1008. The Lady Vanishes (1938)

Running Time: 96 minutes
Directed By: Alfred Hitchcock
Written By: Sidney Gilliat, Frank Launder, from the story The Wheel Spins by Ethel Lina White
Main Cast: Margaret Lockwood, Michael Redgrave, Dame May Whitty, Paul Lukas, Cecil Parker
Click here to view the trailer

Note: If you've yet to check out the "TSZDT" and "Criterion" links here on the blog, you're missing out! Okay, so I haven't updated the "Criterion" page in a couple weeks, but I'm actively working on the "They Shoot Zombies, Don't They" list, so everyone who was clamoring for me to tackle another list, got their wish. This is a list that I'm having a blast with so far, as me and my wife are doing it together, which makes it all the more fun. Anyway, check 'em out. Now then...

AGATHA WOULD BE PROUD

I actually started writing this review earlier this morning, then decided that I just wasn't in the mood to do a review and called it quits. Now, tonight, I'm taking my second crack at it. No matter how hard I try to tell myself that I'm "done writing reviews", something always keeps me coming back - probably a desire to see my blog be complete. Anyway, I watched The Lady Vanishes about a week and a half ago, not realizing it was in another edition of the 1001 Movies You Must See Before You Die book. After a few days I DID realize it and it's taken me this long to get around to it. Also I've just discovered two new channels on cable: Laff TV and Antenna TV, both of which air old sitcoms, so I'm writing this in between glancing over my shoulder to catch glimpses at a Night Court rerun. Bear with me...

I'd seen The Lady Vanishes a couple of times prior to seeing it last Tuesday morning and to be perfectly frank right off the bat, it's never been my favorite Hitchcock. The film begins with an avalanche that has blocked the railway line, stranding a bevy of would be passengers at a tiny, cozy, out of the way inn, where they're forced to spend the night while the track is cleared. Our main character is Iris Henderson (Lockwood), a well-to-do English tourist who, on her first night as an inn guest, complains to the manager about the loud music emanating from the room of musician Gilbert Redman (Redgrave). When the manager tells him to hush up, he takes it upon himself to politely harass Miss Henderson, until she finally agrees to let him play his tunes. There's also two cricket enthusiasts who desperately want to get back to England so that they can see the last days of the Cricket championships. The following morning, as passengers are preparing to board the train, now that the railway line has been cleared, a planter "falls" from a second story balcony, crashing into the head of Miss Henderson and nearly concussing her. Despite the suggestions of a friend to not board the train and instead see a doctor, Iris Henderson decides to board and is put into the care of Miss Froy, who promises to look after her. The two make fast friends, swapping stories over a cup of tea in the dining car, before getting back to their quarters, which they're sharing with others. After falling asleep, Miss Henderson awakes to find that Miss Froy has disappeared and when she starts asking questions, it seems that no one remembers ever seeing a Miss Froy. In fact, the only one that actually does believe her (although he too doesn't remember a Miss Froy aboard the train) is the man she made quick enemies out of the night before - Gilbert Redman. A doctor who is riding the train back to England, writes Miss Henderson's visions of a woman named Miss Froy off as a mere side effect of her being hit in the head.

SPOILER ALERT!

\

Since returning to the blog, post-1001, I've tried my best to make the very few reviews I've written be good ones. I've put a lot of time and effort into the six reviews between #1001 and now, but I have a feeling my streak stops here. I just don't have a lot of insightful, intelligent things to say about The Lady Vanishes. It's not a bad movie, by any means. However, it's not a very great one either - and, in fact, by Hitch's standards, it definitely falls into the lower echelon in his catalog of films.

The film DID have me in the beginning, setting up a pretty brilliant little plot, that makes you hope the pay off is worthy of the original idea and that it won't leave you disappointed. I wouldn't go so far as to say I was disappointed, but the movie definitely took some turns that I'd rather it hadn't taken. For starters, I wish Hitchcock had left us more in the dark. For a little while longer, anyway, make us think that, "perhaps, Miss Henderson is simply imagining Miss Froy"...have her keep throwing out possible clues and have them keeping getting shot down by the other passengers as mere coincidence. That's not how it transpires, however. Instead, we pretty much know right away that Margaret Lockwood's character is of sane mind and that indeed, she wasn't just imagining a Miss Froy. By the end, they're throwing out words like "spy" and "espionage" and I'm sort of allergic to those words and genres when it comes to movies, with very few exceptions.

Another thing that's always irked me about classic films is the fact that man and woman seem to fall in love too quickly and without much reason. Here, Lockwood and Redgrave's Henderson and Redman, respectively, go from bitter enemies at the inn to close friends aboard the train, to lovers by film's end, without any explanation of why on Earth they'd actually want to be together. I guess back in the old days, complete strangers just got together and got married and it was all a big "hurrah". That's just something that's always sort of irked me about classics, and I wanted to get the gripe down on paper.

In conclusion, you could do a lot worse when looking for a Hitchcock movie ("Spellbound" and "Notorious" come to mind), but you could also do a LOT better (a dozen or more movies come to mind), which makes it hard to give The Lady Vanishes anything even resembling a glowing review. The film is something straight out of an Agatha Christie novel, but then also adds a splash of something resembling an Ian Fleming story, only fifteen years before Fleming would be a success. It's a murdery, mystery, clue driven film, that, by film's end, adds in a dash or two of spy and espionage stuff. My eyelids are getting  very heavy, so I ask that you bear with me, while I close this off early.

RATING: 6.5/10  If you want good Hitch, try out Rear Window, Dial M for Murder, Psycho, Vertigo, The Man Who Knew.....nevermind, there's a lot of better stuff, find it if you haven't already.

February 18, 2016  10:45pm

555. FRENZY (1972)

Running Time: 116 minutes
Directed By: Alfred Hitchcock
Written By: Anthony Shaffer, from the novel Goodbye Piccadilly, Farewell Leicester Square by Arthur La Bern
Main Cast: Jon Finch, Barry Foster, Alec McCowen, Anna Massey, Billie Whitelaw

HITCHCOCKTOBER FEST!: PART XIV - THE CONCLUSION

Well we've finally made it to the end of our journey with Alfred Hitchcock. Last night I was finally able to watch my last "1001" Hitchcock movie, "Frenzy" and I must say, that while it didn't altogether feel like a Hitch film, I enjoyed it very much.

The film takes place in London and this time around we're focused in on Dick Blaney (Finch), who's just been fired from his bartender job for being suspected of stealing booze. We follow Blaney around London as he counts his losses and bumps into some acquaintances, including Bob Rusk (Foster), a very nice fellow who runs a fruit and flower market and who offers to help Blaney in any possible way that he can. Following his encounter with Rusk, Blaney calls upon his ex-wife, who runs a matchmaking service. She's pleased to see him, even after he gets abusive with his language, and they have dinner together that night, where she slyly slips fifty pounds into his coat pocket. Not knowing about the fifty pounds, Blaney takes refuge in a Salvation Army center. Meanwhile, much more important things are going on in London, as the Necktie Murderer is on the loose, as the police search frantically, before more victims turn up with necktie's wrapped around their throats. All signs point to Blaney as being the vicious Necktie Murderer, especially when Blaney's ex-wife turns up as the latest victim of the killer. What the police don't know and what we, the viewer, do know is that the murderer is not Dick Blaney, but rather the "nice on the outside, vicious on the inside" Bob Rusk.

I must say I was a bit taken aback when I started to hear cursing and see nudity in an Alfred Hitchcock film. Not that I'm a 'G' rated movie watcher, I just didn't expect that kind of thing from jolly old Alfred. I eased into it fairly quickly though and was able to really enjoy myself and go out on a high note with Alfred.

SPOILER ALERT!

I thought that the three male leads were all excellent, with Jon Finch being the lesser of the three. I quite enjoyed Barry Foster and what a creep he was, huh? The character of Bob Rusk immediately receives a pass into the creepiest and cruelest of all Hitchcock villains. I loved the mixture of humor and suspense Hitch' was able to create, when he throws our villain into the back of a potato truck, with the corpse of his latest victim and has him fishing about her body, looking for his "R" pin. I also really enjoyed Alec McCowan as Inspector Oxford, and actually would probably peg him as my favorite character in the film. I thought he was a brilliant actor and I loved the running gag of his wife being completely incapable of cooking gourmet meals, which leaving him to scarf down breakfast at the office and sneak hideous looking soup back into the bowl when she's not looking. Also, as it pertains to Rusk, I love how Hitchcock made you really like the guy at first (before we found out he was the killer) and then totally turns the tables on us and makes us despise him.

The ending was hit and miss with me, as I could've seen it going a few different ways, but ultimately I wasn't totally displeased with it and it worked. Blaney ends up going to prison for the Necktie murders, but later, Oxford realizes that Blaney is innocent and that Rusk is the guilty one. Before Oxford can get him pardoned, Blaney escapes and makes his way back to Rusk's place, where all three of the main male leads have a final encounter. Oxford mentions something at one point about Blaney possible getting monetary compensation for the time he had to spend in prison. They never touch upon it, but they could've done a "blessing in disguise" kind of ending, where Blaney does have to spend a few days in prison, but gets a handsome reward, thus getting him out of the poor house. I also wouldn't have minded it too much, if Blaney ended up getting re-caught at the end and thrown back in prison, as kind of an "anti-revenge" theme.

All in all though, the film was highly enjoyable, with great acting coming from several different sources and a very engaging plot. Hitch captures London very nicely too and we can feel the city looming over us throughout the movie.

RATING: 8/10 Well Alfred, I had a lot of fun revisiting your pictures, old boy. I may be back with a little Alfred Hitchcock retrospective later on tonight. Stay tuned.

MOVIES WATCHED: 188
MOVIES LEFT TO WATCH: 813

November 11, 2010 12:58pm

396. The Birds (1963)

Running Time: 120 minutes
Directed By: Alfred Hitchcock
Written By: Evan Hunter, from story by Daphne Du Maurier
Main Cast: Tippi Hedren, Rod Taylor, Jessica Tandy, Veronica Cartwright, Suzanne Pleshette

HITCHCOCKTOBER FEST!: PART XIII

Another Hitchcock movie that Netflix finally makes available and ships out to me, "The Birds", sees Alfred Hitchcock turn yet another silly sounding plot into movie gold.

Melanie Daniels (Hedren) is browsing in a pet store one day when in walks Mitch Brenner (Taylor). Mitch, thinking that Melanie works at the pet store, asks her to help him find two love birds for his sister Cathy (Cartwright). Melanie leads him to believe that she works there, yet doesn't know exactly what a love bird is and eventually her cover is blown. Mitch admits that he actually knew who she was from a previous encounter. Enraged, yet intrigued, by the prankster, Melanie gets his license plate number and ultimately locates his address. Picking up a set of love birds to give to him, she makes her way to his apartment, where she is told by a neighbor that he spends every weekend at Bodega Bay. Determined to deliver the love birds to Mitch, Melanie drives to Bodega Bay and locates the home of Mitch Brenner, where she delivers the birds and tries to make a quick getaway, without being spotted. As she travels by boat, back across the harbor to shore and ultimately out of Bodega Bay, she is attacked by a seagull, which nips at her forehead and causes her to bleed and also causes her to be seen by Mitch. The two meet up on the shore and Mitch invites Melanie to visit him at his home, where he lives with his sister and mother Lydia (Tandy). Over the course of a couple of days Mitch and Melanie grow fonder of each other, but seemingly there is something wrong with the birds on Bodega Bay, as they've resorted to constant attacks on the townspeople. The attack that finally raises the suspicions and the fears of the town is the attack on the school, as the birds chase screaming kids down the street.

Today my wife decided to watch "The Birds" with me and when it finished, I asked her what she thought of it. She expressed her disappointment that there was never a reason given for the bird attacks in the movie. We got into a friendly debate about the subject, with her stretching the fact that without reason for the bird attacks, then the movie just doesn't intrigue her as much and that for it to be effective for her, there would HAVE to be reasoning behind the motives of the birds. I argued back that the reason isn't the issue here and what we're really dealing with is a survival movie and that as long as the main characters can fend off the bird attacks and keep on surviving, that is what matters. I also argued that no reason could ever really be given, because it's not as if the birds could actually talk and explain their motives. We shot back and forth, but in the end I couldn't convince her and ultimately she only found the film to be mediocre.

I, however, loved the movie and had a hell of a lot of fun with it. The shots were brilliant, the ending was as suspenseful as it gets and tomorrow when I venture outside to head off to work, I'll certainly be keeping my eye to the sky, on the lookout for bird attacks ;) In all honesty, how can you look at a bird the same after watching this piece of Hitchcock horror? I mean, we all certainly have enough sense to realize that we're not under any threat from the birds, but certainly just seeing a bird skip around your front yard would make you think of "The Master of Suspense" and his 1963 film. I've always found interest in survival movies and this one can kind of be compared to "Night of the Living Dead", where the undead rise from their graves to attack the living. It's basically the same plot, we're just dealing with birds instead of zombies.

If there is anything about "The Birds" that needs to be explained, it's why does Melanie travel to Bodega Bay, buy love birds, take a boat across the harbor, all for a man that she says she "loathes"? It was a bit of a head scratcher and actually took me out of the film for a little bit toward the beginning. That is, until we got into the bird attacks and the survival focus and then I was able to forget about Melanie's intentions and worry about the birds'.

RATING: 8/10 Yet another great movie from Hitchcock, as THE MAN takes another definitive step toward becoming one of my favorite directors of all time.

MOVIES WATCHED: 186
MOVIES LEFT TO WATCH: 815

November 7, 2010 7:52pm

363. PSYCHO (1960)

Running Time: 109 minutes
Directed By: Alfred Hitchcock
Written By: Jospeh Stefano, from novel by Robert Bloch
Main Cast: Anthony Perkins, Janet Leigh, Vera Miles, John Gavin, Martin Balsam

HITCHCOCKTOBER FEST!: PART XII

Well Netflix finally brought "Psycho" back to an "available now" status and today I was able to get comfortable in my bed and check it out. This wasn't the first time I've seen "Psycho" and it probably won't be the last and while this Hitchcock film isn't my favorite of his, it is certainly one that deserves the acclaim that it gets.

Our main character this time around is Marion Crane (Leigh), a receptionist who steals $40,000 from her employer and plans to run off and get married to her boyfriend, Sam (Gavin). After taking the money, Marion drives until she can't drive any longer, pulls off to the side of the road and sleeps until the next morning. Upon being awakened by a police officer, she hastily tells him what he wants to hear to get away from him and makes her way to California Charlie's used car lot, where she trades in her car for a different one. She then begins to drive again and when it begins to rain heavily, she has no alternative but to stop at the Bates Motel and get a room. At first, after she arrives at the motel, there doesn't seem to be anyone around, even though the sign says "vacancy". She soon notices a house behind the hotel and a man making his way toward her. The man is Norman Bates (Perkins), owner of Bates Motel, a very friendly man, who goes out of his way to make sure Marion is comfortable. Norman prepares some dinner for Marion and they chit chat a bit, talking about Norman's taxidermy hobby and what Marion is running away from. Marion retires to her room and Norman takes a peek at her undressing, through a peep hole in the office wall. As Marion showers, what looks to be an elderly woman wielding a butcher knife barges into the bathroom of her motel room and stabs her until she dies. Now the search is on, as Marion's sister Lila (Miles) wants to know where Marion is and Marion's employer (or former employer) wants his $40,000 back.

There's so much to say about this movie, let's not waste any time and lets hope I can spit it all out in a coherent, structured way.

SPOILER ALERT!

The first thing I want to mention is Bernard Hermann, who may be the best motion picture composer I've ever known of. In "Psycho" his score becomes an extremely integral part in heightening the suspense and preparing you for whatever lurks around the dark corners of this movie. His score puts you on guard, because when a score that powerful is being played, there must be trouble brewing. As long as we're talking about individuals, lets talk about Perkins, who becomes more terrifying than any monster in any monster movie and more horrific than any horror icon. It is Norman Bates' human side, his kindness and hospitality, that ultimately make him more scary. Norman is as gentle as a lamb when in public and conversing with strangers, but behind closed doors he's a sick individual. It makes you think about that bagger at the grocery store who was so kind to you or that gas station attendant who went out of his way to make sure you had a pleasurable experience. It makes you think about those nice people, and what they're like when they go home at night and no one else is watching them. I also enjoyed Leigh's performance, as she was basically cast as an object of Norman Bates' lust and turns in, what I believed to be a good performance.

The shower scene gets a lot of attention and rightfully so, as it was wonderfully shot and really made you give the proverbial grimace. Marion Crane lies in a puddle of her own blood, her upper torso hanging out of the bathtub, while her legs and feet are washed with a mixture of blood and water...the definition of a cold blooded killing. In fact the entire movie is wonderfully shot and the black and white of "Psycho" is one of the sharpest black and white pictures I've ever seen, and actually I think the movie benefited from not being in color. This is Hitchcock's darkest movie and no color should be shone on the subject.

With all of those beaming things to say about "Psycho", I still found myself a bit bored after the death of Marion Crane, when the film starts to introduce new characters, like Lila and Det. Arbogast. Everything up to that point was gripping, engaging and just really good film making, and beyond that point it drops off...but just a little bit. The ending brings it all back and the grand payoff at the end is worth every minute, so I'm not trying to be too hard on the middle portion, it just really does slow down a little bit. Although, I can defend the slowing of the pace, by saying that the beginning was actually holding a really fast pace, moving through the plot fairly quickly until we get to the motel.

While this isn't my favorite Hitchcock film (that honor is still held by "Shadow of a Doubt") it is still really good and a must see for anyone who wants to be considered a film buff.

RATING: 7.5/10 Not a bad score and a rating that I could definitely see rising (I've been saying that a lot lately, haven't I?).

MOVIES WATCHED: 183
MOVIES LEFT TO WATCH: 818

November 6, 2010 6:30pm

418. MARNIE (1964)

Running Time: 130 minutes
Directed By: Alfred Hitchcock
Written By: Jay Presson Allen, from novel by Winston Graham
Main Cast: Tippi Hedren, Sean Connery, Diane Baker, Louise Latham

HITCHCOCKTOBER FEST!: PART XI

As I mentioned in an earlier post, "Psycho" and "The Birds" are on a short wait from Netflix, so we jump right to "Marnie", a film that I found myself drawn into, while the plot was still a little silly.

When the film opens up we hear Mr. Strutt telling the police of a robbery and saying that he is quite sure the crime was committed by Marnie Edgar (Hedren)(although he only know her by her alias). Mr. Strutt is right about Marnie...soon after we see a dark haired woman catching a train, with a purse full of money. Marnie reaches her hotel, washes the black dye from her hair, changes the social security card in her wallet to yet another alias and moves on to her next score. Marnie first stops off at her mother's house (Latham), where it is established that Marnie seeks love from her unloving mother, but doesn't get it. In fact, Marnie's mother is more favorable toward a neighborhood kid, whom she babysits. Marnie leaves her mother and goes to Philadelphia, where she plans to wipe out another office, this time it will be the office of Mark Rutland (Connery). As Marnie gets the job and plays secretary for a few weeks, we begin to learn a little bit about her, like her enormous fear to the color red. Rutland also has his eyes on Marnie and is falling in love with her, as a day out and about with her ends with a visit to Rutland's parents. Marnie doesn't stick around long, however, and soon gets the safe combination at Rutland and Co. and robs them blind (in a suspense filled scene) and takes off. However, Rutland, using his intelligence and cunningness, tracks her down and demands the return of the money. He then offers her a choice: he either turns her over to the police or she marries him.

I mean, come on, the plot is kind of silly isn't it? "I've just discovered that you've robbed me blind, old girl. Now you HAVE to marry me or risk being put behind bars for the rest of your life!" Yeah that's a bit out there. But it's a silly plot that is made really good and feasible by the master, Sir Hitchcock. I was totally enamored with the movie and found qualities in Sean Connery that I've never seen before. He was brilliant in this and it makes me think I should jump on those dreaded James Bond "1001" movies while I'm still into Connery. I often wonder if a good opening scene is all you need. "Marnie" has a brilliant opening scene, that shows Strutt telling the police what has taken place and then we follow Marnie clear to her hotel room, where no dialogue is given and we just watch. We get a special glimpse inside the hotel room of a criminal and get to see what they do after they've just finished "working". From there, I was pretty much hooked. Then we get some Louise Latham acting and it gets better, because she was fantastic in this too and I think she was really the clear cut "Marnie" villain, although she wasn't THAT villainous, but rather just a mother who didn't know how to love.

Then we move onto the next big score and Mark Rutland is properly introduced and so on and so forth and despite the silly plot, everything keeps rolling right along and meshing together nicely and you don't really think about the plot, because the movie is so good, you make sense of it all in your head. I had a few preferences for the way the plot should've gone, but I said to myself early on, that as long as they give a good explanation for her fear of red, then the film will be fine...and the explanation was good enough. I did think that Lil (Baker) should've played a more integral role in the plot. She always seemed to be thinking evil thoughts, yet nothing evil ever comes out of her. I've also heard talk of the "rape" scene with Connery and Hedren, which I think is preposterous. The scene involves a sexually frustrated Mark Rutland, ripping the seams of Marnie's nightgown, with one finger and letting it fall to the floor. He immediately apologizes and wraps his robe around her. The scene was a bit shocking and a little bit out of character for Rutland, but then again, in reality we all do out of character things when we're under pressure.

RATING: 7.5/10 I liked it, despite silly plot and thought everyone turned in great performances, especially Connery, in this tense Hitchcock film.

MOVIES WATCHED: 180
MOVIES LEFT TO WATCH: 821

November 2, 2010 2:08pm

340. North by Northwest (1959)

Running Time: 136 minutes
Directed By: Alfred Hitchcock
Written By: Ernest Lehman
Main Cast: Cary Grant, Eva Marie Saint, James Mason, Leo G. Carroll, Martin Landau

HITCHCOCKTOBERFEST!: PART X

After watching "North by Northwest", I'm positive that Cary Grant and James Stewart should've swapped roles, letting Cary Grant play Scottie in "Vertigo" and putting Stewart into the corn field, running from a crop duster as Roger Thornhill. I think both movies would've turned out worlds better. But I digress...

Cary Grant is Roger Thornhill, an advertising executive, but try telling that to the latest crop of Hitchcock villains, who are quite positive that his name is George Kaplan, and that he's a spy. The confusion comes when Cary Grant summons a hotel attendant, who at the same time, is paging Mr. Kaplan. Thornhill is kidnapped and taken to the Townsend masion, meeting who he can only assume is Mr. Townsend. It later turns out that the man he met is not Mr. Townsend, but rather Phillip Vandamm (Mason). The crime syndicate in the one is headed up by Vandamm and his sidekick Leonard (Landau). Thornhill is liquored up in an attempt to get rid of him, but he valiantly escapes, getting himself arrested, but out of harms way. Thronhill tries to track down the real George Kaplan to no avail and when he tries to meet back up with Mr. Townsend, he realizes that he never actually met Mr. Townsend in the first place. Mr. Townsend is quickly killed and the murder is pinned on Thornhill. Now, Thornhill is evading police and villains to save his life and clear his name and he's accompanied by Eve Kendall (Saint), whom he meets on the train to Chicage, where he hopes to find Kaplan. We quickly find out that Kaplan actually doesn't exist and instead he is an imaginary agent drummed up by U.S. Intelligence to take some of the attention off of their own agent who is working right under Vandamm's nose...the agent? You guess it...Kendall.

I have a lot of problems with this Hitchcock effort too, so step on up and I'll tell you what they are...

SPOILER ALERT!

I'll start out by saying that the first forty minutes are awesome and I actually was enjoying Cary Grant a little. I loved the scene where he calls his mother from prison, as he's still feeling the effects of the glass of bourbon that was forced on him. Then, we start to get into the wild plot, where we find out that Kaplan doesn't exist, we're introduced to Eve Kendall and it goes downhill from there...for me anyway. My first major gripe is that I don't believe that an advertising executive, mama's boy could survive for two minutes doing the things that Thornhill does. He's transformed into Superman almost immediately, as he's running from crop dusters, climbing on ledges, scaling Mt. Rushmore, etc. It's just too unbelievable. It's also never made 100% clear what the villains motives are. I mean, think about it, we never really find out what they're being investigated by U.S. Intelligence for. I mean, I guess it's because of the micro-films that they're smuggling out of auctions, but then again, we never find out what the micro-films exactly are. All we know is that they're bad and that's all that we're told and that Roger Thronhill is being targeted by them, because they think he's some imaginary spy named Kaplan. It just doesn't seem to me that it's a clear story and it loses me.

Now I'll share some of what I liked. I'll start with the score and follow it with a question: Is Bernard Hermann the greatest film composer of all-time? Music in film has never had an effect on me like his does and it really makes uninteresting scenes and movies, more interesting and gripping. I'll also continue with my small amount of praise for "North by Northwest", by applauding the chemistry that existed between Grant and Eva Marie Saint, as I truly believed that these two were made for each other. As they sit in the dining car of a train, exchanging witty, flirtatious banter, you know that Grant is just being Grant and that Eva is meeting his match. As good as their chemistry was, if Saint's character had been left out, or at least not turned out to really be a government agent, complicating things, I think the movie could've kept some of it's flow and turned out to be something better than it was. Had Grant's character been left in the dark about things, as much as we were and we, together with Thronhill, had to piece together the mystery, I think it could've been a wildly fun movie. Instead it's a plot that's too confusing and a movie that's too long and ultimately a Hitchcock failure for me.

RATING: 5/10 A '5' for a Hitchcock movie is like a '1' for any other movie. I'll leave it at that. Next up is "Psycho".

MOVIES WATCHED: 171
MOVIES LEFT TO WATCH: 830

October 26, 2010 1:07pm

334. VERTIGO (1958)

Running Time: 128 minutes
Directed By: Alfred Hitchcock
Written By: Samuel A. Taylor, Alec Coppel, from the novel d'Entre les Morts by Pierre Boileau and Thomas Narcejac
Main Cast: James Stewart, Kim Novak, Barbara Bel Geddes, Tom Helmore

HITCHCOCKTOBER FEST!: PART IX

After watching "Vertigo", I've determined two things: The first thing I determined is that it is actually difficult for me to watch Jimmy Stewart kissing on and ogling over women. The second thing I determined is that for as much as it is heralded, "Vertigo" is actually mediocre compared to other Hitchcock films.

The plot kicks off by introducing us to John "Scottie" Ferguson (Stewart) by way of a pretty exciting opening scene. The movie quickly makes us aware of Scottie's acrophobia which, in turn, leads to his bouts of vertigo. Scottie is a police detective and after watching one of his colleagues fall to his death from the top of a building, he retires. Soon after, Scottie is contacted by an old college buddy of his, Gavin Elster, who wants him to tail his wife, Madeliene (Novak). It seems that Madeliene has been blacking out recently and almost being overcome by another spirit, the spirit of her great grandmother, Carlotta Valdes. After some hesitation and convincing Scottie takes the job and begins tailing Madeliene. The first scene where Scottie tails her is quite riveting, considering that not much is really going on, as there is no dialogue and we simply see what Scottie sees, and we are almost turned into detectives as we peek around corners at the beautiful Madeliene. To make a long story short, Scottie soon finds himself in love with Madeliene, but the love is cut short when the spirits that are overcoming her get the best of her and she takes her own life. Scottie is thrown into a state of melancholia and can't seem to get over it. Even his old pal Midge can't seem to get him out of his depression. Later, Scottie meets Judy Barton, a dead ringer for Madeliene and Scottie falls in love with her. It doesn't take him long before he's fallen in love with her and becomes obsessed with transforming her into Madeliene's exact look-alike, dying her hair and buying her new clothes.

SPOILER ALERT!

My biggest problem with "Vertigo" is the plot, which is too intricate and doesn't really make a whole lot of sense. The plot hinges on the fact that Scottie's old college pal, whom he hasn't seen in years (maybe decades) phones him up and asks him to tail his wife, somehow knowing about Scottie's acrophobia. He hires a girl who is a dead ringer for his wife, a wife that he wants killed, and has her pretend to be, for lack of a better term, a bit "out there". The look-alike girl is Judy Barton and once her and Scottie fall in love, Gavin devises to have her run to the top of a bell tower, knowing that Scotty won't be able to make it to the top, and then throw off his real wife, who is already dead by way of a broken neck. Now come on! That is WAY too intricate and contrived. There is no way that Scottie's old college buddy would have any way of knowing about his acrophobia and furthermore, the entire scheme hinges on so many things to actually make it work, including Scottie falling in love with "Madeliene".

Also, the ending is very anti-climactic in my opinion. A random nun, who happened to hear Scottie and Judy in the top of the bell tower approaches, Judy is startled and falls to her death. Instead of it being a random nun, I felt that they should've used the moment to incorporate Midge into the plot, who seemed to have a bit of an obsession of her own with Scottie. It is believable that Midge could've been following Scottie the whole time and in fact, she is shown outside of Scottie's apartment at one point, the morning after he first meets Madeliene face to face. Anyway, it is believable that after she realized that Scottie was in love with another woman and not her, that she would begin to follow him, letting her obsession take the best of her. Following Scottie and Judy to the bell tower at the end of the film and seeing a chance to be rid of Judy, she would climb the stairs to the top of the tower and either startle or push Judy from the top, proclaiming that she is the woman for him. It would really tie up the whole obsession storyline quite nicely and may have even provided a better title to the film..."Alfred Hitchcock's Obsession!"...although that sounds more like a perfume than a film, but it could've worked.

My one last gripe is Jimmy Stewart, whom you all know that I love. However, he just didn't fit in here for me. I can't believe I'm saying this but I think this movie could've benefited by having a different lead...say...(swallows heavily)...Cary Grant. I don't like Grant, but it is more believable that Grant would be the type of person to immediately fall head over heels for "Madeliene" and vice versa. I'm sorry, but I just don't buy Kim Novak becoming romantically involved with Jimmy Stewart...that's almost as absurd as Jack Black and Kate Winslet falling in love in "The Holiday".

For all of my gripes, the movie actually wasn't that bad and made great use of it's score and it's camera. Some of the scenes are so riveting. It never drags and is never boring and really flows along quite nicely. There are dozens of scenes that really do draw you in and swallow you into that Hitchcockian world. The opening scene, the entire first segment where Scottie tails Madeliene, the scene in the woods with the sequoia's and really the entire part of the film where Scottie tries to transform Judy is just so unsettling and almost scary, when we're forced to watch our "good guy" Jimmy Stewart go a bit nutso. It's certainly not my favorite Hitchcock movie, by far, but it's still worth a look. However, there are other Hitchcock films that deserve some of the attention that this one normally gets.

RATING: 6.5/10 I was going to give it a '7', but that would be putting it into a different class and thus, wouldn't be fair to the better Hitchcock movies that were able to get to that '7' mark.

MOVIES WATCHED: 170
MOVIES LEFT TO WATCH: 831

October 25, 2010 9:27pm

311. The Wrong Man (1956)

Running Time: 105 minutes
Directed By: Alfred Hitchcock
Written By: Angus MacPhail, Maxwell Anderson, from the novel The True Story of Christopher Emmanuel Balestrero by Maxwell Anderson
Main Cast: Henry Fonda, Vera Miles, Anthony Quayle

HITCHCOCKTOBER FEST!: PART VIII

It wasn't until fairly recently (I'd say within the last couple years) that I realized that Alfred Hitchcock and Henry Fonda made a film together. Back then, I wasn't much into old movies, but the names Hitchcock and Fonda certainly struck my fancy. I immediately took a mental note of the film and vowed to see it as soon as I could. Ever since starting the "1001" book, becoming more enamored with Hitchcock and still admiring Fonda's acting chops, my anticipation for this film grew even more and today I finally got the chance to flop down on my bed and check it out. Oh yeah...I wasn't disappointed.

The film is based on a true story, a concept that Hitchcock had never pursued and tells the story of Christopher Emmanuel Balestrero a.k.a. Manny (Fonda). Balestrero's story starts out quite simple as we learn that he's a pretty simple fellow. He is a musician, where he can be found most nights working at the Stork Club as part of their in house band. We also learn that Balestrero is a married man and has two children, all three of which he loves very much. We see a good slice of this love as Manny returns home one night and consoles Rose, his wife (Miles) as she suffers with a toothache. In fact, speaking of the toothache, it is that particular pain in his wife's jaw that causes Manny to visit the insurance offer to inquire about borrowing money against Rose's policy. Upon entering the office, the lady behind the counter seems to become startled and quickly consults with her co-workers. The ladies at the insurance office are quite certain that Manny is the man who previously robbed the office, months prior. The police are phoned and Manny is picked up, taken to the precinct and questioned regarding the robberies, not only the one at the insurance office, but a string of robberies that have been being committed throughout town. All the witnesses point to Manny as the perpetrator and Manny is arraigned and thrown in jail. His bail is put up the following day and now it is up to Manny to prove his innocence. Let's just hope he gets a juror as open minded as Mr. Davis ;)

When I watch a Hitchcock film, I find it fun to compare the villains, in possibly a continued effort to identify the most villainous of them all. In "The Wrong Man" there doesn't seem to be one clear cut villain, but rather a group of them, headed up by the police. But it's just so easy to see how everyone and everything seems to be conspiring to put Manny behind bars. Fonda's Manny was such a likeable character, a character that I think a lot of people can identify with. A man who works for a living and loves his wife and kids. A man who doesn't have a lot of money, but still keeps his head about him and rears through the difficult times. Henry Fonda has always been a favorite actor of mine and how can you not love the guy after watching him in "The Wrong Man". After watching this movie, I truly believe that the word "innocence", in the dictionary, should have a picture of Henry Fonda beside it. Not only for the innocence he portrays here, but also for his fight for innocence in films like "12 Angry Men" and "The Ox-Bow Incident". In fact, this would be a spectacular film to watch in conjunction with "12 Angry Men", in one Fonda plays an innocent man on trial and in the other Fonda plays a juror, a juror who stands alone in believing that the accused could be innocent.

Can I just take a minute to recognize the camerawork in "The Wrong Man"? I think it really stands out above other Hitchcock movies as having some really sweet shots and I'd never think that Hitchcock would have it in him to capture a city, the way he captured New York City in this movie. The shot of Manny and Rose getting out of their taxi and entering a building, with the view of the Brooklyn Bridge behind them nearly took my breath away. I also particularly loved the shot of Manny being ushered into the back of the squad car. He looks out the window, longing for his wife, who's silhouette he can see in their kitchen window. He gazes at that, while he also can't help but notice the profile of the cop who has taken all that away from him, at least for the time being.

I guess if I had to gripe about anything, I'd gripe about the turn for the worse that the character of Rose took. I was so consumed by this movie and then Rose goes a little over the edge and is forced to be committed to a mental institution. I guess you can't complain too much about true stories not appealing to you, as all their doing is simply telling you the facts. It did make the ending a little more heartbreaking, I'll give it that. I guess it shows that Manny's life was effected, not just in being accused of something he didn't do, but in turn directly effected the lives of those around him and that simply by being a good man and doing his daily duties, he was accused and had his life altered forever...or at least for a long time.

RATING: 8.5/10 I can't go the full monty on this one, simply because I enjoyed "The Man Who Knew Too Much" a little bit more. But make no mistake about it, this is a good film. I recommend watching it in a double feature with "12 Angry Men". Next up is "Vertigo".

MOVIES WATCHED: 168
MOVIES LEFT TO WATCH: 833

October 21, 2010 5:43pm

307. The Man Who Knew Too Much (1956)

Running Time: 120 minutes
Directed By: Alfred Hitchcock
Written By: Charles Bennett, D.B. Wyndham-Lewis, John Michael Hayes
Main Cast: James Stewart, Doris Day, Brenda De Banzie, Bernard Miles

HITCHCOCKTOBER FEST!: PART VII

I saw "The Man Who Knew Too Much" years and years ago and prior to watching it this time around, the only thing I could seem to remember about it was Doris Day belting out "Que Sera, Sera". I'm not sure why that's all that I was able to remember, because this was a very memorable film and in my opinion, a highly underrated Hitchcock movie.

The plot follows Dr. Ben McKenna (Stewart), his wife Jo (Day) and their son Hank, as they vacation in Morocco. While traveling on a bus, the McKenna's begin chit chatting with a Frenchman, who identifies himself as Louis Bernard. The stranger is, for some reason, very interested in the McKenna's, asking them various questions about their background. Later, Ben and Jo become suspicious of the man and even more suspicious of him when he breaks dinner plans with them. At the restaurant, where they were supposed to dine with Mr. Bernard, the McKenna's continue their befriending ways and strike up conversation with a couple seated beside them. The couple introduce themselves as the Drayton's and the two couples dine together. The following day in the marketplace in Morocco, as the McKenna's and Drayton's spend the day together, they witness the murder of Louis Bernard and just before he dies clutches for Dr. McKenna, telling him that a man, a statesman, is to be murdered. He gives him a few more clues before dying. The next thing that the McKenna's know, their son is kidnapped and the Drayton's may be the culprits. As Dr. McKenna pieces together clues and tries to locate the whereabouts of his son, he is eventually drawn to London, where he thinks Hank might be being held.

I loved this movie! Actually I'm quite surprised by that statement myself, as it had some elements to it that I'm usually not attracted to. I've never been one for movies about spies and espionage or even political thrillers for that matter, but that seems to be in the background here, as we follow the McKenna's who are the innocent ones who only want to get their son back. James Stewart was great and reminded me that an aging Jimmy Stewart is just as good as a young Jimmy Stewart. I'm not sure I've ever seen a Doris Day movie, outside of this one, but she was really good too, and fit right in with Hitchcock's famous string of blond leading women.

SPOILER ALERT!

This movie did what "Spellbound" and "Notorious" should have done, in that it took the suspense and strung it throughout the entire film. The whole movie is engaging and really just wraps you up and allows you to get lost in the plot. Just when you think things are about to be wrapped up, Hitchcock throws in another monkey wrench and strings the plot out a little longer, but it never seems unnecessary and everything in the film seems very relevant. I also loved how Hitchcock toyed with us a bit before he revealed who the bad guy really was. In the beginning we're lead to believe that Louis Bernard is the villain. We then meet a very charming and polite older couple - The Drayton's. The Hitchcock throws us for a loop when it is revealed that Louis Bernard is actually a government agent and the the Drayton's are the Hitchcock heels this time around. The whole movie is able to provide that feeling of "shit is going down" and I allowed myself to fully get swallowed up by the movie and have a lot of fun with it.

Guess I'll keep it short for "The Man Who Knew Too Much" and end by saying that in my opinion, this movie doesn't get near the attention that it deserves and shoots right to the top of my personal fav' Hitchcock films.

RATING: 10/10 Yep, that's right...I had to go the full monty here, as I had so much fun with this movie and on a personal level, everything just seemed to click with me.

MOVIES WATCHED: 167
MOVIES LEFT TO WATCH: 834

October 21, 2010 12:28pm

274. Rear Window (1954)

Running Time: 115 minutes
Directed By: Alfred Hitchcock
Written By: John Michael Hayes, from the story It Had to Be Murder by Cornell Woolrich
Main Cast: James Stewart, Grace Kelly, Thelma Ritter, Raymond Burr, Wendell Corey

HITCHCOCKTOBER FEST!: PART VI

The only one of the Hitchcock movies in the book where I could go to my DVD shelf, instead of having to call on Netflix is "Rear Window". I've always been a fan of this movie, a fan of Jimmy Stewart and a fan of the suspense that this movie evokes. I think that it's a very relateable movie, as well, but we'll get into that in a little bit.

I'm sure many of you who are reading this have seen "Rear Window", but I'll go over the plot anyway, because I'm a nice guy like that. Our main character is L.B. Jeffries a.k.a. Jeff (Stewart), a photographer who's been incapacitated due to an accident during one of his shoots. The accident has left him with one broken leg and as a result he's confined to a wheel chair, staring out the rear window of his Greenwich Village apartment, which overlooks a courtyard and several other apartments. His girlfriend is Lisa Fremont (Kelly), a beautiful, wealthy woman, for whom Jeff isn't quite sure of his feelings for. But all of the relationship problems that Jeff and Lisa endure seem to be thrown out the "rear window" when Jeff happens upon some suspicious activity coming from the apartment of The Thorwald residence, where Lars Thorwald and his wife Anna reside. Well...where Lars and his wife Anna DID reside, because Jeff has noticed that Anna has suddenly disappeared and combining that with the unusual activity of Lars, in Jeff's mind it can only point to one thing...murder!

Boy, where do you even begin when it comes to discussing a movie like "Rear Window"? I guess I could start with the cast, and I'm not talking about the one on Jeff's leg. You all know how I feel about Jimmy Stewart, that he's a pleasure for me to watch. In "Rear Window", James seems to throw out his "aww shucks" demeanor for a more voyeuristic persona. He's a bit more gruff and it just doesn't seem like good 'ol Jimmy Stewart to be cradling Grace Kelly in his arms and passionately kissing her. But it is Jimmy Stewart and he's as good as ever. Grace Kelly is just that...graceful...and beautiful and everything you would want in a leading lady, proving that Alfred Hitchcock had an eye for beauty and knew just how to pick his leading women. I also enjoyed Thelma Ritter as the mouthy nurse to Jeff and Raymond Burr, who had almost no lines, yet still managed to scare the bejesus out of you. I just hope to God that no one even resembling Raymond Burr ever lives next door to me, or I'll certainly be forced to move...or buy a good pair of binoculars and a venetian blind.

SPOILER ALERT!

I think the reason that this movie is so loved, is because it is so relateable. How often have you and I looked out our own windows and wondered to ourselves what our neighbors were up to. Maybe we never suspected them of murder, but I'm sure that every single one of us have wondered what they were up to, at some point or another. We see the people around us, our neighbors, and yet often times do not form any relationships with them, so that when they do things that may seem odd to us, we begin to wonder about them. We're surrounded by all these people in our daily lives and for all we know any one of those people could be the evilest of the evil people, doing ungodly things when their blinds are pulled. That's the intriguing thing about "Rear Window", that's the type of thing that I think about when I watch this movie. I also think about the little things, meaning Jeff's broken leg. I mean, think about it, if we think about this story in terms of real life, then if Jeff hadn't broken his leg, Mrs. Throwald's murder would've gone unsolved, Lars Thorwald would have been a free man and Jeff and Lisa would probably have broken up, because they wouldn't have had that extra excitement that they both were intrigued by to patch the bruises in their relationship. Hopefully that all makes sense.

I think Hitchcock excelled the most when he was dealing with relatively simple stories, with simple characters. This movie was quite experimental. We see almost the entire film from the P.O.V. of Jeff's binoculars (or photo lens) and we're constantly staring at a cast of characters that we never really get to know. The characters that we, the viewer, have interest in are, for the most part, the ones behind the binoculars, and so we get interested in what they're interested in. Hitchcock weaves it all together nicely though. It's movies like this one, "Dial M for Murder" and "Rope", where Hitchcock takes interesting characters puts them in one or two locations for the duration of a movie and is able to slip in something special that only Hitchcock had, to make us all intrigued, terrified or interested in the whole story. Hitchcock knew how to give us seemingly a little and leave us with the feeling that we got a lot and he knew how to give us all kinds of obvious suspense and action (IE. "Strangers on a Train") and make that work too.

RATING: 10/10 It's an old favorite and it's an obvious '10' picture. I'll always have a good time while watching this film...always. Next up is "The Man Who Knew Too Much".

MOVIES WATCHED: 163
MOVIES LEFT TO WATCH: 838

October 16, 2010 4:34pm

234. Strangers on a Train (1951)

Running Time: 101 minutes
Directed By: Alfred Hitchcock
Written By: Raymond Chandler, Whitfield Cook, Czenzi Ormonde, from novel by Patricia Highsmith
Main Cast: Farley Granger, Robert Walker, Ruth Roman, Leo G. Carroll, Patricia Hitchcock

HITCHCOCKTOBER FEST!: PART V

I had seen this movie twice before, but despite that, it wasn't until today when I really realized just how good it is. "Strangers on a Train" gives us some of the best scenes that Hitchcock ever filmed and the suspense level is cranked up to a full blown ten, with a great cast, including an outstanding Robert Walker.

The film starts on a train with Guy Haines (Granger), a promising young tennis star and Bruno Anthony (Walker) literally bumping into each other. They chit chat for a bit, and after they've become a bit more comfortable and after a bite to eat in Bruno's compartment, Bruno springs his grand idea on Guy. Since both men have someone in their lives that they'd rather be without (Guy's estranged wife and Bruno's overbearing father), Bruno suggests that they swap murders...criss cross. Bruno will kill Guy's wife so that he can freely marry his current love interest Anne Morton, and Guy will kill Bruno's father, leaving him to be all alone with his loving mother. The only problem is that Guy is a sane man and wants no part of Bruno's insane idea. However, when Bruno the idea in his head, he goes through with it, killing Guy's wife and then blackmailing him to kill his father. Guy must be careful with the on edge Bruno, as Bruno threatens to tell the police that the entire idea was Guy's and that he was only the killer, and then Guy would be just as guilty.

"Strangers on a Train" works really well and sticks out like a sore thumb as a definite Hitchcock movie. It has all of his trademarks, the unique shots (my favorite being the sight of Bruno murdering Guy's wife, Miriam and we see the whole thing unfold through the lenses of her eyeglasses, that have fallen from her face and dropped to the ground), the suspense woven throughout, the extremely nail biting climax, the crazy characters (Bruno ranks right up there with the real nuts of the Hitchcock universe) and the beautiful women (or woman...Ruth Roman was gorgeous). Everything is there, you have all the elements for a superb Hitchcock film and that's just what you get. I love so many aspects of this film, I'll try to go through them as best I can.

I love the opening and how, at first, all we see are the walking feet of our two main characters. Somehow just by looking at the chosen footwear of the characters, we already know who's the villain and who's the good guy. Bruno has on a more eccentric shoe and Guy is conservative with his black dress shoes. Prior to even seeing their faces, Hitchcock is telling us who's who here and I think it's a great introduction. The entire segment at the amusement park, when Bruno is stalking Miriam is also a lot of fun. Absolutely no dialogue from Walker, as he just lurks like a rattlesnake, waiting for the moment when he'll snap his head forth and strangle his victim. Then we get into the blackmailing, as Bruno begins to badger Guy, wondering when Guy will do "his murder". We get some really memorable shots, like the one of Bruno standing at the top of a pair of steps and Guy spotting him. The camera never zooms into Bruno's face, but instead we stay back and get Guy's perspective of the shot. Also, when Bruno is seated in the crowd at one of Guy's tennis matches and the entire crowd around him is following the tennis ball with their eyes...back and forth go their heads and then we see Bruno, starring straight ahead, piercing a hold through Guy Haines. I won't talk about the ending, for fear of spoiling it for you, but it's utter brilliance and has you sitting on the edge of whatever seat you're in with so many combustible elements at play.

Well then...I guess this review has really turned into me swooning over some of my favorite scenes from the film, but that's okay. I hope you realize that this means that I loved the movie, because I promise you, you'll never find me swooning over scenes for a movie that I disliked.

RATING: 9.5/10 I deducted 1/2 point, simply because as good as the film was, it just didn't feel like a full blown '10'. I'm sure I'll be re-thinking my rating decision later, but that's my initial rating. Next up is "Rear Window".

MOVIES WATCHED: 162
MOVIES LEFT TO WATCH: 839

October 16, 2010 12:44pm

207. ROPE (1948)

Running Time: 80 minutes
Directed By: Alfred Hitchcock
Written By: Hume Cronyn, Arthur Laurents, from the play Rope's End by Patrick Hamilton
Main Cast: John Dall, Farley Granger, James Stewart, Douglas Dick, Joan Chandler

HITCHCOCKTOBER FEST!: PART IV

With two days off of work, I still only managed to squeeze in one movie since I was busy, but oh well, at least I got one squeezed in. The one I did squeeze in was a Hitchcock film that I've seen a few times before and one that I like quite a bit.

"Rope" tells the story of two young intellectuals, Brandon (Dall) and Phillip (Granger), who in trying to commit the perfect murder, kill their friend and former classmate, David. Upon murdering him, by strangulation with a rope, they stuff him into a chest in their living room and commence with their day. Their day, as it happens, consists of a party that is being thrown, which will see David's father, David's girlfriend, a former classmate and the former headmaster for Brandon, Phillip and David, Rupert Cadell (Stewart), all coming to the very apartment where David has just been murdered. To add a bit of spice to their "perfect crime", Brandon concocts the idea to serve dinner on the same chest that houses the dead body of the victim.

I love experimental filmmaking and for 1948 that is what we're dealing with in "Rope". The film is shot in real time and the story goes that Hitchcock wanted the entire film to be one long take. However, since camera magazines only carried about ten minutes worth of film, there was no way that Hitch' could shoot an eighty minute movie in one take. This is why every ten minutes in the film sees someone pass by the camera, blacking it out for a brief second and continuing on with the story. The film is set entirely on one set (excluding the opening scene on the streets). I have a fondness for films that are set in real time, in one set and with only a limited number of characters. It makes for a combustible situation when all the actors have to rely on is the dialogue that they're delivering, which means the dialogue has to be exceptional and in "Rope" I believe it is.

The film's dialogue almost reminded me of an action movie, with the more intense dialogue resembling the crashes and explosions and the regular, conversational dialogue representing everything else. Although I can't recall a specific instance, I'd have to think that it would be very easy for a film of this caliber to get boring really easily, but Hitchcock still manages to inject some suspense, some good vs. evil themes and some real intensity into the movie. Kudos to the screenwriters too!

Everyone turns in good performances, with John Dall and Jimmy Stewart standing out as exceptional, especially during scenes of intensity and of course, the climax. I think you could put the character of Brandon right up there with Norman Bates, Uncle Charlie and Bruno as most evil and nefarious Hitchcock characters, as the Brandon character seems to get turned on at the thought of the crime that they've committed and really seems to show absolutely no shred of remorse for his actions. Farley Granger wasn't bad either, as his character progressively gets more drunk as the movie goes on, leading to his imminent breakdown. I also enjoyed how they built up the character of Rupert, prior to Stewart ever appearing on camera. When Stewart finally does show up we have an idea of what type of guy this is going to be, and Jimmy handles it well, playing it cool and keeping his character interesting. The ending is great too with Dall and Stewart battling it out in a verbal duel and I loved the effects of the red and green street lights illuminating the characters and adding just a bit more intensity to an already tense situation.

RATING: 7/10 Much better than my previous two Hitchcock affairs, but "Shadow of a Doubt" still reigns supreme as "Best Hitchcock movie from the book...so far". Next up is "Strangers on a Train".

MOVIES WATCHED: 161
MOVIES LEFT TO WATCH: 840

October 12, 2010 10:30pm

193. Notorious (1946)

Running Time: 101 minutes
Directed By: Alfred Hitchcock
Written By: Ben Hecht
Main Cast: Ingrid Bergman, Cary Grant, Claude Rains, Leopoldine Konstantin

HITCHCOCKTOBER FEST!: PART III

I recorded this off of Turner Classic Movies back in January of this year, when Netflix didn't have the DVD available. It was part of TCM's "The Essentials" program, but really I would never call "Notorious" an essential, not even an essential Hitchcock film.

The plot revolves around Alicia Huberman (Bergman), who's father has just been sentenced to twenty years in prison after being convicted of being a Nazi spy. Alicia, however, does not share her father's political views and in a conversation with him, tells him that she is proud to be an American. This particular conversation was recorded by the government and used by U.S. Agent Devlin (Grant) to try and convince Alicia to help them infiltrate a group of Germans who have set up seemingly criminal practices in Brazil. The plan is that since Alicia is the daughter of a known and convicted German sympathizer, the Germans in Brazil will not suspect a thing and naturally assume that she too is a German sympathizer. It also turns out that Alicia knows the head man in Brazil, Alex Sebastian (Rains), so arranging a meeting isn't that difficult. Prior to the official business though, Alicia and Devlin fall in love, in what seems like seconds and when Alicia is forced to get very close to Sebastian, Devlin can't help but feel jealous.

Let's get the good stuff out of the way first, because there's far less good than bad, in my opinion. First of all, I love how Hitchcock used his camera and all of the tricks he liked to do. Much like "Spellbound", where he also used a few glory shots, "Notorious" is full of them: Alicia's POV after a hangover and a very blurry and swirling Cary Grant, the view from the rear view mirror of an approaching cop, the use of shadows, after Alicia is poisoned and all she can see is her poisoners silhouettes. So many great, mesmerizing shots, that seem to make me "oooh" and "aaah". I thought the acting was pretty good here too, but after seeing two of her films, cannot say that I am much of an Ingrid Bergman fan, as she is someone who I had heard a great deal about and someone who, despite being good, certainly hasn't shown me anything great. Cary Grant didn't annoy me too much this time around and I think he's becoming that guy that you don't like, but who keeps showing up and you just decide to go ahead and like him, because there's obviously no shaking him. Best actor of the film honors have to go to Claude Rains though, as I thought he was superb as Alex Sebastian and kind of creeped you out, while at the same time charming the pants off of you.

Now, on to the bad...

I hated how fast the relationship between Devlin and Alicia was established in this movie, although that seemed to be the norm. in the old days. However, it was something that was blatantly obvious here. At one moment the two characters are just acquaintances, and then all of a sudden, they're making out and "in love". It really took away from the film for me, and maybe that's just me being silly, but that's really what I thought. I think there could've been one more scene to really drive home the fact that these two fell in love in such a short amount of time. Even if it had just been a dinner scene, where they share a bit of dialogue and swoon over each other, I mean give me something. Also, the plot just bored me and really didn't seem to get kicked into overdrive until the whole business with the key and the wine cellar. That's the point when Hitchcock really cranked his suspense dial and gave us some real nail biting stuff, and really he kind of owed it to us, after making us dredge through that first hour, which was just really dry, slow and boring.

I can't recommend this film, in good conscience, but honestly though I think Hitchcock is just one of those filmmaker's where everyone has their favorites, and everyone's favorites are different. If you talk to a movie fan, who's seen a lot of Hitchcock, chances are their favorite and your favorite aren't the same. So by all means see it, and I really think there is a large group who will really love this movie, but for me...it is not.

RATING: 4/10 That's just about as high as I could go, and even that may be a tad generous, as this was certainly the worst of the Hitchcock movies from the book, so far. Next up is "Rope".

MOVIES WATCHED: 160
MOVIES LEFT TO WATCH: 841

October 11, 2010 3:26am

175. Spellbound (1945)

Running Time: 111 minutes
Directed By: Alfred Hitchcock
Written By: Angus MacPhail, Ben Hecht
Main Cast: Ingrid Bergman, Gregory Peck, Michael Chekhov, Leo G. Carroll, John Emery

HITCHCOCKTOBER FEST!: PART II

Just as a side note, I'll quickly mentioned that after writing my "Shadow of a Doubt" review I immediately bolted over to Amazon and ordered the DVD. Yeah, it's that good! This movie in the other hand is not that good, as we go from fantastic Hitchcock film to barely mediocre Hitchcock film.

"Spellbound" takes place at a mental hospital in Vermont, Green Manors, headed up by Dr. Murchison (Carroll). With Murchison's senility in question, he is being replaced by Dr. Edwards, whom, upon the films opening, is set to arrive. Dr. Peterson (Bergman) is the only female psychotherapist on the staff and out central character. Soon after Dr. Edwards arrives, the staff and more specifically Peterson notices that he's not acting altogether there. He freaks out when Peterson draws fork lines on a table cloth and winces and shouts at the sight of Peterson's white robe. Eventually it is uncovered that Edwards is not who he says he is and that the real Dr. Edwards is presumed dead. The impostor Edwards can't seem to remember anything about his own identity except that his initials are "J.B." and that he thinks he may have traveled to Rome with the real Dr. Edwards. Prior to this revelation Peterson and "Edwards" a.k.a. J.B. (Peck) fall in love and Peterson is determined to help him remember his past and get over his obvious guilt complexes. If she fails, then he could very well be committed where he would undergo shock therapy and thus never be the same.

I had to stop about an hour into the film when my wife called me to dinner (I watched the movie last night but didn't get to the review till today) and I can definitely say that if you can stick it out through the first half of this film then there is a minor payoff in the end. The first half drags like a canine with a brick tied to it's tail and there is so much psychology talk: guilt complex this and guilt complex that and I totally knew what it was the first time they explained it, but they keep throwing the term out there, as if the actors had just learned what the term meant and wanted to flaunt it. Also during the first hour almost nothing happens. "Dr. Edwards" arrives at Green Manors, there's some chit chat between the current staff of Green Manors and we see also in the first hour that "Dr. Edwards probably isn't who he says he is or is probably sick himself, due to the fact that he freaks out over the color white. That's it. One hour and that's all we really are treated to. I really think there was also a serious case of miscasting going on here, as I'm all for a Gregory Peck movie, but he just didn't seem to fit in here. I find Gregory Peck to be a good, reasonable, sane character...a voice of reason kind of guy, not someone who is apparently insane. And while I've never seen an Ingrid Bergman movie before, she seemed like she really had some acting chops, but it felt as if she was being held back here and that this script was a bit below her standards.

SPOILER ALERT!

The second half definitely picks up, but not quite enough to turn this into anything worthwhile. There's a pretty cool dream sequence, which comes about after they hypnotize J.B. There's also some pretty clever little camera tricks, such as Gregory Peck's view from outside the bottom of a glass of milk. We also start to get some questions answered in the second half and in fact, that turns into a bit of a problem, as the ending seems rushed, with such a slow start and such a fast finish. The film would've been well served to have had a little more pacing and the action and advancement of the plot could've been spread out a little better. Anyway, I was talking about the second half...so yeah, we get some questions answered and Peterson and J.B. end up at her old colleague, Dr. Brulov's home, played brilliantly by Michael Chekhov, someone who dodged the miscasting bullet and nailed his part.

I think I've pretty much said all that needs to be said. There were some hot moments in the film, but also quite a few dry ones and in the end it turns out to be a disappointment for this Hitchcock fan.

RATING: 4.5/10 I was gonna' go for a '5' but even the interesting second half couldn't get it to the average marker. Next up is "Notorious".

MOVIES WATCHED: 158
MOVIES LEFT TO WATCH: 843

October 7, 2010 1:51pm

164. Shadow of a Doubt (1943)

Running Time: 108 minutes
Directed By: Alfred Hitchcock
Written By: Gordon McDonell, Thornton Wilder
Main Cast: Teresa Wright, Joseph Cotten, Henry Travers, Patricia Collinge, Hume Cronyn

HITCHCOCKTOBER FEST!: PART I

Hitchcock month gets underway with chronologically the first Hitchcock movie in the book that I have yet to watch. I had never really heard much about "Shadow of a Doubt", probably because it's often overshadowed by other Hitchcock masterpieces like "Psycho", "Rear Window" and "Vertigo". However, after watching it, you're forced to scratch your head a little bit and wonder why this one isn't more famous, as it is an absolutely brilliant film, filled with Hitchcock nuance.

The movie stars Joesph Cotten (of "Citizen Kane" fame) as Uncle Charles, a man who seems to be running from something, a clue we're given when he spots two men outside of his apartment window and gets freaked out. In trying to elude his past, he decides to visit his sister in Santa Rosa, where he'll also get a chance to visit his nieces and nephews, the eldest of which is named for him, Charlotte "Charlie" Newton (Wright). The visit gets off to a swell start and is just what the doctor ordered for the hum drum family in need of a pick me up from there seemingly routine suburban life. Charlie is entranced by her uncle and completely fascinated by every facet of his life, but soon notices that he doesn't seem to be acting right. When two "reporters" show up at the house wanting to do an interview on a typical suburban family, Charles freaks out and wants no part of it. Later, the "reporters" turn out to be detectives, tracking down the "Merry Widow Murderer" and Uncle Charles is one of the prime suspects.

There's no question about it: I loved this movie! This is one of those movies that when you finally see it, after years of being interested in film, you almost want to kick yourself for having not seen it sooner. Everything and I do mean everything worked in this movie. Hitchcock, of course shows up with his game face on and turns out a piece of suspense that will have your fingernails sweating. Where do I begin...

First of all, I'll have to make a note of Joesph Cotten, because after only having seen two of his films, he's quickly becoming a favorite. He's an actor that seems to have the quality to draw you into any film he stars in, as he just gives off the aura of a great actor, which he is. Teresa Wright was good too and in fact the entire cast did just what their role intended and played their role perfectly. Not only did every actor fit in, but every scene was great too and I can't think of one scene that could've been removed as they all seemed to be intricately placed and necessary to the development of the plot.

POSSIBLE SPOILER ALERT!

Uncle Charles was such a likable character, that I couldn't help but find myself rooting for him. I think Hitchcock knew that Cotten was turning Uncle Charles into a guy you couldn't help but side with and there is a distinct point in the film, where you stop siding with Uncle Charles and start siding with his niece Charlie. I loved the good vs. evil characteristics that those two characters took on and loved the scene where they're facing each other on the porch, with Charlie standing under a porch light and Charles standing across from her in the dark...the ultimate light vs. darkness, good vs. evil sight. One other thing that I loved about this film, is the fact that it had dozens of possibilities in what direction it could've gone, plot-wise. Hitchcock took the time to lay in so many intricate little pieces, but in some cases didn't refer back to them, and they were seemingly there just to throw you off course and have your mind racing when the climax kicked in. For example, about halfway through the film, when Charles goes to the bank to deposit some cash, his meeting is interrupted by the bank manager's wife and her friend, who happens to be a widow. When we later find out the Charles is the Merry Widow Murderer, we are forced to think back to the widow he met. Would he go after her? Would Charlie catch him in the act of murder? But instead, we don't revisit that particular widow and thus she was apparently a device to keep our minds working and keep us guessing. There could've been dozens of outcomes for this movie, but ultimately I was pleased with the end result.

RATING: 10/10 Hitchcocktober Fest! gets off to a roaring start. Cannot wait to revisit this movie someday and let Joseph Cotten creep me out again! Next up is "Spellbound".

MOVIES WATCHED: 157
MOVIES LEFT TO WATCH: 844

October 6, 2010 2:29pm

133. REBECCA (1940)

Running Time: 130 minutes
Directed By: Alfred Hitchcock
Written By: Philip MacDonald, from novel by Daphne Du Maurier
Main Cast: Laurence Olivier, Joan Fontaine, Judith Anderson, George Sanders

"LAST NIGHT I DREAMT I WENT TO MANDERLEY AGAIN"

With a grand total of eighteen movies in the "1001" book, Hitchcock chimes in with his fourth, with his adaptation of the Daphne Du Maurier novel, "Rebecca" and also his first American film. Rebecca was also the always lauded director's first and only movie to win the Best Picture Oscar at the Academy Awards. While it's certainly not my favorite Hitchcock flick, it's certainly a good one and one that really keeps you entertained right up to the end.

The beautiful Joan Fontaine plays a young woman (who is never named) who meets a wealthy, sophisticated man, Maxim de Winter, while vacationing with her employer in Monte Carlo. Through the weeks that they're in Monte Carlo, they meet up everyday, as the young woman tells her employer day after day that she's going out for a tennis lesson, only to go and continuously meet Mr. de Winter. It is quickly revealed that Mr. de Winter has recently lost his wife, Mrs. Rebecca de Winter, and the loss is painted thick on the face of Mr. de Winter, as it is obviously still something he thinks about often. It seems, however, that the young girl is keeping his mind off of his recent loss and when the young girl's employer decides to head to New York, Mr. de Winter makes a quick and hasty proposal to the young girl and asks for her hand in marriage. The young girl accepts and soon becomes the second Mrs. de Winter.

It isn't long before Maxim takes the young girl back to Manderley, his estate in England (think Tara in Gone with the Wind) and the young girl is quickly encapsulated by the grandeur of the estate, and all of the maids, servants and amenities that come along with it. The young girl, as shy as she is, seems to get along with everyone, that is, except for the head housekeeper, Mrs. Danvers. It seems as though Mrs. Danvers was quite close with the late Mrs. de Winter and resents the fact that Mr. de Winter got remarried. While he is often away on business, the current Mrs. de Winter must learn to fend for herself against Mrs. Danvers and adjust alone to all of her new surroundings at the giant, palatial palace. It all leads up to several twists that are thrown into the plot, as only Alfred Hitchcock can deliver them.

While I did mention at the beginning that this wasn't my favorite Hitchcock film, it is a really good one and one that had been in desperate need of a rewatch from me. I hadn't seen it in sometime and had actually totally forgotten about everything past the first ninety minutes, so the surprises were still left intact for me to experience again. The acting is spot on, as Olivier and Fontaine turn in absolutely top notch performances and even Judith Anderson turns in some great work as the seemingly psycho Mrs. Danvers. The sets and camerawork are also pretty flawless and as the book points out, the director does a good job of making a character out of Manderley itself. If I had any complaints, it would be that not a lot seems to take place in the first ninety or so minutes of the film. Mr. de Winter meets the young girl, they get married, and the girl is left to adjust to having her life completely turned upside down and deal with the crazy Mrs. Danvers to boot. Now that's not saying that the first ninety minutes is boring. The actors do a great job and turn in great performances and the story still manages to flow along quite nicely, despite the fact that there aren't constant things happening. All in all, Hitchcock does a fantastic job of injecting some thrills into a movie that would otherwise have none.

RATING: 7.5/10 I still have to go with "Blackmail" as my favorite of the four Hitchcock movies from the book so far, but Rebecca is a definite second.

NEXT UP: Fantasia...More Disney and thankfully I have an old videotape copy of this one, which is otherwise out of print.

June 25, 2010 12:04am