Change Your Image
preposterous
Reviews
Star Wars: Episode III - Revenge of the Sith (2005)
great
Given everything that had to go into this film: a confluence of music, effects, and acting, I have to tip my proverbial hat.
I grew up mesmerized by the 1977 Star Wars ("may the force be with you" was a cultural touchstone), and the Empire Strikes Back (1980) was a worthy successor. Return of the Jedi was a slip into insipid sentimentalism and puppetry, a case of style over substance.
When Lucas began this second trilogy of prequels, like many I could not sit through the first installment, and skipped the second. The word of mouth on this third was so good, I had to check it out and I'm glad I did.
There are enough images here, with a story rich enough to make me feel fully engaged. The horrific images of the burnt Anakin clawing from the flowing lava with a delighted Senator Palpatine nearby is worthy of Bela Lugosi and Boris Karloff.
The music goes a long way towards advancing the film. At times the effects seem little more than a blur, but they can also impress.
I strongly recommend this film for all movie goers, of all ages.
Kill Bill: Vol. 2 (2004)
9 out of 10
I wanted to give it a 10 of 10, but the truth is that it wasn't as sublime as, say, Hitchcock's Vertigo, so I couldn't do that. However, it was only when I saw Vol 2 that I realized the extent of Quentin's brilliance in composing these two back-to-back blockbusters. Considering the length of these films, esp when laid back-to-back, it is amazing to me the mastery Quentin has over his material that not a moment is wasted. Far from it, every moment is poignant with some kind of word, action, music, or other, and it all fits like a dovetail, like a man who knows what he's doing and is going about it with a sense of purpose. I've been a fan of all his films until now, from Reservoir Dogs to Pulp Fiction to Jackie Brown, and I can say that it was worth the wait.
As for the acting, as usual the casting is superb. Unlike the usual parade of stars, Quentin finds the people who've been out of the limelight for sometime, or were never quite in it, and somehow or other they are great actors and actresses in front of his cameras. This time, for me, it was David Carradine who was the surprise. And there were many other great performances throughout, but of course this is blondie's movie. I don't think there's a moment that goes by with her on the screen that I am not filled with lust and desire for her body and her soul.
This is an absolute masterpiece and my only question is: when's the next one Quentin?
Anatomy of a Murder (1959)
6 out of 10
I'm not crazy about this film. Despite the fact that it seems to get a good rating from everyone else, it doesn't work for me in a number of ways, numerous enough to begin counting.
1) The Jazz. It's noisy, brash, and unpleasant. Reminds me of Orson Welles' movie with Vivian Leigh, and I wasn't crazy about the sound in that one either. And speaking of the music, it's so obvious that Jimmy Stewart is miming at the piano. He isn't even trying. Music is just the beginning of misses for this movie tho.
2) It's never entirely clear what happened. I have to surmise that Lieutenant Manion struck his wife out of jealousy that she'd returned home having been with the bar owner and presumably Manion killed him as part of that same rage, but it's not clear to me that this is true. Therefore, it's not really clear to me what this movie is about. I prefer the ambiguity of the Big Sleep (which was already pretty ambiguous before a series of edits made it almost indiscernable). The diff is that in the Big Sleep, I felt like even if I didn't understand the exact turn of events, the characters were deeper and there was more to grab onto.
3) Parnell's character is pedantic and tiresome, and only grows more so by the end, with his oration about juries;
4) It's not clear to me how the prosecution failed to expose Manion's poor character to the jury. The prosecution barely asked him any questions save two. Manion should have been grilled. He should have been induced into a fit of anger, and the prosecution should have been able to clearly link it to his violent feelings for his wife. There relationship was a sham, and it's surprising to me that the prosecution couldn't reveal that.
5) I don't understand the pivotal scene where Mary Pilant admits finding white panties. Exactly what would torn panties be doing in the laundry? I can think of two reasons: 1) her father put them there
because he had done nothing wrong, or 2) someone else put them there as a frame. The prosecution did not pursue either idea carefully enough.
6) Jimmy Stewart had a whole fridge full of fish. Was his intention to throw a buffet, because fish only keeps 2-3 days in a fridge.
So these are just things off the top of my head, but there were more inconsistencies which bugged me. I'd say this film was not carefully planned. However, it does have Jimmy Stewart and George Scott in it. Murry Hamilton was also a strong point.
There are some things going for this film, but it's too hastily conceived to be one of my favorites. Still, I watch it from time to time.
The Elephant Man (1980)
9 out of 10
I wish I had as much time to comment on this movie as some of they put into this movie. I will try to make a sensible comment in a short space of time.
It's not my favorite film, there are some problems with it. I'm not sure of the life of John Merrick (sp?) other than what is related by this film, but I would imagine the film would have been more challenging (to us, the viewers) if the deformed man wasn't so sweet, contrite, and appreciative. Perhaps the meanness of his treatment should have been reflected in his behavior. This would have presented us with a more difficult dilemma, of having to penetrate not only the visual aura of this sick man, but also a barbed personality.
However, they took the easy way out of making John Merrick a wholly sympathetic character.
The film delivers something of the black and white industrial age austerity of David Lynch's preceding film Eraserhead (which is sadly becoming hard to find). I thought Eraserhead was a more tightly focused on advancing those kinds of atmospheres.
The acting in this film as one would expect, considering the quality of the actors involved, a stellar British cast. Just look at all the names. These are great actors and actresses.
This film could have been better, but measuring it against the other films I know (including most of the films in the IMDb top 250), this definitely deserves a place even higher than it's been rated. I would have liked more time spent on the John Merrick's personal character.
Saving Private Ryan (1998)
excellent war film with occasionally poor dialogue
In terms of verisimilitude to an actual battlefield, Saving Private Ryan is without a peer in the history of film. I go back to the 1910s, Birth of a Nation, which had some panoramic battle scenes, and to Platoon, which had some credible scenes, to Full Metal Jacket, Apocalypse Now (which is the closest challenger for realism), Black Hawk Down, The Big Parade (wonderfully realistic early silent film of WW One), and many others. None of those takes so much effort and genius in recreating a probable past, in terms of recreating the war torn battlefields/villages in the most minute detail. The first 20 minutes of this film are a landmark by which all other war films will eventually be measured.
Tom Hanks is the emotional anchor for this film, giving us a portrayal that is sensitive yet firm. He's not of the blood and guts John Wayne tradition. His character is a thoughtful man who finds himself in a position to, in his view, do some good in the world by managing this apocalypse on earth in such a way that it actually saves lives.
Spielberg's consistent attention to visual detail and style is what sets SPR apart. The images are grainy, and rely on blues, greens, grays, and browns, with scarcely any red or yellow. He creates battlefield scenery with precision, accuracy, and depth of field. Wonderful work.
Meanwhile, set against this, is a dialogue which can be passively entertaining at times. The urgent conversations in the battlefield are most effective. However, some of the more heavy conversations which take place during the lulls are so poorly thought out, I can scarcely believe any professional screenwriter could have been associated with them. This is a recurrent problem.
Finally, I guess it couldn't be avoided that a film like this would attempt to advance allied propaganda. Genreally, the film tries to stay away from that, and I give it credit, but at other times the propaganda asserts itself in a subtle way which detracts from the overall effect. Most Americans and Western Europeans are numb to this, but I notice it and it disappoints me, although I will reckon that this film does not lose itself in propaganda. It's just an overtone.
The Philadelphia Story (1940)
clever writing, well acted, slightly presumptuous
This play/movie is similar to others of the era (and operas as well) which operate as memorials for the fading aristocracy. The rich are portrayed as deserving and mentally fit - educated to handle so great a challenge, while the obsequious lower class is forced to view the gala from a newspaper cameraman's lens.
As such, the movie was a perfect vehicle for the actress what's-her-name, who has never struck me as attractive. Her drive is the most impressive thing about her, and the criticisms her character takes in the movie are well deserved and auto biographical. She is a stone princess.
The men, her suitors, numerous, are the lifeblood of the movie, and principally the delightful Jimmy Stewart. The lines are quick and well thought out, clever enough for a play like this, but never sublime.
With the tall, lean, handsome, well mannered men - particularly Stewart - and the exclusive air of Hepburn, I somehow felt like I was watching a Princeton school play. Cary Grant is a little too coy and self-created to have emerged from the upper classes. He's got a chip on his shoulder, as if he's afraid to show something in polite company.
Well, I give it an 8 because although it's a great show, I somehow felt the worse for wear having seen it.
Black Hawk Down (2001)
full length feature/commercial for armed services
Join the modern US army, which is engaged in killing natives everywhere. I'm waiting for the follow-up about the 'Gulf Wars'. A film like this celebrates every lost American life as if it was the greatest sacrifice after Christ, but takes no pains in bringing us the faces of many of the dark skinned people who are mowed down by machine guns. They are just animals, targets, and legitimate targets of course.
Hear the US soldiers bemoan fighting a war with one hand tied behind their backs. Why can't they just nuke the place?
All in all, this is a glitzy package of war production and war propaganda from the (i.e. with the support of) the US government. If you're pro-war on any pretext and like 'flying the flag', this one is for you.
From a dramatic standpoint, there really isn't meaningful drama, although one aborted rescue attempt is memorable. I must say though, the one photo which actually made the news footage back then said volumes more than this movie ever did.
Jaws (1975)
I guess I have to fall in line here and...
....give this movie praise, along with everyone else. In the beginning, it's a shallow, predictable, embarrassing 1970s 'horror/shock' flick.
By the time the longshoreman enters the picture, along with the bearded scientist, the movie takes on a whole new tenor. Now it's about something else, something eternal, and this is where the movie finds its light. This is why the movie is revered the way it is. There's something cosmic about that shark, the skipper, the scientist, and the policeman. These people love the shark (except for the cop), and they hate each other. They are jealous lovers of a shark, in a fatal embrace.
A good story for kids or adults, it transcends itself.
Sabotage (1936)
excellent Hitchcock
This early in Hitchcock's career, we can already see several of his trademarks in development. The element of time being painstakingly drawn out during a suspenseful scene. The cold removed portrayal of a character during an emotional revelation.
The emphasis on terrorism dusts this film off and makes it something suitable for modern viewing, as we begin to contemplate murder in our midsts again. Hitchcock has a habit of feeding into state propaganda, and in this case he exploits his audience's fears of a pernicious, evil adversary.
Another great scene is when Mr Verlock imagines London falling down, via a visual effect.
Being John Malkovich (1999)
uneven, but has bright spots
There are some good performances by John Cusack and Cameron Diaz. The heart of the matter for me though is the moment when John Malkovitch becomes John Malkovitch. It's one of the best comedic sequences in motion pictures.
I won't spoil it for you beyond that, but it's worth pointing out that John Malkovitch is a splendid actor who carries this movie on his back. He's only in it for about 1/3 of the time, but during that time I get a reminder of what a great talent really is, even if he is full of himself, with his periwinkle bathmat, LOL.
The director loses focus during an extended session where we see proof that the puppeteer has become John. There's an interview with Sean Penn which does nothing to advance the story.
The character Maxine is an intimidating and disheartening reminder of how beautiful single women can sometimes behave.
Schindler's List (1993)
worth seeing
This film gets sucked up as fuel for propaganda by those in the west who continue to nurture the Holocaust industry for all it's worth. This film stays true to the filmmaker's desires, which is to present a quasi-historical, quasi-fictional account of the German incarceration of Jewish prisoners in WWII.
The film does a good job of depicting the dehumanizing treatment and mental torture, as well as the robbery of prisoners' personal effects.
The acting is very good and the pace is lively. For a long film, it's easy to watch.
It's good that there are films like this, but it's a pity that Hollywood hasn't made a similar film about the Palestinians who are holed up in the refugee camps, with Israeli occupation tanks and such surrounding them. It would make an interesting epilogue. Perhaps one day.
Topaz (1969)
not bad, not essential
I've seen most of Hitchcock's films, most of them many times, and I've seen all his later films.
I like Topaz. It has its problems. First off, although it may seem unimportant to some, Hitchcock has long relied on Bernard Hermann for some great soundtracks. Not only was Bernard not contributing to this film, but the music is inappropriate, light hearted, and almost comedic. It helps to destroy whatever atmosphere has been built up.
(SPOILERS)
Although the most beautiful scene is the one where the woman is shot, there are plenty of Hitchcock moments in here. Perhaps the best scene takes place in a porcelin statuette shop. There are plenty of overloaded psychological images in here, such as women walking away with their backs turned, etc. The scene where the defectors are approaching the plane has some of that Hitchcock aura about it. If the soundtrack were more weighty, it might help complete the mood. For example, the wry thriller To Catch a Thief is helped along with an incredibly weighty soundtrack. If this scene had some of that music ... but I repeat myself.
As others have explained, the movie has four parts, one involving the defection, another involving some intrigue in NYC and Wash DC, a third part set in Cuba, and a fourth set in Paris.
The first part is a moderate success. This is familiar terrain for Hitchcock and he does not fail. The defection and delivery of the Russian agent and his family has all of the suspense and excitement one would expect of a moderately successful Hitchcock film.
The film begins to drag in the Washington DC and NYC segments. The casting of Vernon as the Cuban revolutionary is unsatisfactory. He doesn't project a Cuban persona. Hitchcock should have gone for the jugular, and cast a real hispanic person in this role and tried to deliver the aura. Instead, he used a white bread character, and it just doesn't come off, despite Vernon's excellent attempt. The black actor who photographs the documents - he does an excellent job and the film would have benefitted with more of him about. He manages to tread the line between ruthless/frightening and light-hearted/likable. I wouldn't know whether to trust him or to run from him.
Things get interesting again during the Cuban segment, but something always seems to drag them down. Maybe it's Vernon's character. There is clearly a play at the James Bond character taking shape here, with the other actor, except this is a slightly more complicated, and morally compromised character, which makes it more interesting.
The last segment of the film, in Paris, has the greatest potential to open up on a new work. I would have liked to have seen more about these characters. For once, we get some red-blooded characters, motivation, complication, emotion, desire, fear, intrigue, double-crossing, etc. This should have been the heart of the film: two men making a play for the same woman, where all three had fought together during the war, and now they play for opposite sides, with a love triangle thrown in. The French characters are good, believable, but this segment of the movie moves along and ends too quickly to ever amount to anything beyond a tease.
So, I like this film, but it's many grades below other Hitchcock films, no question. On the other hand, I think it's a little bit better than Torn Curtain. I shouldn't say that - Torn Curtain has some great scenes, probably better than Topaz, but I think Topaz had the makings for a better film - it's just not realized. They're very similar. Torn Curtain is more successful, but Topaz has a real plot, whereas Torn Curtain is pretty much a glorified chase scene.
The Trouble with Harry (1955)
black comedy
How to think of this film? Are you familiar with those short little adverts that Hitch did for his movies? They were pleasant little genial clips, with Hitch talking calmly about his next film, actually walking the viewer through the set (for Psycho) or discussing it abstractly in a cheerful way (for the Birds). At the end of the clip, it switches to an actual segment of dread which never fails to make my hair stand more on end. Even now, just thinking about it, I'm getting goose bumps.
That's what The Trouble with Harry (1955) is all about. It's designed to put you at ease with an uncomfortable subject.
Is there suspense? I'm not sure. Maybe the suspense is in getting two loving couples to meet and marry over such an occasion. Wondering exactly what is going to happen. It's clear they fall in love, but will they go to jail? Will they get narcoleptic? Just how sick and depraved can they get and still keep a straight face?
Must see this film? No. That's reserved for Psycho, Vertigo, North by Northwest. And Led Zeppelin IV. ha ha
Vertigo (1958)
one of the greatest works of art, alltime
There are many good films, and it may seem pretentious to think in terms of superlatives. There are many good paintings, good plays, good books, but then there are some that tower just so high that they dwarf everything around them and defy analysis of any kind, either technical or aesthetic.
I have just about every film which appears in the 'top 250' here at imdb, and Vertigo is my favorite, by a steep margin. It's sublime, it hits on so many cylinders. The color, the lighting, the symbolism, the drama, the personal dilemmas, the acting, the direction.
There are some moments in art that are so rare, that they cannot even be measured by media, let alone eras. In the genre of staged drama, 19th century and forward, I see maybe four titans: Wagner, Verdi, Puccini, and Hitchcock. I can't think of any other movie director who soars as high, and it's not just Hitchcock who soars high in this movie. It's also Bernard Hermann's music and Jimmy Stewart's acting. It's the people who shot the film. It's just a magical moment.
What makes it happen? Hitchcock, who is not only at the height of his powers, but is delving so deep into his subconscious that it defies analysis. He creates an image in a movie with the same frenzied detail that Scotty seeks as he re-creates Madelaine. The richness of Hitchcock's vision here is without rival in this history of film, as far as I am aware.
As for other great Hitchcock films, there are Rear Window, Notorious, North by Northwest, Shadow of a Doubt, Strangers on a Train, and one of my personal favorites, Psycho. But this one, Vertigo, this one goes all the way into Hitch's deepest thoughts. It may very well be the greatest artistic creation of the 20th century. It is certainly one of them.
Eyes Wide Shut (1999)
nice film
** possible spoilers **
Part of my attraction to this film is admittedly Nicole Kidman's beauty, Tom Cruise's performance. Kubrick is visually stunning, as always.
What is this film about? It's a film noir, in vivid color rather than black n white. It's a film about sexual intoxication, and about fidelity. Through all of Tom's escapades and Nicole's dreams, their two characters remain faithful.
This film is a document of a real life marriage, between Nicole and Tom, and their breakup was probably mirrored well by this plot, the only difference being that the characters have a daughter whereas Nicole and Tom did not have any children. I wonder whether their divorce was already in the cards prior to shooting this film, or whether perhaps this film served as something of a catalyst.
At the film's conclusion, Nicole's character tells Tom's that she cannot guarantee endless fidelity, but that they should have sex and play it day-by-day. In other words, the only resolution is that the two characters finally have sex. Neither of the characters had sex with anyone through the duration of a film which is saturated with sexual fantasy and orgies.
This film is about how marital relationships and sexual relationships interact. The film also documents the effects of economic/class standing and its effect on sexual expectation. And it's a very colorful moving picture.
La maman et la putain (1973)
good
** possible spoilers **
I like this film and have no problem staying awake for it. It reminds me of me at 20, except this is even better. Like Veronica says, two chicks at one time. It brings out the horniness in me, the casual conversation, these two real life chicks, rather than hookers, teasing us every step of the way. I get into the conversations too. Even if they are utterly b.s. at times, so what? Every chick, just about, that I've ever talked to and is high on herself is usually full of the same unreasoned rambling gratuitous self-centered b.s. philosophy. It's just a bunch of nonsense, and about as sensible as that other b.s. philosophy chicks are often into: astrological charts. The only deal with this movie is the guy is almost as feminine as the women, he's into the same b.s. and moodiness. The brunette chick is actually the most masculine person there.
I think it's kind of funny that the brunette chick gets so obviously turned on by Veronica. She'd love to pull the little blonde away from Alexander, but Veronica plays her all the way. She's brilliant. She gets the brunette thinking there's something up between them, and then she steals the boy-child/man, which is only appropriate since they appear to be from the same age group. The brunette knows she's been had by the end, when she's dropping her face into the palms of her hands while Marlene Deitrich sings in the background that, paraphrasing, there are a million couples in Paris tonight, but I only have this refrain.
But do they get married in the end, Alex and Veronica? Mmmm? I can only imagine a super-tumultuous relationship ending in a pre-marriage breakup. They are too selfish to be anything to each other than stepping stones.
I like the film though. It kept me entertained, it's got a nice look, and it's sexy.
Family Plot (1976)
Good stuff
This is somewhere in between a 70s Sitcom and Psycho, but a lot closer to a 70s sitcom. Most of the actors seem like sitcom or soap opera stores, but Duvane in particular plays his role exquisitely, I often rewind my vcr to re-watch him in one scene or another. This is a good film. Together with Frenzy, it demonstrates to me that Hitch was finally managing to come up with films for a new generation, having finally shed the 1950s elegance which followed him into such misplaced 1960s disasters as Marnie. He was ready for more, but unfortunately Hitch couldn't hold out. This was his last film. Appropriately, Hitch references older films throughout, as a memoir.
The Conversation (1974)
Interesting Downer
* warning: although I don't go through the plot, I do refer to it.
Yes, this film is an interesting downer. I can watch it a few times in succession, and feel no better about myself or anything else as a result. It draws attention to the emptiness in my life, such as mundane conferences, playing instruments alone in an apartment, and paranoia.
I have some random thoughts which occurred to me while watching this three times in the last two days.
First if all, it's interesting to hear Coppola's sounds. Besides the interesting sounds associated with the tape, the horrific sounds which occur at the time of the 'murder', banging on the piano with those odd synthesized horn sounds, are clearly tied to the sounds he used on Apocalypse Now.
As for the piano soundtrack, it reminds me directly of the piano soundtrack in Bullitt. Basically, it sounds like the same exact chord progressions and melancholy tempo. In many respects, this film can be seen as a more introspective, less sexy version of Bullitt, both investigators getting personally caught up and estranged in their research, in San Francisco.
The more times I've seen this, the more I see that ambiguities are a part of the picture. I can't resolve certain crucial issues. Here are some examples:
1. In order for that blonde chick to run off with his tapes, one must assume that his recently defected good buddy, and the guy he defected to, and possibly his other buddy as well, are in on the scheme and have collaborated with his client's assistant, which is, frankly, far-fetched to me.
2. Hackman is upset when the landlord used a key to gain entrance to his apartment and leave a bottle of wine behind the door and a birthday card, since the landlord should not have had a key nor knowledge of his birthday. There's an absurdity to this though. After all, Gene doesn't have one key, but a whole slew of keys and an alarm system blocking his door. For anyone to have penetrated that, I would imagine Gene should have been not just suspicious, but certain that someone has been invading his area, and, knowing Gene's character, he should have begun an immediate inspection of the premises for theft or tampering.
3. If the assistant indeed procured the tapes from Hackman using the blonde as a thief, and if the assistant was a conspirator against the corporate directory, then why would the assistant play the tapes for the director? Maybe that wasn't the real director? Maybe the whole event was imagined in Gene's mind?
4. The tip-offs for me that Gene is hallucinating revolve around his images of the murder scene. It's as if he reconstructs scenes from his imagination. When he's listening to the conversation in the adjoining hotel room, it's the couple talking, there's no hint of the director in the events leading up to the murder. He imagines a bloody murder scene, but he never saw one. He imagines blood bubbling up from the toilet, but clearly that never happened.
In short, it would appear that Hackman's character is crazy and that this film is shot through his eyes. All this talk about how good Hackman is and how professional (his character is). Well, is it so? He gets completely caught up in the emotions of his work, misunderstands everything, and can't even figure out that the bug might be in his saxophone.
Other notes:
I think I remember seeing a version of this film where he has a big safe in his apartment, and he puts the money in there. I don't see that safe this time, in this version of the movie I'm watching. Maybe that was another film?
Lastly, this film is a real downer. At moments it's terrifying, but more often it is just alienating. This character is similar to Hackman's portrayal in the French Connection as well, a detective who bumbles his way through a case and doesn't figure it out. Both films end in the same way: Hackman alone with himself, tracking his villain in vain.
Frenzy (1972)
I feel strongly about this one.
Check it out. This is Hitchcock at his best. In returning to London, he adopts the smaller-scale vision of his British era films, without the bombast. I like his Hollywood stuff too, but this film reprises an excellent tradition.
And it's beautifully shot. The scene of the rape is exquisite. Hitch settles lovingly on her limbs, like a dying swan, as she meets her end. The killer is deliciously played, and the inspector's wife's cuisine is the send up which completes this films variety of delights. In the center is our hero, who does a fine job. Great film!
Torn Curtain (1966)
better than its rated
I like this better than other people do. There are two disasterous moments. First, when Julie freezes in front of the classroom. Second, when they meet that middle aged woman after the bus trip, and all the momentum drifts away.
But the high points? Many. The farmhouse scene and the great characters in that encounter. The scene at the blackboard with the professor. The bus trip. And lastly the ballet. This film delivers some quality Hitch moments, well worth seeing, but it's not one of his grade A classics.
Marnie (1964)
I gave it a '4'
I'm a Hitichcock fan; he's my favorite director. I like his films, his middle ones, his mature masters and even some of the last ones. Speaking of the final ones following Marnie, I find things to like in Family Plot and Torn Curtain, and I think Frenzy is him at his near best.
Marnie however has not one single scene in it that works for me, this despite the relatively good acting of the main participants. The camera shots hardly measure up to Alfred Hitchcock's standards, and some of them are actually embarrassing. There's no mood that evokes a great Hitchcock moment.
Possibilities abound. This was one of the bigger disappointments because all the pieces were in place, including another Bernard Hermann soundtrack, but curiously even that fails to take me into its clutches, it hardly even reaches out.
The ham-fisted psychobabble which inhabited the outer fringes of some of his earlier movies surfaces here as a great whale. There's nothing holding it back. The movie ends leaving me with the sensation that nothing really happened, at least to me on a personal level. I feel like I've wasted two hours.
Torn Curtain at least had some precious moments where Hitchcock's power of observation draws us in. Frenzy is deeper still, with observation, humour, camera shots, etc. But this one is a failure for me, a nearly complete failure held together only by the vague similarity to earlier films, in the hopes that it would somehow live up to them.
Psycho (1960)
Hitch's best
With so many great films, how can we pick Hitch's best? For me, this is it. The Victorian house, the b&w, all of Hitch's convoluted personality conflicts and dualities all rolled into his most direct masterpiece, plus Bernard Hermann, so good for so long, has never been as effective as he was here. Many other good films to be sure, such as Vertigo, N/NW, Strangers on a Train, Rear Window, Shadow of a Doubt, The Man Who Knew Too Much (34), 39 Steps, Frenzy, but this one has the most impact for me. Vertigo is a close second, very close.
North by Northwest (1959)
blueprint for the 007 series
This is the first and the best of the cold war spy thrillers, with a possible exception for Smiley's People. But this one is perfect. There isn't a wasted scene, and the momentum keeps going. There's a lot of interesting dualities and psychological substance to ponder, and it's plenty thrilling besides. Oddly, the romance appears a little cold to me. 2 planes, 2 trains, 1 elevator, 2 automobiles, this one takes Hitch's older b&w Saboteur and raises it to a whole new level. Saboteur is pretty good too though, and viewers who like this should check that out.
Notorious (1946)
This is one of Hitch's absolute best.
I don't think of this as b&w as much as silver. It's gorgeous, this film, the two leading ladies are exquisite and suitably rarified and aristocratic, and beautiful, as they tug-of-war over Claude's soul. This film can be seen as the precursor to Psycho, but with a rare elegance, beautifully done. Cary's stiffness hadn't begun to mellow at this point in his career, and I find him the weakest point in the cast, but not one without its merits. If Cary's blood would just melt to room temperature, this might be considered Hitch's best. There are so many memorable images and faces.
Foreign Correspondent (1940)
The windmill scene is a classic
Mr Fischer's performance is the heart of this gem. Actually the chum is well played too, by the guy who showed up in Rebecca as well.
But the enduring image from this one is the windmills. Hitch knows how to create moments of suspense better than anyone in film, ever. He knows how to take an event commonplace or unusual, and put us on the edge of our seats. In this case, the suspense occurs in the windmill, as we are mezmorized by the gears spinning sinisterly and the spies milling about. Back then in a nationalist era, spies had a darker connotation than now, imo. There is something horrifying about spies in those early Hitch films.