that makes you think, "nah, this is silly", even if it's brilliant. No such thing here. I mean, blimey, the very last line still manages to send a shiver up this big tough blokes spine! :laugh:
Hopefully Pete is reading this. He has often admitted in the past that he only recently started watching older films. I wonder if this is one he came late to and if he found it scary? I know he likes it. He's reviewed it twice here!
Post by: Dragonfire on January 03, 2010, 01:59:36 AM
Post by: Kathy on January 03, 2010, 02:03:28 AM
Post by: Critter on January 03, 2010, 02:36:58 AM
Quote
It is possible you will find it tame, but I have a gut feeling that you will respect it enough to see past the black and white, and the old style, to find the core story.
I personally love old films, especially black and white ones and have always enjoyed watching them. The age of psycho isn't really one of the issues for me here it's just how scary it may be.
Quote
Anyway, on that basis, I encourage you to just sit down and watch it, asap. Why not have a couple of friends around and watch it in a double-bill with The Omen?
Hmm I dunno about The Omen but at this stage but I might wait until I can watch Psycho with a friend. I have a friend who has already seen it and liked it so I might watch it with her. By the way how many version of The Omen are there? Wasn't there are remake released not long ago?
Quote
If you thought Blair Witch Project was bad, you definitely will need daylight and friends to watch this. But, you absolutely must watch this movie.
:P I think I should set the scene here. I watched Blair Witch on a small laptop screen, with two friends, in the middle of the day, in a bright sunny room... at the beach! And I still found that film scary haha, even though it's so stupid it just freaked me out.
Post by: Najemikon on January 03, 2010, 02:46:33 AM
QuoteAnyway, on that basis, I encourage you to just sit down and watch it, asap. Why not have a couple of friends around and watch it in a double-bill with The Omen?
Hmm I dunno about The Omen but at this stage but I might wait until I can watch Psycho with a friend. I have a friend who has already seen it and liked it so I might watch it with her. By the way how many version of The Omen are there? Wasn't there are remake released not long ago?
It was remade in 2006. There were four films in the original run. You need only concern yourself with the original one. The first sequel is pretty good too, but it stands alone as a superb religious thriller. I mean, I'm not asking you to consider The Exorcist or anything! :laugh: Actually though, I did pick The Omen as a random title while considering you dislike horror in general. Like Psycho, it's a good, if heavily romanticised, story that holds up to scrutiny.
Post by: Critter on January 03, 2010, 02:51:46 AM
Post by: Jimmy on January 03, 2010, 03:10:09 AM
It was remade in 2006. There were four films in the original run.:redcard:
Only three not four, the one from 1991 is basically a tv remake with a girl in place of a boy... The story end with The Final Conflict in 1981 it's kind of obvious. A tv film doesn't really count as a sequel
Post by: Achim on January 03, 2010, 10:26:38 AM
The deadline was so far away from the day it was posted, I forgot all about it. Will watch Marnie later today or tomorrow.
Post by: Tom on January 03, 2010, 10:55:01 AM
:bag:
The deadline was so far away from the day it was posted, I forgot all about it. Will watch Marnie later today or tomorrow.
I haven't watched my two December movies yet either ;)
Post by: Najemikon on January 03, 2010, 01:31:35 PM
It was remade in 2006. There were four films in the original run.:redcard:
Only three not four, the one from 1991 is basically a tv remake with a girl in place of a boy... The story end with The Final Conflict in 1981 it's kind of obvious. A tv film doesn't really count as a sequel
Put your cards away! Anyone new to the films may reasonably question why the boxset has four films instead of three! :P
Post by: Achim on January 03, 2010, 03:27:44 PM
MOVIE / DVD INFO:
(http://www.invelos.com/mpimages/I5/I57D4359B5707C154f.jpg) Title: Marnie
Year: 1964
Director: Alfred Hitchcock
Rating: PG
Length: 131 Min.
Video: Anamorphic Widescreen 1.85:1
Audio: English: Dolby Digital Mono, French: Dolby Digital Mono
Subtitles: English
Stars:
Tippi Hedren ['Tippi' Hedren]
Sean Connery
Diane Baker
Martin Gabel
Louise Latham
Plot:
Tippi Hedren is Marnie, a compulsive thief who attempts to rob her boss, Mark Rutland (Sean Connery), but instead ends up marrying him. Her obsessive behavior continues, but when she is pushed to the edge after a terrible accident, Marnie's groom urges her to confront the past in the shattering conclusion of this psychological thriller.
Extras:
Scene Access
Trailers
Featurettes
Gallery
Production Notes
My Thoughts:
First off, this is not the usual Hitchcock thriller. Closer to Rebecca in nature, I guess, this is about a psychologically damaged woman and her husband trying to get close her. The themes are strong (rape is mentioned and then of course the reveal at the end) and kudos to Alfred to try something completely different, albeit almost clearly out of his area of expertise. Some scenes manage to shine when things get closer to the director's regular topics, like the hunting scene and especially its conclusion, but in overall it was lacking. I want to point out that I enjoyed the dialog that was put into Connery's mouth!In my opinion the film's failure lies strongly on Tippi Hedren's shoulders; or Hitchcock's for that matter, who so dearly wished to make a star out of her. The role of Marnie demands a far greater range than Hedren is able to provide. The performances by Sean Connery and Diane Baker are marvelous, but they are not enough to save the film marred by the lead actress and a director trying to find foot in a new genre.
(click to show/hide)
Post by: Jimmy on January 03, 2010, 08:06:24 PM
Put your cards away! Anyone new to the films may reasonably question why the boxset has four films instead of three! :PBecause it's the only way to force people to watch it :laugh:
Nobody in his right mind could buy this one alone, but you won't hesitate to do it with any film in the real trilogy.
Post by: Najemikon on January 31, 2010, 10:02:14 PM
4 out of 5
(http://www.jonmeakin.co.uk/images/hitch/hitch27.jpg)
The Master of Suspense, Alfred Hitchcock creates a spellbinding portrait of a disturbed woman, and the man who tries to save her, in this unrelenting psychological thriller. 'Tippi' Hedren is Marnie, a compulsive thief and liar who goes to work for Mark Rutland (Sean Connery), then attempts to rob him. Mark impulsively marries the troubled beauty and attempts to discover the reasons for her obsessive behavior. When a terrible accident pushes his wife to the edge, Mark forces Marnie to confront her terrors and her past in a shattering, inescapable conclusion.
I had not seen Marnie for many years and perhaps never properly, so this has been a pleasant surprise because it’s not a fondly remembered film from Hitchcock’s career, but I found it to be an engrossing and powerful film that recalls Vertigo and Spellbound in its mentally flawed lead characters.
The film seems very old-fashioned and the credit sequence feels like it’s from the 40s. So do the characters, with a story somewhat based on class conflict (Mark would be high society in any other time) and that infuriatingly outdated view of marriage, although it is part of the plot this time at least. He adopted a nostalgic style for Psycho to deliver a very modern narrative and this is similar, but the old-time feel is more sustained so can be a detriment too. Still, he’s making the sex thriller he couldn’t possibly have made before, so probably the creaky techniques amuse him more than anything. Certainly there is nothing as inventive as you would find in Vertigo.
It’s daring in its delivery and fools the viewer somewhat. The start could be a breezy caper, like To Catch a Thief, but as with Vertigo it quickly takes a dark turn and digs in for the duration. While it can be dry and talky, it is a fascinating study of psychology, which Hitchcock has dealt with before. For the first time, the typical Hitchcock romance is the primary plot.
Marnie is a troubled woman and her light-fingered habits are a symptom of something more disturbing. Sean Connery is perfect as Mark, obviously turned on by Marnie’s problems, making him pretty unstable too! He is a great character, supremely confident and charming, exactly what Cary Grant used to do (Hitchcock pretty much invented Bond, now gets to use him :laugh:), now with him a manipulative sexual predator, taming the frigid Marnie by unravelling her mysterious past which is acting as a chastity belt! It makes for a suffocating effective chemistry between the leads, with an early uncomfortable peak as Mark pretty much rapes her. That is nasty, but for the most part there is a lot of fun to be had between Connery and Hedren as they toy effectively with one another. I loved the psychoanalysis scene!
Apparently Mark wasn’t an accomplished psychiatrist in the book or early screenplay draft. Instead he sent Marnie to see one. It takes a small contrivance explain how he can pull this off, but the plot benefits ten-fold. Another character would have interrupted the dynamic between them.
Another change is the character of Mark’s sister-in-law, Lil (Diane Baker). Often Hitchcock romances involve two men for one woman and “Lil” was the other man in the book, so ready-made for the director it seemed. Except having her fighting for Mark’s affections is much more interesting, especially as it is never explored fully and just adds to the enigma that is Mark.
This isn’t outwardly ambitious visually for Hitchcock, which could be surprising given the work that went into Vertigo. Instead it’s a simply effective, with key scenes that linger. The stark rape scene for one; Marnie’s silent robbery in another; a heartbreaking conclusion to the hunt; and a superb flashback, which is very unusual (he did one for I, Confess, but this is could have been a cul-de-sac for the plot, so he brilliantly takes it head on).
Much of the films unfair reputation may be down to the fact it was adapted specifically for Grace Kelly, but she had to refuse. After The Birds, Hitchcock was sure he had found a suitable replacement in the earthy Hedren, but she would always be in the shadow of a Princess. That’s a cruel twist though because Hedren is good enough in a role probably very different from the one offered Kelly considering the changes, and is she really the lead, considering how passive and smothered the character is?
Marnie isn’t for everyone. It can be uneven and may disturb as much as entertain, but go in with the right frame of mind and you’ll reap its rewards. It deserves a re-evaluation.
Post by: Antares on January 31, 2010, 10:26:57 PM
She gave birth to a terrible actress too.
Post by: Najemikon on February 01, 2010, 01:17:44 AM
Don't know if I'd rate this one as highly as you did. I think Achim hits the nail right on the head, Tippi is terrible.
She gave birth to a terrible actress too.
I certainly don't think she's terrible, but she certainly isn't upto the high standard of previous Hitchcock leading ladies. But that's why I said "good enough", especially as I found her to a be a character that things happen too. She didn't have the responsibility of driving the plot, that was down to Connery. He surprised me actually. I'd remembered Marnie as the one where they couldn't get the proper actors! He was very good though.
Still, you might have noticed I'm an optimist. Someone has got to be awful to the point of distraction before I tear them a new one. I found Tippi's blank expression and leaden movements consistent with a character who is nuts! :laugh: Occasionally she was very poor, such as the scenes with "Momma" which I found utterly unconvincing. Shame, I had meant to point out the mother fixation. :slaphead: Ah, well, I'd rattled on enough.
I found this to be a film about the writing, not the performances though, so I can give it a heck of a margin. That's what I tried to stress, that the film seems to be the one people remember because of Tippi. Forget Tippi. Concentrate on the story and there's a lot to find. The sequence with the horse is amazing alone.
Every actress deserves one good film though. This is Tippi's. Her daughter gets Working Girl. Dreadful, but she has the cutest laugh!
Post by: Najemikon on February 05, 2010, 10:10:25 PM
"Noblesse Oblige"
Quote from: from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noblesse_oblige
The literal translation from French of "Noblesse oblige" is "nobility obliges."
The Dictionnaire de l’Académie française defines it thus:
1. Whoever claims to be noble must conduct himself nobly.
2. (Figuratively) One must act in a fashion that conforms to one's position, and with the reputation that one has earned.
The Oxford English Dictionary says that the term "suggests noble ancestry constrains to honourable behavior; privilege entails to responsibility". Being a noble meant that one had responsibilities to lead, manage and so on. One was not to simply spend one's time in idle pursuits.
Mark comes out with this and now I know it's meaning, it rather elegantly sums up his character; confident, if a little condescending, and supports what I said before that Marnie had a slightly dated class structure. Mark almost treats her as he would a child.
This especially caught my imagination because I always enjoyed a similar aspect in Chivalry or the Samurai Bushido. It basically means, "We know you're brilliant, you certainly know you're brilliant, but don't show off in front of the smelly useless peasants"! :laugh:
"Fattid or Phatid Bugs"
In one sequence, Mark describes a flower that in fact, upon closer inspection, is actually made up of hundreds of insects working together to disguise themselves as a plant to avoid being eaten by birds. I wondered what they were and it seems someone else did too and there's a nice explanation on Answers.com from a Hitchcock perspective:
http://help.lockergnome.com/movies/identify-insect-film-Marnie--ftopict4637.html
Post by: Achim on February 07, 2010, 09:46:13 AM
Since this marathon has all but come to a grinding halt, how about 2/28? Or sounds next Sunday (2/14) doable?
Tom, you want to catch up with The Birds? You had set a deadline for 12/31, 2009 that is :P
Post by: Tom on February 07, 2010, 10:08:28 AM
2010-02-21 1966 Torn Curtain Achim, Jon, Tom
2010-03-07 1969 Topaz Achim, Tom
2010-03-21 1972 Frenzy Achim, Jon, Tom
2010-04-04 1976 Family Plot Achim, Tom
But I am not sure if I will keep them. My brother and I never seem to be in the mood to watch another Hitchcock movie.
Post by: Najemikon on February 07, 2010, 12:52:24 PM
Post by: Dragonfire on February 07, 2010, 05:00:40 PM
Post by: Achim on February 07, 2010, 06:22:48 PM
Hey, I'm still chugging along! Slowly, yes, but it's only a week since Marnie... :Pi know, I know :) I didn't say it did stop, it just got...slow. Look at the original deadlines on page 1 and you know what I mean ;)
Well, I want ti finish the remainder and would rather do it in a similar time frame as you guys ;)
Post by: Tom on February 14, 2010, 05:24:01 PM
Title: The Birds (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Birds_%28film%29) (http://www.invelos.com/images/DVDLogo.png)
Year: 1963
Director: Alfred Hitchcock
Rating: 15
Length: 115 Min.
Video: Pan & Scan 1.33:1
Audio: English: Dolby Digital Mono, German: Dolby Digital Mono
Subtitles: Danish, Dutch, English, Finnish, German, Norwegian, Swedish
Stars:
Rod Taylor
Jessica Tandy
Suzanne Pleshette
'Tippi' Hedren
Veronica Cartwright
Plot:
Nothing equals The Birds for sheer terror when Alfred Hitchcock unleashes his foul friends in one of his most shocking and memorable masterpieces. As beautiful blonde Melanie Daniels ('Tippi' Hedren) rolls into Bodega Bay in pursuit of eligible bachelor Mitch Brenner (Rod Taylor), she is inexplicably attacked by a seagull. Suddenly thousands of birds are flocking into town, preying on school-children and residents in a terrifying series of attacks. Soon Mitch and Melanie are fighting for their lives against a deadly force that can't be explained and can't be stopped in one of Hollywood's most horrific films of nature gone berserk.
Awards:
| Academy Award | 1963 | Nominated | Best Special Effects | Ub Iwerks |
| AFI | 1963 | Nominated | 100 Years... 100 Movies (1998) | |
| AFI | 1963 | Won | 100 Years... 100 Thrills (2001) | |
| Golden Globe | 1963 | Won | New Star of the Year - Female | Tippi Hedren |
Extras:
Deleted Scenes
Featurettes
Photo Gallery
Scene Access
Storyboard Comparisons
Tippi Hedren's Screen Test
Trailers
Universal News Reels
My Thoughts:
I am not very much of a horror film fan. I know these bird attacks should be creepy and all, but it just isn't doing it for me. Also the bird sounds were just annoying. For me it sounded like cats cries.Also I feel that the first half of the movie is disconnected with the second half of the movie. I know most people find it okay that there is no reason given why the birds attack. Usually I would agree, but having no reason given just makes it seem like Mel arriving on the island and playing her prank and then the bird attacks are two movie storylines just thrown together for the fun of it. I had expected that her bringing the two love birds is the cause that the other birds were going crazy.
Rating:
Post by: Najemikon on March 07, 2010, 10:42:01 PM
3 out of 5
(http://www.jonmeakin.co.uk/images/hitch/hitch28.jpg)
Paul Newman and Julie Andrews star in this classic tale of international espionage set behind the Iron Curtain. Newman plays world-famous scientist Michael Armstrong, who goes to an internationall congress of physics in Copenhagen with his fiancée/assistant Sarah Sherman (Andrews). While there, she mistakenly picks up a message meant for him and discovers that he is defecting to East Germany. Or is he? As Armstrong goes undercover to glean top-secret information, the couple are swept up in a heart-pounding chase by enemy agents in this action-packed Cold War thriller.
Torn Curtain is not a bad film, but it’s definitely a compromised and a messy one to begin with. There’s an interesting documentary on the disc that suggests there were some problems with casting, the script was rushed and Bernard Herrmann was fired(!). Following the deaths of other long time collaborators, cinematographer Robert Burkes and editor George Tomasini, clearly this was a difficult period following Marnie’s failure.
Still, like I say, it is not a bad film and it has some marvellous sequences. It’s really just the confused first act that struggles. Paul Newman, excellent as always, is clearly hiding something from his wife, Julie Andrews. It asks a lot of the viewer to keep up with shifting emotions when the usual claustrophobic attention to one characters point of view is missing. It seems to switch between the two when we are supposed to be in Julie’s shoes and her character is short-changed because of it (imagine if Psycho kept cutting away from Marion to see what other characters were up to). By the time she, and us, are in on the plot though, the film has found its feet and picks up pace. Once both Newman and Andrews are properly together and dealing with the situation, it’s a properly exciting suspense thriller. Julie Andrews proves to be typecast when it comes to trying to escape Germans! Otherwise she does well in a fairly underwritten role.
There are many stand-out moments, like Newman dealing with Ludwig Donath’s professor, frustrating him into revealing the MucGuffin out of pride! The murder of Gromek is also absolutely superb. That isn’t a spoiler (well I don’t think so! What is in a Hitchcock film?), but it’s an incredible moment that has to be mentioned as Hitch shows us just how tough it is to take a life. Gromek is a great character as well, smoothly played by Wolfgang Keiling. All the supporting characters are memorable actually (there’s literally a bus full of them!) and there’s a cute running joke with a snubbed ballerina. She becomes very important during the climax at a theatre. Once again, Hitch plays with the idea of a sequence played with an audience and it is brilliant.
Repeat viewings might smooth out the problems with the film (understanding what Newman’s Professor is trying to do adds a great deal of gravitas to his cold treatment of his fiancé) , but the overall problem is that there isn’t a solid, intriguing hook of a premise like usual. It was clearly rushed, because I really believe it could have been polished into something marvellous. As the documentary suggests, what if Herrmann could have completed his work at least? John Addison is an able replacement, but Herrmann created scores that wove into the fabric of the film.
Post by: Najemikon on March 07, 2010, 10:42:47 PM
Post by: Dragonfire on March 08, 2010, 01:54:10 AM
Post by: Achim on March 10, 2010, 07:27:55 AM
I remembered a few times in the last three weeks that Torn Curtain was up for review and then kept pushing it. Well, I had two short vacations to get done with and one exciting video game to go through (Heavy Rain). :whistle:
I'll try to get to it before this week is over.
Post by: goodguy on March 10, 2010, 06:01:38 PM
... and one exciting video game to go through (Heavy Rain). :whistle:
So this guy is wrong then?
http://m-mcgregor.livejournal.com/230258.html (http://m-mcgregor.livejournal.com/230258.html)
Post by: Achim on March 11, 2010, 06:31:12 AM
So this guy is wrong then?Well...
http://m-mcgregor.livejournal.com/230258.html (http://m-mcgregor.livejournal.com/230258.html)
Yes, the actors are, except one I believe, all non-native speakers. That is, I assume, a real problem for a native speaker when playxing this game. Personally I was only irritated a few times, so I guess playing as a non-native it's easier to overlook this issue.
The story and/or the writing is arguable. I enjoyed it myself for the most part. Of course it's somewhat derivative of films we've seen and of course it's not the next Citizen Kane or Shakepeare. There are plot holes, there is some suspension of disbelief required and it can get cheesy at times. I was emotionally attached enough to get involved in certain scenes and I found that in other scenes the combination of the action on screen and the music created sufficient excitement. Also, I find it interesting to replay certain scenes and see how actions unfold differently depending on what I do. Some decisions influence the ending even; I understand there is a total of 6 or 7 variations.
The controls are a different issue. They work well in many parts of the game but can be frustrating in others. Nothing game-breaking though.
So yes, I guess one could boil it down to there not being enough gameplay for a game and not enough drama for a movie. You could call it a cutscene with user input.
So, I wouldn't say he is entierely wrong, he is just a tad harsh...
Post by: Achim on March 15, 2010, 01:48:18 PM
MOVIE / DVD INFO:
(http://www.invelos.com/mpimages/ID/ID404C865402E2AB6f.jpg) Title: Torn Curtain
Year: 1966
Director: Alfred Hitchcock
Rating: PG
Length: 128 Min.
Video: Anamorphic Widescreen 1.85:1
Audio: English: Dolby Digital Mono, French: Dolby Digital Mono
Subtitles: English, Spanish
Stars:
Paul Newman
Julie Andrews
Lila Kedrova
Hansjoerg Felmy
Tamara Toumanova
Plot:
Paul Newman and Julie Andrews star in this edge-of-your-seat Cold War thriller set behind the Iron Curtain. Newman plays Michael Armstrong, a renowned scientist attending an international physics conference in Copenhagen with Sarah Sherman (Andrews), his fiancée/assistant. The heart-pounding action begins when Sarah picks up a message intended for Michael, and discovers that he is defecting to East Germany...or is he?
Extras:
Scene Access
Trailers
Featurettes
Gallery
Production Notes
Scenes scored by Bernard Herrmann
My Thoughts:
For me, another case of back cover blurb exaggeration. The heart pounding action does not start as early as they make us believe... there is two problems with this film and the overly long setting up of characters and the situation is one of them. It takes entirely 70 min with only one exciting bit to explain everything. :shrug: Another problem is that the action that then started at the 70min popint grinds to a halt half way through :slaphead: (Polish lady). The third is.... So there is three problems with this film, with the third being that we are asked to believe for a while that Paul Newman is a bad guy (well, not exactly bad, but a traitor still, which in 1056 must have been extremely bad).But there is enough good things to save the film from being a failure. For starters, kudos for the attempt to have everyone speak in their mother tongue. I say attempt, because there is a few non-native speakers which have trouble saying their German lines or, going by the names, few German immigrants who have not spoken their mother tongue in too long. Why stop short at filling a few key roles with German actors? Then there is of course the escape sequence, which unfortunately gets interrupted and the suspense takes a back seat for a while, and the grand finale which I should have seen coming but still didn't. Also the famous scene where Armstrong struggles to kill the German security officer, even with the help of the farm-woman, must be mentioned; Hitchcock wanted to show that killing someone is a messy affair; I found the cutting to be very successful here. And as had been mentioned in Jon's review I also found the scene where Armstrong has to trick the German professor starngely exciting; two professors matching their wits with chalk and a blackboard is not what you expect to get your blood pumping.
In overall this film could have profited from a serious trimming, maybe 20 or so, or even better from some tighter scripting in the opening section. However, the second half is very entertaining and the suspense had me on the edge of the seat several times (well, not literally, but still). The acting good, but not outstanding
(click to show/hide)
Post by: Achim on March 19, 2010, 02:50:18 PM
MOVIE / DVD INFO:
(http://www.invelos.com/mpimages/I4/I49DC7155285EF43Ff.jpg) Title: Topaz
Year: 1969
Director: Alfred Hitchcock
Rating: NR
Length: 142 Min.
Video: Anamorphic Widescreen 1.85:1
Audio: English: Dolby Digital Mono
Subtitles: English, French, Spanish
Stars:
Frederick Stafford
Dany Robin
John Vernon
Karin Dor
Michel Piccoli
Philippe Noiret
Roscoe Lee Browne
Plot:
The best-selling spy novel bursts onto the screen in this riveting story of adventure and international intrigue. John Forsythe stars as an American CIA agent who hires a French operative (Frederick Stafford) to travel to Cuba and investigate rumors of Russian missiles and Topaz, a NATO spy. The inquiry soon spins into a life-threatening escapade of espionage, betrayal and murder.
Extras:
Scene Access
Trailers
Deleted Scenes
Featurettes
Gallery
Production Notes
Storyboard Comparisons
My Thoughts:
That must have been a hard sell at the time... The film has a great plot about spies, takes place during an actual historic event (therefore giving it immediacy to the audience) and places it's set pieces (not high caliber action but good suspense) well spaced throughout the run of the film. The problem is however, that it lacks a central character to identify with and those who are with through the main part of the story have strong character treads that have potential to make them unlikable to some (especially since not portrayed by famous actors). So, actually quite a ballsy movie to make.The acting is good and Hitch went and hired French actors for most of the French roles. I had hard time recognizing Philippe Noiret or Michel Piccoli as they are so very young here. John Forsythe reminded me, in a rather irritating way, of my late grandmother :stars: I have always enjoyed Roscoe Lee Browne, although he overacts a little bit in this one.
(a weak one though)
(click to show/hide)
Post by: Achim on March 19, 2010, 02:53:01 PM
Only two more to go! Looking forward to Frenzy (Hitchcock's most vicious film) and Family Plot (probably the film of his I have seen the most, mainly on TV).
Post by: Najemikon on March 19, 2010, 07:39:08 PM
Post by: Dragonfire on March 20, 2010, 03:39:14 AM
And yes, I'm still horribly behind on this one. lol
Post by: Achim on March 20, 2010, 06:05:34 AM
I haven't got Frenzy and I'm surprised to hear you say that Family Plot is the one you've probably seen the most. I'm not sure I ever have! Trying to find them to finish this thing off properly. :dance:Well, it's just that they played on TV a lot when I was a teenager. haven't seen it since, actually (at least 20 years) and wonder how it will hold up.
You might want to skip over Family Plot if you'd have to buy it. It's not bad, but it's his last film and people say it shows... Frenzy on the other side is interesting in that Hitchcock showed some advancments into the new era, something we discussed here briefly before ("what would Hitchcock do if he was alive to day"). Like the (in)famous killing scene and there is a some other stuff too (it's been too long, don't want to guess :laugh:). But I assume you have at least seen Frenzy before and knew this already...?
Dragonfire, same goes for you obviously, if you've never seen either one. Family Plot is rental at least though, should see it at least once.
Post by: Najemikon on April 07, 2010, 10:43:16 PM
Post by: snowcat on April 07, 2010, 10:51:34 PM
...98p .... Would that seller be Zoverstocks by any chance? if so... I have never had a bad disc from them! and ive bought alot.
Post by: Najemikon on April 07, 2010, 11:00:28 PM
Post by: snowcat on April 07, 2010, 11:43:18 PM
Post by: Achim on April 08, 2010, 06:10:43 AM
Tom, are you planning to watch Topaz reasonably soon...?
Post by: Tom on April 08, 2010, 07:02:09 PM
Tom, are you planning to watch Topaz reasonably soon...?
As we (my brother and I) still have to watch two other Hitchcocks before that and we never seem to be in the mood to watch one, it can take awhile :bag:
You don't have to wait for me to finish up this marathon.
Post by: Achim on April 08, 2010, 07:16:37 PM
I'll continue if I remember and (:bag:) and when the mood matches.
Post by: Najemikon on April 29, 2010, 09:32:44 PM
http://www.play.com/DVD/DVD/4-/702199/Alfred-Hitchcock-Box-Set/Product.html (http://www.play.com/DVD/DVD/4-/702199/Alfred-Hitchcock-Box-Set/Product.html)
# The Birds: All About The Birds - Making Of, Tippi Hedren's Screen Test, Universal News Reel Stories x 2, Storyboard Sequence: Deleted Scene (Script Pages), Alternative Ending (Sketches & Storyboards), Production Photographs.
# Family Plot: Plotting Family Plot - Making Of, Storyboards.
# Frenzy: The Story Of Frenzy - Making Of.
# The Man Who Knew Too Much: The Making Of The Man Who Knew Too Much, Trailer Compilation.
# "Marnie": The Trouble With Marnie - Making Of, Production Photographs.
# Rear Window: Rear Window Ethics: Remembering & Restoring a Hitchcock Classic - Making Of, Featurette, Trailer Compilation.
# Saboteur: A Closer Look - Making Of, Storyboards, Hitchcock Sketches.
# Shadow Of A Doubt: Beyond Doubt: The Making Of Hitchcock's Favourite Film, Production Drawings.
# Topaz: An Appreciation by Film Critic/Historian Leonard Maltin - Making Of, Alternative Endings x 3 - Duel/Airport/Suicide, Storyboards, Production Photographs.
# Torn Curtain: Torn Curtain Rising - Making Of, Scenes Scored By Composer Bernard Herrmann.
# The Trouble With Harry: The Trouble With Harry Isn't Over - Making Of, Trailer Compilation.
# Rope: Rope Unleashed - Making Of, Trailer Compilation.
# Vertigo: Obsessed with Vertigo, Feature Commentary, Cast And Filmmakers, Production Notes.
# Psycho: Masters Of Cinema: Alfred Hitchcock, American Film Institute Salute to Alfred Hitchcock, Production Notes, Cast And Filmmakers.
Post by: Achim on April 30, 2010, 06:05:09 AM
Post by: Dragonfire on April 30, 2010, 08:32:02 AM
Post by: Najemikon on May 03, 2010, 04:14:18 PM
3 out of 5
(http://www.jonmeakin.co.uk/images/hitch/hitch29.jpg)
A French intelligence agent becomes embroiled in the Cold War politics first with uncovering the events leading up to the 1962 Cuban Missle Crisis, and then back to France to break up an international Russian spy ring.
It’s easy to look at Alfred Hitchcock’s last few films and come to the conclusion that he lost his touch, but while it’s true they are not as entertaining or as audacious as his best work, there is still a sense of a potent power at work. Just a few key details are missing and in the case of Topaz, almost completely cripple the production.
For one thing, was Topaz made for the right reasons? I’ve been banging on about Hitchcock possibly being an influence on Bond and I wonder if he had a sense of pride to indulge, seeing as that franchise was now fully underway. In his first true espionage thriller since Foreign Correspondent, the plot concerns a suave spy [albeit French] investigating Russians at the height of the Cold War, which could easily have been a Fleming story. There’s even a Q type character in Cuba! Additionally, Hitch uses another of his favourite themes as Topaz turns out to be a secret organisation in the upper echelons of France’s Government, echoing the Fifth Columnists of Saboteur.
Unfortunately, it’s far too long, ponderously slow, has an uneven tone and doesn’t know how to end. A victim of test screenings, it was changed twice (alternate versions are on the DVD), although the original ending was absurd and needed Hitchcock at his cheeky best to sell it so it would never have worked. In retrospect though, key scenes show the director was still a force to be reckoned with. A superlative sequence in New York is an absolute stand-out and much better than an average Bond any day. Similarly, the Cuban set scenes with the tortured Resistance are powerful and visually stunning (look out for a shocking, sudden murder on a tile floor; easy to see how it was achieved, but not to be underestimated). The brilliant opening scene with the Russian defector narrowly escaping capture with his family and the New York segment, also demonstrate his cleverness with narrative, hiding exposition like he did in The Man Who Knew Too Much remake (we see characters talking about key points, but can’t hear them!), yet lingering on character moments. No-one handled the MacGuffin better, before or since. Even this sub-par effort has enough “how did he do that?” moments to make today’s directors feel inadequate.
A big problem though is surely that the story was told after the fact, undermining the tension. Released in 1969, the Cuban Missile Crisis was over, while his WWII thrillers worked all the better for being released during WWII, especially the clever, shifting tone of Foreign Correspondent that ended with a poignant scene that could send a shiver down the spine, even now.
Timing aside, the film lives and dies on its cast and unfortunately it’s no accident that the best moments are driven by the supporting characters; John Vernon as Cuban Rico Para is a tangible threat and Karin Dor as the beautiful Juanita makes you feel it, along with her Resistance fighters (awful moment in a cell, that I'm guessing Eli Roth would have handled very differently!). Roscoe Lee Browne is a live wire in New York and you’ll hold your breath as his operation hinges on nervy Don Randolph. Quieter, but solid support also comes from John Forsythe (better here than in The Trouble With Harry), but the lead character is Andre Devereaux (Frederick Stafford) and while he has the look of Connery, he can’t convince as a likable bastard. He’s just a bastard, and we’re stuck with him for two hours! I commented that Torn Curtain suffered from not focusing on one character, so clearly, I’m never happy. :P It isn’t all Stafford’s fault (his wife, Dany Robin, is annoying as well, for a start) as actually he is never given anything to do. In a better received film, I’d see him as a sharp parody of James Bond, all style and no substance, letting the Resistance do the work, while he gets the credit. A plot point concerning his adultery and another that puts his son-in-law in terrible danger because of him proves irony was surely the intention, and even in the deleted original ending, he gets off without doing anything. But he is a wet blanket when the film was barely smouldering anyway. At least Paul Newman was under threat in Torn Curtain.
Of course, even in retrospect, it’s easy to see that the film suffers without the megastars Hitchcock was known for. A well placed Cary Grant can turn any film into a classic, but before you accept the obvious, bear in mind Grant, Stewart and Bergman were all superb actors as well, who worked brilliantly with the director. If the rather frustrating lead characters in Topaz were played by very good unknowns, I think it would have worked, or even someone not very good, but easily manipulated by Hitch, like Tippi Hedren. Torn Curtain managed to scrape by with disenchanted movie stars because they could do engaging performances in their sleep.
So no, Alfred Hitchcock had not lost his touch, it was everyone else! In fact, as Achim said, this was a brave film in some respects. But after all is said and done, was the world’s greatest director even relevant any more when this film was released? There’s a curious sense of isolation while watching these last few films (even the talking head documentaries are missing from the DVDs! Did no-one want to talk about Topaz, apart from a passionate, defensive Leonard Maitlin?). The studio system had collapsed and while you’d think someone like Hitchcock would thrive, maybe he needed something to fight to generate his most focused work. He’d failed to work well with new stars on Torn Curtain, lost key collaborators (Maurice Jarre, Lawrence of Arabia composer, nevertheless proves to be no replacement for Herrmann and his score makes Topaz feel like a TV Movie of the Week) and even in retrospect, the tone of Marnie through Topaz is out-of-date considering this is the era of the independent director approaching. This was a brave new world and the Western, period and urban, was making a revisionist comeback. There was no place in American film for Hitchcock any more. Maybe it was time to go back to his roots? ;)
Post by: Najemikon on May 03, 2010, 04:15:32 PM
*
(click to show/hide)
Post by: Achim on May 03, 2010, 07:52:29 PM
visually stunning (look out for a shocking, sudden murder on a tile floor; easy to see how it was achieved, but not to be underestimated).You mean the scene with the dress? That was so stunning, I had to rewind and watch it again straight away...
Quote
There’s a curious sense of isolation while watching these last few films (even the talking head documentaries are missing from the DVDs!My DVD has at least a rather good documentary (not sure if the talking heads are there, but many people involved are dead already), explaining the particular difficulties this film had while being made, but also pointing out some of the high-points throughout (like the dress scene).
Now I better get my act together and proceed with Frenzy...
Post by: Najemikon on May 03, 2010, 08:04:58 PM
visually stunning (look out for a shocking, sudden murder on a tile floor; easy to see how it was achieved, but not to be underestimated).You mean the scene with the dress? That was so stunning, I had to rewind and watch it again straight away...QuoteThere’s a curious sense of isolation while watching these last few films (even the talking head documentaries are missing from the DVDs!My DVD has at least a rather good documentary (not sure if the talking heads are there, but many people involved are dead already), explaining the particular difficulties this film had while being made, but also pointing out some of the high-points throughout (like the dress scene).
My DVD just has "an appreciation" by Leonard Maitlin, which is nonetheless fairly thorough. It's just that all my Universal discs with that particular style of cover had a half-hour doc interviewing all sorts of people, including his daughter. The style suggested they just did it in one session (so to speak. I'm sure they had a rest! :P), so I found it odd that they stopped after Marnie.
Mind you, does anyone know why Herrmann was fired from Torn Curtain? Maybe this was a difficult period, regardless of how the films turned out and his friends didn't want to sound like they were spinning something negative.
And yes, it was that dress. Utter brilliance. :thumbup:
Post by: Achim on May 04, 2010, 06:00:15 AM
I think the documentary for Torn Curtain that I saw touched on the firing of Hermann, they even showed a few scenes with his score, I believe! Not sure they actually explained why though.
I'll try to give both a quick whirl tonight to confirm both issues.
Post by: Najemikon on May 04, 2010, 08:14:23 PM
Post by: Achim on May 05, 2010, 06:30:30 AM
BTW, I own The Masterpiece Collection (from Universal), which contains 14 films.
Post by: Achim on May 05, 2010, 03:05:11 PM
MOVIE / DVD INFO:
(http://www.invelos.com/mpimages/I1/I1E5059F3EA955F76f.jpg) Title: Frenzy
Year: 1972
Director: Alfred Hitchcock
Rating: R
Length: 116 Min.
Video: Anamorphic Widescreen 1.85:1
Audio: English: Dolby Digital: Mono, French: Dolby Digital: Mono
Subtitles: English, Spanish
Stars:
Jon Finch
Barry Foster
Barbara Leigh-Hunt
Anna Massey
Alec McCowen
Plot:
Jon Finch, Alec McCowen and Barry Foster star in this morbid blend of horror and wit - the first Hitchcock film to earn an "R" rating. The Necktie Murderer has the London Police on red alert and an innocent man is on a desperate quest to find the real sex criminal and clear his name. Alternating heart-pounding tension with distinctive Hitchcock humor, Frenzy marked the Master of Suspense’s return to his native England after almost 20 years.
Extras:
Scene Access
Feature Trailers
Featurettes
Gallery
Production Notes
My Thoughts:
I have watched the film two or three times through my school years and not since then. I was very surprised to find that it was much better than I remembered it (and I already remembered it to be a good film). At its core the film is still based on Hitchcock's favorite theme, the "wrong man", he did well in avoiding just doing more of the same and playing some interesting riffs on what he would have usually done earlier in his career. The main protagonist is far from the likable "man next door" who gets mixed up in some criminal plot, the plot is not just about being wrongly accused and then getting out of it and through the last third the theme actually shifts away (click to show/hide)
Acting is excellent all through the cast, including smaller bit parts. I enjoyed Barry Foster and Alex McCowen the most.
It can be argued that this is Hitchcock's nastiest film (we had a discussion on this forum whether Hitchcock's films would be much the same today or if he'd make more use of gore himself), by what is shown on screen (e.g. we get to see a rape-murder) but just as well theme (there's not many nice people here). A good portion of that success is due to the decision to work much more on location than before; gone is the fake look of outdoor sets.
Post by: Achim on May 05, 2010, 03:24:06 PM
My DVD just has "an appreciation" by Leonard Maitlin, which is nonetheless fairly thorough. It's just that all my Universal discs with that particular style of cover had a half-hour doc interviewing all sorts of people, including his daughter. The style suggested they just did it in one session (so to speak. I'm sure they had a rest! :P), so I found it odd that they stopped after Marnie.My Topaz disc also just as the Leonard Maltin thing. Not a bad watch by any stretch, but still.
My Frenzy disc has something produced by Laurent Bouzereau (sp?) and so far I've seen that he will interview Anthony Shaffer in it. Will watch it this weekend.
Quote
Mind you, does anyone know why Herrmann was fired from Torn Curtain? Maybe this was a difficult period, regardless of how the films turned out and his friends didn't want to sound like they were spinning something negative.The narrator of the documentary states that Hitch cock had ordered a commercial score and was dissatisfied with the results. That's why he fired him.
Post by: Najemikon on May 09, 2010, 10:25:27 PM
5 out of 5
(http://www.jonmeakin.co.uk/images/hitch/hitch30.jpg)
In modern-day London, a sex criminal known as the Necktie Murderer has the police on alert, and in typical Hitchcock fashion, the trail is leading to an innocent man, who must now elude the law and prove his innocence by finding the real murderer. Jon Finch, Alec McCowen and Barry Foster head this British cast in the thriller that alternates suspense scenes with moments of Hitchcock's distinctive black humour.
Returning to England after a dry spell in the States that put his reputation in real danger, Alfred Hitchcock went back to basics and found his mojo alive and well residing in Covent Garden, London, site of the famous market where much of this story would play out and where his own father worked years before. I don't think he had lost anything, but he came to London with his blood up and something to prove, and prove it he did, because Frenzy is a fantastic, dark thriller, full of vigour. On the thorough documentary, Peter Bogdanovitch comments that Hitch is “firing on all cylinders”, and quotes Truffaut as saying to Hitchcock, that Frenzy is “a young man’s film”.
It’s a straight telling of a serial killer, even naive (this being before profiling was so hip), but this helps the fabric of the story and modern thrillers would do well to consider not to take so much for granted. It recalls more of Hitchcock’s roots from his silent film, The Lodger, and is as much a film about London as anything else, an affectionate if warts and all story that could only have been set there, the environment is so engrained. Identity was a key part of a good Hitchcock film, like Vertigo being entwined in San Francisco. I liked the other latterly missed Hitchcock motif; two gentlemen in a pub discuss the murders with relish, similar to the morbid curiosity of Shadow of a Doubt. One says that people come to London expecting to see “carved up whores”. Is he referring to us? :P After the opening scene of Londoners (including the director!) gawping at a “Necktie Killer” victim floating naked in the Thames, it’s a great start for the no nonsense story and Hitchcock has made his intentions clear from the off.
This is easily Hitchcock’s most violent film, not just in events, but it permeates the atmosphere. Not that it is unremittingly so, because it is possibly his most passionate and raw as well, full of humour and great characters. It one moment, Anna Massey strides out of the pub where she works, telling the landlord to “balls!”, in the films typically raw and real dialogue; it’s almost as if all the characters have an “up yours!” attitude, and so does Hitch.
Anna is just one of a uniformly solid cast, again like Topaz, not the mega-stars he normally uses, but this time just good actors at least. Jon Finch is the Hitchcock staple of the wrongfully accused and he’s especially good in that he isn’t a likeable character, yet he keeps the viewers sympathy. Barry Foster (Van Der Valk himself!) has great fun in a stylish performance as the suave fruit seller and proves what a marvellous actor he is. And a special mention for Barbara Leigh-Hunt who suffers the horrible signature rape and murder in the story and the key thing that makes people remember this as Hitchcock’s darkest hour. A very clever piece of writing by Anthony Shaffer (from a book by Arthur La Bern) means it’s actually the only one on-screen, despite it being a plot about a very active killer.
The horror is implied elsewhere in several stand-out moments of technical audacity, played with such confidence it’s almost rude, such as the famous shot coming down the stairs from the scene of a murder we aren’t privy too (but cleverly will see in flashback), or the bravely long static shot ending in a scream. My favourite though is the subtle moment right after Massey said “balls!” where the sounds drops right down just for a moment. Then there is the potato truck sequence, which is indulgently hilarious and awful in equal measure as the killer wrestles with a corpse, kind of summing up the whole film! But even outside the bravura moments, just basic composition and editing works every scene to the maximum.
Another reason I’ve marked this so high is that it is so full of things that weren’t necessary, yet add layers to the plot. And they’re all character moments too, mocking the criticism that even at his best, Hitchcock was all about the visuals. There’s the detective with the hilarious sub-plot of dealing with his wife’s cooking (cleverly disguising exposition while giving us by far the most disgusting scene) or Mrs. Blaney’s secretary, Jean Marsh and her barbed sneers about men. Apparently she was a victim in the original book, but not so in the film. Her repressed performance is wonderful and would have been ruined by making her a corpse.
The film feels like one of Hitchcock’s most real and organic and is a fine British film in its own right. As Achim says, it is nasty, but it’s simplicity is key. Hitchcock chose to do something easy that will have no expectations, but he did it the hard way to make it look easy! It doesn’t matter if that’s confusing. Just dive in and have a ball, because the triumphant director clearly did.
Post by: goodguy on May 14, 2010, 06:49:59 PM
http://www.slantmagazine.com/house/2010/05/the-conversations-minor-hitchcock/ (http://www.slantmagazine.com/house/2010/05/the-conversations-minor-hitchcock/)
Post by: Antares on May 14, 2010, 06:57:11 PM
Post by: Najemikon on May 14, 2010, 09:00:16 PM
Post by: Dragonfire on May 15, 2010, 01:54:18 AM
Post by: Najemikon on May 22, 2010, 10:45:52 PM
I just wanted to share my "oh crap..." moment
Meticulously restored, allegedly. 5.1 remixed sound, apparently. Pre-ordered, definitely. :drooling: :bag:
Psycho. 50th Anniversary. Blu-Ray. (http://www.play.com/DVD/Blu-ray/4-/15110516/Psycho-50th-Anniversary-Special-Edition-Steelbook/Product.html) It's all good! :thumbup:
Post by: Dragonfire on May 23, 2010, 02:14:40 AM
Another one to add to my list...I need to hit the lottery to pay for all this I think. :hysterical:
Post by: Achim on May 23, 2010, 04:16:09 PM
Don't get excited! The final review, for now, still eludes me. ;)Yes, in the announcement I saw the author pointed out Universal's shaky track record with Blu-ray ports, how they occasionally fail to create new transfers.
Post by: Najemikon on May 23, 2010, 06:07:35 PM
Post by: Achim on May 23, 2010, 09:43:32 PM
Universal's own blurb seems confident at the moment at least.Um, yeah. Better than announcing "we are putting Psycho out on Blu this year, but we'll use the old VHS master" :P :bag:
Post by: Najemikon on May 23, 2010, 10:03:11 PM
Post by: Najemikon on May 25, 2010, 01:35:30 PM
4 out of 5
(http://www.jonmeakin.co.uk/images/hitch/hitch31.jpg)
When a wealthy woman unwittingly hires a con man and a phony psychic to find her missing heir, the results are diabolically funny in Alfred Hitchcock's tongue-in-cheek mystery thriller. Bruce Dern and Barbara Harris star as a conniving couple plotting to bilk an old lady out of her fortune by pretending to find her long-lost nephew (William Devane). Meanwhile, Devane, a larcenous jeweler, and his beautiful girlfriend (Karen Black) have kidnapped a rich Greek shipping magnate for ransom. Together they're on a nonstop merry-go round of mystery, murder and mayhem that combines suspense and comedy for unforgettable entertainment.
And so we come to the final Alfred Hitchcock film. It would be easy to make excuses for it, coming at the end of such an illustrious career that encompassed some of the greatest and most important films ever made, but the truth is, we don't have to. It's a great little film that is unmistakeably Hitchcock throughout and shows he never rested on his laurels.
The key thing about a typical Hitchcock plot is the simple, delicious premise and a claustrophobic situation, entrapping the central character. Family Plot doesn’t really have that. Essentially it’s two separate threads, but the light, farcical story by Ernest Lehman, built around a hugely ironic premise (jewell thief trying to do away with a couple who are simply trying to help him!), is still very enjoyable. There is a nod to previous ideas with the notion that the perfect murder was committed years before and gotten away with. For now.
The film opens with Barbara Harris as fake spiritualist Blanche in the middle of a session with Julia Rainbird (Cathleen Nebitt) and being offered $10000 to track down –psychically- the only heir to her family fortune. We are then introduced to Blanche’s partner, taxi driver George Lumley (Bruce Dern) as they try to work out how to find this man who nobody knows. There is a neat switch to Karen Black as jewel thief Fran completing an audacious kidnap plot by silently collecting the ransom from a police station and taking it to William Devane (Arthur Adamson aka Edward Shoebridge, the guy Blanche will be looking for). It’s a grand and theatrical introduction for the second couple, including a brilliant reveal of a helicopter, almost like a magic trick. The neat hiding of the diamond makes for a couple of nice shots later on too.
Harris and Dern might not get the obvious set-piece to grab the viewer with, but you will quickly warm to their endearing partnership. Harris (Freaky Friday) in particular works her socks off throughout and is very funny. And this is one of the best roles I’ve seen Dern in. Not because it is particularly difficult, but he often plays characters that are difficult to empathise with. The jewel thief couple are more style over substance, but Karen Black does well with the thinnest role and William Devane is always worth watching, especially his smooth dealings with detectives who visit his jewellers (note his lapel picking to disarm them). Ed Lauter also pops up as a thug and does very well to be a viable threat in what is too light a story to handle anything really terrifying.
Most of Hitchcock’s American films had huge star power, but this had undone his later films. Marnie and Torn Curtain had the stars, but they were awkward, detached, incapable or all three! Topaz had the characters, but not the stars to pull them off. As if realising a change of gear was needed, in Frenzy he worked with a lesser-known, but a more capable and balanced cast and the story was tailored to suit them. Family Plot is the same and works very well for it, although at some cost to the epic visual style his best work is known for. Still, he rarely handled comedy well for that very reason, so this is a treat. There is one set-piece that acts as a nod to North By Northwest and the preceding car accident hilariously demonstrates Hitchcock’s grasp of the absurd cinema he helped create and reminding us a little of the humour he injected into Foreign Correspondent.
The low key setting, wider focused plot and cast of unknowns, can’t help but lend the film a touch of TV movie (though somewhat deflected by John Williams’ score), but rather than be a detriment, it simply highlights the director’s skills in composing a scene, or building character and dialogue. For some reason, I particularly noticed the sound design based on his earlier tricks to hide exposition; watch how he uses a radio to drown out dialogue and then has the characters complain so it gets turned down. It’s almost as if they acknowledge that the audience can’t hear them! And if you think that comes close to breaking the fourth wall, well just wait until the end! It’s a silly grace-note once the plot is done with, but cheeky Hitchcock clearly understands it can only work if the audience is complicit.
After his later American movies had seemed old fashioned in structure, like he was falling back on older, more reliable roots, it seems like Frenzy had given him a new direction. Tone down the visual and concentrate on a dependable, solid cast and a likeable premise. As such this is a fine swansong that while lacking the pure cinematic power of, say, Vertigo, nevertheless intrigues by suggesting what might have been. Certainly the great man was not running on empty and we couldn’t ask for anything more.
Post by: Najemikon on May 25, 2010, 01:37:07 PM
Post by: Critter on May 25, 2010, 01:39:23 PM
Well done indeed. I am yet to actually finish a marathon but I can only assume how good it would feel.
Post by: Dragonfire on May 25, 2010, 08:52:25 PM
Someone play the Chariots of Fire theme, because I'm done! :training: :dance: :phew:
Show off ;)
I will finish this someday. I hope. :laugh:
I need to make myself another list..I lost the other one somehow.
Post by: Jimmy on May 25, 2010, 09:27:55 PM
Post by: Dragonfire on May 25, 2010, 09:50:04 PM
I know I'm up to The Paradine Case...almost watched it a few times, but I wasn't really in the mood for Hitchcock those times.
But I will finish. Maybe not until the 12 of never, but I will do it. :laugh:
Post by: snowcat on June 02, 2010, 10:48:04 PM
..I think its because I have a thing for James Stewart ¬_¬
anyway, im not sure if you guys have ever heard this song, to be honest the first time I heard it I had not seen Vertigo and so I did not get it.... its by one of my favourite bands and even when I didn't understand it, it was a favourite of mine... anyway ;p spot the film references
WARNING! CONTAINS SPOILERS!!!
Post by: Najemikon on June 02, 2010, 11:51:58 PM
Vertigo is one of my favourites too. I'd only watched it quite recently when it came around for the marathon, but had to see it again.
Post by: Dragonfire on June 07, 2010, 07:37:38 AM
So..I watched Suspicion last night. I'm making progress again.
| Suspicion (http://www.invelos.com/mpimages/05/053939658323f.jpg) Well-to-do wallflower Lina McLaidlaw is in love, perhaps in danger. She suspects that Johnnie Aysgarth, the playboy who swept into her life and married her, is a murderer - and that she is his next intended victim. Alfred Hitchcock's Suspicion shyly combines romance, mystery and atmospheric flourishes (like an eerie, glowing glass of milk, an effect achieved with a light bulb inside the glass). Joan Fontaine plays vulnerable, nerve-wracked Lina, following her acclaimed work in Hitchcock's Rebecca with a striking performance that won the Academy Award® and New York Film Critics Award as 1941's Best Actress. Playing against type, Cary Grant makes Johnnie an imposing charmer, wastrel and cad. But also a killer? Like the glass that may or may not contain poison, Johnnie's words and deeds may or may not be laced with menace. My Thoughts The movie has a slower pace, but that is needed to properly build the tension and suspense. Things are shown from Lina's point of view, so the viewer knows only what she knows for the most part, though the viewer isn't as likely to be swayed by feelings like she is. So much of what happens hints at Johnnie having a sinister nature, but then he turns around and has an explanation that sort of makes sense. It is at least acceptable to Lina. The uncertainty surrounding Johnnie works very well for the movie and makes many things more suspenseful, especially as Lina slowly starts to learn more about her husband. The mystery and suspense work very well. The music and lighting in various scenes really add to the atmosphere as well. That glass of milk that looks like it is glowing is really creepy. The movie also has some lighter moments, mostly early in Johnnie and Lina's relationship. Johnnie's friend Beaky also adds some humor in his scenes. Lina is a good character, though she has issues. That makes her a more believable character in my opinion. She has confidence issues when she first meets Johnnie. She does seem to gain some confidence after the marriage, but then she sort of...slides back again at other times. I think a big reason for that is because of her feelings for Johnnie and how he has manipulated her. Joan Fontaine and Cary Grant are wonderful in the parts. My problem with Suspicion is the ending. I don't think it fits and it is the weak spot of the movie. I found out, though the one extra on my DVD and from research online, that this isn't the original ending. (click to show/hide) Even though I don't think the ending fits the movie, I still enjoyed this one overall. It is definitely worth watching for fans of Hitchcock and Cary Grant. I even got a review posted on Epinions. Suspicion (http://www.epinions.com/content_513847103108) |
Post by: Dragonfire on June 08, 2010, 06:00:45 AM
One person talked about how the movie was colorized at one point and some of the colorized scenes are shown. One or two of them looked ok, but the colors in one just looked weird and unnatural. The featurette thing is interesting and worth watching.
Post by: Dragonfire on June 15, 2010, 09:02:17 AM
| The Paradine Case (http://www.invelos.com/mpimages/I5/I52ADC60C085D1085f.jpg) THE PARADINE CASE Academy Award® Winner Gregory Peck stars in this suspense thriller as a love -struck attorney defending a beauty charged with poisoning her husband. Restored and Remastered! Includes Audio Commentary, Audio Interview with Peter Bogdanovich and More! My Thoughts This movie had potential with the main idea of the plot - a lawyer, or barrister, is defending a beautiful somewhat mysterious woman accused of poisoning her husband and falls for her. Unfortunately, the movie fails to meet the potential, and it ends up being rather dull and not suspenseful in any way. Maddalena's husband is already dead when the movie begins and she is arrested within the first few minutes. At that point, very little is shared about the death of her husband. It doesn't take that long for more to be shared about it. Most of the movie is focused on Anthony - the attorney - working on the case and developing feelings for his client. They aren't shown together that much, so it doesn't make much sense for him to have fallen for her, especially since he is happily married when he takes the case. Several scenes don't really add much to what is going on and seem more pointless than anything. I'm guessing that they were supposed to be suspenseful. The big revelation late in the movie is probably supposed to be shocking, but it isn't. Maybe it was more shocking when the movie first came out. Once the trial actually starts, a lot of it is shown. During those scenes, Hitchcock did do something different by using four different camera aimed at different characters. The footage was then put together during the editing. None of the cast really stands out to me. No one was bad, but no one was great either. Ethyl Barrymore was nominated for a best supporting actress Oscar and she is barely in the movie. The few times she is on screen, her character is made out to be a bit loopy. Maddalena had potential to be a really interesting character, but it isn't fully explored. This is the last movie that Hitchcock made with Selznick. I have learned about the trouble the two men had working together and there was more of it with this movie as well. Selznick even wrote the screenplay because he decided the adaptation that was done wasn't good enough. New pages were sent to the set every day. He also insisted on all kinds of reshoots that caused the filming to take longer and go way over budget. The final amount spent was almost as much as spent on Gone With the Wind. Hitchcock's cut of the movie was almost three hours long. Selznick then decided to edit the movie himself and cut it down a lot. I think the fact that Selznick did the editing is at least part of why the movie doesn't work. The story had the potential to be interesting, but it just didn't work out that way. The movie ends up being rather dull with no suspense. It is a very different sort of Hitchcock movie in my opinion. Fans of Hitchcock might find something to like about the movie, but they really aren't missing anything by not watching the movie either. I did get a review posted on Epinions. The Paradine Case (http://www.epinions.com/content_514597097092) |
Post by: Dragonfire on June 15, 2010, 10:41:59 PM
This DVD is one of my mother and step-father's, so I don't have it in Profiler.
This is the version they have. I've taken the other information from Amazon.com
(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/510C02NBHQL._SS500_.jpg)
An experimental film masquerading as a standard Hollywood thriller. The plot of Rope is simple and based on a successful stage play: two young men (John Dall and Farley Granger) commit murder, more or less as an intellectual exercise. They hide the body in their large apartment, then throw a dinner party. Will the body be discovered? Director Alfred Hitchcock, fascinated by the possibilities of the long-take style, decided to shoot this story as though it were happening in one long, uninterrupted shot. Since the camera can only hold one 10-minute reel at a time, Hitchcock had to be creative when it came time to change reels, disguising the switches as the camera passed behind someone's back or moved behind a lamp. In later years Hitchcock wrote off the approach as misguided, and Rope may not be one of Hitchcock's top movies, but it's still a nail-biter. They don't call him the Master of Suspense for nothing. James Stewart, as a suspicious professor, marks his first starring role for Hitchcock, a collaboration that would lead to the masterpieces Rear Window and Vertigo. --Robert Horton
Product Description
No Description Available.
Genre: Feature Film-Drama
Rating: PG
Release Date: 20-JUN-2006
Media Type: DVD
My Thoughts
The first shot of the movie, showing the murder, makes this movie a bit different. It is clear right from the start that Brandon and Phillip have murdered David, so there is no search for a murderer. The motivation for the murder comes out fairly early. Things progress during real time over the course of the movie. The pacing works well overall, though it does slow down a few times. Things do seem to drag slightly in a few spots, but that works for the movie overall. The entire movie is set inside Brandon's apartment, mostly in the living room, though a few other rooms are used briefly as well. The kitchen is just seen through the swinging door, which creates some wonderful shots. The movie is filmed with one camera in basically one shot, though the camera would only hold ten minutes of film at a time. The changes in the reels are somewhat easy to spot, but they are still done well. As characters go from room to room, the camera follows along behind them. Hitchcock already used a small location in Lifeboat, and he would return to using an apartment as the location for an entire movie in Rear Window.
The living room has a wall of windows, showing the city skyline as the backdrop for what is going on inside. There is smoke coming from different chimneys and clouds slowly move across the sky, disguising the fact that the background is actually static. The lighting slow changes as well as it becomes dark out and lights in the different buildings slowly come on. The use of the background is done really well and adds to the atmosphere of what is going on. I don't think I've seen another movie that did this what a static backdrop.
Even though there is no question about who killed Dave or even why he has vanished, there is still a good amount of suspense to what is going on. Brandon going through with a dinner party right after the murder, and even serving the food from the trunk or whatever that piece of furniture was where they stuffed the body. Once people start to arrive, there is a lot of tension and suspense around the wondering if anyone will discover the body that is practically right under their noses. Phillip is not dealing well with what they have done, and he gets more and more jumpy and nervous as the evening progresses while Brandon stays more calm and controlled. One guest is a former teacher who has expressed the view of murder being a privilege for some. The other guests include members of David's family, his girlfriend, and her ex. Having so many people that connected to David be there adds to the tension of what is going on.
Of the two murderous friends, it is clear that Brandon is the one in charge and making the decisions. He has no remorse and relishes the danger of having the dinner party while the body is still in the room. Brandon enjoys manipulating people and then sitting back to watch what happens. Philip starts showing regrets almost immediately and he is horrified by the planned dinner party, and Brandon deciding to change things around so the food is served from the trunk hiding the body. There is a good dynamic between the two of them. Mrs. Wilson is the maid who arrives to help set up for the party. She is confused by Brandon's decision to change things around. Janet is David's girlfriend and she has known Brandon long enough to know that he likes to manipulate people. She isn't happy about Kenneth, her ex, being there too. David's father and aunt are the other two party guests. As things progress, they are getting more concerned and worried over David's absence. Rupert is the professor who slowly starts to become suspicious. The cast all does well with their parts, with Jimmy Stewart being wonderful.
I did get a review of this one posted on Epinions a few years ago after I first watched the movie.
Rope (http://www0.epinions.com/review/mvie_mu-1017881/content_406194589316)
Post by: Najemikon on June 15, 2010, 10:54:43 PM
Glad to see you're still plugging away, Marie!
Post by: Dragonfire on June 15, 2010, 11:19:28 PM
Post by: Najemikon on June 15, 2010, 11:20:36 PM
Post by: Dragonfire on June 15, 2010, 11:31:01 PM
So there is a chance I may not be last after all..cool.
Post by: Najemikon on June 15, 2010, 11:47:24 PM
Post by: Dragonfire on June 16, 2010, 12:06:21 AM
Post by: Tom on June 16, 2010, 12:25:54 AM
According to page 1, Tom still has a handful and Rossroy a couple. I have a feeling the host has left us... :devil: :P
I am still following this thread and I will continue some day. Promise :)
I will also update the list sometime soon.
Post by: Dragonfire on June 16, 2010, 12:30:03 AM
Post by: Achim on June 16, 2010, 06:29:05 AM
I just want to put some time between Jon's and my review :bag:
Great review of Rope there, Marie.
Post by: Dragonfire on June 16, 2010, 06:30:10 AM
Post by: goodguy on June 16, 2010, 12:04:10 PM
Oh? I thought I was only one still not done.
So there is a chance I may not be last after all..cool.
Well, the UK Hitchcock set that Jon recommended arrived today, so I'm just starting. :laugh: I doubt I will write any reviews, though.
Post by: Achim on June 20, 2010, 12:05:51 PM
MOVIE / DVD INFO:
(http://www.invelos.com/mpimages/I6/I6E9BDC876323E065f.jpg) Title: Family Plot
Year: 1976
Director: Alfred Hitchcock
Rating: PG
Length: 120 Min.
Video: Anamorphic Widescreen 1.85:1
Audio: English: Dolby Digital: Mono, French: Dolby Digital: Mono
Subtitles: English, Spanish
Stars:
Karen Black
Bruce Dern
Barbara Harris
William Devane
Ed Lauter
Plot:
In his final picture, Hitchcock weaves together suspense and humor in this tongue-in-cheek thriller about a wealthy woman who innocently hires a phony psychic to find her missing heir. The unforgettable all-star cast, including Bruce Dern, Barbara Harris, William Devane and Karen Black, contributes to an enthralling merry-go-round of mayhem, mystery and murder.
Extras:
Scene Access
Feature Trailers
Featurettes
Gallery
Production Notes
Storyboard Comparisons
My Thoughts:
The Master's last film. It is very nice to see it didn't just play it safe on this one, but made some bold choices along the way. Not all works but it still produces a film other director's could only wish to make. Of course a lot rests on the fact that there was a solid script to work from, written by Ernest Lehmann (who he had worked with on North By Northwest), based on material created by Victor canning. The film deals with two sets of characters, two couples, whose fate is about to intertwine. I like how these two couples interact among each other and how different they are. Blanche and George are a poor couple who gets by driving taxi and scamming old ladies by pretending to spiritually contact their passed on loved ones. On the other hand we have Fran and Arthur who are quite active kidnapping people and collecting the ransom. As interesting it is to see both couples alternately, it makes it more difficult to connect with our heroes.In typical Hitchcock fashion, the story is not about "whodunnit", but more about the people reacting in the situation they are in. That part works rather well though, as we learn early on who does what, yet we still anticipate where all that will bring our heroes towards the end. Here, again, I feel there is a missed opportunity, with the pacing of the end being a little too slow, emphasized by poor choice of music; which was already evident throughout the film (oddly enough this was scored by John Williams, who normally normally knows better :shrug:)
In overall it's till a good film and is interesting to watch, although it could be a little shorter and cut slightly tighter (I hope it's not purely based on us being used to way faster pacing nowadays :hmmmm:) This being the first Hitchcock film I have ever seen, I have a soft spot for it, so here it goes:
Post by: Najemikon on June 20, 2010, 03:00:54 PM
Post by: Tom on June 20, 2010, 03:18:03 PM
Congratulations to Jon and Achim for finishing the marathon :thumbup:
Though Achim, I am missing your review for "Pycho". Did I miss it or are you reviewing it later?
Also I have taken Rich's rating for "The Birds" from his last October Horror marathon, which also finishes his run :thumbup:
Post by: goodguy on June 20, 2010, 06:58:48 PM
For anyone looking for a good deal on the Hitchcock Universal set, it's on Play.com this weekend only for £14.99. I think that's superb value!
Well, that happens if you go for the cheap stuff. :( 3 of the 14 movies are definitely in the wrong aspect ratio. With 3 more (where IMDb lists the OAR as 1.50:1) I'm not sure. Also, I'm wondering if the Fullscreen DVDs are P&S or Open Matte? Does anyone know a bit more about that?
| Title | DVD | IMDb |
| The Trouble with Harry | 1.85:1 | 1.50:1 |
| The Man Who Knew Too Much (1956) | 1.85:1 | 1.50:1 |
| Vertigo | 1.85:1 | 1.50:1 |
| Marnie | Fullscreen | 1.85:1 |
| Torn Curtain | Fullscreen | 1.85:1 |
| Topaz | Fullscreen | 1.85:1 |
Post by: Najemikon on June 20, 2010, 11:14:58 PM
Post by: goodguy on June 20, 2010, 11:43:59 PM
Post by: goodguy on June 21, 2010, 01:37:23 AM
| Saboteur | |
| Shadow of a Doubt | |
| Rope | |
| Rear Window | |
| The Trouble with Harry | |
| The Man Who Knew Too Much (1956) | |
Post by: Najemikon on June 21, 2010, 02:17:19 AM
Jon, since you are the resident Hitchcock expert, can you say something about the ones that are supposedly 1.50:1 OAR (according to IMDb)? Strikes me as rather odd.
Nice of you to say, but I think you give me too much credit! More credit should be given to my book collection including 'The Big Book of Widescreen', which was a slim paperback given away with Home Cinema Choice magazine way back in 1996. It explains how ratios work, all the different formats that were tested and OARs of every key film from 1895. It proved invaluable during the new dawn of widescreen and navigating those versions released for the sake of it at a premium price, OAR be damned.
According to said book, in the early 1950s, Paramount created Vista Vision to compete with other formats. To make it, they turned a 35mm frame on its side, thereby using a ratio of 1:5. Quality was improved and the size meant the image would suit 1.85:1 projector gates without any problem.
Actually those DVDs released in 1.85:1 are in fact correct. Vista Vision was abandoned in the early 60s, so I guess resultant prints would be fixed at the more common size? Not really sure how that works, tbh, but 1.85:1 is how the films have always been shown, hence why the DVD releases are in that format.
I didn't look at your list properly earlier and I've double-checked and my Marnie, Torn Curtain and Topaz are all R2, so incorrectly full frame. Sorry I didn't twig earlier these would be the ones in that set, even when I swore at my TV when Marnie came up full screen. I bought a lot of Hitchcock in R4 and keep forgetting I got that one much later.
Shame, because I wouldn't be surprised if you find Marnie more interesting than the others. I think it's an under-valued film that has much to offer.
Post by: goodguy on June 21, 2010, 03:26:04 AM
Oh dear! Though if I'd have to have guessed, I'd have said that Saboteur, Shadow of a Doubt and the '56 Man Who Knew Too Much would leave you cold. Rope and Rear Window I couldn't call you on, but I should have known that The Trouble With Harry would have caught your attention the most! :laugh:
Which is a shame, kinda, because as far as the cinematography goes, it is rather conventional. But it doesn't bore with plot (like Saboteur, Man Who Knew) or half-baked suspense (like Shadow). Instead it is delightfully macabre and has an unresistable odd sense of humor.
According to said book, in the early 1950s, Paramount created Vista Vision...
Thanks for explaining that.
Shame, because I wouldn't be surprised if you find Marnie more interesting than the others. I think it's an under-valued film that has much to offer.
Vertigo and Marnie are actually the ones I look forward to the most.
Post by: Achim on June 21, 2010, 06:51:02 AM
Congratulations to Jon and Achim for finishing the marathon :thumbup:You didn't miss it. On page 3 I had mentioned that I will maybe watch Psycho, and maybe not. So, for the time being, I went for not. ;)
Though Achim, I am missing your review for "Pycho". Did I miss it or are you reviewing it later?
If I ever review it I'll add it to this thread.
Post by: goodguy on June 23, 2010, 05:44:13 AM
So far, revisiting Hitchcock has been an even more sobering experience than I expected.
Saboteur Shadow of a Doubt Rope Rear Window The Trouble with Harry The Man Who Knew Too Much (1956)
Following up with a better batch... and then four more to go.
| Vertigo | |
| Psycho | |
| The Birds | |
| Marnie | |
Post by: Najemikon on June 23, 2010, 09:13:06 AM
Post by: Dragonfire on June 23, 2010, 10:20:01 AM
| Strangers on a Train (http://www.invelos.com/mpimages/08/085391532422f.jpg) Strange thing about this trip. So much occurs in pairs. Tennis star Guy (Farley Granger) hates his unfaithful wife. Mysterious Bruno (Robert Walker) hates his father. How perfect for a playful proposal: I'll kill yours, you kill mine. Now look at how Alfred Hitchcock reinforces the duality of human nature. The more you watch, the more you'll see. "Isn't it a fascinating design?" the Master of Suspense often asked. Actually, it's doubly fascinating. For Hitchcock left behind two versions of 'Strangers on a Train'. The original version (SIDE A) is an all-time thriller classic. A recently found longer prerelease British print (SIDE B) offers "a startling amplification of Bruno's flamboyance, his homoerotic attraction to Guy and his psychotic personality" (Bill Desowitz, 'Film Comment'). The laying bare of Bruno's hidden nature, along with great set pieces (head-turning tennis match, disintegrating carousel) and suspense as only Hitchcock can deliver, makes for a first-class trip. My Thoughts This was the first time I saw this one. I picked it up after I found it on sale at Amazon last November...even though I was horribly behind in this marathon at the time. Even though I haven't seen the movie before, I have seen other versions of the story in other movies and different tv shows. Just this past year, The Simpsons and Castle used a version of the story. Things start off showing Bruno and Guy meeting for the first time and talking. Bruno seems to be missing a few marbles right from the start with how he tries to act like Guy's best friend and talking about murder. When Miriam is shown, she is a horrible woman, and it is easy to see why Guy wanted out of the marriage. The movie has a slow build of tension and suspense that works wonderfully. I think this is one of the most suspenseful movies I've ever seen. During the climax, something does seem a bit ...extreme, but it still works - though (click to show/hide) Guy has started a relationship with another woman who is the total opposite of Miriam. He is mostly likable, though he does some questionable things. Farley Granger is wonderful in the part that is so different from the one he had in Rope when he was the one embracing murder. Bruno is a wonderful villain and Robert Walker is great in the part. The rest of the cast is good too, though they don't stand out as much. Hitchcock's daughter has a decent sized role as Barbara. Overall, this is a wonderful Hitchcock movie. I did post a review on Epinions a few days ago. Strangers on a Train (http://www99.epinions.com/review/mvie_mu-1020292/content_515433336452) |
Post by: goodguy on June 23, 2010, 08:04:59 PM
You like The Birds but not Psycho? ???
I was surprised myself. The Birds aren't that great, but at least entertaining. Psycho clearly is the "better" movie, but I literally was bored out of my mind, despite some interesting camera work and editing.
Post by: goodguy on June 26, 2010, 05:10:22 AM
Saboteur Shadow of a Doubt Rope Rear Window The Trouble with Harry The Man Who Knew Too Much (1956)
Vertigo Psycho The Birds Marnie
Last batch:
| Torn Curtain | |
| Topaz | |
| Frenzy | |
| Family Plot | |
This is my second "retrospective" this year of a director whose movies I haven't seen for many, many years. Revisiting Eric Rohmer was exciting for me, but with Hitchcock it unfortunately felt more like a dutiful refresher course of things considered important.
Post by: Najemikon on June 26, 2010, 10:16:45 AM
Post by: Najemikon on June 26, 2010, 04:46:16 PM
Post by: Antares on June 26, 2010, 04:49:31 PM
Post by: snowcat on June 26, 2010, 05:57:10 PM
Post by: Najemikon on June 26, 2010, 06:58:46 PM
This forum never ceases to amaze me. The Hitchcock films that are proving most popular is occasionally left-field as it is and I've never heard a word against Grace Kelly and now there's two of you! For god sake, don't breed! :-X :tease:
Post by: hal9g on June 26, 2010, 08:22:00 PM
???
This forum never ceases to amaze me. The Hitchcock films that are proving most popular is occasionally left-field as it is and I've never heard a word against Grace Kelly and now there's two of you! For god sake, don't breed! :-X :tease:
Couldn't agree more. I absolutely loved Grace Kelly in both of these films(and any other film, for that matter)!
Post by: Najemikon on June 26, 2010, 08:44:14 PM
Thank goodness for that! I thought I was in Bizarro World. ;D
Post by: goodguy on June 26, 2010, 08:56:40 PM
Rear Window gets the same rating as Topaz and Torn Curtain? :slaphead:
Do you really want to go there? Remember your 4 stars for Eagle Eye? Don't make me dig out your other 4-star reviews for comparison. :tomato: :tease:
More seriously, Rear Window ranks slightly higher for me than the other two. But as you can guess from my other ratings, the "signature Hitchcock style" often doesn't work for me. And just for the record, I liked Grace Kelly.
Post by: Najemikon on June 26, 2010, 09:18:21 PM
Rear Window gets the same rating as Topaz and Torn Curtain? :slaphead:
Do you really want to go there? Remember your 4 stars for Eagle Eye? Don't make me dig out your other 4-star reviews for comparison. :tomato: :tease:
More seriously, Rear Window ranks slightly higher for me than the other two. But as you can guess from my other ratings, the "signature Hitchcock style" often doesn't work for me. And just for the record, I liked Grace Kelly.
I'm going to start a poll on Grace Kelly. I feel there is an undercurrent of unspoken support that would quickly assert itself! :laugh:
Eagle Eye was fun! :whistle: :training:
Post by: Tom on June 26, 2010, 10:33:27 PM
Post by: Antares on June 26, 2010, 10:33:39 PM
???
This forum never ceases to amaze me. The Hitchcock films that are proving most popular is occasionally left-field as it is and I've never heard a word against Grace Kelly and now there's two of you! For god sake, don't breed! :-X :tease:
We're not alone Jon, if you go on to the message boards over at IMDB, you'll find a lot of people who can't stand her manufactured accent, and that's what it is, manufactured.
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000038/board/nest/129229719 (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000038/board/nest/129229719)
When she first started acting classes, they felt her voice was too thin, so they suggested she try that speech pattern.
Post by: Najemikon on June 26, 2010, 10:59:50 PM
And you do realise you just linked to the IMDB message boards? That's the Mos Eisley of forums! :-X
Post by: Antares on June 26, 2010, 11:15:12 PM
And you do realise you just linked to the IMDB message boards? That's the Mos Eisley of forums! :-X
I guess we're even, seeing as how you used a Star Wars fanboy metaphor for your response. :tease: :devil: :hysterical:
And I'll stand by that comment, because I had to look up what Mos Eisley was. :tease: :laugh:
We really need a fanboy smiley on this forum. ;) :P
Post by: Najemikon on June 26, 2010, 11:22:36 PM
"You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious." :whistle:
And the conversations usually end up as...
Post by: Antares on June 26, 2010, 11:25:50 PM
I just always thought that when entering the IMDB forums, Obi Wan Kenobi has wise words:
"You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious." :whistle:
And the conversations usually end up as...
I haven't seen that part of the film since I first saw the film back in '77.
I guess Lucas clipped from Yojimbo too. ;)
Post by: Dragonfire on June 27, 2010, 04:07:39 AM
You probably corrupt databases too don't you? ;)
Sorry...couldn't resist.
Post by: Jimmy on June 27, 2010, 04:44:42 AM
Post by: Dragonfire on June 29, 2010, 11:12:59 PM
| Dial M for Murder (http://www.invelos.com/mpimages/08/085391115625f.jpg) Alfred Hitchcock’s screen version of Frederick Knott’s stage hit Dial M for Murder is a tasty blend of elegance and suspense casting Grace Kelly, Ray Milland and Robert Cummings as the points of a romantic triangle. Kelly won the New York Critics and National Board of Review Best Actress Awards for this and two other acclaimed 1954 performances (Hitchcock’s Rear Window and her Oscar®-honored work in The Country Girl). She loves Cummings; her husband Milland plots her murder. But when he dials a Mayfair exchange to set the plot in motion, his right number gets the wrong answer – and gleaming scissors become a deadly weapon. Dial “M” for the Master of Suspense at his most stylish. My Thoughts I think this is the first time that I've seen this entire movie. I saw part of it on tv before. I have also seen another version of the story, A Perfect Murder, a few times. I think the movie is very entertaining and it has an interesting plot. The way things are presented keeps the movie from being as suspenseful as some of Hitchcock's other movies, but I do think there is still suspense to what is going on. Tony describes exactly how things are supposed to happen, but he doesn't take into account the fact that things rarely go exactly as planned in any situation. When things start to go a bit wrong, some suspense is added to what is going on. The mystery is mostly focused on how Tony will deal with how things worked out and if he will get caught. The movie takes place almost completely inside Tony and Margot's apartment without a few short shots outside of it. I honestly really didn't notice that while watching the movie. This isn't the first Hitchcock movie with a more confined set and it won't be the last. I don't remember knowing before that the movie was based on a play. Things do move at a slightly slower pace for much of the movie that may not appeal to some viewers. That works to build up what is going on and add what suspense there is. There isn't a lot of action in the movie either, apart from the one important scene. The movie does have a lot of talking which might bore some people, but I didn't think it was boring. The talking was needed to introduced certain story elements..like how Tony puts his plan in motion. The characters are interesting, though there could have been a bit more development for some of them. Tony is sort of presented in a more sympathetic way at first because of Margot's affair. Even with that, I really didn't like him. He came across as smarmy and manipulative to me. That comes out more and more as the movie progresses. He is very calculating and things he has everything planned out perfectly. He isn't happy when things go wrong, though he adapts fairly quick. Ray Milland does really well with the part. Margot seems to be trying to make her marriage work though she clearly still has feelings for Mark. She thinks she has kept things from Tony. She is clueless about a few things. Grace Kelly does well with the part. Mark is a writer and the man that Margot had an affair with. They haven't seen each other in a year, but it is clear the feelings are still there. Mark seems nice enough, though he really isn't developed much. Chief Inspector Hubbard is the police officer investigating everything. He keeps popping up with additional questions. He picks up on much more than it seems at first. The two extras on the DVD are interesting and entertaining. It is brought up how the movie was made in 3D because of how popular that format was at the time. By the time the movie was ready to be released, it wasn't as popular anymore, so most theaters showed the movie in the normal format. When I was at Universal Studios in Florida several years ago, they had a show thing about Hitchcock. Part of it showed the one scene from this movie in 3D. That shot worked really well..better than most of what I've seen more recently. This movie does move a bit slower than other Hitchcock movies and doesn't have as much suspense overall, but it is still really entertaining and worth watching. I did get a review posted on Epinions. Dial M for Murder (http://www0.epinions.com/review/mvie_mu-1005802/content_516296576644) |
Post by: Dragonfire on June 30, 2010, 04:20:48 AM
| Rear Window (http://www.invelos.com/mpimages/02/025192039522f.jpg) None of Hitchcock's films has ever given a clearer view of his genius for suspense than Rear Window. When professional photographer J.B "Jeff" Jeffries (James Stewart) is confined to a wheelchair with a broken leg, he becomes obsessed with watching the private dramas of his neighbors play out across the courtyard. When he suspects a salesman may have murdered his nagging wife, Jeffries enlists the help of his glamorous socialite girlfriend (Grace Kelly) to investigate the highly suspicious chain of events...Events that ultimately lead to one of the most memorable and gripping endings in all of film history. My Thoughts I think I have seen this one more than any other Hitchcock movie. I love this movie. I think everything about it works very well and it is a highly entertaining movie. It has held up very well and is definitely worth seeing. The plot isn't that complicated, but it works. It makes sense for Jeffries to watch what his various neighbors are up to while he's stuck in the cast. That is something that most people have done - watched what a neighbor was doing in some situation - and the movie just expands on that. People can relate to doing that. I also think it makes sense that Jeffires gets wrapped up in trying to figure out if a murder has happened. This is one of the Hitchcock movies with limited locations. Jeffries is stuck in his small apartment for the entire movie. He's confined even more since he is in a wheelchair thanks to his broken leg. He spends most of his time looking out his windows, watching what the neighbors are doing. Everyone has their windows open since they are in the middle of a heat wave..this was before air conditioning was that common. All sorts of things are going on in the other apartments, though usually only parts of situations are seen. That does help to make the mystery stronger and make the movie more interesting. Some of what happens does progress slower since a lot of it involves Jeffries watching the neighbors, but there are some very suspenseful scenes in the movie. When Lisa decides to go investigate, it is very suspenseful, as is another scene later in the movie. The suspense is done wonderfully well. Lisa and Jeffries have been seeing each other when the movie begins and he is a bit upset because she is hoping for marriage while he claims he isn't ready. At one point, he is deliberately looking for reasons why a marriage between them wouldn't work. There's nothing too explicit shared about their relationship, though things are hinted at. I do think the relationship adds to the movie and Lisa's presence helps to keep things interesting. Many of the characters shown are the neighbors and they aren't developed. The audience is restricted to seeing only what Jeffries sees, and they only know superficial things about them. That works perfectly for the plot. Jeffries is a good main character and likable overall even though he does show a few flaws every so often. I really like Jimmy Stewart in the part. Lisa is a beautiful, elegant woman and there is contrast between her and Jeffries. I do think the relationship works even with the contrast. I think Grace Kelly is wonderful in the part. She has some wonderful moments in the movie, including the first moment she is shown. She is just perfect in the part. Stella is a nurse who stops in to check on Jeffries each day. She is very vocal in her opinions about some things and she gets pulled into certain things as well. Thelma Ritter is wonderful in the part. I didn't watch the extras this time, but I remember them being very interesting. There is one focused on the restoration of the movie and how the one kiss scene was almost lost because of how bad the original film was. That scene looks good on the DVD, though there is a difference in the quality. I do wonder if it could be made to look better on Blu-ray. Once this is out on Blu - I'm sure it will be eventually - I am almost certain that I will be making another trip to double dip city. This movie is wonderful and I still really enjoy it when I watch it. I did get a review posted on Epinions back in 2008. Rear Window (http://www0.epinions.com/review/mvie_mu-1017289/content_418001948292) |
Post by: Dragonfire on July 06, 2010, 09:11:34 AM
| To Catch a Thief (http://www.invelos.com/mpimages/09/097360630848f.jpg) Cary Grant plays John Robie, a reformed jewel thief who was once known as "The Cat," in this suspenseful Alfred Hitchcock classic thriller. Robie is suspected of a new rash of gem thefts in the luxury hotels of the French Riviera, and he must set out to clear himself. Meeting pampered heiress Frances (Grace Kelly), he sees a chance to bait the mysterious thief with her mother's (Jessie Royce Landis) fabulous jewels. His plan backfires, however, but Frances who believes him guilty, proves her love by helping him escape. In a spine-tingling climax, the real criminal is exposed. Three Academy Award® nominations, including an Oscar® for "Best Cinematography." My Thoughts I think this is the first time that I've seen all of this one. I saw some of it before...probably less than half of it. This one is more lighthearted than the other Hitchcock movies I've seen. I think it is more of a romantic comedy with just a touch of mystery added in. The mystery is interesting, but it isn't that developed. It seems more like a reason to get John to meet Francis. I did figure out who the thief was fairly early. Some of what happens is a little predictable, but that doesn't keep the movie from being entertaining and interesting. There is really only suspense to one or two scenes. The limited amount of suspense might bother some people. I think the developing relationship between John and Francis is the main focus of the movie. They are very flitry with each other and they have good chemistry together. Cary Grant and Grace Kelly are wonderful in the movie. Grace makes Francis a somewhat cool, sophisticated woman. There is an elegance to her that fits the character perfectly. The gorgeous dresses she gets to wear help to add to the elegance of the character. She and Grant work wonderfully well together. Their characters are interesting and likable. Jessie, Francis's mother, is another very entertaining character. She doesn't have all the elegance of her daughter, but she is very likable. I did like John Williams as Hughson, the insurance man. The DVD version I watched - this one is one of my mom's DVDs - has a few interesting extras on the making of the movie. It was only from them that I discovered that some of the movie was filmed in the studio instead of all of it being filmed on location. There is also an interesting extra about Edith Head, the costume designer. Overall, I really enjoyed this movie. It is fun and entertaining and definitely worth watching even though it isn't as suspenseful as other Hitchcock movies. I got a review posted on Epinions earlier tonight. To Catch a Thief (http://www99.epinions.com/review/mvie_mu-1021560/content_517033332356) |
Post by: Najemikon on July 06, 2010, 12:06:57 PM
Good reviews though. I think To Catch A Thief was definitely Hitch on auto-pilot, but it was much more enjoyable than I'd remembered.
Post by: goodguy on July 07, 2010, 12:02:24 AM
It was only from them that I discovered that some of the movie was filmed in the studio instead of all of it being filmed on location.
Haven't seen that one during my marathon, but the overuse of studio shots and backscreen projection in almost every movie and even when there is no reason for it really got on my nerves. And I'm not just talking about people "driving" a car.
Post by: Dragonfire on July 07, 2010, 07:20:09 AM
Have we left you on your own in here, Marie? ;)
Good reviews though. I think To Catch A Thief was definitely Hitch on auto-pilot, but it was much more enjoyable than I'd remembered.
It looks that way...but I'm still plugging away here. I will finish. Someday. :laugh:
Post by: Dragonfire on July 07, 2010, 07:23:32 AM
It was only from them that I discovered that some of the movie was filmed in the studio instead of all of it being filmed on location.
Haven't seen that one during my marathon, but the overuse of studio shots and backscreen projection in almost every movie and even when there is no reason for it really got on my nerves. And I'm not just talking about people "driving" a car.
That's right..I forgot there was a scene in this one that might have had the backscreen projection going on during a driving scene. That wasn't mentioned for the studio stuff though.
Post by: Achim on July 07, 2010, 10:14:32 AM
Post by: Najemikon on July 07, 2010, 12:30:00 PM
Mathias, did you see my review of Bicycle Thieves? Once again I've managed to work in a Rachel Getting Married reference! Seriously though, I think you would appreciate it a great deal. It seems to fit with what you tend to look for, I feel.
Post by: goodguy on July 08, 2010, 01:51:34 AM
To continue with Achim's comments, you also have to remember how Hitchcock was mentored in German Expressionism which seems to use a set at all costs, hence the control that Achim mentioned as well as the sense of heightened reality.
I don't mind heightened reality. I don't even mind artificiality. I just rewatched and enjoyed the Quay Brothers' The Piano Tuner of Earthquakes and you can't get much more artificial than that. What bothers me in the case of Hitchcock are the unnecessary processing shots that try to appear realistic, but just look cheap and fake. Or even less polite: It isn't the shortcomings of the technique itself, it's the big guy too lazy to move his ass out of the studio to do it properly.
Mathias, did you see my review of Bicycle Thieves? Once again I've managed to work in a Rachel Getting Married reference! Seriously though, I think you would appreciate it a great deal. It seems to fit with what you tend to look for, I feel.
Even if I may enjoy movies influenced by it, Italian neorealism isn't my thing. Hard to pinpoint the differences on the fly, but I'm averse to the ideological overtones and I do not particularly care for the working class settings. Although the latter doesn't bother me with, for example, certain (more contemporary) British films.
Post by: Achim on July 08, 2010, 02:21:43 AM
it's the big guy too lazy to move his ass out of the studio to do it properly.Well, yeah, that is what happened. :shrug:
Like I said, those processing shots looked acceptable 50 years ago, maybe also 30 years ago. They stick out like tattoo on the forehead nowadays.
That is why stuff like Frenzy felt so good to me, because for once he was actually on location for the most of it.
Post by: Antares on July 08, 2010, 02:22:55 AM
What bothers me in the case of Hitchcock are the unnecessary processing shots that try to appear realistic, but just look cheap and fake. Or even less polite: It isn't the shortcomings of the technique itself, it's the big guy too lazy to move his ass out of the studio to do it properly.
This was the point I was trying to make when I said that I found Hitchcock to be gimmicky sometimes. Thanks Matthias, you said it better than I did. :thumbup:
Post by: Dragonfire on July 19, 2010, 10:42:26 AM
| The Man Who Knew Too Much - 1956 (http://www.invelos.com/mpimages/02/025192830723f.jpg) James Stewart and Doris Day give magnificent performances as Ben and Jo McKenna, an American couple vacationing in Morocco, whose son is kidnapped and taken to England. Caught up in international espionage, the McKennas' lives hang in the balance as they race to save their son in the chilling, climactic showdown in London's famous Royal Albert Hall. My Thoughts This is the first time that I've seen all of this one. I saw a little of it on television before. I've also seen the earlier version. The basic story is the same, though several things have been changed. The pace is slower while everything is set up and introduced. I wasn't bored by what was going on, though that did make a few scenes drag a bit. The movie probably does move too slow for some people. The slower pace does help to allow for the build up of tension that culminates in a wonderful sequence during the concert. The ending does drag on a bit too long and is more anticlimactic, though it does resolve things. I think the ending could have been handled better. There is a decent amount of mystery in the movie, most of it tied to Hank being taken. I thought that Louis seemed a bit suspicious with how he dodged any personal questions. Jo seemed to have some of those same feelings. After Louis is murdered, things do pick up more, and the mystery starts building as well. Like I mentioned, Jo is suspicious a few times, but she does do a few things that I didn't think were that smart. She and Ben very quickly accepted Louis and a few other people. They barely know Louis, yet they have him in their hotel room. That just doesn't seem smart to me. Of course, maybe people were more accepting when the movie was made. For me, I would be way more cautious of strangers while traveling, especially if I had a child. It did seem like Jo and Ben were a bit gullible once or twice, but that didn't really make me like the movie less. Several scenes were shot on location in Morocco and some scenes in London. With some of the scenes set in Morocco, I noticed that the backgrounds looked slightly off and I think they were probably done with projection or whatever it was called. At one point, Ben and Jo are walking in an outdoor market. For the beginning of the scene, it looks like they are on the real location. Then the shot changes and the backgrounds look off again. The scene changes again, and is back to footage shot on location. Some kind of reshoot might have been needed for that sequence. It is a bit different for music to be used so much in a Hitchcock movie. The song that Jo sings with Hank does seem like a song a mother would sing with or to her child, but it still seems slightly out of place...even when it plays a more important part again later. That doesn't mean that Doris Day doesn't sing beautifully. The songs just seem a bit odd in this type of movie. The characters are interesting and I think the cast does well with the parts. I honestly can't remember having seen Doris Day in anything else. She does really well in this one. Jo does sort of flip out when she finds out about Hank being taken, but that seems like a natural reaction for a mother to have. Jo and Ben seem to have a good marriage, though they have a few disagreements. This isn't one of Hitchcock's best, but it works as an entertaining movie. It does deserve to be seen. The slower pace will probably turn some people off. I did get a review posted on Epinions if anyone would like to take a look. The Man Who Knew Too Much (http://www.epinions.com/review/mvie_mu-1013209/content_518128045700) |
Post by: Achim on July 20, 2010, 02:46:05 AM
I honestly can't remember having seen Doris Day in anything else. She does really well in this one.:o
Although, my mum loved her movies, so I may have been over exposed to her films when I was a kid. She mostly played in what you'd call rom-coms, with screwball elements.
Post by: Dragonfire on July 20, 2010, 03:01:51 AM
Post by: Dragonfire on July 20, 2010, 11:36:11 PM
| Vertigo (http://www.invelos.com/mpimages/02/025195018357f.jpg) One of Alfred Hitchcock's greatest cinematic achievements, Vertigo, celebrates its 50th anniversary with an all-new 2-disc Special Edition DVD! Set in San Francisco, Vertigo creates a dizzying web of mistaken identity, passion and murder after an acrophobic detective (James Stewart) rescues a mysterious blonde (Kim Novak) from the bay. Recognized for excellence in AFI's 100 Years... 100 Movies, this dreamlike thriller from the Master of Suspense is as entertaining today as it was 50 years ago. Featuring revealing bonus features and a digitally remastered picture, Vertigo is a "great motion picture that demands multiple viewings" (Leonard Maltin's Classic Movie Guide). My Thoughts This one is a bit...darker and more twisted than most of the other Hitchcock movies that I've seen. That darkness works for the story, but it probably won't appeal to some people, even people who have liked other Hitchcock movies. The movie starts off showing a traumatic event that causes John to leave the police force. He has an idea to slowly get use to his fear of heights to get over his vertigo, but his attempt to stand on a step stool doesn't end well. When he is first approached by his old school friend Gavin about following his wife Madeline, John isn't interested and he tries to leave it by making suggestions of other people who can handle the job, but Gavin is insistent that John has to be the one to take the job. John should have listened to his instincts, but he ends up being taking the job. Gavin is worried that his wife has some sort of mental problem and he says that he needs more information before having her committed. John spends some time following Madeline, lurking around while she does a few somewhat odd things. After he saves her, John is pulled further into a bad situations and obsession develops. The mystery - tied to exactly what is going on - works well and there is a good amount of suspense. The tension and suspense do build slowly. Scenes that deal with John following Madeline do move a bit slower, but that is needed to fully set up everything. Things are more complicated than they seemed at first, and the time is needed to fully set up everything. It doesn't take John long to develop an obsession with Madeline. A few things that happen probably should have raised a question with him, but he is so far gone in his obsession that he misses those hints that things are not right. There seems to be come resolution in the middle of the movie, but then more is revealed when John sees Judy, a woman who looks like Madeline, only with darker hair. From the second he sees her, he isn't acting fully rational, and his obsession is in full swing. As things progress, he slides further into the obsession, acting in more questionable ways. I think the movie is more about John's breakdown. The characters, especially John, are more complex and there are all sorts of flaws in them. John's fear of heights is a believable problem, as is how it impacts his life. He starts off as a likable character, but as the movie progresses, he does some things that make it a bit harder to like as more of his flaws come out. That does make him a realistic character. Madeline is a bit of a mystery and that does work well with what is going on in the movie. Once Judy is introduced, more comes out about her and her motivations are understood more, but she also makes some bad decisions. This movie is very good and entertaining, though it is far from a happy movie. The ending is more bleak than the endings in several other Hitchcock movies, though from some things I've read about other Hitchcock movies, he wanted to go in different directions with some of them - I'm mainly thinking of Suspicion and how he was forced to change the ending. I still haven't seen all the extras on the DVD I have. I did watch the foreign censor ending - or whatever it was called - again. Hitchcock had to make the alternate ending to show the movie in some foreign countries. I can't remember which ones at the moment. That ending does tie up something else a bit more, but I think the original ending fits the movie better even though it is clearly darker and bleaker. I went with 4 when I first reviewed the movie..now I'm thinking more of 4.5 or even 5. I'm thinking I wasn't in quite the right mood to watch it the last time, so the slower build up didn't work as well for me then. I posted a review on Epinions back in November of 2008, when I watched this one the first time I did an alphabet marathon. I also posted about the movie here then too. Vertigo (http://www0.epinions.com/review/mvie_mu-1022552/content_452477095556) |
Post by: Dragonfire on July 20, 2010, 11:37:35 PM
Post by: Najemikon on July 21, 2010, 12:54:59 AM
I went with 4 when I first reviewed the movie..now I'm thinking more of 4.5 or even 5. I'm thinking I wasn't in quite the right mood to watch it the last time, so the slower build up didn't work as well for me then.
You and everyone else! ;) The film is essentially cruel and it isn't fun to watch the first time, so I really think on a first viewing, it can actually repel you. But the seed is sown and it gets under your skin so much. I've seen it several times now and I love it. It's about obsession and that is entirely possible... :-[
Post by: Dragonfire on July 21, 2010, 09:21:28 AM
(http://www.invelos.com/mpimages/88/883929064953f.jpg)
Cary Grant is the screen's supreme man-on-the-run in his fourth and final teaming with Master of Suspense Alfred Hitchcock. He plays a Manhattan adman plunged into a realm of spy (James Mason) and counterspy (Eva Marie Saint) and variously abducted, framed for murder, chased, and in a signature set-piece, crop-dusted. He also hangs for dear life from the facial features of Mount Rushmore's Presidents. Savor one of Hollywood's most enjoyable thrillers ever in this State-of-the-Art Restoration: its Renewed Picture Vitality will leave you just as breathless as the chase itself.
My Thoughts
I've seen this one a few different times, mostly when I found it on tv. I picked up the DVD when I found it fairly cheap and was happy with that. However, that didn't stop me from heading to double dip city for the Blu-ray. And I'm glad I did. The movie looks absolutely gorgeous and is definitely worth getting on Blu-ray. One or two shots don't look as good, but otherwise, everything looks amazing.
The plot for this one is very interesting, with a decent mix of action and some humor. The plot with Roger being mistaken for someone else is a bit similar to some of Hitchcock's other movies, but it works very well and is extremely entertaining. Some of what happens does push believability a bit, but it still works for what is going on. Roger is a very interesting character and he manages to deal with the strange situation he is in fairly well. He does get in some unique situations. I do think there is a decent amount of mystery to what is going on tied to who is after Roger because of the mistaken identity.
Some scenes have a decent amount of action in them, like the one with the crop duster or the climax at Mount Rushmore. Those scenes are very well done. A little bit of violence turns up a few scenes without it being too explicit or graphic. Humor turns up every so often as well as a way to lighten the mood. Roger makes a very funny drunk, especially when he calls his mother from the police station. The two of them are really good together, so it is too bad that she isn't in more of the movie. Roger does come up with some funny lines at different points, like about how he has people to support who would be upset if he got dead. Even with the touches of humor, there is still a lot of suspense and tension to several scenes.
The characters are interesting and interact together well. I do like Roger and Cary Grant is wonderful in the part. Eve is a beautiful, mysterious woman who gets mixed up in what is happening. She is a wonderfully complex character and Eva Marie Saint is great in the part. She has some wonderful outfits to wear that do fit her character. The bit of romance between her and Roger works well without detracting from everything else that is going on. Things do develop somewhat fast between them, but it still works.
On the Blu-ray, there is a great documentary, The Master Touch: Hitchcock's Signature Style that has several directors talking about Hitchcock and things he did in his movies. It is very interesting and entertaining. There is another featurette on the career of Cary Grant that I haven't watched yet.
I love this movie and the Blu-ray is absolutely freaking awesome.
I posted a review a few years ago on Epinions after I got the DVD.
North by Northwest (http://www0.epinions.com/review/mvie_mu-1015253/content_220133559940)
Post by: Dragonfire on August 01, 2010, 11:17:30 AM
(http://www.invelos.com/mpimages/02/025192025129f.jpg)
Alfred Hitchcock's masterpiece of the macabre stars Anthony Perkins as the troubled Norman Bates, whose "old dark house" and adjoining motel are not the place to spend a quiet evening. No one knows that better than Janet Leigh, the film's ill-fated heroine who is victimized in the now-notorious "shower scene." Vera Miles, Martin Balsam, John Gavin and John McIntire co-star in Hitchcock's most compelling and terrifying film. Screenplay by Joseph Stefano.
My Thoughts
I had heard a bit about this one before I finally saw it, but I had managed to avoid finding out about the ending. I'm very glad..I would have been irked if the ending had been spoiled. I was really shocked the first time I saw the movie - it wasn't that long ago really...sometime within the last 10 years, though I can't remember for sure. Even knowing the ending, I still enjoy this one when I watch it and it still has the power to creep me out in a few scenes. The music is a big reason why I think. It works wonderfully well with what is going on and helps add to the creepy atmosphere.
Things are a little slow at first while the set up happens. At first it seems like the movie is just going to be about Marion and what she did in an attempt to help her boyfriend Sam. That was interesting, but things really get going once Marion ends up at the Bates Motel. That setting is suitably creepy with the imposing house sitting on the hill over looking the hotel. The setting really helps add to the creepy feeling of the movie. The movie being in black and white helps the creepy factor as well. There is a good amount of suspense and tension to what is going on. The shower scene is very well done - it is such an iconic scene that it has been recreated many times. The version of the scene in High Anxiety is done really well, though it is twisted a bit. Anyway, the plot is shocking, especially considering when the movie was made. I think it has held up well and is still worth seeing.
The characters of Marion and Norman are interesting and help to make the movie more entertaining. Norman is a wonderfully complicated, messed up character and he is extremely interesting. He is a very memorable character and Anthony Perkins is great in the part.
I still really enjoy this movie. It holds up really well and is still worth watching.
I did post a review on Epinions a few years ago.
Psycho (http://www0.epinions.com/review/mvie_mu-1016864/content_406988033668)
Post by: Dragonfire on August 01, 2010, 11:34:30 AM
(http://www.invelos.com/mpimages/02/025192027529f.jpg)
Nothing equals THE BIRDS for sheer terror when Alfred Hitchcock unleashes his foul friends in one of his most shocking and memorable masterpieces. As beautiful blonde Melanie Daniels ('Tippi' Hedren) rolls into Bodega Bay in pursuit of eligible bachelor Mitch Brenner (Rod Taylor), she is inexplicably attacked by a seagull. Suddenly thousands of birds are flocking into town, preying on schoolchildren and residents in a terrifying series of attacks. Soon Mitch and Melanie are fighting for their lives against a deadly force that can't be explained and can't be stopped in one of Hollywood's most horrific films of nature gone berserk.
My Thoughts
I do enjoy this one, though a few things that happen don't make as much sense. It does seem a bit odd that Melanie would go to so much trouble to give the love birds to Mitch's sister, someone she doesn't even know. Melanie manages to find out all sorts of information about Mitch after getting to Bodega Bay even though she is a stranger. People weren't as careful about that sort of thing then, though it does seem a little odd that Melanie is accepted so quickly, especially by Annie.
The pacing is a bit slower for a while, though that changes once the birds start attacking. The scenes with the bird attacks are done well and are believably scary. I think the fact that the explanation for the attacks wasn't given makes that part of the movie scarier. There are a few somewhat gruesome things shown, though nothing is extremely explicit. Suspense is in a few scenes, though the movie isn't as suspenseful as some of Hitchcock's others.
Melanie is a nice enough character, though like I mentioned, her motivation for taking the love birds to begin with does seem a little..odd. That is an awful lot of trouble for her to go to. It also doesn't make the most sense for Mitch to act like he does when they first meet in the pet shop. It is fairly clear that they aren't getting along that well at that point, but in no time they seem to have changed their minds. That relationship does develop fast. Melanie does do something that is rather stupid at one point and I still haven't figured out why she did it. The cast does well with their parts and the characters are likable overall.
The movie does have a few issues, but it is still very entertaining and deserves to be seen.
I did post a review at Epinions a few years ago.
The Birds (http://www0.epinions.com/review/mvie_mu-1002448/content_450855669380)
Post by: Dragonfire on August 01, 2010, 11:43:21 AM
Post by: Tom on August 01, 2010, 07:35:22 PM
I just thought I would mention that I am almost done with this one now. I have 1 more movie to watch. ;D
:bag:
I haven't watched one since February and I still have five to go.
Post by: addicted2dvd on August 01, 2010, 08:15:35 PM
Post by: Dragonfire on August 01, 2010, 11:05:33 PM
I just thought I would mention that I am almost done with this one now. I have 1 more movie to watch. ;D
:bag:
I haven't watched one since February and I still have five to go.
Here I was thinking I was the last to finish....but I won't be. Cool. Though I was last to finish up with Bond.
Post by: Dragonfire on August 03, 2010, 12:10:26 PM
And I'm not last this time. :laugh:
Just finished watching Family Plot and the documentary thing and had to come share.
Post by: Najemikon on August 03, 2010, 01:30:19 PM
About time... :tease:
Post by: Achim on August 03, 2010, 03:46:53 PM
Maybe Tom can be bothered some day as well :P
Post by: Tom on August 03, 2010, 07:21:56 PM
Maybe Tom can be bothered some day as well :PProblem is, that it also depends on my brother, who wants to watch them with me, but never is in the mood for them when he is visiting me. Otherwise I probably would have watched some of them by now.
Post by: Dragonfire on August 03, 2010, 09:03:57 PM
:clap:
About time... :tease:
Yeah yeah. But the main point is I finished. :p
Post by: Jimmy on August 03, 2010, 09:06:20 PM
He haven't finish the Mario Bava marathon and it was one year ago :tease:
Post by: Dragonfire on August 03, 2010, 09:12:00 PM
Though I think it still took me longer than that to finish this one..and the Bond one. Oh well. I did finish them. :)
Post by: Najemikon on August 03, 2010, 09:25:42 PM
Don't let him teasing you Marie :thumbup:
He haven't finish the Mario Bava marathon and it was one year ago :tease:
Ah, but I didn't have the DVDs to finish it with! I had meant to tell you though... I do now. :P
Post by: Jimmy on August 03, 2010, 09:58:04 PM
Hope that you will add your reviews to the marathon thread soon ;D
Post by: Dragonfire on August 04, 2010, 04:40:48 AM
Don't let him teasing you Marie :thumbup:
He haven't finish the Mario Bava marathon and it was one year ago :tease:
Ah, but I didn't have the DVDs to finish it with! I had meant to tell you though... I do now. :P
Excuses excuses. ;)
Post by: Dragonfire on August 22, 2010, 10:33:19 AM
| Family Plot (http://www.invelos.com/mpimages/02/025192065927f.jpg) When a wealthy woman unwittingly hires a con man and a phony psychic to find her missing heir, the results are diabolically funny in Alfred Hitchcock's tongue-in-cheek mystery thriller. Bruce Dern and Barbara Harris star as a conniving couple plotting to bilk an old lady out of her fortune by pretending to find her long-lost nephew (William Devane). Meanwhile, Devane, a larcenous jeweler, and his beautiful girlfriend (Karen Black) have kidnapped a rich Greek shipping magnate for ransom. Together they're on a nonstop merry-go-round of mystery, murder and mayhem that combines suspense and comedy for unforgettable entertainment. My Thoughts This one is a bit different from the other Hitchcock movies that I've seen. I know this one isn't one of his more popular movies, but I did like it. There isn't as much suspense in general, though I do think a sequence late in the movie is very suspenseful. There is a bit of mystery to what is going on, though it isn't as strong since the viewers are aware of certain things fairly early. Things are slightly more complicated in since there are basically two stories being told that intersect. Things jump back and forth between the two stories and characters. I think the plot is very interesting and entertaining. Some of what happens is a bit more light hearted, but there are also some serious things happening as well. Characters are definitely in danger at different points, though even some humor is added to some of those scenes. The way humor is blended into everything that make the story a little different. Some people may not like that the movie is more lighthearted in general, but I think that works for the plot and what is going on. The characters are interesting, especially Blanche who pretends to be psychic. Her boyfriend George gets pulled into what is going on as well. He has a legitimate job as a cab driver, but he ends up acting like a private investigator, following people and trying to track down someone. Arthur isn't in the same league as other Hitchcock villains, but he makes a decent villain. These characters are fine, but they aren't as memorable as others. Overall, I did enjoy this movie and am glad I decided to pick it up. It is different from other Hitchcock movies, but it is still entertaining. I do think it is worth watching. I did get a review posted on Epinions. Family Plot (http://www.epinions.com/review/mvie_mu-1007063/content_520271400580) |
Post by: Najemikon on August 22, 2010, 12:26:44 PM
Post by: Dragonfire on August 23, 2010, 03:22:20 AM
Post by: Dragonfire on August 23, 2010, 08:14:38 AM
Family Plot
(http://www.invelos.com/mpimages/02/025192065927f.jpg)
When a wealthy woman unwittingly hires a con man and a phony psychic to find her missing heir, the results are diabolically funny in Alfred Hitchcock's tongue-in-cheek mystery thriller. Bruce Dern and Barbara Harris star as a conniving couple plotting to bilk an old lady out of her fortune by pretending to find her long-lost nephew (William Devane). Meanwhile, Devane, a larcenous jeweler, and his beautiful girlfriend (Karen Black) have kidnapped a rich Greek shipping magnate for ransom. Together they're on a nonstop merry-go-round of mystery, murder and mayhem that combines suspense and comedy for unforgettable entertainment.
My Thoughts
This one is a bit different from the other Hitchcock movies that I've seen. I know this one isn't one of his more popular movies, but I did like it. There isn't as much suspense in general, though I do think a sequence late in the movie is very suspenseful. There is a bit of mystery to what is going on, though it isn't as strong since the viewers are aware of certain things fairly early.
Things are slightly more complicated in since there are basically two stories being told that intersect. Things jump back and forth between the two stories and characters. I think the plot is very interesting and entertaining. Some of what happens is a bit more light hearted, but there are also some serious things happening as well. Characters are definitely in danger at different points, though even some humor is added to some of those scenes. The way humor is blended into everything that make the story a little different. Some people may not like that the movie is more lighthearted in general, but I think that works for the plot and what is going on.
The characters are interesting, especially Blanche who pretends to be psychic. Her boyfriend George gets pulled into what is going on as well. He has a legitimate job as a cab driver, but he ends up acting like a private investigator, following people and trying to track down someone. Arthur isn't in the same league as other Hitchcock villains, but he makes a decent villain. These characters are fine, but they aren't as memorable as others.
Overall, I did enjoy this movie and am glad I decided to pick it up. It is different from other Hitchcock movies, but it is still entertaining. I do think it is worth watching.
I did get a review posted on Epinions.
Family Plot (http://www.epinions.com/review/mvie_mu-1007063/content_520271400580)
Post by: snowcat on March 15, 2011, 12:27:30 PM
Ok so, its a scenem Im sure its carey grant and he and a girl are walking down the stairs and it cuts between that and german spies.... I thought it was Notorious..... but im not sure now.... any have any idea?
Post by: Najemikon on March 15, 2011, 12:44:53 PM
Is the scene in colour? That would wipe out both of these...
Post by: snowcat on March 15, 2011, 02:41:30 PM
:hmmmm: I was hoping to use it as an example of good editing.
Post by: Najemikon on March 15, 2011, 02:59:06 PM
Post by: Tom on March 15, 2011, 07:17:11 PM
| (http://www.invelos.com/mpimages/I4/I4DE775C562D6C710.4f.jpg) | Marnie (1964/United States) IMDb (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0058329/) | Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marnie_(film))
|
Stars:
'Tippi' Hedren as Marnie Edgar
Martin Gabel as Sidney Strutt
Sean Connery as Mark Rutland
Louise Latham as Bernice Edgar
Diane Baker as Lil Mainwaring
Plot:
The Master of Suspense, Alfred Hitchcock creates a spellbinding portrait of a disturbed woman, and the man who tries to save her, in this unrelenting psychological thriller. 'Tippi' Hedren is Marnie, a compulsive thief and liar who goes to work for Mark Rutland (Sean Connery), then attempts to rob him. Mark impulsively marries the troubled beauty and attempts to discover the reasons for her obsessive behavior. When a terrible accident pushes his wife to the edge, Mark forces Marnie to confront her terrors and her past in a shattering, inescapable conclusion.
Awards:
Nominated:
| AFI (1964) | 100 Years... 100 Passions (2002) |
Extras:
- Featurettes
- Photo Gallery
- Scene Access
- Trailers
My Thoughts:
After a long break from this marathon finally another review by me. Originally I watched all movies in this marathon with my brother. Even though he still proclaims I should only continue watching with him, he never is in the mood for it when he visits. So I decided to continue without him.The main thing I was curious about this movie was Sean Connery. I thought he did a good job, but he seems a little emotionless. The actress playing Marnie did a great job though. Overall the movie was enjoyable, but nothing special to warrant rewatching it.
Rating:
Post by: Tom on March 15, 2011, 07:26:53 PM
(click to show/hide)
(click to show/hide)
Post by: Najemikon on March 15, 2011, 07:43:41 PM
The actress playing Marnie did a great job though. Overall the movie was enjoyable, but nothing special to warrant rewatching it.
:hysterical:
I love an honest review! Tom, it's generally considered that Tippi Hedren (Melanie Griffiths mum, fact-fans) was beyond awful. I however, agree with you that she was at least ideal for this role. It worked. True, she didn't go on to greatness, but I liked her in The Birds too. The film overall isn't considered Hitchcock's best and I again go against the tide when I say I thought it was very good and an interesting plot. Not much rewatch value as you say, but by no means the disaster some would have you think it is.
Post by: Dragonfire on March 16, 2011, 05:21:32 AM
Post by: snowcat on March 16, 2011, 10:02:39 AM
If it's definitely Cary Grant you're thinking of and definitely in colour, it can only be To Catch a Thief or North By Northwest. I can't think of which scene it would be. If you're looking for a good example of editing though, you may be better sticking with Notorious and Bergman's scene hiding the key.
Hmm maybe it wasn't Cary Grant, ill keep looking.
I was going to use the key scene, but.... Im not sure I think it really camera skills more then editing.
Post by: Dragonfire on March 16, 2011, 08:05:48 PM
I think you might be mixed up... Notorious is the German spy one, but I can't recall a particular stairs scene with Grant. Bergman, yes. However the famous stairs scene for Grant is the one with the illuminated milk in Suspicion. No Germans in that one!
Is the scene in colour? That would wipe out both of these...
Hmmm....
I was thinking there was a scene in Notorious with stairs...maybe near the end of the movie. Hmm...though perhaps she is walking down to him. Now this is gonna bug me.
Post by: Najemikon on March 16, 2011, 09:13:32 PM
I think you might be mixed up... Notorious is the German spy one, but I can't recall a particular stairs scene with Grant. Bergman, yes. However the famous stairs scene for Grant is the one with the illuminated milk in Suspicion. No Germans in that one!
Is the scene in colour? That would wipe out both of these...
Hmmm....
I was thinking there was a scene in Notorious with stairs...maybe near the end of the movie. Hmm...though perhaps she is walking down to him. Now this is gonna bug me.
Yes, there is that. I didn't think of it particularly remarkable for editing though.
Emma, what's the purpose behind this? Are you doing some sort of assignment, demonstration, etc? If you are, the silent era is really interesting because it shows filmmakers dealing with new ideas tentatively while they worked out what an audience could handle. You see them developing continuous and parallel editing, but it still took them about 20 years to work out the rules of "reverse angles" (showing someone looking at something, then showing what they were looking at) or matching eye-lines. Then they started to develop the idea of using editing to represent a characters emotions and so came French Impressionism and German Expressionism.
But then came the Russians! Have you ever seen Battleship Potemkin? I haven't properly, but it's known as a milestone in editing and I've marvelled at the Odessa Steps more than once. Technically, no-one had stitched together so many shots in so little time (the average shot length was considerably less than other countries) and thematically, the Soviet Union was realising the power of using editing for propaganda, including frames that could only be subliminal.
Just watch this. It's magnificent:
Post by: Dragonfire on March 17, 2011, 12:03:11 AM
Post by: Achim on March 17, 2011, 05:03:18 AM
Just watch this. It's magnificent:That scene is so essential, that it was even paid homage to by Brian DePalma in his The Untouchables!
I have the Blue-ray for Battleship Poemkin, just need to get in the right mindset to watch it...
Post by: MEJHarrison on March 17, 2011, 07:09:59 PM
That now completes my collection of Hitchcock's American movies. Regular movies that is. I've not messed with the oddball things yet like The House Across the Bay, Bon Voyage, Madagascar Landing or Watchtower Over Tomorrow. Anyone have any info on those? From what I've read, I'm fine with not having them.
Now I have a few of his older films to pick up. I'll have to re-check to see which are even available, but I know I'm missing Easy Virtue, The Lodger, Champagne and a couple others.
Anyway, just wanted to share my good news. ;D
Post by: Najemikon on March 17, 2011, 08:50:21 PM
The Paradine Case is one I keep forgetting to get as well.
Post by: Dragonfire on March 18, 2011, 03:31:31 AM
The Lodger is definitely worth getting. It's a bit different because it is a silent movie, but well worth getting.
Post by: snowcat on March 18, 2011, 09:41:36 AM
I think you might be mixed up... Notorious is the German spy one, but I can't recall a particular stairs scene with Grant. Bergman, yes. However the famous stairs scene for Grant is the one with the illuminated milk in Suspicion. No Germans in that one!
Is the scene in colour? That would wipe out both of these...
Hmmm....
I was thinking there was a scene in Notorious with stairs...maybe near the end of the movie. Hmm...though perhaps she is walking down to him. Now this is gonna bug me.
Yes, there is that. I didn't think of it particularly remarkable for editing though.
Emma, what's the purpose behind this? Are you doing some sort of assignment, demonstration, etc? If you are, the silent era is really interesting because it shows filmmakers dealing with new ideas tentatively while they worked out what an audience could handle. You see them developing continuous and parallel editing, but it still took them about 20 years to work out the rules of "reverse angles" (showing someone looking at something, then showing what they were looking at) or matching eye-lines. Then they started to develop the idea of using editing to represent a characters emotions and so came French Impressionism and German Expressionism.
But then came the Russians! Have you ever seen Battleship Potemkin? I haven't properly, but it's known as a milestone in editing and I've marvelled at the Odessa Steps more than once. Technically, no-one had stitched together so many shots in so little time (the average shot length was considerably less than other countries) and thematically, the Soviet Union was realising the power of using editing for propaganda, including frames that could only be subliminal.
Just watch this. It's magnificent:
Im writting a report about editing history, ive talked about Battleship Potemkin, but its so over used as an example of editing, I used a few black and white films, but i jjust remember how well this stairs scene showed suspense... ill find it! im also using 500 days of summer as an example .... Sadly.... not a big fan of that film :/
Post by: MEJHarrison on March 18, 2011, 10:59:39 PM
The Paradine Case is part of the one set I got like 2 years ago. The movie was ok, but not one of my favorites.
The Lodger is definitely worth getting. It's a bit different because it is a silent movie, but well worth getting.
I remember that set. I skipped it because of all the issues people were having with it. And because I already had 6 of the 8 titles.
As for the movie itself, I'm really not expecting much. I've not heard great things about it. I got it more for completing the collection than to watch a great Hitchcock film. Of course when I'm not expecting much is typically when I enjoy movies the most. So I'm sorta excited. It's the movies that get hyped way overboard that always disappoint me because I'm expecting something great and it can never live up to that. ;)
Post by: Dragonfire on March 19, 2011, 03:24:46 AM
The Paradine Case is part of the one set I got like 2 years ago. The movie was ok, but not one of my favorites.
The Lodger is definitely worth getting. It's a bit different because it is a silent movie, but well worth getting.
I remember that set. I skipped it because of all the issues people were having with it. And because I already had 6 of the 8 titles.
As for the movie itself, I'm really not expecting much. I've not heard great things about it. I got it more for completing the collection than to watch a great Hitchcock film. Of course when I'm not expecting much is typically when I enjoy movies the most. So I'm sorta excited. It's the movies that get hyped way overboard that always disappoint me because I'm expecting something great and it can never live up to that. ;)
I didn't know what to expect when I watched it..I haven't seen many silent movies. I think it is well done. There are some really cool things done..interesting shots and things like that. Those things do make the movie worth watching.
Post by: Najemikon on March 19, 2011, 02:11:41 PM
Im writting a report about editing history, ive talked about Battleship Potemkin, but its so over used as an example of editing, I used a few black and white films, but i jjust remember how well this stairs scene showed suspense... ill find it! im also using 500 days of summer as an example .... Sadly.... not a big fan of that film :/
Did you choose the film? Whether you like it or not shouldn't affect your recognition of where it is remarkable or your enthusiasm for writing about it. ;) Now I couldn't do that when I had to write about My Beautiful Laundrette, but that was forced on me, so it wasn't my fault! :laugh:
Have you considered any Wes Anderson stuff? Not for suspense obviously! But I read a book about film history where the author argued that if film was considered an art, then it's classical period was 1930s Japan and the films by Ozu (Tokyo Story, etc) especially. Japan had ignored all developments in editing and composition throughout the 20s and still made films like they would plays with a narrator in the theatre. They weren't closed style, so characters would look directly into the camera. After Ozu came along, he found his own way of editing and framing that "broke" Western rules of narrative that included opening frames that weren't establishing shots, he'd film from waist height and cuts wouldn't be dictated directly by the story. Wes Anderson seems to follow that kind of approach sometimes, and has characters that look directly at the camera. I think The Life Aquatic is one of his lesser films, but I find his editing creates a world where you can't be sure what you're watching is closed for the characters, or staged for us. Especially when Bill Murray loses his friend in the first act and later, the entire sequence on the island.
Post by: Dragonfire on August 01, 2011, 08:17:03 AM
I Confess was on TCM not long too. I haven't seen it yet, but it is on my DVR.
Post by: Tom on August 06, 2011, 06:03:37 PM
| (http://www.invelos.com/mpimages/I5/I5FF3A364596FC694.4f.jpg) | Torn Curtain (1966/United States) IMDb (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0061107/) | Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torn_Curtain)
|
Stars:
Arthur Gould-Porter as Freddy
Gloria Gorvin as Fraulein Mann
Paul Newman as Professor Michael Armstrong
Julie Andrews as Sarah Sherman
Lila Kedrova as Countess Kuchinska
Plot:
Paul Newman and Julie Andrews star in this classic tale of international espionage set behind the Iron Curtain. Newman plays world-famous scientist Michael Armstrong, who goes to an international congress of physics in Copenhagen with his fiancée/assistant Sarah Sherman (Andrews). While there, she mistakenly picks up a message meant for him and discovers that he is defecting to East Germany. Or is he? As Armstrong goes undercover to glean top-secret information, the couple are swept up in a heart-pounding chase by enemy agents in this action-packed Cold War thriller.
Extras:
- Featurettes
- Photo Gallery
- Scene Access
- Scenes Scored by Bernard Herrmann
- Trailers
My Thoughts:
I enjoyed the beginning and the end. It suffered in the middle. My favorite part of the movie was the bus ride. It seems that this is one of Hitchcock's least favorite movies of his.
Rating:
Post by: Dragonfire on August 26, 2011, 10:09:48 AM
I finally saw this one after I found it on TCM.
This one is a bit different from other Hitchcock movies because it is based on a true story. From what I read after seeing the movie, very few things were changed for the movie and Hitchcock even filmed at some of the actual locations. I didn't know any of the details about the real case when I saw the movie, so I do think there was a decent amount of mystery to what was going on. The pace is a little slower, which may bother some people. I didn't mind the pace and I wasn't bored by the movie. I really enjoyed it, though it isn't one of my favorite Hitchcock movies.
The movie is entertaining, though some people will probably be disappointed since it isn't a typical Hitchcock movie.
I did post a review at Epinions.
The Wrong Man (http://www.epinions.com/review/mvie_mu-1024191/content_560616345220)
Post by: Mustrum_Ridcully on November 02, 2011, 12:25:48 AM
The scene which caused my brother to exclaim this time, that he thinks Hitchcock had lost his grip on reality, was very early on. A car was chased by the police. The car stops and the police crashes into it. That in itself is a little unrealistic, but what follows is just stupid: Another car crashes into the police car. Why would this car follow a police car which had sirens on? And doing it keeping such a close distance to the police car, that he cannot avoid hitting it? It are scenes like this which always pull us out of the Hitchcock movies.If scenes like that pull you out of a movie it should be hard to find one that you like.
If you would expect Hollywood productions to be realistic in regard of car usage, the first thing you learn from many films is that American drivers are to stupid to use the break.
Come to think of it, and if you would ask the management of Toyota, they actually are.
Post by: Tom on November 02, 2011, 12:30:59 AM
Post by: Najemikon on November 02, 2011, 12:44:36 AM
Post by: Tom on November 02, 2011, 07:53:45 PM
I expect such a scene in movies like Naked Gun, where it can be excused as Rule of Funny (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/RuleOfFunny). But not in a movie like "North by Northwest". Especially if the director is so highly regarded. In this kind of movie, I can excuse Rule of Cool (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/RuleOfCool).
Post by: Najemikon on November 02, 2011, 08:29:27 PM
You say this sort of thing doesn't happen in real-life, therefore it is illogical. And you are right. But imagine if you did see it happen for real? What would you think of the drivers involved? You'd probably use some fruity language, but the conclusion would be that they were idiots causing a farcical situation you could only laugh at because of how inept they are. It's a metaphor, used for pure entertainment. Hitchcock famously never read into his own films, he always wanted to reduce the analytical theories, but its obvious he liked to poke fun at conventions. The behaviour of cars and their drivers is no less absurd as average gunplay, fist-fights and stunts taken as perfectly normal in a thousand other thrillers.
And you should always ask yourself, that he had such a tight grip and focus, so clearly he did it on purpose. So why?
Post by: Achim on November 03, 2011, 05:17:55 AM
And you should always ask yourself, that he had such a tight grip and focus, so clearly he did it on purpose. So why?Well, why...?
(Clearly Tom doesn't know, or he wouldn't object, and I really don't know either...)
So, why...?
Post by: Najemikon on November 03, 2011, 08:46:14 AM
Think of it another way. If you were doing media studies and the lecturer asked for half a page on why Hitchcock had such a daft scene, one line reading, "Just because. I didn't like it." isn't going to get you an A+! :laugh: If you don't care, move on, but film appreciation used to be about trying to understand it, not judge it.
Post by: Achim on November 03, 2011, 01:00:01 PM
Totally thought you were asking a question of the less rhetorical kind... :laugh:
Of course you're right on that. Although what appears to be "creative choices" often is just done out of a whim without thinking. Heck, many director's are surprised about what the critics are reign into their films :slaphead:
I'll readily admit, I am usually also more of the straightforward watcher. Actually learning new ways on this forum, fom time to time...
Post by: Tom on November 03, 2011, 07:37:55 PM
ask yourself why else did he choose to do that.
You dismissed my reasoning, because you think Hitchcock is above it. I think he did it in this cause because he thought it would be funny, and for me it just doesn't fit into this kind of movie.
Post by: Najemikon on November 03, 2011, 08:50:31 PM
ask yourself why else did he choose to do that.
You dismissed my reasoning, because you think Hitchcock is above it. I think he did it in this cause because he thought it would be funny, and for me it just doesn't fit into this kind of movie.
I didn't dismiss your reasoning, because your first one was that he'd lost his grip, so I was responding to that, because he definitely didn't in this film. I do agree he did do it because it was funny, but the whole film has a sense of fun and parody. It isn't a straight forward thriller. Hitchcock even called it himself "cinema of the absurd" in which logic comes second. Even the title is nonsense. So to pick out this moment as an indicator that Hitchcock didn't know what he was doing is misleading.
Hitchcock wasn't above making mistakes, far from it, but it makes me sad that modern thinking seems to be an instant reaction of "I didn't like that so it must be wrong and I shall declare it as such!" without considering that the artist didn't do it on impulse but planned it within the big picture. I know you weren't necessarily doing that, but that's what discussion is for, otherwise why post the review at all?
Post by: Tom on November 03, 2011, 09:25:25 PM
Such car crash scenes are a pet peeve of mine, I admit. And in Hitchcock's days it was probably fairly "new". But I am just tired of these kind of scenes in general. And truthfully, I didn't expect it in a Hitchcock movie.
Post by: Najemikon on November 03, 2011, 10:21:11 PM
North By Northwest in many ways paved the way for Bond, yet the 007 movies tend to treat their subject very seriously, so bear that in mind if you get to Topaz. It isn't a great film, but it does seem to me like he was making fun of the Bond character. I can't remember there being a car crash scene though, so you're ok there! ;)
Post by: Najemikon on November 03, 2011, 10:26:46 PM
Although what appears to be "creative choices" often is just done out of a whim without thinking. Heck, many director's are surprised about what the critics are reign into their films :slaphead:
I'll readily admit, I am usually also more of the straightforward watcher. Actually learning new ways on this forum, fom time to time...
The weird thing is, Hitchcock was so structured it was rare anything was done on a whim, yet at the same time, he didn't care what people read into them! Actually, I think he did care, but he kept up the pretence.
Post by: Achim on November 04, 2011, 05:22:59 AM
I will also point out that in the many viewings I had of this film I never really noticed this accident thing ore if I did forgot about it right away.
Post by: Dragonfire on November 04, 2011, 08:25:59 AM
Post by: Jimmy on June 22, 2012, 05:39:58 AM
Hitchcock Classics Get ‘Blu’ Treatment (http://www.homemediamagazine.com/universal/hitchcock-classics-get-blu-treatment-27589)
(http://43.imagebam.com/download/ki9dx2GSSKguwI_r-0YNyg/19756/197551876/527584_240650729370837_1130028614_n.jpeg)
But save your money as it will cost 199$ :whistle:
I know the set doesn't look to good visually talking, the region 2 one sure look less childish :shrug:
(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41-dGMibPpL._SL500_AA300_.jpg)
Post by: Dragonfire on June 22, 2012, 05:45:45 AM
Post by: Jimmy on June 22, 2012, 05:51:40 AM
Post by: Najemikon on August 02, 2012, 10:09:47 PM
This time however, the honour has gone to Vertigo! I adore both Kane and Vertigo, but it's nice to see this astonishing film be recognised like by such a well respected poll too. It's an unusual film, deep and brilliant, that reveals just a little more each time I see it.
http://www.bfi.org.uk/news/50-greatest-films-all-time
Also, I found this interesting. When the film has reviewed on here before, others can find fault with the sequence where Stewart is following Novak in his car. What I see as sublime is frequently dismissed as slow and pointless! I've tried to defend it, but Scorcese's description gets to the point better.
Post by: Antares on August 04, 2012, 01:14:26 AM
All I heard was a rambling bit of nothing. Nice to see him, once again, referencing one of his films when he should just stay focused on the topic at hand. It's almost as if he's finally realizing his irrelevancy over the last 20 years, and he needs to remind us that he was once an auteur. :yawn:
Oh... and by the way, Rear Window should be Hitchcock's highest rated film, not Vertigo.
Post by: Najemikon on August 14, 2012, 01:20:20 AM
I think you're being very unfair on Marty! He's far from irrelevant. It's like you're punishing him for not producing works of genius on demand. But it's interesting that what you heard as rambling, I heard as a perfect summation of a sequence we argued about before, given that the reactions were the same to that sequence; you saw that as rambling, even going so far to question the editing, while I saw it as sublime and haunting.
Post by: Antares on August 14, 2012, 06:45:23 AM
I think you're being very unfair on Marty! He's far from irrelevant. It's like you're punishing him for not producing works of genius on demand.
But for me, he's become the Elvis Costello of film. His best work was decades ago, but he keeps popping up in everything, spouting "his view" on the subject, like his viewpoint is needed to derive credibility.
Post by: Achim on August 14, 2012, 08:10:12 AM
On the other hand, I also found that his argument in this video was not very coherent. I may have missed something, but I thought he described the scene more than explaining it :shrug:
Post by: Najemikon on August 14, 2012, 09:32:01 PM
I think you're being very unfair on Marty! He's far from irrelevant. It's like you're punishing him for not producing works of genius on demand.
But for me, he's become the Elvis Costello of film. His best work was decades ago, but he keeps popping up in everything, spouting "his view" on the subject, like his viewpoint is needed to derive credibility.
But he's earned that. Like Peter Bogdanivich, he is a very well respected film historian, so his opinion is trusted and sought. For all it's faults, Hugo is a fine tribute to the silent era that benefits from his knowledge.
How often have we mentioned Peeping Tom? It was Scorcese who rescued that film and Powell's reputation.
Post by: Najemikon on August 14, 2012, 09:33:42 PM
On the one hand, just because he doesn't make those "relevant films" doesn't mean he has good understanding of film and how it works.
On the other hand, I also found that his argument in this video was not very coherent. I may have missed something, but I thought he described the scene more than explaining it :shrug:
It's not an argument though, or an explanation. Just a reaction, so yes, it was only a description. But scenes like that shouldn't be over-analysed, just encouraged, because they mean different things to different people.
Post by: Achim on August 15, 2012, 06:14:01 AM
It's not an argument though, or an explanation. Just a reaction, so yes, it was only a description. But scenes like that shouldn't be over-analysed, just encouraged, because they mean different things to different people.Exactly! So While Antares doesn't take away anything from that scene you have chills running down your spine...