The Film Vituperatem

MOTHER OF GOD! IT'S ALIVE!!!!

2007-01-30T20:11:00.000-05:00

So all you bloggers with links to me, please do me a favour and update them ... you can even find banners on the 'Links Page' if you like... you might even find yourselves there too.

TerrorStorm: A History of Government-Sponsored Terrorism (2006)

2007-01-27T09:21:00.000-05:00

Oh my God! They're targeting the Turnpike on I-35! MOTHER OF GOD, THAT'S RIGHT NEXT TO EMPORIA, KANSAS!!!!

Genre: Documentary

Starring: Alex Jones

Directed By: Alex Jones

Overview: A historical introduction into government-sponsored terrorism through false flag operations invites us to consider the unthinkable: 9/11 was masterminded by its own government.

Acting: The way this narrator/director speaks is one third 'unfunny, immaturely sarcastic, anger-management-needing bitter humour', one third 'assumption of the audience's utter moronic stupidity', and one third 'crazy ranting conspiracist madman'. I don't like this guy. He often alienates those he interviews by belittling them, he not only narrates the 4th amendment while we see the words onscreen, but then he repeats them with his point bold and highlighted in red, while reading them slowly and loudly like you would to a 'special child'. Besides that, everything he says makes me doubt the facts he's spouting. Nothing I like better than watching a documentary and taking notes just to see if they're lying to me.
Rating: 4

Cinematography: The advent of ease-of-use technology combined with the growing amount of online animation archives has finally culminated into one man being able to make a movie with one finger. Say what you will about how great technology is, when you can whip up two hours of footage from free stuff online, it doesn't make it glitzy, it makes it gaudily distracting, almost like the visual will make up for the rest of the crap. I hate movies shot like music videos. Just because you say the word 'medicine', it doesn't give you free reign to have pictures of bacteria flying all over the screen. God, talk about A.D.D. editing.
Rating: 4

Script: "I agree that we should give up liberty for freedom." - Fruit market clerk at Tube Station after London 07.07.05 bombing.

What more poignant a quote could there be to clearly illustrate the problem? Shocking. The best thing said in this whole film. Of course Alex Jones goes and uses that clip three times, then has a discussion with people about how liberty and freedom are the same thing, then talk about how people aren't 'getting it'. Alex, if you're trying to convince your audience, play the soft sell, they already have your video in their DVD player. That's more than half the battle, stop yelling already. Constant references (and I mean at least eight) to Orwell's 1984 doesn't make you a prophet, it makes you annoying, and comparing George Bush to Hitler is a child's gambit. Try not sounding like such an infantile lunatic. Silence speaks volumes... so shut up.
Rating: 3

Plot: The theory is chilling. Period. If it's true, I'm shocked. The problem is that it's so unbelievably delivered that one is made to doubt not only the big conspiracy from the very beginning, but all the factual lead-in about false flag operations and government moles and whatnot. What I find most interesting about the theory that 'not only did we know about the 9/11 attacks but American Black Ops actually planned it' is that I've heard the scientific arguments before, I've read about thermite put into the concrete pillars, none of this is new to me. What Alex Jones brings to the table is mad-dog ranting serving only to dissuade me from listening. Oh and repetition is the worse time-filler, short is good. An hour and fifty minutes, not so much.
Rating: 4

Mood: What a big effin' joke. Could you be more opinionated, please? When I watch documentaries I like to at least pretend there's another side to the argument. When I first heard Alex Jones in A Waking Life, he was a boisterous, blustering, complacency-hating left-winger who had a nice little speech, and it was inspiring. Here he dominates over the whole production... Hell, he even insinuated himself in every category of my review! Son of a douche! Not the kind of film that drew me in. In fact I kept turning it off when I'd had enough of his gravelly, yelling-too-much voice...

Rating: 4

Hey, wait a minute! Does that mean that Bush is being like HITLER? OH MY GOD! OH MY GOD IT'S ALL SO CLEAR NOW! I hadn't thought of it until their black and white pictures were NEXT TO ONE ANOTHER!

Overall Rating: 38% (TV Snow Shows More Truth)

Aftertaste: Well if anyone knows how to do a better at making someone look like a whacked-out lunatic than a hoarse fat dude with a bullhorn, let me know, because I'm sure the CIA is taking notes. They must love what this guy's doing for National Security.

Recently I decided that some films are not worthy of review. Instead I'd save an hour or two and let the memory be lost to the ages. The only reason I finished watching this is because I promised I'd watch it, and the only reason you're reading about it is because a friend wanted to read my review of it.

Hope you liked it buddy!

Family Plot (1976)

2007-01-26T15:40:00.000-05:00

Hitchcock! Hitchcock! Hitchcock!

I think Duncanson would agree, this is not the best example of 'artistic and dynamic marquis'

Genre: Comedy Thriller

Starring: Karen Black (Five Easy Pieces; House of 1000 Corpses) Bruce Dern (Monster; The Great Gastby)

Directed By: Alfred Hitchcock (Rear Window; Strangers On A Train)

Overview: When a fake of a psychic advisor is offered a reward to hunt down a long-lost heir, her investigation leads her to unearthing some interesting skeletons in the closet.

Acting: Individually, Karen Black, Bruce Dern, Barbara Harris (Freaky Friday), and William Devane (Marathon Man) are accomplished enough actors, so what's wrong with this picture? I could only say that Hitchcock himself is to blame for... not 'poor performances', but for uninspired characterization that made this more of a 'people working on a movie set', instead of the immersive storytelling this was meant to be. Ouch...
Rating: 6

Cinematography: I've grown to love Hitchcock is my own way. Really, I have. I don't mean to leave off his career on a sour note, but by the same right, how can a man who's directed such haunting scenes in the past make another film rife with danger, yet not make those several moments chilling? Am I right in remembering that he was ill at this time? What could have been a terrifying nosedive down a mountain was turned into a comic-strip account of rubbery cartoons bumbling down the road. All that was missing were bleeping and boinging sound effects. Why Hitch? And why not make all the other potentially terrifying scenes funny too, at least to keep it consistent? Professionally shot yes, but was Hitch in a hurry?
Rating: 6

Script: I am a fan of Quentin Tarantino, writer of films in which swear words are meat and potatoes. That having been said, I found it so strange and unusual that Alfred Hitchcock would allow any expletives in his films. Maybe it's a sign of the times. Call me old fashioned but I don't think swearing in Hitchcock, makes for good Hitchcock. Blah, this movie just smells like an old boat. Even the potentially most interesting moments, those 'psychic chanellings', were there to explain plot rather than being an exercise in unique flourish.
Rating: 7

Plot: Family Plot, as in areas reserved for familial graves, and also as in 'machinations of related people', how witty. If the story was half as witty as that title, this movie would have been twice as good. This predictable film not only doesn't leave any questions unanswered, but they're so nicely bundled in a package with each answer sporting a nice little bow. To think that the Master Of Suspense had any part in this story completely lacking emotion and truth makes me wonder how much he sold out for his shiny new contract. It's like he sat there and corrected little things along the way, knowing the film was a lost cause. Must be nice having such a professional technician on a set.
Rating: 5

Mood: It's good to know that Alfred Hitchcock has not forgotten his roots. By that I mean when something is coined as being 'Comedy', Hitchcock does as he did so many years ago with such films as Champagne and Rich And Strange, namely throwing in one passably quirky scene, and maybe two laughs, and slapping 'Comedy' on the Marquis. It's good to know how this felt like those old stinkers from way back, when he had no creative control. This is so without the Hitchcock feel, that I felt gypped.
Rating: 5

Ugh, rather than inspiring comedy, this still just makes me mourn the last work of a great director.

Overall Rating: 58% (Poorly Laid Out)

Aftertaste: No, I didn't find it that bad, and maybe I'm grading too hard because it's Hitchcock, but much as it was with Jamaica Inn, I found that this movie didn't look like it was directed by anyone with a vision, anyone special, or anyone who cared about leaving a deep mark.

If it's one thing I've learned about Hitchcock, it's that his best movies have his signature on them. Family Plot is just a film with is name signed at the bottom.

As for final thought about my study of Hitchcock, the biggest thing I've learned from his career overall, it's that you have a limited amount of time to make a limited amount of film. Choose wisely, leave a mark that defines you. Make something that people will call yours rather than being 'master of none'... er, even if he was the Master Of Suspense...

The Independent Filmmakers Co-operative of Ottawa Winter Gala 2007 Announcement

2007-01-25T20:51:00.000-05:00

The Independent Filmmakers Co-operative of Ottawa is gearing up for it's annual Winter Gala Screening at the National Archives (395 Wellington Street @ Bay) on Saturday, February 10th, 2007. This year's films promise to melt away any winter blues. If you’re interested in innovative, entertaining films and want to support local Ottawa filmmakers, then you’ll need to attend this screening of 14 new shorts:

Ryan Handoyo – 1506.2201.Riverside
Pascal Aka – Weed Commercial
Paul Gordon - The E. I. Life
Christopher Redmond - Written in Stone
Daniel Cardinal - THEY COME AT NIGHT
Deny Trudel - Skins & Rubbers
Pixie Cram - Pepere’s Chairs
Bridget Farr – All I Ever
Ben Hoskyn - Sun Pushing Shadows
Jean-Claude Batista - The Competitive Edge
Deniz Berkin - The Closed Door
Joey Abboud - The End
Paul Crivellari - No. 81
Petr Maur - Oh My

This year's films are edgier than ever. Come see for yourselves! Mix 'n' Mingle with the filmmakers at our after-mixer at the Bay Street Bistro (160 Bay Street) just steps away from the National Archives. Tickets are $12. Tickets can be purchased in advance at IFCO’s office (Ste.140 – 2 Daly Avenue), or the Arts Court front desk (2 Daly Avenue). You can also purchase tickets at the door.
ShowTime is 7:00pm.

It (1927)

2007-01-25T10:12:00.000-05:00

It's all very innocent really. They were spinning on a big disk and they both just got off.

Genre: Silent Romantic Comedy

Starring: Clara Bow (Wings), Antonio Moreno (Creature from the Black Lagoon)

Directed By: Clarence G. Badger

Overview: When the new department store owner finds himself smitten by a sales girl, he find that she's got 'IT', that quality that makes men bend over backwards and submit to her will. Love is never as easy as that...

Acting: So it's been a while since I've watched a silent film, given the Hitch-fest and all the television I've been watching, and I feared that I had 'moved on' so to speak, thinking that I might wish for the colour and the sound that I have again grown to expect in my film experiences. As I watched It, I realize why I've seen so many silent films, even though they may not be in the Great and Magnificent 1001 Movies You Must See Before You Die. When they're this well-acted, they tell the whole story, subtext and all, with vivid clarity. Now I know why of all nicknames Clara Bow was called 'The It Girl'. Wow. What awe-inspiring performances by everyone.
Rating: 10

Cinematography: 1927 was a time of pretty intensely realistic filmmaking, which basically means that sets were often on location, like out at sea on a yacht with a ukulele, or at the fair on rides, or in the department store overloaded with customers and props. This isn't high-art or a visual spectacle or anything but the quality of the visuals can compete even today, intertitles, flapper hats and all.

Rating: 8

Script: "So you're one of those Minute Men - The minute you know a girl you think you can kiss her!"

What is the worst part of a Romantic Comedy? Some would say its predictability. Others, like myself, would say 'the route that its predictability takes'. When one commits to writing a Romantic Comedy, they commit themselves to 'The Formula'. What they shouldn't commit themselves to is creating drama from improbable situations that could be resolved simply through explanation. To write a story full of plot holes for the simple sake of making the end more climactic is a sin, and for as much as It is the predictable Romantic Comedy it claims to be, anyone would do well to learn the lesson of scriptwriting the 'misunderstanding as plot device' from this piece. Aside from that, there's even real humour, and not the corny Harold Lloyd stuff of puns and similes, I mean genuine timeless laugh-out-loud moments.
Rating: 8

Plot: The twist, the thing I found strange and unusual about this film isn't in the plot, it's in the feminism. Given the day and age, Clara Bow was probably one of the least reserved individuals in film, and that quality made her quite popular indeed, not to mention the stunning smile that could light up a whole room, not in a graceful way, more like a dizzying, disco-ball party kind of way. Her energy combined with the heavy focus on her perspective of 'The Chase' makes this an interesting film historically and culturally, besides being plain old fun.
Rating: 8

Mood: The wonder that comes from being immersed into a day and age so apart from your own and understanding its cultural issues, stigmas and nuances so perfectly can either be attributed to the genius of my intellect and adaptability to foreign concepts, or, more probably, the creators' ability to tell a tale with such vivid attention to detail with a story so timeless that its viewers universally understand its unfolding. Too bad the skill was used for just a Rom-Com.
Rating: 8

Hello, Clara Bow...

Overall Rating: 84% (She's Got 'IT')

Aftertaste: The greatest risk (besides traumatization) with watching anything is that it will bore you and be a waste of time. When you compound that with a silent film of an era you've never known, along with the quality of some film prints, you're really risking things by watching silent cinema. Agreed, it's a tough call. Perhaps this isn't the best example of storytelling, given the confines of the Genre, but it's really great for understanding the socio-cultural dynamic, if I would hazard a guess at how it was back then.

Cujo (1983) * Favorite Review *

2007-01-25T09:15:00.001-05:00

Eeek! Obects in mirror and all that! How Chilling!

Genre: Horror Thriller

Starring: Dee Wallace-Stone (The Howling; E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial); Danny Pintauro ("Who's the Boss?")

Directed By: Lewis Teague (The Jewel of the Nile; Navy Seals)

Overview: Dogs die when locked in hot cars. Cujo, Stephen King's rabid St-Bernard, is getting even on all those dog owners with some poetic vengeance.

Acting: Whether they have starred for years in "Who's The Boss?", or if they're merely a talentless tertiary character that casting chose because he was their best friend's actor-hopeful cousin, the victim of rabies, if left untreated will develop encephalitis, which is a lovely little condition that causes brain damage when the brain swells inside the skull and eventually kills the victim, even if they're super-well trained dogs.
Rating: 6

Cinematography: Those infected with rabies start developping symptoms between two and eight weeks. Sometimes they'll see a scene with the world artistically spinning or sights mimicking Hitchcock's down-low or high up camera angles, but usually they'll just see the world as most people do, with the occasional vicious attacks, leaving their victims bloody dead, or bloody afraid, though always professional, if a little dated.
Rating: 7

Script: The victim of a rabies infection will tend to say things like "Ow, my brain's leaking out of my ears," or "did you see that huge monster bite the hell out of me? I bet I've got rabies", you know pretty inventive stuff. Stories like 'I'm having an affair' and 'you have to go out of town to deal with a PR fiasco' aren't really good things to talk about when a dog is trying to eat your face.
Rating: 6

Plot: Rabies treatment in humans no longer involves painful injections into the abdominal wall, though a victim will indeed receive immunoglobin and a vaccine, on the first day, and another vaccine on the 3rd, 7th, 14th, and 28th day after that first shot. Some people might think that long, perhaps even as long as Girlfriend Of Squish found this 93 minute film, or as she put it, "alright now, I get it, kill something".
Rating: 6

Mood: The mood of those infected with rabies vary depending on the symptom present: the furious stage is known for displays of irritability, restlessness and aggression, which many people will feel as they watch this film's sub-plots unfold without any resolution, even though the book wrapped everything up quite nicely, thank you. There is also a paralytic stage, where foaming at the mouth occurs due to localized paralysis of the throat and face, causing the inability to swallow, and eventually respiratory paralysis, which of course leads to death. I can at least say that this probably won't happen to audiences watching Cujo, mainly because of the cute kid and the occasional scary moment.
Rating: 7

No, the worse thing is that they're stuck in a PINTO!

Overall Rating: 62% (A Bit Of A Leg-Lifter)

Aftertaste: No one wants rabies, that much is clear, but we all wouldn't mind seeing someone with rabies to satiate our bloodlust. This movie is like that. Not in a Lars Von Trier or silent Era Film mood? Well switch to the On Demand channel and let yer woman pick something, though I'd have gone for Rocky myself... I think I also learned the lesson that after a dinner out at a fancy sushi place, no matter what you watch, it'll probably be satisfying, especially with a glass of wine in your hand.

Pan's Labyrinth (2006)

2007-01-24T14:06:00.000-05:00

MENTAL NOTE: Always listen to fauns who talk to you while holding fancy knives

Genre: Drama Fantasy Thriller

Starring: Ivana Baquero, Sergi López

Directed By: Guillermo del Toro (The Devil's Backbone; Hellboy)

Overview: A young girl goes to live with her pregnant mother and a military captain in Franco-ruled Spain. Amidst the oppression of the people, the girl finds herself in a fantastical world where she quests to be a fairy princess.

Acting: I've said recently that there are some films that need constant defence rather than evaluation, and you won't find Pan's Labyrinth to be the kind of film that has critics debating it's worth. In fact, some reviews are almost too easy to write because I'll just be saying what everyone one else has. We have some great talent here, and the film runs as smoothly as this praise of it will. For you sick freaks out there, you'll like the Fascist Captain the best.
Rating: 8

Cinematography: This is what draws people out. This is what will make the Lowest Common Denominator forgive the subtitles. They'll be so impressed with that eyeball-handed monster and the faun and the frog and the fantasy of it all, that they won't think reading a chore. What their kids might not like is all the gore, like when, early on, the Captain punches a dude in the face until it's mushy. Course, I'm not a kid, so party on. You don't need me telling you this is impressive... I don't even know why I bothered.
Rating: 10

Script: Speaking of subtitles, I remember once going into a chain video-rental place with my selection when the clerk reminded me that there were subtitles in it with the question "Do you still want it?". My reply of "Of course, how many people actually say no to that?" was retorted with an astonishing "About half." And this is Canada, where we pride ourselves in our ability to read. I expected poetry in Pan, but all I got was well-written declarations of fact and opinion.
Rating: 8

Plot: What makes this story great is the context. A young girl dreaming of a fantastical world while brutality encroaches upon her, keeping the story rooted in mature-sized terror rather than playing up the beauty and magic of everything... that's what makes this film entertaining for the realists among us. Though, I would have liked just a touch more fantasy and less fascism, I wouldn't have minded a longer movie to accommodate both.
Rating: 8

Mood: The first complaint I have about this film are the odd moments that were worse than a guided tour for its exposition. We have a servant who is shown to have a concealed knife on her person, not once but twice. Thanks for reminding me how she'll be using it as a weapon at some point - twice. Then there's the most harrowing fantasy scene of the whole film: with such warnings as "Don't eat a thing, your life depends on it," you'd really think there would be a better way to rouse the sleeping beast than going and doing the very thing you were expressly told not to do. All the 'real moments', those 'above ground' times with violence and torture taking place, they were rich in period and oppression and iron-fisted evil. It's fantastic. As for the fantastical quests themselves, I'll admit they weren't the grand expressions I hoped for, gorgeous as they were.
Rating: 8

Sweet evil Spanish dictators. Why are dictators always so well dressed?

Overall Rating: 84% (A-maze-ing Enough)

Aftertaste: None of the dozen of us who went to this doubted how good this would be and none were disappointed, so as reviews go, you'd do well to see this, but to Hell with IMDB's Top 250. I've been watching this movie on that list since Thursday where it was #125. I thought this was very impressive for a movie that had only screened at festivals. Tuesday morning it's #100, and #90 by the afternoon. Right now it's sitting at #88. Hardly. Who pays who to create accounts and click 'best movie ever'? I'm not buying it.

Dead Man (1995)

2007-01-24T10:45:00.000-05:00

Nope, not dead yet

Genre: Adventure Crime Drama Western (USA, Germany, Japan)

Starring: Johnny Depp (Charlie And The Chocolate Factory, Corpse Bride), Gary Farmer (The Score)

Directed By: Jim Jarmusch (Mystery Train, Broken Flowers)

Overview: An accountant from Cleveland moves out to the Wild West. When he shoots a man, he ends up on the run where an Indian named Nobody nurtures him back to health.

Acting: Johnny Effin' Depp, sure he's had his misses (Cry-Baby, Nick Of Time) but I haven't seen any of them, and my record is still clean. That having been said, you know this guy makes wicked awesome films, and Jarmusch is perfect at guiding them along. After this, Gary Farmer is one of my new favorite native actors, and he's been in quite a bit. Add the likes of Iggy Pop, Crispin Glover, Billy-Bob Thornton, Lance Henriksen, John Hurt, Gabriel Byrne and Michael Wincott, and we prove that this is a director who not only can wrangle up some good talent, but keep them reins tight.
Rating: 9

Cinematography: Filmed in glorious black and white, you'll appreciate the way the old West seems more real this way, almost like looking at an old picture. Besides having the costumes just right and the wilderness as impressive as ever, we have some pretty cool action and some intense cinematic style that frankly makes me wonder why he didn't do this sort of thing more often. The best Jarmusch film out there for the visuals that I've seen so far.
Rating: 9

Script: "That weapon will replace your tongue. You will learn to speak through it. And your poetry will now be written with blood."

This movie is full of awesome stuff like this. Not only is this filled with both literal and figurative poetry, but I was genuinely astounded at the depth of understanding I had for each character. Writers would do well in learning the lesson of how to create characters that become richer with every word, rather than scenes that simply banter their way to the end. .
Rating: 10

Plot: The simplest stories can be the strongest. This is not some twist-rich story full of intrigue and double-crosses. It's the common story about a man who commits himself to a new life, when right away happenstance interferes. His meek character must change quickly in the face of these harsh challenges that he faces, but they aren't insurmountable. It's one man against the limited few that chase him. It's brilliant in its simplicity, as rather than bogging us down with events, we can focus on character. It's great.
Rating: 9

Mood: The opening scene on the train shows our hero amongst wild men. We learn before he even arrives that his transformation must be quick. Stepping off the train we see his astounded by the muddy filth of the streets, the sinful filth of the rugged men that surround him. The realistic style of the fights he gets into and the almost supernatural way he adapts to the changes are what make this film so great. Add to this the chiaroscuro style of filming and we have the entire gamete of art covered, creating a deep and meaningful film, as well as a comment on our darker history.
Rating: 9

"Stupid Fucking White Man"

Overall Rating: 92% (Knocks You Flat On Your Ass)

Aftertaste: I have no idea what happened to Jim Jarmusch in the four years between Night On Earth and this. It's like he became an entirely different director. From two films about short stories with very little plot, to this deep tale of fate, rebirth, and spirituality. I have two more films to watch of his to complete my study of his works, and after having seen this and Ghost Dog, I'll tell you I'm completely stoked.

This post is part of the Jim Jarmusch Blog-A-Thon. For a complete list, visit Sujewa.

Cannes International Advertising Festival 2006 (2006)

2007-01-23T08:41:00.000-05:00

woof

Genre: Advertising Shorts (International)

Overview: The 2006 selection of the world's funniest and most important commercials of the year.

Over the holidays, I was expressly avoiding film for fear of having to set aside valuable time reserved for www.filmsquish.com to write reviews. I remedied the need for visual stimulation by watching TV. Vegging in front of the tube for a 44-minute hour is the easiest way of passing movie-reserved time, but only served to make me realize just how much I hate television.

For about a year now, my television habits have been reduced to The Weather Network, and Rogers On Demand. That means that my patience for television advertising has been replaced with, as Girlfriend Of Squish will attest, rage-filled, three-minute rants. Don't even get me started on advertisers digitally inserting product placements for shows now in syndication, like Friends.

I hate television because I hate commercials. I hate commercials because - simply put - slave-owning companies I wish would die try to sell me crap I don't need and bring this world one step closer to the brink. That's why I found it strange to be sitting there at a 116-minute advertising extravaganza for the third year in a row even though it didn't impress me the first or even the second time.

Given this growing hatred of The Corporation, I certainly had apprehensions of attending the Cannes International Ad Festival 2006, but let me be the first to tell you how impressed I was this year. First of all, they fixed the biggest problems with the previous years' presentations: they didn't show the same commercial three times as before, and it didn't end as abruptly as in previous years. I have a few recommendable favorites, yes, but rather than drone on about those, I'd rather rant about the ad that disturbed me the most: Smooth E Babyface Foam, a facial cleansing product from Thailand.

This is a 4-part comedy drama where an Asian tomboy hunts after her favoured pretty boy. Though the actual product placement was humourous (a tribute / satirization of the American 50s billboards with a motionless smiling woman holding the product next to her face in an extreme close-up), the undercurrent of this ad is disturbing in cultural context. Yes, the fact that the ideal of beauty being sold will get you the man you desire is bad enough, but that's to be expected. What's truly unnerving is that this Asian commercial is so completely Americanized that besides having the 'ideal model' as close to American as an Asian could be, we have the title of the Thai product in English, which serves not only to add poignancy to the name of the item, but helps create an English language culture in a country an ocean apart... and I thought mourning chopsticks was worthwhile... talk about homogenization.

And you can finally watch back, (Big) Brother!!

Overall Rating: 82% (It Cannes And It Does)

Aftertaste: Now you know what leaves me with a bad taste in my mouth. Advertising. So go enjoy this. Those of you in Ottawa reading this still have until February 1st to check it out. This event attracts lost of people, so show up early!

Robocop 2 (1990) * Favorite Review *

2007-01-22T15:41:00.000-05:00

I don't know who's more excited about those pecs, the lady or that blonde dude. Giddy up!

Genre: Action Crime Sci-Fi Thriller Comedy

Starring: Peter Weller (Shadow Hours; Naked Lunch), Tom Noonan (Mercy Seed; Manhunter)

Directed By: Irvin Kershner (Star Wars V: The Empire Strikes Back; Never Say Never Again)

Overview: OPC Cybernetic Technologies has been working on making more cyborg cops with tragic consequences. When a corporate executive tries a new approach using criminal minds, Robocop finds himself the target of a nemesis' rage.

Acting: If it's one thing I've realized after two years of writing reviews, it's that the preconception of a film will often guide many people to conclusions enough that they need be addressed by the critic before the critic can be taken seriously. Robocop 2 is such a film that deserves more consideration in defence than in actual evaluation, and knowing that this director's high points include Star Wars and James Bond, well, that's enough to hold up for itself. Some of you may say that Peter Weller isn't the best actor out there, but at least he was the original Robocop, and he did a great job in Naked Lunch. As for Tom Noonan, it was nice seeing a little known actor that I've really grown to like in such a prominent role, even if it wasn't the career builder it should have been for him. Screw you guys, this was great, especially considering the year it was made.
Rating: 7

Cinematography: The best thing about this movie would be the budget. Admittedly these types of action flicks full of guns and goons will invariably have said goons using said guns on bullet-proof behemoths, and yes you might even say that seven shootout scenes might even be too much. What you can't say is that stop-motion animation isn't cool. Yes, they used it in the original Robocop, and they keep it up in the sequel. Sweet memories of the days of Sinbad fighting skeletons and sea monsters! It's not low-tech, it's retro-cool, and hey there's even these P.O.V. shots where you see green targeting screens and directives scrolling by. What else do you WANT?!
Rating: 7

Script: "Jesus... had days like this."

This screenplay was written by Frank Miller. This screenplay was written by Frank Miller. I wrote that twice because I also found it hard to believe. Yeah, the guy who wrote and co-directed Sin City. In fact, his original plot for Robocop 2 was made into a 9-issue comic series. And you know what else? I'm going to read it, just to spite you hater bitches. This movie's script has a lot of plain old obvious dialogue, but there's some pretty awesome tongue-in-cheek wit that keeps this movie OUT of the cheese category - keeps this movie OUT of the cheese category.
Rating: 7

Plot: "DIRECTIVE 245: If you haven't got anything nice to say don't talk."

*whistling*
Rating: 6

Mood: Screw you guys, this was a great time. What makes this movie this much fun is the social commentary as expressed through the commercials, think Starship Troopers. The first has a business man who changed data companies to save money. Due to slow service, he lost the account, and proceeds to kill himself as the camera zooms in on a picture of his daughter. The second add shows how 'since the ozone layer is gone' SPF 5000 is the way to go, and shows a model covering herself in a thick blue goo as she sits relaxing by the pool. Little comedic moments like all the failed attempts at newer model Robocops prove that this film doesn't take itself anywhere near seriously, and the comedy abounds.
Rating: 8

Now that's the way to take care of a union scab!

Overall Rating: 70% (Cop A Feel)

Aftertaste: After all that I hope you either realized 1.) How fun a movie this is to watch with a bunch of friends, and 2.) How convincing a writer I am.

One more thing: Front Line Assembly, one of the most influential Industrial bands out there, have a song that liberally samples from this, and that adds to the goodness.
No, shut up. I don't care what you think, it's not a bad movie.
Ok I DO care what you think... leave a comment.

Nocturne (1980) & Image of Relief (1982)

2007-01-20T14:29:00.000-05:00

When an experimental short starts like an A-Ha video, it leaves a bittersweet aftertaste.

Genre: Experimental Drama Shorts (Denmark)

Starring: Yvette, Edward Fleming, Kirsten Olesen

Directed By: Lars Von Trier (Dogville; Breaking The Waves)

Overview: Easter Eggs on a compilation of Lars Von Trier's Apocalyptic Trilogy include his first made in film school, as well as his graduating production.

I'll tell you that even my budding filmmaking knowledge began with experimental film, and for as much as you might think it easier to do, as they need not have a narrative, a plot or even sometimes a purpose, they are certainly a deep trek into the learning process, and can teach more things more quickly, as long as we're willing to spend the money and risk failure. Art students have the great benefit of being guided through the learning process of more technical aspects of a medium, while using it to take us to a personal place limited only by the artist's ideas, creativity and their wallet. For this reason, watching the introductory independent works of established filmmakers makes a lot of sense. You learn applications of ingenuity, of artistic manipulation over the technical all while, hopefully grasping the technical challenges that those new to the field have faced. Call it a tutorial.

Tutorials tend to be rather bland. Be it online guides for Windows XP and Excel, or David Lynch's early shorts, they tend to be more about the learning process than the entertainment of the medium. If you go into these Lars Von Trier pieces with this perspective you won't be disappointed.

As for the films themselves, Nocturne (1980) is an 8-minute short about a woman having trouble with her eyes, to the degree that she is only comfortable in dim light. Ultimately this film is slow in pace and has no real story elements, though insight is gleaned when described by Lars himself in the commentary track. The experiment of Nocturne is in the 'Geometric Storyboarding' style they used to film it. Each shot was meticulously planned so that the geometry of one shot flows into the next one. A shot of blinds, slightly askew fade into the grill of a birdcage, shot at the same angle. A woman on the phone lowers her arm. Once it reaches a horizontal angle, we cut to a cityscape horizon. Lars seemed most proud of the round church shot (above right) that cuts perfectly into a close-up of the woman's wristwatch. All told, you know when a film is more enjoyable with director's commentary, it's less about the film than the learning.

Image of Relief (1982) is technically a better film, which stands to reason given the two years of film school, however it is far less entertaining. A 57-minute short with about 20 lines of dialogue makes for a film full of montage pieces: slow, droning shots of orange, green and blue-filtered images, very reminiscent of The Element of Crime, though more nonsensical. As far as I could infer, this is a story set in World War II, and a German Officer's mistress up and blinds him with a stake.

In both films, the influence of Tarkovsky is very obvious (I've read), and above all things I've learned that Tarkovsky is a boring kind of director, unless Lars' early works just failed in being as entertaining.

Some nice composure for someone who just had stakes driven into his eyes.

Overall Rating: 53% (For Trier Completists And Students Only)

Aftertaste: It's fun to watch someone's early works, especially if you like the technical side of film, or have a love of a person's art so much that you'll go suffer to 'not so good', just to be able to say you've seen it, but I have the added bonus of being able to write about it after, to mull over the finer points and explain to you some minor insights about obscure short film. You know, that doesn't bother me at all. I'll be sure to do it again, too.

Rififi (1955)

2007-01-19T16:00:00.000-05:00

"No dear, there's no such thing as misogyny in Film Noir, it's called Character Development."

Genre: Crime Noir Thriller

Starring: Jean Servais, Carl Möhner (Sink the Bismarck!)

Directed By: Jules Dassin (Night And The City; Thieves' Highway)

Overview: A gang of hard-boiled ex-cons perfectly concoct a brilliant jewellery heist, but to err is human...

Acting: Jules Dassin, after a quick perusal, turns out to be one of the best, if not THE director of the French Film Noir. More interesting is that he was a Russian-Jewish American who left America when accused of being a communist, and consequently blacklisted. For Francois Truffaut to say that the best Film Noir he'd ever seen is Rififi, well that's enough to make me recommend it to even the Film Noir-curious. Then there's the actual cast. Imagine the perfect face of a villain, then watch this. Freakish how that's the EXACT face you were picturing for the bad guy, eh?
Rating: 10

Cinematography: Film NOIR, and by Noir I mean dark settings with trench coats and fedoras, bejewelled bleached blondes in smoky gin joints singing about the rough and tumble men they associate with. Men who linger about darkened alleys, drive boats and shoot gats. It's like a total rip off of every Film Noir cliché that exists, except he was probably out there inventing it.
Rating: 8

Script: This is the kind of writing that needs no explanation. It's a tale with few twists, and by that I mean the motivations of these characters are so well laid-out and rooted in the genre that you know innately where this is going to go, in the best way possible. No surprises means you know the characters. Cynical outlooks and paranoia speak volumes. When words are exchanged though, those of you who speak French will appreciate the ultra-50s slang of it all.
Rating: 9

Plot: Film NOIR, and by noir I mean a bleak, surly, anti-hero tale where the guy we follow has maybe an ounce more likeability than anyone else, a touch more ethic, a sliver more nobless. A heist story that appropriately shows the quick wit of professionals while still focussing on the consequences of human frailty, that's nothing to complain about. When I say classic film noir, it implies tragic ends, but don't be so sure... or maybe I'm just saying that to keep you guessing. Either way, the good guys are bad, the bad guys are evil, and that's what makes it worth the trip.
Rating: 8

Mood: Early in this story we have a scene where our anti-hero, after having done his bit in prison, comes back to find his old lady at a fancy club, letting a man pay for her evening. Our hero stands there, looming, telling the man to leave. The woman is taken into a room, and made to give him all her jewellery, and her mink coat. "I never forgot you!" she pleads. He beats her with a belt for her lack of loyalty. Call me a misogynist but I don't know a better way to introduce a character than by this trial by fire. After that, you know who this guy is. He doesn't need any more back-story than that.
Rating: 9

Diamonds aren't just a girl's best friend, nope.

Overall Rating: 88% ('Rough And Tumble')

Aftertaste: Half way through I said, "I don't know if it's the wine, but is this the best Film Noir I've ever seen?" In the end, as stories go, the answer was 'almost', but the characters are ultra-rich in the genre, morbid as it is. Why this isn't in 1001 Movies You Must See Before You Die is beyond me. What irks me is that something crappy took its place, I'm sure, yet this is film history here. Whatever.

Topaz (1969)

2007-01-18T21:40:00.000-05:00

Hitchcock! Hitchcock! Hitchcock!

Look at all the Hitchcock fans fleeing the theater en masse!

Genre: Crime Thriller Drama

Starring: Frederick Stafford (The Battle of El Alamein), Dany Robin

Directed By: Alfred Hitchcock (Vertigo; Psycho)

Overview: A French ambassador finds himself embroiled into Russian-American Cold War politics. With threats of double agents and Cuban missiles pointed at America, those politics may become all too deadly.

Acting: I will admit I dreaded writing this review for so long that I think I blocked out most of it. Frenchmen speaking English with French accents bug me, that's my cross to bear. Black spies so super-hip that they border on the 'sploitation cool, but not on purpose, they kick ass. This movie should have been about him. The best roles in this are the tertiary little guys. Why God? Why?! Ambassadors turn out to be boring people, and their wives too whiney for their own good.
Rating: 6

Cinematography: Again I'm trying to think of unprofessional or ultra-bland moments. None. Now I'm trying to think of interesting and cool moments: the black guy (below) trying to sneak off with some top secret documents. That scene was great, full of suspense and intrigue! Then there's... er... yeah.
Rating: 6

Script: The best dialogue took place during the ten minute scene (again, below) where there was no speaking. Ouch. It's not like the dialogue didn't serve to explain essential elements or carry a hefty weight of character behind them, but talk about uninspired. Why bother picking up something like this? How does it work? Hitchcock snaps his fingers and says, 'bring me five political intrigue scripts!' then blindfolds himself and pins a contract on one? ICK.
Rating: 6

Plot: Do you know how hard it is to write a thrilling and exciting Overview for a movie full of old men talking shop in back rooms? Political thrillers bore me, turns out. They aren't exciting. Bond is interesting, and Syriana was great, but when you have Cuban missile crises AND people playing both sides of the espionage coin, why on earth would I want to explore a disgruntled ambassador's wife thinking about leaving her husband? Why do I care about whether or not he's cheating on her? Why did you waste my time with minutia when you could have been focussing on global politics? Who planned this spin on the story?!
Rating: 6

Mood: I think I'm sick of writing this. I'm just glad some Cubans got beat within an inch of their life, it makes for added realism.
Rating: 5

"Ok now, give me dictatorial! Yes! yes! now anti-capitalist. PERFECT!"

Overall Rating: 58% (Cubic Zirconia)

Aftertaste: For as exciting as this was, it's not a memorable film at all. It smacks of decent parts of The Man Who Knew too Much in its political intrigue (both versions, meaning he's done this all too often, now move on) but there were moments of real boredom, entire scenes that could have been cut or shortened, or altered. Even Liam, my primary source of Hitchcockian praise, of dissent when I don't praise, and forgiveness at this man's craft... even Liam hated this. I like when he agrees with me. It makes me realize we have different tastes far too often. Yawn.

Dexter: Season 1 (2006)

2007-01-18T21:36:00.000-05:00

"Wait wait wait, I can get this.. 72 times 89, carry the gore..."

Genre: Crime Drama Series

Starring: Michael C. Hall ("Six Feet Under"; Paycheck), Julie Benz

Created By: James Manos Jr. ("The Shield")

Overview: Sociopath, blood fetishist, serial killer. Who'd be a better edition to the Miami P.D. crime lab?

Acting: Michael C. Hall is a very convincing homosexual, so much so that I was surprised to discover he's straight, he understands sociopathic behaviour well enough to make ME understand sociopathic behaviour, and does such a great job as would carry the show all by his lonesome. What truly makes this series a treasure is that he carries no one. All the characters are well-rooted in their motivations to the point that we hate everyone for the right reasons, except for Angel, who everyone seems to know is just a loveable guy. Deep characters make for great stories.
Rating: 9

Cinematography: The curse of television is the Lowest Common Denominator Factor, or pleasing all of the people some of the time, rather than some of the people all of the time. I'll give it this though, as it was with "Six Feet Under", they use unique angles and lenses, well-planned colour co-ordination, sets and lighting effects that prove this show to be quite stylized, not to mention the occasional wicked GCI. I'd even go as far as saying 'Artsy'.
Rating: 9

Script: I can't remember a TV show that had the main character as a serial killer, but I would hazard that if "Dexter" was not handled this sensitively, it wouldn't have succeeded as well as it did, much less have been picked up by a network, progressive as it may be. The season's opening episode shows Dexter at his bleakest, more a killer than a cop, and I'll admit that for as much as I was sold enough to try a couple more episodes, Girlfriend of Squish was concerned that it would stay too rooted in the darkness of this man. What happens instead is a rich back-story where Dexter's foster father, knowing that he's sick and different, decides to teach him a code of survival. This code and Dexter's witty and often double-entendre inner and outer monologues are what make this show intelligent. Besides that there's tons of humour and a few inspirational speeches, all bases covered. This is some of the best television out there.
Rating: 9

Plot: And what else do we have besides a killer who works as a CSI? We have the primary plot of Miami PD chasing down another serial killer, The Ice-Truck Killer, who leaves NO blood at the scene, who bundles up the dismembered pieces all nice and in interesting locales. As it is with a TV series we also have all the secondary character subplots, and of course Dexter's new relationship and an exploration of his past tie up all the loose ends. terrifically done. A series based on a series of books can't make a show mess up too much. It's all about planning.
Rating: 8

Mood: The show's opening credits is chock full of extreme close-ups of a Dexter's 'morning ritual': slowly carving and juicing a blood orange, cutting himself shaving, frying up ham, grinding coffee, flossing and tying his shoes like a garrotte, and pulling a shirt over his face with a particular asphyxiative tone. This intro is the perfect was of describing the show. There's a constant undercurrent of fear and doubt amoung the viewer, an innate apprehension towards Dexter's acts. Even when doing nothing sinister, Dexter has a sinister air. When he smiles it's for the wrong reasons, and as we grow to learn about him it takes time for us to acclimate ourselves to his way. In fact if it weren't for his backstory, I don't think he'd receive any sympathy at all. This way of telling the story is the best way of doing it, because otherwise we'd be leaving with a 'aw shucks he's such a nice killer'. I'm glad no one went that way.
Rating: 9

"Waddayamean it's not part of a balanced breakfast?"

Overall Rating: 88% (Juicy!)

Aftertaste: ON Demand, On Demand, On Demand. Yes it's been a while since I touted the banner and fanned the flag, but I'll tell you this service is worth having if only to spare you the wait of an episode ending in a cliff-hanger or the tedium of commercial breaks.

Torn Curtain (1966)

2007-01-18T15:49:00.000-05:00

Hitchcock! Hitchcock! Hitchcock!

"I think if we do it quickly we can eat them before they fire their guns!"

Genre: Mystery Thriller

Starring: Paul Newman (The Hustler; Cool Hand Luke) Julie Andrews (Victor/Victoria; The Princess Diaries)

Directed By: Alfred Hitchcock (The Pleasure Garden; The Lady Vanishes)

Overview: A rocket scientist defects to East Germany to finish his research on a missile defence system. When his fiancée secretly follows him, she adds a few too many complication to his plans.

Acting: Typecasting sucks. From Mary Poppins to The Sound Of Music you got yourself a double-edged career-nailer. You nail yourself into the roles of 'Singing Goodness Personified', but at the same time you're hammering the nails into that cross of predetermination. I doubt you'll ever see Pesci in a feel-good musical, and you know what, I think he's fine with that. Sadly even me with my well-developed right brain cannot pierce the logical defiance of these previous roles of Julie Andrews. I can't put her in this place of intrigue. I can't see her playing secret spy in Berlin because every time she opens her mouth with her eyebrows raised I'm expecting her to sing about how the hills are alive with the sound of goose-stepping... no matter how awesome Paul Newman is.
Rating: 7

Cinematography: Hitchcock's a dumbass for using crappy sets even as late as 1966. STOP IT. Maybe I'm too much a fan of the Dogme Project, but there's a minimal accepted amount of quality that must be expected from a Hollywood production at this point in film history. With a single scene, Hitchcock manages to kick a hole in my enjoyment by recreating a set up on a hill, the scene where Paul Newman explains a secret to his wife. In films like Suspicion and The Trouble With Harry, it was quaint, almost endearing. At this point I'm sick of crappy painted backdrops, especially when Hitch does nothing to make the rest of the movie escape the budding style trends of the disco 70s. Ack.
Rating: 6

Script: Maybe I waited too long to review this one too but I recall nothing special. One thing I've come to expect of Hitchcock, is that scripts aren't usually his strong suit.
Rating: 7

Plot: Subplot-introducing minor character studies of weirdoes do nothing for me unless it's David Lynch doing it. The crazy Berliner lady (seen below) did nothing more than lengthen the story, try to add a (failed) comedic element, and was most likely nothing more than a healthy hunk of propaganda, used to show how people hate living in East Berlin, and how communism drives people crazy. Man, It thought Hitchcock had more integrity, but he seems to sell out often. Now as for the story it's pretty involving and has a nice twist, but I wouldn't say it's worth hemmin' and hawin' about.
Rating: 7

Mood: The best part of the whole thing is when Paul tries to escape from his 'bodyguard' (read: tail) to meet a contact named Pi. The unfolding of the perfect timing of suspense and adrenaline-pumping action that ensues is very reminiscent of the crop-duster scene of North By Northwest. It's slow, it's messy, there's threats everywhere to everyone, and you don't quite know where it's going to go. At the same time, Hitch knows how to make it just long enough without getting boring. This scene proves that this is a Hitchcock film, but it was really the only moment worth mention. That my friend, is crap.
Rating: 6

Ack! Then there's the scene with the crazy histrionic German lady! Issues!

Overall Rating: 64% (Yeah, This Needs Mending)

Aftertaste: I couldn't get over how much Paul Newman stole the show on this one. He's amazing, and it's the first time Girlfriend of Squish ever saw him, or as she referred to him as 'Oh the salad dressing guy?!' Heehee!

Frenzy (1972)

2007-01-17T10:45:00.000-05:00

Hitchcock! Hitchcock! Hitchcock!

He thinks she's lovely. Her body-double proved it.

Genre: Crime Thriller (UK)

Starring: Jon Finch, Barry Foster

Directed By: Alfred Hitchcock (To Catch a Thief; I Confess)

Overview: London's neck-tie murderer seems unstoppable, but when the strongest lead points to the wrong man, suspense escalates... a little.

Acting: Standard fare with some nice chokin' an' dyin'.
Rating: 7

Cinematography: Hitchcock's signature tracking shots, jump cuts and flashbacks are the best aspects of this film, but even Girlfriend of Squish pointed out how little this felt like a Hitchcockian picture. I wholeheartedly agree.
Rating: 7

Script: Hitchcock allowed the cast to rewrite some of the lines, but when it came back he said 'I didn't say you could rewrite the whole script'. I guess if it were good in the first place that whole first half hour wouldn't have seemed like the most tedious garbage ever, causing horrible flashbacks to The Birds. Bo-ring.
Rating: 6

Plot: The best part of a thriller is the thrills, we all know that, and there's one scene, the memorable and suspenseful potato truck scene, that saves this film from obscurity. I believe it was Akira Kurosawa who said 'in my films there's really only two or three minutes of real cinema'. I don't think he meant 'cause the rest of the movie sucks', as was the case with Frenzy. For one little moment of suspense, even though there may be some enjoyable morbid humour, this film's story has got to be some of the weakest plotline out there. We learn early on who the necktie murderer is, which eliminates mystery, and puts the wrong man as the prime suspect. When you think about it, above all suspicions of murder, there's nothing better than being accused of being a serial killer because you just have to wait it out before you eventually go free, since the murderer will most likely strike again. In The Fugitive (1993), Dr. Richard Kimble pleads that a one-armed man was the one who killed his wife, and endangers his own safety by searching for this one-armed man. Tommy Lee Jones as detective does what any good cop would do: investigates everything that doesn't quite mesh. In The Fugitive it didn't diminish the action and suspense to know that another angle was looked at, but in Frenzy, it took any element of thrill and turned it into a story that one ceases to care about. Not only does the end become predictable, but it maps out the conclusion, regardless of the last scene's dramatic and interesting events, that if done right, would have been an interesting lesson in vengeance. Nope, it didn't even go there.
Rating: 5

Mood: Potatoes reflect the murderer digging in the darkest soil of his sins to retrieve evidence. A horrid-looking fish head soup with squid, served but uneaten by the detective reflects his inability to find the solution to the case. The murderer, a fruit merchant, constantly eating, represents his dramatic nature and his hunger for things feminine... turns out all these inferred symbols I just hammered out are just a load of bull.
After all my research to explain the motivations of why food was so prevalent in this picture, I've learned that symbolism played no part in it. With half the scenes having food, mention of food, or eating of it, I'd have thought that something deeper was going on. I was sadly mistaken. The constant use of food was just there to distract us from the rotten story. To all you budding filmmakers out there, if you're going to have a theme, make it fit. If it doesn't fit, make it at LEAST symbolic.
Rating: 5

"I think you'd look GREAT like this actually!"

Overall Rating: 60% (Not Even Mildly Enticed)

Aftertaste: Typically considered one of Hitchcock's weakest films, I would agree. These days I look for a tale that is either comfortably predictable, or not predictable. I think that's a pretty standard quest in the average audience. When something doesn't work in a movie, be it due to acting, to editing, to theme or feel, people leave with something unresolved, an awareness that it 'wasn't very good'. After constantly writing about it, a critic can pinpoint these reasons and tell you exactly why people won't like something. Well, I'll tell you what's not to like about this: it's a square peg trying to fit in a round hole. It's a story told a hundred times with no study of the characters, no excitement and no lessons to be taught. It's a story with no flow, it's a story that reminds me of puberty, awkward.

It's not worth your time.

Hard Candy (2005)

2007-01-16T15:31:00.000-05:00

She's bait see, like chum...Mmm fresh chum!

Genre: Drama Thriller

Starring: Ellen Page (X-Men: The Last Stand; Mouth To Mouth), Patrick Wilson (The Alamo; "Angels In America")

Directed By: David Slade

Overview: When a 32-year-old photographer finally meets the girl from the chatroom, she asks if he'd let her come over for a while. He's in for a little surprise...

Acting: I guess it's harder to play the role of a teen-aged psychopathic man-hater than it is to be a victim. For as much as I've heard how great a job this girl did, I can't say she seemed genuinely convincing. It would have been nice to have some real Sharon Stone Basic Instinct melodramatic freak out moments to crank the thrill up. As for Patrick Wilson, this guy is one to watch. Such subtle displays does he hammer out so perfectly in brief moments of revelation that I was sincerely moved by him. He's gonna do well in this career.
Rating: 8

Cinematography: The beauty that is Hard Candy is in the cinematography. We open with chat words being posted on a computer, and somehow the lens manages to capture it dynamically. The we cut to an extreme close-up of fork cutting through a slice of cake. I started impressed and I left impressed. Colour schemes and tight shots are what this is about but with enough long shots to give you a rest. Go storyboard guy. What I didn't like was the scenes that could have used the visual to enhance the dynamic of our opinion towards this girl. A simple, blurry, four-second shot of some photos while the viewer looks in disgust would have done so much for my overall opinion of this film. I find it strange that such a thing wasn't done.
Rating: 9

Script: Half way through I asked, "Was this originally a play?" The reply was, "no, but the writer is a playwrite." I could tell right away. This is, as most plays are, three scenes with heavy on the dialogue. You'd best like that sort of thing because I didn't find the dialogue all that original and unique, which makes the need for a visual spectacle all the more important. Lucky I got it.
Rating: 7

Plot: As stories go, it's well paced. We have a girl who agrees to see the guy she's been online chatting with for 3 weeks. He's 32, she's effin' 14. Right there you start off with a bitter taste in your mouth, till you think, well maybe that's NOT why they're hooking up. Then he says "I have to wait for YOU for 4 years," implying that he's all hot for her. Ick. Well he's in for one hell of a surprise. Nylon ropes work such wonders, even little girls can use them!
Rating: 8

Mood: Inately, with this kind of a 'hostage' thriller, there's always a risk that the spectator will get frustrated at all the things the characters DON'T do, like "CALL 911!", "Oh my God, kick her in the head over and over till her guts spill out!" and, "Why doesn't she just KILL HIM!?" This is the problem with this kind of thriller, but Hard Candy does quite the good job of trying to answer those questions without leaving behind a gritty frustration, but if you ask me, had I been this guy, it sure would have ended differently.
Rating: 7

"Mmm, I like a guy who likes to pick his cherries before they're ripe!"

Overall Rating: 78% (Not So Hard To Swallow)

Aftertaste: A great example of a perfectly professional film with all the Tees crossed, the Ies dotted, and a solid career builder for all involved, yet it just didn't quite do it for me. The climactic ending used the same dialogue as a little low-budget Canadian film I saw a few years back, and the final motivations of our captive were far too left field for my liking. It works, it's solid, and you might just love it, but as a critic, I think I'll let myself be critical.

Marnie (1964)

2007-01-15T15:46:00.000-05:00

Hitchcock! Hitchcock! Hitchcock!

Never the smartest girl, poor Marnie fell for the ol' 'bigger money is worth more' scam.

Genre: Drama Mystery Romance Thriller

Starring: Tippi Hendren (The Birds; I Woke Up Early The Day I Died) Sean Connery (Finding Forrester; Dr. No)

Directed By: Alfred Hitchcock (Jamaica Inn; Under Capricorn)

Overview: When a young executive discovers a theif, rather than giving her up to the police, he hires her, courts her and tries to help her.

Acting: Girlfriend of Squish was so genuinely annoyed by Tippi's character that I wondered if it was the wrong time of the month to watch this film with her. Consesus seems to agree though that there is NO good time to watch a movie where the director and his leading actress stop talking to one another mid-film. Go figure professionalism goes straight down the toilet when you're directing through intermediaried. Yes it's just a rumour, but Tippi's not the strongest role by far. In fact I loved the secondary character that was the sister of Sean Connery's character, and not too rough on the eyes either...
Rating: 7

Cinematography: There are few films where the editing style seems to make the story oddly disjointed. On the risk of being told it was done on purpose I'm going to say 'blah, icky, weird and clunky'. One thing I do know is that the cheap looking sets were like that on purpose. I didn't find the sets all that chintzy compared to other Hitchcockian films; the poor man always prefered the studio, and trees just somehow don't look right plunked in astroturf...
Rating: 6

Script: When Tippi Hendren was told she was to play a frigid woman, she was shocked saying "but have you looked at [Sean Connery]?" Hitchcock replied, "It's called acting, my dear." Perhaps I delayed too long in reviewing this one, but my mind recalls nothing spectacular about it, except all those little moments when things were said for the benefit of the audience. I wonder if Hitchcock assumed a degree of stupidity among his spectators, or perhaps all film was doing this in this era. I'll have to pay more attention to the 50s and 60s for exposition...
Rating: 7

Plot: The ending is what it's all about. It's a good ending, but five minutes out of two hours is just what I'd call trying a man's patience, virtuous as it is. Too little too late, too dramatic, and it could have been a little less stupid besides. This movie went on too long without addressing the important questions, namely, 'really honestly, why did you get involved with a woman you knew was a liar, a thief and a lunatic?'
Rating: 6

Mood: There's a deep theme of madness meshed with unprofessionalism. The madness is far too out there but without the crazy kitschy zest that added something to Spellbound, whereas the unprofessionalism comes from the undercurrent of a film destined for failure. This is the kind of film that is more a series of events than occur to two people rather than a story. The editing is so strong in defining the elements into chapters that it felt like there were parts missing, that nuance and subtext just didn't exist. I didn't like what this did to my brain.
Rating: 6

Tippi 'teef two time!

Overall Rating: 64% (Marnie, Shmarmy)

Aftertaste:Seriously, it's not anywhere near as bad as I was told, but it's true the acting suffered and the cinematography was uninspired, well planned as it was. I think any Hitchcock fan knows that this isn't one of his greats, and I'll agree that there's no great reason for going out of your way to getting a copy of this to watch.

North By Northwest (1959)

2007-01-15T13:13:00.000-05:00

Hitchcock! Hitchcock! Hitchcock!

"So, uh... you here waiting for your flight too?" "Haha, no way buddy. I'm here for the floorshow, I hear it's about to begin..."

Genre: Adventure Mystery Thriller

Starring: Cary Grant (An Affair To Remember; Notorious), Eva Marie Saint (Superman Returns; Exodus)

Directed By: Alfred Hitchcock (Marnie; The Birds)

Overview: A case of mistaken identity turns an average ad man into a prime target from all sides: the bad guys, they good guys, and even the love-interest lady guys.

Acting: Cary's flair and style in this role is just perfect bang on. My favorite scenes were the ones that were the most outrageously played by Cary, not those full of suspense. I was impressed with the performance so much that I get the feeling this role was written specifically for him. And a pretty nice leading lady to boot!
Rating: 9

Cinematography: Well here's where a lot of the fame came from. That fantastic scene out in the middle of nowhere with the crop-duster, the tension-building drunk-driving scene at the beginning, and the classic Mount Rushmore climax are just the tip of the iceberg for the visual afficionado. I think you'll find that more than anything, the constant air of suspense due to terrific editing keeps the dramatic at the high end of the spectrum.
Rating: 9

Script: It's not all grit and hard-boiled dialogue. We have a main character with a dysfunctional mother, situations that if they weren't dangerous would be hilarious, and a fantastic scene where the wisecracking Grant who, seeing imminent danger, decides to protect himself at an auction by making a complete ass of himself in public. It's really nice to have dialogue that's a little different rather than all plot and circumstance, which this film explains wonderfully as well.
Rating: 8

Plot: The story opens up with Cary Grant all proud and successful getting bamboozled into a situation he has no control over. From there, the whole first half of the film is his trying to weasel his way out of something he doesn't even understand. Finally, we, the audience figure out that someone trying to kill him with a crop duster might just have an interesting reason to do it. A nice multi-layered tale of paranoia made truth.
Rating: 8

Mood: I saw an interview with Hitchcock where he made every attempt to shatter the Film Noir stereotypes in that scene with the crop-duster in the field (picture above). Hitch smugly described how he did the exact opposite thing that a Film Noir would do, while still keeping all the panache of the suspense style. North By Northwest is considered one of the best film classics ever made, and that drawn-out scene is well worth the whole thing. Suspense and thrill is really all over this movie, and though pigeonholed into certain things, most likely for the audiences of the era, this is a refreshing thriller indeed, and worthy of its status.
Rating: 9

"You wouldn't shoot someone standing like an old man would you!? 'Urrh! I have no teeth, help me pull my pants up higher!' "

Overall Rating: 86% (Down-Right Fantastic!)

Aftertaste: Girlfriend of Squish has implied that she didn't like this one due to the fact that the film had this particularly strange feel of cockiness. I attribute that solely to Cary Grant, because he's always been a cocky guy in Hitchcockian film. Big cocky. Cocky till the cows come home. Cock-tastic even.
Yep. As for me, I loved it. Real memorable.

Vertigo (1958)

2007-01-15T13:11:00.000-05:00

Hitchcock! Hitchcock! Hitchcock!

Eeee, Time travel doesn't suit Jimmy's complexion...

Genre: Drama Mystery Thriller Romance

Starring: James Stewart (Rope; It's a Wonderful Life), Kim Novak (The Man With The Golden Arm)

Directed By: Alfred Hitchcock (Spellbound; The Manxman)

Overview: A detective suffering from vertigo takes a job following a man's wife, embroiling himself in a strange mystery.

Acting: I read once that Kim Novak, while in this role, constantly felt as thought she was pressured by Hitchcock to play Grace Kelly, or rather BE Grace Kelly. You see, he had Grace as a leading lady for three recent films, and it was pretty obvious to Kim that there was no way she could live up to the high expectations Hitchcock already had in his mind. Poor girl. But just between you and me, she ain't got the same charm and chemistry with Stewart either...
Rating: 8

Cinematography: I was astounded at how not impressed I was with this. Don't get me wrong, it's a great little movie and those harrowing moments are quite something, but when you have good story it's nice to crop it visually rather than simply set up a standard framing. For the high tension at great times it's fantastic but it could have been so much more frightening.
Rating: 8

Script: Crap all over me for this but I found the script uninspired and all too expository, "Hey we were engaged once, you remember that?" Who the hell asks that question? You might as well just have stood up, walked stage front-left while a spotlight fell on you as you spoke directly to the camera, Jesus.
Rating: 7

Plot: A deep psychological fear meshed with a clunky story. Potential defiled. I'm being so hard on this one only because I expected so much, but the mystery of the first half was really quite bland. The end, that twist with all the dominoes falling into place does quite the interesting thing to the mind, but I didn't find that it redeemed the rest of the film for me.
Rating: 7

Mood: It's called Vertigo for a reason, and that reason should have been played up a little bit more. One more scene where he's deeply affected by the nausea that sweeps over him would have made it just that much better. I'll tell you this too, the whole early part of the mystery, the following of the wife, it's rather ordinary, regardless of all the expository mystery about it. The mood set was fine, but really nothing more.
Rating: 7

Ding-A-Dang Dong my Ding-A-Long Novak!

Overall Rating: 74% ("I'm Just Sick About This...")

Aftertaste: I must say that I remember this being much more impressive the first time I saw it. I think it was the first Hitchcock film I'd ever seen and perhaps I was blinded by the veneer of the legend. Yes this is a classic, and yes it's solid, but the power balance between the sexes is so ridiculously dated, it suffers for it. Culture Shock, for sure. Wow, I guess women really WERE spineless back then. Still, the now-retro-cool special effects definitely haven't lost their edge for me, and though not one of my favorites was enjoyable enough.

Killer 63 - Ottawa Independant Short Horror Film Collective

2006-12-31T08:51:00.000-05:00

Well, well, what better way to celebrate the coming good times of the New Year than by telling you about this fantastic little community event that took place late on December 30th.

That event was Killer 63, a showcase of Independant Horror Shorts, presented at the Mayfair Theater, one of Ottawa's independant film theaters.

The rule was as followed: "A group of filmmakers, mostly from Ottawa - Ontario... conceive of, write, produce, film and complete a short film within a nine week time-frame. The only rules for the inaugural year is that they all must be horror themed and be no longer than nine minutes in length."

A few months ago I attended the IFCO Summer Gala, Ottawa's film co-operative's semi-annual display of its members works, and I was so moved by it that I decided to keep my ear to the ground and be on the watch for other such community events.

I expected an event where I would run into a few people I knew from around the scene, (of which there were indeed a few), content in the fact that I showed up in support of them. To be quite honest, I had a feeling that the films themselves would be 'fine examples of burgeoning potential', or rather 'kitchy low-budge B-Grade ideas that were put on a DVD so that these dudes could see their stuff on the big screen.'

Instead I found myself sincerely impressed by every film that was presented at this show, and I thought I'd give a little review to you, my two loyal readers...

The first film was Marc Adornato's In God We Trust. This montage of news footage focussing on George Bush, the war in Iraq and graphic battle images was more of a documentary, though succeeded in being, as Marc put it, 'a non-fiction horror film'. The hosts of this event chose rather well in making this the first film, as it was the most stomach-turning, given the powerful images of the dead, dying, injured and amputated. A well-edited social commentary indeed.

What followed was my personal favorite, Dead Air, directed by Josh Grace. In this film we find a strange deranged fellow luring drugged individuals to his home, a 'talk show set' of sorts, where he dresses them up as celebrities and proceeds to torture / interview them, twisted commercials included. Josh's acting as host was most impressive as his delivery had quite a haunting madness to it. The gore effects for this one was top-notch. Not to ruin anything for you but here's two words to remember: lawn darts.

Checklist directed by Josh Stafford, was a quirky and funny tale of a writer who reads the work of a fan and decides to drop by for a visit, perhaps in hopes of getting lucky and crossing another reader off his checklist.

Day Camp Massacre directed by Jodi Pittman, is a classic slasher tale, but rather than being set in the rugged wilderness camps of the wonderfully cliché Vorhees Serials, Jodi comically sets it in a day camp. A nice surprise came in the finale when the real hilarity began, including the masked stalker's masked stalker dog.

Jeremy Kennedy's Dreaming In Revelation is not only the most professional, the deepest and the most Avant-Garde piece of High-Art, but it's also genuinely haunting fare. It's hard to imagine that this was all done inside of nine weeks, it's that amazing. Something this impressive had better get far more exposure. Here's hoping.

Brett Kelly's The Tell-Tale Heart was a modern retelling of the old Edgar Allan Poe classic of how a man's murderous guilt confesses for him. Brett in the lead role did quite the fine job indeed.

Ralph Gethings' Reckoning had a freakishly creepy imp thing (seen right) chasing after a man in the woods. Once the man is caught, we learn the reason for the chase and are explained some metaphysical principles of balance along the way. Well done.

Brian Singleton's Death Trike, seemed to be everyone's favorite, judging by the reception. This is the type of low budget film that embraces it's medium rather than trying to hide it. Seeing wires and poled attached to the malignant killer tricycle made what could have been a cute little story into a perfectly kitschy tale. With terrific suspense, a healthy sense of humour and gore galore, you'll certainly enjoy this favoured short.

I guess I could say I was only disappointed with the last entry, which started off by breaking one of the two rules of the event, as this late entry was received well after the December 3rd deadline. In Firuz Daud's film The Door, we find a lone woman haunted by a creature who only we as viewers can see. She searches for that which is amiss, growing more distraught as the creature steps up its disturbing antics. The thing wrong with this story was not the Horror, as that was enjoyable, but the credits. Out of a nine minute time limit, it seems that the credits reserved half that time. As they rolled by, we witnessed a computer animatronic karaoke show while Men at Work's 'Who Can It Be Now?' was playing. Credits included names of the 'Hong Kong' and 'Malysia' (sic) Crew, and had so many names that this did not seem anywhere near independant. Rather than being a contributing member of the spirit of this Horror event, Daud, 'alumni of Ryerson Polytechnic University's Image Arts program' chose to use it as a sounding board to plug himself, most likely to advance his own Dog and Pony show career aspirations. Shame on you. Though the lyrics of the song were appropriate, it simply made me wonder if the movie's plot was devised out of the credits rather than the other way around. If someone out there could explain this guy's motivation, I'd love to hear it.

Allow me to take this opportunity to remind the hosts that they should enforce their own rules and deadlines to ensure that such a disjointed display should not be allowed to taint such a tremendously fantastic event in the future.

All told, the Killer 63 event inspires me not only to make trips to every subsequent event in the future, but the thought that I could be a contributor myself is something very, very intriguing indeed...

Squish's Semi-Annual Best And Worst (December 2006)

2006-12-15T00:00:00.000-05:00

'Tis the Christmas season and you all know and wait eagerly for Squish's Best and Worst Picks! As per usual, I'll be showcasing my best and worst rated films since last time. if it's one thing I've realized it's that the more movies you watch, the greater chance you have of finding deeper valleys and higher peaks. Luckily I have not a new worst ever film to report, which is thankful, however Squish's permanent list of top five films has definitely had a shuffle due to Chan-wook Park, but we'll get to that later.

In honour of the bleak and grim weather we Canadians will be facing for the next while, let's start with the stinkers:

The worst movies I've seen in the last six months are:

#1 - Song At Midnight - 22% (I'd Rather Listen To Crickets)

I know I had a blast writing the review, that's for sure, but watching this film because some book told me I had to see it before I died makes me wonder if the intent of the book is, in fact, to attempt to kill you with boredom and ulcer-bursting rage. Granted the China-shipped bootleg I bought had one of the worst translations I had even seen and may not properly reflect the wonder tale of, from what I can understand, a Chinese Phantom of the Opera dying to hump his sister... or something...

#2 - Evil's City - 26% (Metropolic Badness)

There's one good thing about straight to video films: they don't get any hype whatsoever and you can pretty much bet that these are gonna suck. Your expectations are lowered and if you're lucky, you find something with a couple of neat lines, shots or even lessons. Then, there's renting a movie with the intention of laughing at it with friends at how terrible it's going to be. Then, there's being embarrassed and squirming around on the couch and every scene contemplating turning it off, but giving it one more little chance. The worst has got to be the post-production gunfire effects, little starbursts put on the nozzle of the plastic gun. I swear, I don't remember anything else about this pile of dogshit.

#3 - Perils Of Pauline - 28% (The Perils of Bad Entertainment, Ugh.)

Remember hearing about those old films where the girl is tied to the tracks by the moustachioed man in the big black hat? Remember the story where the woman is tied to a log and put on the track of a lumber saw. In both those cases the woman is saved by her knightly macho saviour right? Remember the other perils Pauline went through? I was told that this was the silent serial short that did it all first. I went to the source and instead of finding some sweet gold, I discovered 1914's answer to stunt cinematography... Long shots that show us barely anything. What's worse is that the woman did her own stunts, injuring herself several times in the process, and what did she get for it? Chronic pain that drove her to alcoholism! It's garbage and it's no fun at all to watch.

#4 - Letter From An Unknown Woman - 36% (If Only She'd Have Stayed Unknown!)

Remember how Jar Jar Binks was so bad a character in Star Wars that he ruined scenes he WASN'T in? Well this film takes it one step further. This movie was so bad that when I saw the name Joan Fontaine in the opening credits for Rebecca, I immediate knew it would be a piece of upchucked liver. Luckily Hitchcock did a great job of reining in her talent, unlike director Max Ophuls, who deserves a refreshing exhumation so he can be burned at the great Film stake for this one.

#5 - House of Games - 36% (House Of Lames)

I was understanding of the fact that the previous four films were old and obscure, or straight to video caca, but when I bought this, it was because Roger Ebert said it was the best movie of the year. I should have known better than to trust a guy who used to write boobie scenes for Russ Myers. This is the story of a con game, and it's the most predictable film you'll see all year... and Ebert's a goof. The only reason this isn't as bad as #4 is because I was able to mock it on occasion.

And that's that. What's really great is that I've seen tons more fantastic films than bad ones, and even one that's reached the #2 spot of Squish's All-Time Favorites List, but we'll get to that yet.

Here's the five best movies I've seen in the last six month:

#5 - Dead Man - 92% (Knocks You Flat On Your Ass)

I found this to be on nice surprise. Turns out I'm a fan of the Western. That aside, I like tales of the underdog trying to deal with a messed up situation. I also like stories where the characters have a strong streak of the Lynchian, while all being framed in some nice black and white wildernesses. Johnny Depp is the cherry on top, and as simple tales go, this one is rich and runs deep. Enjoy.

#4 - Rear Window - 92% (Sneak A Peek at Perfection)

I know this is on numerous best films ever lists, and now I know why. You should too. Aside from mentioning that Grace Kelly has such a stunning presence in this as to make one weep at the fact that no one on earth has ever accomplished the grace of her namesake. Oh right and there's this awesome storyline about a guy who looks out at his neighbors and sees certain things amiss... right, that part.

#3 - Fanny and Alexander 92% - (Knocked Me On My Fanny)

The acting is unsurpassed. It's not because the actors know how to stand in one place properly, look natural or deliver their lines with impeccable timing, it's because the resonance of their words and their emotions is felt so deeply that it shakes your very foundation. As period pieces go this is probably my favorite. Definitely check it out.

#2 - True Romance 94% - (Truly Amazing)

Granted, this may have gotten such a bias due to the nostalgia and recall value, but isn't that what makes a great film? I have no shame in declaring I love Quentin Tarantino and this is one is written by him. Every actor in the universe is in this one and they're all super-wicked-awesome-hyper-cool. Dig it.

The best movie I've seen in a long time:

#1 - Sympathy For Lady Vengeance - 96% - (Perfection From Lady Vengeance)

I suggest this film to every adult our there just because the film is multi-faceted in its appeal. Fans of the Art-House will appreciate the highly stylized cinematography with just enough special effects added to give it an added edge without overwhelming the scenes. The storyline is extremely human, not to mention an extreme look at humanity pressed to the limit. Chan-wook Park is my new favorite director, and because of this frikken guy, I have to shatter my etched in stone tablets 'Top 5 Favorite Films Ever' list. How inconvenient, and I really liked the font!

Alright now in closing: it's official, www.filmsquish.com is going up soon. I know I said that six months ago, but I really mean it this time, and it's one gorgeous site, yesiree!

Travelling Alone (1995)

2006-12-11T14:05:00.001-05:00

This rather instructive video teaches how not to draw such attention as would put a woman travelling alone in potential danger. Picture Quiz: Safe or Risky?

Genre: Drama (Canada)

Starring: Lorrane Mackie; Venetia Marie

Directed By: Bradley H. Luft

Overview: This is a public service announcement meant to caution women that go business travelling alone, as told in three tales of based on real event accounts... but really it's about laughing at the big hair.

Acting: There's two ways of looking at this. 1.) Public service announcements are rarely commissioned on a grand scale. Never before or since old school ASTAR segments done by the War Amps have such coolness ever been associated with the PSA. One must forgive the low-budget and unpolished acting in favour of the overall message, much as it is with movies seen in science class... 2.) OH MY DISCO AWESOME GENIUS HILARIOUS!
Rating: 6

Cinematography: As it is with the PSA, the fashion trends and acting styles are at least five years behind their contemporary film counterparts. I would have dated this film at around 1989-1991. The best parts, besides the fashions of course, have got to be officer whoever inside a portrait studio walking and posing amidst jump cuts of himself facing different directions. Wow, erratic can be fun!
Rating: 7

Script: Granted, the delivery of the events was less that inspired, but there were some choice moments of 1980s chauvinistic dialogue and motivations. Go figure you'd find such a thing in a rape PSA.
Rating: 7

Plot: When we started watching the opening scene with a woman in a diner who goes outside and discovers a flat, only to be helped out by the friendly assailant, we knew right away that this would be the sort of tale where people do stupid things just to point out how they shouldn't do such stupid things. Well we were mistaken. These tales unfold in such a way that they're very believable enough while still being veneered in this odd style.
Rating: 8

Mood: Nothing kills a 'laugh out loud at the public service announcement from the big hair days that marked the end of the 80s era' mood like a hyper-realistic and terrifying account from someone who was victimized and almost raped and killed. What a downer. What's this woman's problem? Why can't she realize what we're here for? We didn't want to see women crying over it, we wanted to see dudes in tight shorts acting terribly. Holy jumpin' stop being so believable.
Rating: 8

Much like this family, the ladies in Travelling Alone decide to keep their hairstyles on the less extreme side of the 80s.

Overall Rating: 72% (Take A Group Trip!)

Aftertaste: I was at work restocking the supplies in the cabinet I never go to, and what do I find but this lovely tape sitting there with a rather dramatic and bouffanted lady on the cover. This is the type of thing you come across and realize, "Friday night, have a few people over and check out this 38 minutes of good times!" It was, except for that stupid serious bit... Party Pooper.
Ignore the score, really. It's about the badness of the effect, let the rest slide.

Psycho (1960)

2006-12-10T13:11:00.001-05:00

Hitchcock! Hitchcock! Hitchcock!

And kinda crazy too!

Genre: Horror Thriller

Starring: Anthony Perkins (Catch-22; Psycho II), Janet Leigh (The Naked Spur; Touch Of Evil)

Directed By: Alfred Hitchcock (Strangers On A Train; Shadow Of A Doubt)

Overview: Oh my God it's Norman Bates and a dead girl in a shower.

Acting: When comparing the actors to the Gus Van Sant fiasco version, I'll tell you that the original is far better. I was impressed most of all by the role of Anthony Perkin (of course) with his gitchy little disarming smile. Janet Leigh was fine and great and sexy, but I was surprisingly impressed with Martin Balsam's (12 Angry Men; Breakfast At Tiffany's) role of the touch-of-noir donning private dick.
Rating: 8

Cinematography: The best way to describe the feel of this category as 'creepy cool' There's these neat little pan-ins, the mirrored aviator shades of the curious cop, the dramaticaly freakish shots during the murder scenes, like that fantastic focus on Janet Leigh's eye, and my God that house. This film is a pleasure to look at. The lens dances as it warps perception and takes you on an exciting little trip indeed.
Rating: 9

Script: "A boy's best friend is his mother..." - Norman Bates

The dialogue is natural, appropriately expository, lets us know what's going on in an exciting and believable way... until our little lady shows up at the Bates Motel. At that point it twists itself up into this creepy little knot of suspicion and oddity, Norman's perfectly written. From then on you realize how unique everyone is, from the private dick to the town's sheriff and the missing woman's family. This is a fantastic script.
Rating: 8

Plot: Different, trend-setting, completely unexpected. Imagine being in a theater in 1960. You're watching a woman steal from her boss and run away, until she holes herself up in a hotel. The last thing you would expect is that that plot getting turned on it's ear when the woman gets famously murdered. It makes you wonder where the movie's going from that point on. Audiences were stunned. Yes we're far more jaded today, but though this ending is relatively predictable, it's that way because so many others have copied all the twists and turns that were fist taken here..
Rating: 9

Mood: Firmly rooted in the contemporary modern day, Hitchcock managed to stylize this film not with the use of colour (in fact this is shot in glorious Black and White), but rather with the expressionistic angles and lenses that I know him for best. Besides that, you can guess yourself how much of an impact this has just by looking at the ominous house and how it has been fused into the minds of film fans everywhere, into the minds of people everywhere, even.
Rating: 8

Perkins' role in Psycho actually hurt his career, as his reputation of an attractive boy-next-door was shattered by this perfromance.

Overall Rating: 84% (Crazy!)

Aftertaste: I had no idea that there were three sequels to this movie, not including the Gus Van Sant carbon copy. I had no idea that Anthony Perkins directed one of them, and I had no idea that he was bisexual, or that he died of AIDS in '92. One thing I DO know about Anthony Perkins, is that he has no relation with the ice cream chain...

Sympathy For Lady Vengeance (2005) * Top Picks * * Viewed Twice *

2006-12-09T00:40:00.000-05:00

Chan-wook Park is my new God to be appeased.

Genre: Drama Mystery Thriller (South Korea)

Starring: Yeong-ae Lee (The Gift, One Fine Spring Day), Min-sik Choi (Oldboy, Brotherhood)

Directed By: Chan-Wook Park (Oldboy, Sympathy For Mr. Vengeance)

Overview: After having served thirteen years in prison, Geum-Ja seeks vengeance on the man who betrayed her. (There's so much, much more but I dare not ruin this for anyone).

Acting: Now that I've seen a film this good, I wonder how much acting is responsible for making or breaking a film. Without a good script an actor is left to the hounds, granted, yet no matter how well something is written, if an actor doesn't have it or doesn't get the right direction, it can fall apart just as easily. All this to say: lucky someone with a story this well-planned and perfected also had a team with skill to deliver it just so. Every single role in this film is an act of perfection, directed in kind.

I'm talking effin' halos.
Rating: 10

Cinematography: Peter Greenway, eat your heart out, then regurgitate it up and eat it out again because once just isn't enough. It seems that Chan-Wook took a few lessons in colour composition from Peter, as well as from other South Korean directors, but this isn't in any way pretentious. This film's cinematography rivals those of my favorite (and also hyper-stylized) films, Requiem For A Dream and Fight Club, however this is far less subtle. The intensity never stops from wardrobe to locations, from lenses and filters to angles, even right down to props (didja SEE that custom handgun?). I remember rolling my eyes at some point and saying "Could you STOP being perfect? It's distracting me from the story."
Rating: 10

Script: The magic of this film is that motivations are clear enough without words, hell, silence and score may even have been MORE effective at some points because the way this plays out, the subtext, the drive, the characters are written so well that their actions become so obvious so quick, and all without being predictable.
Rating: 9

Plot: The worst part of this movie was how difficult it was to follow. Like 21 Grams, we have an intense semi-linear timeline that jumps back into the past perhaps even a little too often. Had I known about that going in, it would have made things a little easier, so there's my gift to you. As for the story itself, the constantly changing evolution in the character arc in this is severe and the way this woman resolves her problems is one of the most original vengeance plots you ever could have conceived.
Rating: 9

Mood: My favorite part of the film was the constant effort put into combining style with form visually, while including a haunting and repetitive score, just like Kronos Quartet did in Requiem For A Dream. Add to this the intensity of the characters, the stoic drive of those involved, odd and strange and highly symbolic dream sequences, and you have here a film that plays in the field of high-art while staying deeply rooted in logic and humanity, dark as it may be. My God, I have to see this again.
Rating: 10

Anyone who goes to so much trouble to have a custom-made handgun this cool... untouchable in my books.

Overall Rating: 96% (Perfection From Lady Vengeance)

Aftertaste: This stays with you. This is important. This is original. This is art film, action film, thriller, drama and mystery all put together with such perfection that I will safely call this one of the top films of the decade. It's just so right, so honest, unabashed, and what the future of all film should strive to be: a spectacle for the eye, a tale of humanity pushed to the limits of reason, a brilliant comment and an innovation leaps and bounds beyond the imaginable. This had weaseled it's way up the chain to my Top 5 favorite films, and I need to go own a copy.

I dare you not to like this.

Originally Reviewed September 16th, 2006, see comments for re-viewed review.

Deathrace 2000 (1975)

2006-12-01T10:15:00.000-05:00

Yes, mofukas... it IS that cool!

Genre: Sports Action Sexploitation Sci-Fi Comedy

Starring: David Carradine (Kill Bill: Vol. 2;"Kung Fu"), Sylvester Stallone (Rocky Balboa; Judge Dredd)

Directed By: Paul Bartel (Eating Raoul)

Overview: Welcome to the Year 2000 and welcome to the Transcontinental Road Race where running people over isn't murder, it's scoring!

Acting: Machine Gun Joe Viterbo, that's Sylvester Stallone's name in this. As for Carradine, he's Frankenstein. Say what you will about one of the first starring roles Sly's ever done, he uses what he knows, firing off machine guns with his crooked mouth and getting punchy with men and women alike. The actors know to go to a realm beyond the serious, but except for that one fight scene choreography, the talent is terrific.
Rating: 8

Cinematography: Honestly, the angles and the shots are really dynamic. There's even some healthy doses of good gore when the killing happens, and for as much as they may not be completely believable, the explosions are grand and plentiful, be they planes, cars, or bombs. Did I mention all the T'n'A?
Rating: 8

Script: "She was a great, dear friend of mine and I shall remember her forever howling down that freeway in the sky, knocking over... the angels."

Imagine sports commentators who love the sport they're reporting, during the Olympics being held in their home town. Imagine the energy. The commentator dialogue has that feel and though the biggest issues I had were in the logistics of the actual scoring system (the math works out wrong), the one liners are witty and catchy, with my favorite being "It's Euthanasia Day at the geriatric centre" when the hospital lays out the old folks in front of the road. Consistent witty groaners make this really enjoyable.
Rating: 8

Plot: And best of all, rather than just having a story about a run-people over and make it first From New York to L.A. race, there's the whole resistance movement going around trying to abolish it through sabotage and pirate broadcasts, and we learn early on that the favoured Frankenstein's very own navigator is in on the plot to assassinate the president. It's got depth! I know, it's totally surprising!
Rating: 8

Mood: I read that the first script was a serious one. When completed they decided it was a rather vile premise to be taking seriously, so they dumbed it down and laughed it up a notch. That's what makes this movie great, the overarching comedic streak to it. What you'll love best of all though is the year 2000 as seen through the eyes of 1975. Bubbled cities in the sky, hilarious outfits and the technology all give it that 70s kitsch that is coming back with force today.
Rating: 8

And check out the navigator's fuzzy little hat

Overall Rating: 80% (2000 Laughs!)

Aftertaste: This is one of those movies that has to be seen for the pure kitsch of it. It's hardcore seventies style and though not a milestone film is really fun to watch and quote from. usually when watching something like this, you know that one or two categories are really going to suffer, but even with my scrutinizing eyes I could find only joy in this fifth or so viewing. And it's really short too.

Reservoir Dogs (1992) * Viewed Twice *

2006-11-27T12:06:00.000-05:00

And some sweet foreshadowing from Mr. Blonde.

Genre: Crime Drama Thriller

Starring: Harvey Keitel (Bad Lieutenant; From Dusk Till Dawn), Tim Roth (Rob Roy; Rosencrantz & Guildenstern Are Dead)

Directed By: Quentin Tarantino (Kill Bill; Pulp Fiction)

Overview: This is the story of a jewel heist gone awry, the players involved and a slow unveiling of the mysteries of the elements of the crime, all to the super sounds of the 70s.

Acting: The thing about Quentin is that he likes being in his own movies, and everyone knows he isn't a very good actor. He knows it too, so he doesn't say too much. Buscemi, Keitel and Roth, everyone else, amazing! There were a couple odd acting moments I found strange, like Harvey pretending to light his smoke and smoke rather than actually smoking it, but man, this is intense.
Rating: 8

Cinematography: The low budget of this film is obvious in the warehouse, but there's good pans and a solid effort to make it look cool and hip, which it still is. The spinning around the breakfast table, and especially the effects used in the Commode Story were top-notch cinematographic quality. Oh it's not super duper pretty, but you know seeing this, that Quentin only picks the best.
Rating: 8

Script: "Are you gonna bark all day, little doggy? Or are you gonna bite?"
"...Featuring Rick Bodine's monster truck, The Boh-hwee-meth."
"Some other GUY on some other JOB is Mr. Purple. You're Mr. PINK!"

I could go on and on. Yes there's a couple dated lines that seem cheesy, but the rest is gold, gold, gold.
Rating: 9

Plot: The story is terrific, and the editing style of coming in half-way though the movie to explain the beginning and putting a hunk here and a clue there rather than telling the tale in a straight line really makes for exciting storytelling. I love this style, and Quentin pulls it off like a genius. The story itself is fun and you know that you have to see this film, there's no question of why, just when.
Rating: 9

Mood: When one is very much aware of the music of a film, that's a bonus. And how many people do you know own this soundtrack? I know I do, do you? See, if it's one thing I know about Quentin it's that he NEEDS the music to be just right and with a high recall value. With that said, the black suits and the big silver guns, the hip chic of every character, and the mood set by the Commode Story? Man oh God!
Rating: 9

Poor Chris Penn, died because his heart was just too big... (RIP 2006)

Overall Rating: 86% (Stop Bitchin' and See This Already!)

Aftertaste: The what now? The eighth or ninth viewing of this classic Tarantino film? You can tout and rant about must see War Epics and black and white important historic retellings, but when it comes down to it, my generation wants a solid story, cool guns, nice surprises and one hell of a soundtrack. Reservoir Dogs has it ALL, and sadistic torture to boot. Man, this will never die, never fade. It's brilliant. In fact, it's one of the first films that made me begin my true exploration of film as something to study seriously, no shinola.

First Reviewed December 25, 2005. See comments for re-viewed review.

The Freshman (1925)

2006-11-26T09:26:00.000-05:00

There's really nothing masculine about having your arms ass deep behind a man's balls

Genre: Silent Family Comedy Sport Romance

Starring: Harold Lloyd (Girl Shy; Safety Last), Jobyna Ralston (Wings; The Kid Brother)

Directed By: Fred C. Newmeyer & Sam Taylor (Slapstick Symposium)

Overview: A naive young man goes off to college in hopes of becoming the most popular boy in school. He soon finds that being on the football team is a necessary step.

Here's another one of the absolute mediocre films I feel I need mention, yet don't feel the need to waste too much of my time with, priorities being what they are in life. Rather than give a long-winded explanation of why this is passably acted in the style of the time, and shot in such a way that the camera serves to do nothing but frame the tale, I'll just tell you this: of all the Harold Lloyd films I was told I had to see 'Before I Died' by a big fat tome, this was the most unimpressive one to date. I don't know if it's because in today's day and age this warm and snugly cliché is about as lively as a necrophiliac's horse, or if it's just that of all the predictable slapsticky gag moments imaginable, this used pretty much every single one.

All in all this was probably so important a film in its time because since then I've seen this movie rehashed about fifty times. "Really? He actually comes through and wins the big game?! NO! What a twist!"

Yeah, not so much.

When a woman does it on the other hand...HOT

Overall Rating: 62% (Kinda Smelly If You Ask Me)

Aftertaste: While looking into this, I read the words 'Harold Lloyd's most loved film,' which makes it obvious to me that the person who wrote it hasn't seen a single other film of his. What's awesome about Lloyd is his stunts. This one really has none of that; it's a cute little story about a dude with a bucket of insecurities trying so hard to be famous that he looks like a gullible goof. What's the lesson here, don't be a dweeb? Thanks I learned that back in the days where I was measuring my wink in junior high.

The Kingdom II (1997)

2006-11-24T14:26:00.001-05:00

See, cause they're special they understand all the stuff going on in the spirit world, and they explain it to us. Yeah, like Rainman.

Genre: Drama Horror Mystery Comedy Mini-Series (Sweden, Italy, France, NOrway, Germany, Denmark)

Starring: Ernst-Hugo Järegård (Europa), Peter Mygind

Directed By: Lars Von Trier (Dancer In The Dark; Breaking The Waves), Morten Arnfred ("The Kingdom")

Overview: In this sequel of "The Kingdom", we actually get to see the freak baby, and explore the continuing saga of the patients, staff and ghosts in the best 'damned' hospital in Denmark!

Acting: With names even well-known enough in the West like Stellan Skarsgård (Exorcist: The Beginning; Beowulf and Grendel), it's a sure thing that the players are just as good this time around as they were the first. No it's nothing super fantastic but a couple of the characters really know how to deliver their roles just perfectly. Without characters so messed up this wouldn't have been a little too lame, to tell you the truth. They carry a lot, and they deserve their kudos.
Rating: 8

Cinematography: The Lars loved the orange filter, but at least it's not as pronounced as in The Element Of Crime, high-art that it was. In the three years since the first "The Kingdom" was made, special effects technology improved greatly... or at least this time around they didn't try doing something knowing it wouldn't look good. Television being what it is doesn't use heavy art forms in its narrative but this one goes places you'd never expect, including nudity and mutant babies and one hell car accident stunt. There's a real effort put into the look of this, but I myself found it just shy of impressive.
Rating: 7

Script: The script, I'd say is much better than the first time, however that may be due to the fact that we all know the characters already and have a synaptic sense of what they're going to say, which makes it more enjoyable. The comedy plays quite heavily this time around and though it's out of place, it's actually pretty hilarious in that dark comedy kind of way. I'd say speaking to your own turds to explain your motivations is a great way of doing exposition...
Rating: 8

Plot: The plot this time around is STILL one guy facing malpractice and trying to sneakily get himself out of it, there's still the haunted investigation bit and there's still the bureaucratic inquest into the hospital's potential improprieties. We enjoyed it, but in that "let it slide because there's no more way". Knowing there wasn't a finale made it easier to swallow, even though only a couple things got resolved.
Rating: 7

Mood: So yeah, when you get a mix of Satan and cock jokes you tend to end up with, well with something not so solid in themes. On the one hand there's this haunted hospital with an evil presence and on the other hand you don't know whether to laugh or cry at the man-headed mutant baby, and also at the same time there's some real hilarious content that plants this solidly in the comedy genre. I don't know what to make of it. Wishy-washy.
Rating: 7

Praise the motherly instinct of Girlfriend of Squish, this is her favorite part!

Overall Rating: 74% (Two Crowns Aren't Better Than One)

Aftertaste: This Ernst-Hugo Järegård guy dies between Part II and the final instalment, and so for some reason because one actor is gone, the whole production stops. Why on earth would every single actor need to be in the last one you ask? I ask too. It's frustrating because this one ends with almost as big a cliff-hanger as the last one, and I heard rumours that it was well part the deciding if it was going to be produced stage. Whatever. I bet Lars wouldn't look at doing this again, given his place in his career today.

The Man Who Knew Too Much (1956)

2006-11-18T16:00:00.000-05:00

Hitchcock! Hitchcock! Hitchcock!

"In fact, should you take the square root of such a number and multiply it by the hypotenuse..."

Genre: Adventure Drama Mystery Thriller

Starring: James Stewart (The Mortal Storm; The Naked Spur), Doris Day (Calamity Jane; Teacher's Pet)

Directed By: Alfred Hitchcock (The 39 Steps; Blackmail)

Overview: When a family on vacation is brought into the fold of an assassination plot, the assassins kidnap their son to keep them silent.

Acting: Well, by now James Stewart is as synonymous a word with Hitchcock as Suspense is, and with good reason. Here he plays an American doctor on vacation embroiled in a sinister plot, and he does of 'Entitlement' just bang on right. Doris Day is known for her musicals... apparently mediocre musicals, but in this she does such a stunning job that when it's needed, you feel it deep down. For someone to play the mother of kidnapped boy and go into hysterics without overacting... man that's hard, but she does it.
Rating: 8

Cinematography: The style here is more suspense and tension rather than the highly stylized format that gets my gander up. Hitchcock uses masterful lighting techniques to give streaks of a very un-Feng Shui feel to much of his film. Overall an innocuous style of photography with a certain unsettling subtlety.
Rating: 8

Script: For me it was this category suffered the most in the original. My script predictions turned out quite correct indeed because the characters are richer, the police begging to be let in on the secret is done far more subtly, and the veiled and not so veiled threats are pretty well said. The overall assassination slant could have been so much better delivered however, and I found the explanation scene leading up to it to be unsavoury, puns and all.
Rating: 8

Plot: The story is a touch more sinister this time around. Everything plays out pretty much the same way except that the child is younger and cuter, the kidnapping takes place far later (enough for us to connect with the kid) and those involved are smarter in the end and invite a greater climax. All told a well paced tale with a couple twists.
Rating: 8

Mood: Allow me to digress, because those of you who haven't seen the original 1934 film may not appreciate this one out of context nearly as much. I understand that Hitchcock considered this one the work of a professional compared to the last one, and what I saw, was an entirely different movie with the same core plot elements. Having seen the original enhances the experience rather than detracting from it, and I would recommend anyone interested in doing a double-bill to go ahead and watch these both in the same night. It works. Seem that the theme for Hitch' was coming full circle and tying the ends off some unfinished business.
Rating: 8

That seventh woman on the fifteenth row on the left was totally miscast, I mean come on!

Overall Rating: 80% (Tell Me More!)

Aftertaste: We were impressed with this one, but that came from having seen the first one first. Rather than rehashing the same old WWII onset plot, they made it relevant to the day much in the same way that Apocalypse Now took a contemporary story and kept it contemporary 100 years later. Even Hitchcock tried that with Sabotage, but he didn't pull it off nearly as well.

To Catch a Thief (1955)

2006-11-17T15:00:00.000-05:00

Hitchcock! Hitchcock! Hitchcock!

"Grace, you can pop my clutch anyday..."

Genre: Crime Mystery Romance Thriller

Starring: Grace Kelly (Rear Window; Dial M For Murder), Cary Grant (North By Northwest; Notorious)

Directed By: Alfred Hitchcock (Rope; Easy Virtue)

Overview: A retired jewel thief is accused of going back to his old ways, and decides to capture the perpetrator himself to clear his name.

Acting: Cary Grant in a Bohemian-striped burglar shirt serving quiche Lorraine and speaking French is more a test of his manhood and courage in the face of poofterdom than a study of his talent. Even Grace Kelly seems to sink below herself by resorting to an all too common woman unworthy of her particular style. What bother me most of all is the 27-year-old woman portraying the 17-year-old girl. Both Girlfriend Of Squish and I were all "uh there's no way she's 17." Hey, morons, why not cast an actual 17-year old? There's a frikken idea.
Rating: 7

Cinematography: Maybe it was the print of the film I was watching but holy jumping Jesus, Technicolor suffered for a while huh? Eek. It's colour but it's so damned in your face! I'll admit I did like the composition of the love scene with the fireworks in the back, and the rear projection keeps improving, and the long drives down the Riviera were exciting, but it's like Hitchcock was doing this one with a hooker under each arm as they fed him grapes... just not all there, you know?
Rating: 7

Script: The best part of the film was the witty repartée and the individual motivations. This plays out like some dry English comedy, making you laugh at the way the characters think, but it's not a comedy because that aren't trying to be funny. When you accept the premise that there people are actually this jaded, this colourful and this cynically embittered, you'll enjoy what's in store. You might as well just find a script of this and skip the rest.
Rating: 8

Plot: Girlfriends have a way of showing you that you're too into something by leaving when the premise gets too impalpable. Stoic resolve is something you need to get through the foundation of this story: Jewel thief proves he's not the culprit by committing himself to finding the person who's using his M.O. You know the logical thing to do would be say, oh, "Hey cops who've come to arrest me? Let's keep this out of the papers, you hide me for a while, and when the thief strikes again in a couple days, you'll know it wasn't me, deal?" No, instead let's go all high adventure for no reason whatsoever.
Rating: 6

Mood: There is nothing in the world that I hate more than cops who shoot at unarmed people when they have them surrounded. Using a method of drama and thrill that involves policemen shooting at silhouettes on rooftops while droves of people in the buildings are put at risk don't make for a dramatic ending, they make for a totally killed mood. Thanks Hitchcock, your hatred of the police made a laughable movie even worse. Were you high?
Rating: 6

Grace Kelly is super alluring, yes indeed, but you lose a touch of respect when she hooks up with a man twice her age who talks like a gameshow host...

Overall Rating: 68% (Stole a Couple Hours I Want Back)

Aftertaste: No, officially it's not that bad a movie. It's nowhere near as detestable as Champagne, but I have these expectations now. If it's one thing I've realized it's that we have a set amount of time to do things and if you want to change the world as a director, then you do it your way, especially when you're established the way this guy was. It's like Hitchcock pissed his life away doing what he wanted to rather than being an innovator... Even heard of challenging yourself? Bah, waste of this man's talent!

Dear Wendy (2005)

2006-11-16T11:46:00.000-05:00

Hoo, yeah! One mean possy...

Genre: Drama (Denmark, France, Germany, UK)

Starring: Jamie Bell (Billy Elliot; King Kong (2005)), Bill Pullman (Igby Goes Down; Lost Highway)

Directed By: Thomas Vinterberg (The Celebration)

Overview: A young pacifist discovers a love for a seemingly juxtaposed hobby, and decides to make a club of it along with some new friends.

Acting: So you see Bill Pullman first in the credits and you think, yeah the kind of talent isn't going to be great, even though he's totally underrated. Turns out it's ok to have no name actors when they kick so much ass. It's weird because I've seen all these kids in something somewhere, and it's like they're just perfectly suited for the role, or maybe it's just so well written that any decent actor that age could pull it off with a light directorial nudge. Man, I love these kids.

Rating: 9

Cinematography: The streak of Vinterberg and Trier is ridiculously apparent in the simplicity and photographic beauty as it is merged with ever so minimalist special effects and rare moments of mood building quick cuts. This is the kind of film that is rich in interesting setting and accessories, with a touch of post-production kitsch thrown in to send it just over the line of 'cool' and puts itself under 'art'. Who knew a mining town could look so super wicked.
Rating: 9

Script: Written by Lars Von Trier. You're damned right it is. A touch of the Dogville trilogy in the layout of the town, a streak of the suspension of disbelief required for Dancer In the Dark, but the kind of tale you would attribute to literature. The kind of story that speaks simply in it's characters but is rife with symbolism and character growth. I loved it.
Rating: 8

Plot: A pacifist goes and buys a toy gun and figures out it's actually a small caliber pistol. He decides to start a little gun club, gathering losers who can extol the virtues of peace with a piece. Strong in the values of sportsmanship and gentlemanly conduct, this group learns and teaches one another how great it is to be confident in the knowledge that you're safe, how one changes not through carrying a gun, but making friends and gaining knowledge about a rare familiar subject. It's multi-layered, and even the ultra-dramatic ending drives the perfect power and grace required of a story where pistols are the symbol of a courageous self.
Rating: 9

Mood: Mother, it runs deep. One of the most interesting coming of age tales I've ever seen, this goes beyond the lame little, "Look mom, I'm growing up!", and goes into a full test of what it means to be a man and standing firm to one's developed morality. It's about respect and friendship, courage and grace, and though a touch over the line, it's that nice fictional touch that dramas need to make them memorable.
Rating: 9

One for All and All for Bling, Biatch

Overall Rating: 88% (Wish You Were Here)

Aftertaste: It's interesting settling into a little known film that one's only heard snippets about. Tales of how it's passably fine collide with the knowledge that this is written by a favored director and directed by one who's made one of my top five films to date. Well, go figure I thought this genius. I know why people found this a stretch to the imagination, a film rooted in suspension of disbelief, but that's what makes it so effin' awesome.

What the hell is wrong with people? How can this be so under the radar?

I Confess (1953)

2006-11-16T02:00:00.000-05:00

Hitchcock! Hitchcock! Hitchcock!

See, cause, it's about a priest, and people confess to priests... and to murders too, so it's a doubley ontondree, a PUN if you will.

Genre: Drama Thriller

Starring: Montgomery Clift (The Heiress; A Place In The Sun), Anne Baxter (All About Eve; The Magnificient Ambersons)

Directed By: Alfred Hitchcock (Lifeboat; Stage Fright)

Overview: When a murderer confesses his crime to a priest, that priest's oath binds him to secrecy, making things far more difficult when he becomes the prime suspect.

Acting: Well, I dig the Clift. He has this subtle way of instantly transforming his face from happy and calm to *BOING* shocked and stressed! He's a natural at that, and it seems he's perfectly suited at the dramatic role. it was a little weird seeing the ultra-American Karl Malden (A Streetcar Named Desire; Patton) in this story set in Quebec City playing some tough cop, but he did a great job of it, even if the script forced him there.
Rating: 8

Cinematography: I was told that this was a beautiful movie. By that I expected panoramic shots of the old Quebec that it's set in. Yes, there were a few, and for as much as old winding cobbled roads are cool, this is mostly close-ups and dialogue, not really conducive to the feel of intense cinematography. Some films are just not built for the look, no matter how hard they try to silhouette stuff. Hitchcock does what he can, and pulls it off, but it's not as pretty as say, The Trouble With Harry, with the New England leaves of fall.
Rating: 8

Script: The way this dialogue works is annoying to the French it would seem. Anyone who knows Quebec City knows that people don't speak English there, cause they'd get tarred and feathered for being a Queen's loyalist. At the same time, there's the occasional French word spoken to illustrate the setting better. Monsieux Verdoux does this and it sucks, but it doesn't suck in I Confess, don't ask me why. That ultra-minor thing aside, the script is all about letting us in on something just long enough to make us think of one thing, then blurting it out to see if we're right or not. Pretty intense at times, for sure.
Rating: 8

Plot: The biggest issue I had with the film was the entire premise, which is a bit of a kick in the pants. While watching the film I was content with the suspension of disbelief, but Girlfriend of Squish kept ruining the moment by saying, "uh, instead of saying "I can't say", why doesn't he say, "My oath prevents me from divulging information learned during confession." Damn her left-brain mind. Damn it to HELL!
Rating: 7

Mood: The theme is secrets. Secrets upon secrets, secrets of the past clashing with oaths and life decisions needing to be considered all too quickly. The mystery elements of this film are the most fun and right when you realize "oh there's something", there's something new to take it's place. Yes indeed, it sparks the mind with new things, that's the fun, peeling away the layers.
Rating: 8

Nope, no little boy pervert priest in fifties Quebec jokes... it's just waaaay too easy

Overall Rating: 78% (Admittedly Decent)

Aftertaste: The reason I've never heard of this is because it's not a landmark film, clearly. Hitchcock's heyday was shortly after this and for as much as this was a solidly made film, and quite enjoyable, the entire thing was rooted in an idea that easily could have been circumvented by a God-Fearing, law-abiding and relatively intelligent priest. No harm in saying WHY you can't talk about something, no harm at all.

Alfred Hitchcock Blog-A-Thon (November 2006)

2006-11-15T12:44:00.003-05:00

Well here it is! My contribution to the many Blog-A-Thon Entries in honour of Alfred Hitchcock.

Over the last month, I decided to undergo a marathon of his works and, should you desire, I've quite an extensive list of reviews. So scroll around, drift through the October archives and post a comment or two telling me how wrong I am. My favorite films of his that I've seen so far will be hotlinked here as well. As many of you might show up a little late in including your posts, that's fine, I'm a little late in watching everything good ol' Hitch has made, so to all you contributors out there, take your tim and drop me a comment when your entry is up, and I'll include your site on my link as soon as possible.

This particular entry will focus on a far more personal note, a few details about my experiences of the man and his works from as early as I've ever know the 'Master of Suspense'. Included is a journal of my findings and comments as I progressed through Good Ol' Alfred's pleathora of films. Most importantly at the bottom you will find contributor links to all the juicy blog posts about this great man, his films and whatever relates to the man. Enjoy!

September 13th
My first experience of Alfred Hitchcock was by far the worst. I must have been around seven years old, over at my grandma's house and some daytime talkshow had some guest from Psycho, probably Janet Leigh, because they went on to show the entire horribly frightening shower scene, chocolate sauce and all. I didn't sleep at all that night. Not a pleasant start to this man's works.

One summer about fifteen years later, I went to Montreal, where my date took me to the Alfred Hitchcock exhibit at an art gallery. I wasn't expecting much. Well, what a layout. There were tons of props and portraits, head shots of leading ladies, the rope from Rope, abstract eyes (pieces inspired by Spellbound), and this terrific little interview with Hitchcock himself describing his way of turning the Film Noir Genre on its ear. Alfred seemed proud of himself as he asked and answered his questions about the Film Noir Cliché and how he intentionally shattered all that with North By Northwest. I watched the whole interview alone there in that museum's large hall. What I remember most however was the last room in the corner, a bare-walled solitary place with a 1950s jungle gym upon which perched birds... big black lifelike crows to be precise, that were scattered, poised, all over the plaything and dangling from the ceiling. Really cool.

Ever since then I've wanted to see his works, but except for Psycho (both versions), The Birds and Vertigo, I just hadn't gotten around to it. I'm looking forward to this.

September 17
You know before I've even begun, I realize how important a man Hitchcock is, since both of the indy videostores I went to to get the more obscure films of the collection, has its own Hitchcock section. One even had it right next to the Kurosawa section... my next Blog-A-Thon subject...

October 13
As expected, all the films before 1934 were barely worthy of note, save The Pleasure Garden, his first, and Downhill, (his second). With the help of my friend's Chinese box set of 45 films, I've secured pretty much everything this man ever did, and I plan on watching them in chronological order.

November 1
Alright, I'm officially disolusionned. I will admit to you all that I am not a fan of hitchcock's early works. Sure I'm glad I've seen them, being the obsessive completist that I am, but the 1930s were certainly not my favorite decade for film, and sdadly Hitchcock didn't do much to improve my opinion of it. I DO know that the more we travel along this man's career path, the more he gets to where we know he's capable of being.

November 14th
Seems I've hit a pocket of genius. Rear Window, Dial M For Murder, Strangers On A Train. My God. My only wish was that he'd hit this wave a decade before.

I remember in high school when we got our yearbooks, there was a section that covered the 80s. 1989 was a full page describing the fall of the Berlin wall, the Tiananmen Square massacre, a lot of history. For all the years leading up to '89, we had a small blurb. Still to this day I remember reading "1980 - Alfred Hitchcock dies", and even back before I was inducted into the land of critics and filmmaking, I knew that was a hard fact for a lot of people.

Personal favorites:

Rear Window - 92%

The Wrong Man - 88 %, Strangers On A Train - 88%

Rebecca - 86%

Now scroll down to see all the other contributors to the Blog-A-Thon, in alphabetical order:

Lucas over at 100 Films includes Psycho as one of them.

Emma at All About My Movies confirms Hitch is THE master.

Sean's Bitter Cinema unveils Hitchcock the Huckster!

Dan comments on Shadow of a Doubt, Rebecca, AND Hitch's use of music at Cinemathematics!

At Critic After Dark you'l find a side by side comparission in Psycho Squared, as commented on by Noel and his Evil Twin Brother.

I was hoping someone would cover Gus Van Sant's Psycho! Thanks Culture Snob!

Edward Copeland on film asks What If George Bailey Had Vertigo?

The Film Exprience Blog hosted by Nathaniel R. includes his commentary on Rope.

Jeff at Filmscreed covers Blackmail and Rear Window, plus a couple of marquee pieces too!

Over at Filmyear, Thom has some choice tidbit quotes from the master Of Suspense himself

Flickhead graces us with wonderful images from France.

Forward To Yesterday features Bob's piece on Aventure Malgache and Bon Voyage.

Greenbriar Picture Show has John's commentary on the great To Catch a Thief.

If Charlie Parker Was A Gunslinger has Richard's his piece on Saboteur and Shadow Of A Doubt.

Vincent visite The Trouble with Harry chez son site, Inisfree.

JA over at My New Plaid Pants discusses his favorite character from his favorite Hitchcock.

The Sheila Variations explores one of her all time favorites - Notorious.

Over at Stale Popcorn, Kamikaze Camel takes an in-depth look at The 39 Steps.

That Little Round-Headed Boy talks about Grace Kelly, Hitch's favorite leading lady.

Truly, We Numble, And Then has Adam discussing why Alfred Hitchcock is his favorite director.
Windmills Of My Mind has Damian gracing us with his own unique Hitchcock story.

Now scroll past the slate for late entries and new submissions

Chris over at Category D discusses Hitchcock as he relates to Film Studies.

Nigredo explores Psycho over at What's He Filming In There? And an interesting take it is.

More to come throughout the week for you procrastinators out there, including myself!

(Scroll down for new reviews of my own, and to all contributors - leave a comment with your permanent link.)

The Wrong Man (1956)

2006-11-15T01:00:00.000-05:00

Hitchcock! Hitchcock! Hitchcock!

I beat Duncanson to the sweetest Marquis ever!

Genre: Crime Drama Noir

Starring: Henry Fonda (12 Angry Men; The Grapes Of Wrath)

Directed By: Alfred Hitchcock (Murder!; The Man Who Knew Too Much)

Overview: When a man is identified as a bank robber, he does all he can to help prove his innocence, yet somehow they've not convinced that they've got the wrong man.

Acting: So Henry Fonda. You either love him or hate him, and those who hate him are complete morons who don't grasp the concept of the 'resolute everyman'. He's softer than those hard guys, yet his characters are all ultra-humanist and they're the type who keep hope with plans to persevere with a stoic resolve. Again we have that sort of man here, and awesomely done. His wife, the cops, everyone plays a role familiar and expected, while still gracing us with a unique take, personalizing it with a hint of subtext.
Rating: 9

Cinematography: The choice of using black and white film and doing a stark recreation of a heavily stylized film noir and juxtaposing it with a normal everyman's tale lends us a nice context, adding drama to what needs none, given the person suffering is someone we all know. What I was impressed with were the art shorts and camera tricks that Hitchcock used. That put this just nice over the top. I turned to Girlfriend of Squish and said, "how Hitchcock can make a man walking up stairs have so much suspense, I'll never understand."
Rating: 9

Script: The normal and everyday dialogue hits home rather well. I think my biggest issue with the film were the naive police parts, but I guess if it's based on a true story of real situations as they occurred in the Fifties, then it turns bone-chillingly weird. Cops honestly declaring details to the suspect, jurors standing up in court and talking. It's so strange you've got to believe it.
Rating: 8

Plot: This is not a mystery with a twist. Going in knowing that makes it even better, because then you're left with just an honest man's story of how he is taken by a system that does everything by the book and how this sort of thing could happen to any one of us. In fact it's based on a true story, and that's what makes it amazing.
Rating: 9

Mood: What I liked best about this story is the way it unfolded more as a personal testament than a dramatic portrayal that wrapped itself up nicely. As this is based on a true story, this has far more human elements, adding suspense in the processes rather than climaxes. Walks to the police station, confusing bureaucratic shuffles, moments spent reflecting alone, these are the things that allow us to get into the haunting experience of a man. There's no great shoot outs or terrors to reap the soul, just a constant underlying fear. The fear that everything hangs on a thread. The fear that this could happen to any single one of us.
Rating: 9

Now you SIT THERE and THINK about what you didn't do!

Overall Rating: 88% (The Right Way To Tell It)

Aftertaste: Why have I never heard of this?! People can go on and tout Rear Window all they like, I know I have, but this is a story about a regular guy and his life falling apart, not some jet-setting photographer and his fashion-bound girlfriend. This is AMAZING.

Rear Window (1954)

2006-11-13T22:39:00.000-05:00

Hitchcock! Hitchcock! Hitchcock!

I don't blame him for looking at her rear window either...

Genre: Mystery Thriller

Starring: James Stewart (Shenandoah; Vertigo), Grace Kelly (Dial M For Murder; High Noon)

Directed By: Alfred Hitchcock (Champagne; The Farmer's Wife)

Overview: A photographer with a broken leg is laid up with only his window overlooking his neighbours as entertainment. When he starts noticing some suspicious behaviour, he wonders if it could be murder.

Acting: We have a perfect mesh of the ideal archetypes: the girl in love, exuding style, grace and perfection; the nurse, quippy, straight up and down to earth; the detective, hardened and blasé; and our photographer, a man bored and curious to find excitement in this broken-legged dreary day. Yet each of these players have a real element of humanity that makes us realize that they fully comprehend the possibilities of what could be unfolding, and from those archetypes flow subtle nuance and rich backstory. At one point I turned to Girlfriend of Squish, gagging, telling her how Hitchcock should stop overfeeding me perfection. I almost puked.
Rating: 10

Cinematography: I love stylized film. I'm all about the art at heart. This is the finest example of the everyday made gallery-worthy. When our photographer looks out the window, we drift glancing across long-swaying pans between the apartments that make up his/our field of vision. It's so simple and seamlessly beautiful that you know right away how perfectly this was edited. One of my favorite shots is the introduction of Lisa Freemont, the girlfriend. In the dark, she smiles a rich red wet-look lipsticked smile and comes in close, soft and graceful upon her man, sleeping in his wheelchair. As a filmmaker, should I ever be able to pull off such a shot and inspire one's perfection in a character within seconds, damn, I'd be a genius.

Remember in The Big Lebowski when we meet Jesus for the first time in that bowling alley (played by John Turturo), all slow-motion quick cuts and extreme close-ups while a Latin fanfare plays? Yeah, floors you.
Rating: 9

Script: The perfect mix of funny and deep with the ever-current. We have love-interest sub-plots that aren't cheesy. We have mysteries discussed, dismissed and re-discovered. This is the kind of script where the everyman finds the extra-ordinary and does everything he can to come to a simple logical conclusion. With just enough exposition to keep revealing the mystery, and just enough doubt to keep the mystery going, you'll understand why this is one of the best American films ever made.
Rating: 10

Plot: Imagine yourself stuck in an apartment for six weeks, going a little batty. You begin people watching through their windows, as friends tell you to stop your voyeurism, to take up reading or something. Then you're convinced that something is terribly amiss across the way. What makes this film such genius is the way the secondary characters approach the subject when it's brought up. At first dismissive, they indulge the man speaking to them just long enough to caution his cabin-fevered self. What impressed me most was not how this film ended or the intense moments of classic Thriller fame, but that all those who were brought into the fold seriously considered the issue, as we all would, rather than going screwball and cracking out one-liners.
Rating: 9

Mood: The themes of sinful voyeurism co-mingles with a Film-Noiresque lighting motif. Shade and light play an integral part in this film, be it as simple as making sure the lamp is off while spying or in the way we learn that someone is hiding there, their solitary cigarette ember burning in their darkened room. As the film progresses, the darkness and the shadows grows more prevalent, until it reaches a grand apex. Man, I gotta see this again and soon.
Rating: 8

Yeah, you look long enough and you're sure to find some skin-crawlin' bedonkedonk.

Overall Rating: 92% (Sneak A Peek at Perfection)

Aftertaste: The best Hitchcock film I've seen yet. I only hope that there's a films I'll prefer even more than this, like North By Northwest or Psycho, but I'm going to have a hard time believing that those films were made as perfectly. Here is the gold I've found among the ruins of the past.

The Trouble With Harry (1955)

2006-11-12T23:36:00.000-05:00

Hitchcock! Hitchcock! Hitchcock!

Yup, that's Beaver Cleaver alright

Genre: Comedy Mystery

Starring: Edmund Gwenn (Them!; The Skin Game), John Forsythe (In Cold Blood; Scrooged)

Directed By: Alfred Hitchcock (Topaz; Torn Curtain)

Overview: When a man out shooting his rifle comes across a dead man, he tries to cover up the accident, but there's lost more trouble with Harry that awaits.

Acting: The trouble with Harry is that the characters are just a little too screwball for me to see as great players doing great roles. Someone somewhere decided to tone down these people rather than let them fly and do a spot of overacting. In a way were these actors trying to make sure that they proved they could do dramatic roles? Certainly not John Forsythe. Wait, wait! That's going overboard. I take back what I said about the guy who stared in "Charlie's Angel's" and "Dynasty". I sincerely apologize.
Rating: 7

Cinematography: The trouble with Harry is that you often stop thinking about how funny it is and take in the gorgeous sights that are the New England scenic motifs of Autumn. Absolutely stunning. Then you go back to a sound stage with all too perfect lighting that draws you out of the moment a little, then back into amusing shots like the one above, or the ones where hobos steal Harry's shoes. Poor Harry.
Rating: 8

Script: The trouble with Harry is the lines written for Forsythe. Everyone else unfolds brilliantly, witty and well-timed, and the laughter does stem pretty solely from the dialogue. Comedy of errors abound in this, and if it hadn't been for some weird rulership of narrative as expressed by our main character, it would have gone much better, and far less forced.
Rating: 7

Plot: The trouble with Harry is that he's dead. He's dead right away and we know how it happened. Then we doubt what happened, so someone goes and digs him up to see what exactly happened. When they realize it didn't quite happen like they thought it would happen, they bury Harry (ha!) but then people start wondering what happened and the shovels start becoming secondary cast members. Actually, the trouble with Harry is that it went the way of Weekend At Bernie's 30 years later.
Rating: 8

Mood: The trouble with Harry is that he isn't all that funny. When something claims itself to be funny because of one laugh that's stretching it way too far. When something else claims to be funny because it's full of mediocre laughs and screwball situations, it's a touch better. And finally when something claims to be more about the thrill than the laugher, and it ends up being funnyish in it's own right, well that's the best way of going at it. Harry went somewhere between forced screwball and letting it happen.
Rating: 7

"So uh, shouldn't we stop the coyotes from eating his face?"

Overall Rating: 74% (Not All That Much Trouble)

Aftertaste: The trouble with Harry is that he's got a title too easy to make fun. You end up in the land of overkill. The neat thing about this is that if you consider the director, the subtext is terrific. "Look at that Hitchcock making a comedy about a dead guy. It's perfectly up his alley." If you didn't know it was Hitchcock, maybe it wouldn't be as entertaining. What would have made this better is if he had done self-mockery of his own styles of cinematography, like going overboard with Noir lighting or having everyone in trench coats and dark hats for a scene, you know, something contextual. That's it. I'm decided. When I make my 43rd film, it's all be a self-mockery of my own style. You read it here first!

Dial M For Murder (1954)

2006-11-12T10:06:00.000-05:00

Hitchcock! Hitchcock! Hitchcock!

"How many times have I told you not to call long distance until AFTER SIX!"

Genre: Crime Thriller

Starring: Grace Kelly (High Noon; Rear Window), Ray Milland (The Lost Weekend; X)

Directed By: Alfred Hitchcock (Blackmail; Secret Agent)

Overview: A man plots the murder of his wife. Will the plan run without a hitch, or will some quick-thinking improvisation be required?

Acting: When someone has a name like Chastity, you just know you have the best chance in the world for a top-of-the-line lay after last call. What a surprise that someone with such a name as 'Grace' would be one of the few actresses out there who has an immediate and... graceful presence. If you asked me who her male counterpart would be I'd instantly say James Cagney, a man so perfect in his skin that he exudes style, but I digress. Grace aside, all the players are perfectly guided by the ultra-uber experienced Hitchcock.
Rating: 9

Cinematography: Plays make for visuals that are relatively static, the medium insisting so much on sets and stages. What one must do to enhance the film translation of a play is to focus on the players. You must zoom-in on the little hand gestures, on photos on a wall (cameo!), the camera must remain a floating eye amidst the stoic surroundings. Hitchcock taught me that he could do this ever since Lifeboat, and he does it here again.
Rating: 8

Script: "What money? It'd be months before I'd get my hands on that and people don't commit murder on credit!"

Witty stuff. This dialogue is the kind that is drawn out, long discussions about details and plans. A given scene begins with a scenario, questions arise, tests of the formulated plan. As discussions continue, we slowly uncover the mystery and the suspense until each of our questions are answered perfectly. This is the kind of detailed planning that some writers dread, since attention to such detail invites scrutiny. When it succeeds however, it's brilliant.
Rating: 9

Plot: If you haven't seen as many films as I have, should I say something like 'though mildly predictable'? Maybe not. I guess I'll just say that the first little bit is expected and well laid out, but when a plan is so perfectly explained, doesn't that mean it's doomed to failure? Perhaps, but what happens next is a twist upon a twist and goes so far into the realm of the unbelievably believable that I was pleasantly surprised at the ending.
Rating: 8

Mood: Much like it was with Rope, it's heavy dialogue and very little change in sets. Yet such a specific theme so closely focussed upon by such men of such intellect and quick-wit makes for a great experience. You'll be smiling at the evil machinations as they unfold. Might I also mention, finally a story where a detective is actually not a bumbling oaf? How long did that take you Hitch? Twenty-Seven years? Yeah, thanks for growing up a little.
Rating: 8

"Honey? Do you know anyone by the name of Ghhuurgrahhh?"

Overall Rating: 84% (Even if You Gotta Call Collect!)

Aftertaste: The wall of 'Awesome Hitchcock' is upon me and as I commented in Emma's blog, aren't you all jealous that I'm seeing the greats for the first time? The Man Who Knew Too Much, North By Northwest, I Confess... here I come!

Strangers On A Train (1951)

2006-11-08T15:37:00.000-05:00

Hitchcock! Hitchcock! Hitchcock!

"Ah, what a nice lighter! By showing me this, you infer clearly that I should smoke your wife... How clever!"

Genre: Crime Drama Film-Noir Thriller

Starring: Farley Granger (Rope; The Purple Heart), Robert Walker (Bataan)

Directed By: Alfred Hitchcock (Lifeboat; Foreign Correspondant)

Overview: A couple of strangers bump into one another on a train. Bruno pitches a theory about switching murders. By the the time Guy's figured out it was more than friendly banter, he's in all too deep.

Acting: Absolutely fantastic. When I first heard of this film I'd always thought it was a couple of sane guys deciding on swapping murders. I had no idea it was about one calm and collected fellow talking to a right out-there wacko nut-job. As Bruno, Robert Walker takes the cake. He's great at being creepy-cool-Noir. In fact everyone is just the right amount of 'off'.
Rating: 9

Cinematography: This film is less about high art (though there's even some of that) and more about unique settings. The long stalking scene at the fair is surely one of the most famous in film history and with good reason. The tunnel of love is full of suspense, and as climactic endings go, having a dramatic finale on a Merry-Go-Round is absolutely awe-inspiring. I know this is one of the one's I'll be seeing again one day for sure.
Rating: 9

Script: Bruno, you whack-job. Without your dialogue and the unique self that you are, this film would still have been great but nowhere near as memorable. The way this film's words play out is more like a constant tragedy of errors and synchronicities of juxtaposed thought rather than sensible rationales. In a way you're predictable, because madmen are often all too obvious.
Rating: 8

Plot: When I consider how simply this film could have turned formulaic, I thank my lucky stars that the men behind the lens understood the consequences of their actions. Is it possible that these people knew they were making one of America's most famous films? You know, I bet they did. When you take simplicity and confound it with madness, everyone wins. Add characters oblivious and wild, without spending too much time in detailing everything and you have a story that speaks volumes in silence.
Rating: 9

Mood: I will say that I hoped for a far more stylized film. I mean when I think Film-Noir, I think at the boldest extreme, Sin City. Stark shadows and shaded eyes under street lamps, that hyper-typical stuff. While I watched this however I realized that Hitchcock's take on Film-Noir takes it out of the shadows and into a twilight that invites his own originality to shine through. This is an engrossing film, but you knew that already.
Rating: 9

Aww isn't it cute? She thinks he's checking her out, but he's actually stalking... awwww

Overall Rating: 88% (Get Familiar With It)

Aftertaste: The second I saw a man wearing a tie clip that read 'Bruno' clipped to a tie with lobsters on it, I knew that I was in for a totally different film than I expected. Fairgrounds at night are haunting, they're awesome and when huge machines go out of control, well that's a grace that speaks for itself. This is one of Hitchcock's best films, and one of my favorites. Sorry to be so predictable...

Stage Fright (1951)

2006-11-08T15:35:00.000-05:00

Hitchcock! Hitchcock! Hitchcock!

"THE STAGE ATE MY EYEBROWS!!! THE STAGE ATE MY EYEBROWS!!!"

Genre: Crime Drama Thriller Noir

Starring: Jane Wyman (The Lost Weekend; All That Heaven Allows), Marlene Dietrich (Shanghai Express; The Blue Angel)

Directed By: Alfred Hitchcock (Number Seventeen; The Manxman)

Overview: A young woman helps a man in love as he seeks to clear the name of his lover from the murder of her husband.

Acting: Jane Wyman is one of those actresses who you wouldn't call hot. You'd call her adorably cute. The young naiveté of her character frames her face perfectly. As for Marlene Dietrich, I mentioned once that she was a fake-seeming sort of woman, but in this, those false pretences fit the character so perfectly that when Girlfriend of Squish said, "Wow does she ever seem fake," My reply was "she's the only one who can pull off fake and not seem it."
Rating: 8

Cinematography: One of the final scenes, the one below, has this extreme close-up conversation whispered in the dark. We can't see the mouths of the actors talking, but we can see their eyes and perfectly sense their fear. In a way I'm not surprised at how good this was, since this is exactly what I expected for good ol' Hitch. What surprises me is that he doesn't do it more often!
Rating: 8

Script: Greatness in a script comes from one of two things. Either the story is explained so simply that no one could miss its unfolding while still not feeling like you're being spoon-fed, OR so much back-story is conveyed by simple lines that you have immediate depth of character instantly. Neither happened here, but it's still nice and innocuous.
Rating: 7

Plot: Nice twists I must say. The film starts with a bloody-dressed Marlene going to her lover and asking him to go back to the house and get her a new one since she's performing later. From there we get into the comfortingly predictable 'getting seen' scene and then he's on the run with only a woman who pines for his love as her aid. This story has a nice finish and a fine bouquet...
Rating: 8

Mood: When I mentioned this darkened scene below, I attributed its greatness with the acting and the lighting. Well there's another insanely suspenseful scene where a bloody dress is presented to the murderess while she's on stage. I shan't go and spoil any of the set up by detailing it, but I use that example to illustrate how well put together and filled with moments of deep mystery and suspense that remind me of Saboteur and The 39 Steps. Though the tension isn't as high as in those classics, they're really original and worthy of praise.
Rating: 8

"I brought you here because... because I'm secretly a German Expressionist!"

Overall Rating: 78% (Have No Fear)

Aftertaste: After having seen Hitch's first colour film, I wondered why this one wasn't in colour too. The transition to Technicolor is one hell of a mystery to me and the thought that television was black and white even in the sixties blows my frikken mind. Anyone got any reference material I could read about this long transition? I wish that the talkies transition from the silent era has been so slow...

Under Capricorn (1949)

2006-11-08T15:32:00.000-05:00

Hitchcock! Hitchcock! Hitchcock!

Yeah, I know she looks like the maidenhead of a boat, but give it a chance!

Genre: Period Drama (UK)

Starring: Ingrid Bergman (Viaggio in Italia; Spellbound), Joseph Cotten (The Third Man; Shadow Of A Doubt)

Directed By: Alfred Hitchcock (Frenzy; Family Plot)

Overview: A man trying to get a new start in the Australian colonies agrees to aid a landowner and his wife, who seems to teeter on the brink of madness.

Acting: "Ah shit, a period piece with all the grand outfits and hoity actors that I've grown to despise in melodramas of the 40s." - Squish's first thoughts. Twenty minutes in, I realized how quickly that opinion had faded with the talent hiding in those costumes. This could very well be one of Ingrid Bergman's best roles, including Notorious and Casablanca. I suspect Hitchcock had a lot to do with the casting of this one since all the major players were in other of his films. Hitchcock knows how to command proper raw emotion here. Yes indeed.
Rating: 9

Cinematography: I had issue with the 40s-manipulated outfits, painfully painted backdrop decors and the occasionally awkward lighting set up. What I loved were the grand halls, the little mood-enhancing accoutrements like the scene where the governor is washing up in the bathtub in his office, the pistols and the grand interiors. It seemed as though someone decided that certain parts of the film weren't worth the budget money they deserved. I'll give it this though: where the money WAS spent, it was spent rather well.
Rating: 8

Script: The role of Milly the head house-maid seemed all too blatantly abstract to me. You know those times when you watch a film and quickly chip away characters down to their symbolic representation... Well she seemed more like a catalyst for strife than anything else, but it didn't hurt that hers are the best lines in the whole film. Very reminiscent of Rebecca's Mrs. Danvers. Nicely told.
Rating: 8

Plot: The story is not for everyone, granted, but those of you who liked how Rebecca unfolded with appreciate the similarities. We have a woman with a haunted past, a mystery slowly unfolding, and a third wheel waffling between doing the right thing and being a tad selfish while cogs manipulate around the lot of them. This film had some nice surprises and some very worthy dramatic moments, and though not my typical type of film, I was pleased with the conclusion.
Rating: 8

Mood: The biggest issue I had with this film was Bergman's clearly un-Irish accent, and the year it was originally filmed in. I was constantly torn between being tainted by the melodrama of the 40s while being wowed by the attention to details and the deep-rooted themes of honour and chivalry. If this were to be properly made today, I'd predict that the grand chivalry would be considered quaint and tossed aside in favour of a more dramatic plot. After all is said and done, I wouldn't want to see that version, because the chivalry and the nobless, the gentlemen living on the cusp, choosing to honour their person rather than their community leaders, that's what this is about.
Rating: 8

"Oh it is to laugh, yes, YET another Hitchcockian Love Triangle. Oh isn't it drole?"

Overall Rating: 82% (A Nice Trip Down Under)

Aftertaste: The first mention I've ever heard of this film was when Filmbrain told me that this would be his piece for the upcoming Blog-O-Thon. Given his penchant for films that are actually good, I was really looking forward to this. I pride myself in learning about the obscure, especially when I'm told it's "criminally under-seen". Now I know why no one's seen it, and now I also know what makes that a crime.

Rope (1948)

2006-11-08T15:30:00.000-05:00

Hitchcock! Hitchcock! Hitchcock!

"Why are you so worried? After all this business, we'll have a little daisy chain. Will that help you relax?"

Genre: Crime Drama Thriller

Starring: James Stewart (The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance; The Naked Spur), Farley Granger (Strangers On A Train)

Directed By: Alfred Hitchcock (Shadow Of A Doubt; Topaz)

Overview: Applying their professor's theory, two classmates decide to murder their inferior and keep him in the apartment during a dinner party.

Acting: I was impressed with James Stewart. Seems to me that this is the kind of role he's best suited for. I always find it weird when I see him in Westerns. I'm always waiting for him to say, "Every time you hear a death-rattle, a devil gets his pitchfork." Point being, Stewart plays a fantastic everyman. Everyone in this is perfectly chosen for their roles, and the direction is superb.
Rating: 9

Cinematography: 9 takes, 80 minutes. This is what's most interesting about this film. The reason that there were so MANY takes is because film reels could only hold about 10 minutes of film. Had they attempted more seamless takes, I would have been more impressed, but Rope has Russian Arc beat to death in my books. This is also Alfred Hitchcock's first colour film, and apparently whole takes were redone because he didn't like the colour of the sunset in the background. that, my friend, is dedication.
Rating: 9

Script: The reference to Notorious is quite entertaining. Three people are chatting, talking about Cary Grant's last film, called "Something. You know with Ingrid Bergman?" I thought only Shakespeare could pull off plugging his other plays mid-story. In a way, this illustrates the essence of this film. Dialogue stays witty, poignant and conversational with a huge fat slab of holy-than-thou arrogance and a dash of hints and mystery. Of course you need that when your story's about people killing just to prove they can pull it off.
Rating: 8

Plot: Witty. This is the story of a couple of guys who kill their classmate and put him in a trunk. The next few hours has these guys throwing a dinner party, with that very chest as centerpiece. The only regret I have is that I wish I hadn't seen Six Feet Under. You see, that show taught me early on what happens to a body after death, and I don't think a bunch of dinner guests would let slide a farting, leaking steamer trunk for hours upon hours... Baring that acceptable suspension of disbelief, a nice thrill-ride with a dramatic finish.
Rating: 8

Mood: Perfectionism is nice, especially with such stories as the time a dolly ran over and crushed the foot of a crewman. Since the takes were so long, they wanted to make sure that they did it right the first time. The poor broken-footed man was gagged and dragged off, while the cameras kept rolling, and yes, they used that shot in final edit. With the drive of such talent to make sure it's done right, you won't be surprised to find how good a film this is. That real-time feel adds a nice element of immediacy.
Rating: 8

"Well, golly gee Mary, I'm... I'm in colour!"

Overall Rating: 84% (Leaves You Hanging In Suspense!)

Aftertaste: Well here's another little tidbit for you: This is based on a true story, and the professor (played by James Stewart) allegedly had an affair with one of the murderers before the killing occurred. Hubba Hubba. There was also some controversy about the film itself due to the implication that the two murderers were gay. I don't think Hitchcock was doing what he could to bring the world one step closer to acceptance, but having a mildly infamous background to a film sure would make it a little more enticing to see, taboos being what they are...

The Paradine Case (1947)

2006-11-05T22:58:00.000-05:00

Hitchcock! Hitchcock! Hitchcock!

Sweet establishing shots, oh yes

Genre: Drama

Starring: Gregory Peck (To Kill A Mockingbird; Cape Fear), Alida Valli (The Third Man; Suspiria)

Directed By: Alfred Hitchcock (Saboteur; The Lady Vanishes)

Overview: When a woman is accused of poisoning her blind old husband, she hires the best lawyer in the world to defend her, Atticus Finch!

Acting: Gregory Peck is one of those guys who's totally versatile. He's been Douglas MacArthur, the father of the spawn of Satan, even Captain Ahab hunting after Moby Dick! But after all that, I still know that I'll always remember him best in his roles as lawyers. He makes a good lawyer. You believe it. Sadly in this one he plays a boring lawyer, but that's really realistic isn't it? Players play well, though it's true they could have been better chosen.
Rating: 8

Cinematography: When this began, I was instantly impressed with producer Selznick's touch of grandiose interiors. Crane shots, nice professional zooms, some really nice camera work. I was equally impressed with the occasional artistic Hitchcockian display. Yes, it's very well made. Perhaps I paid so much attention to the look because the rest was so flat...
Rating: 8

Script: If you've been following the course of Hitchcockian study, you'll know that the love triangle is pretty much expected as an element with him as a McGuffin is. Knowing that, you expect the story to go right where it does, a lawyer conflicted with the case because of the women involved. What I didn't expect was a real courtroom-style discourse for so much of the film's duration. If you've even spent some time hanging around in court just to see how the wheels of justice turn, then you'll know that they turn slowly, and can get downright boring. Well you can't tell me that it wasn't hyper-realistic. To think that Alfred Hitchcock himself once said "What is drama but the dull bits cut out?" Ugh.
Rating: 6

Plot: When this began, I was hunkering down all ready for the stuff of legend. I mean a film directed by Alfred Hitchcock on the heels of what's considered one of his greatest films, and right around the time when his films were all ones worthy of remembering. It starts off with a great premise, the whole treading in the dangerous waters of a beautiful client and doing all you can to save her from the noose. Well go figure the writer wrote something as bland as an actual trial full of boring questions and oh look at that, a completely unnecessary love interest plot.
Rating: 6

Mood: So I figured out what a producer really does. In Selznick's case it's make sure there's a lot of big big big sets. I like that. What I don't like is the bloated head they get when they decide to take over a production so completely that the director is left with a cast he doesn't like all that much for the roles herein. Remember when you were in that group project and one person had to have it just one way? Remember how you worked under those conditions? yeah. Hitchcock too.
Rating: 7

Ever the letch...

Overall Rating: 70% (Pair a' Slow Hours)

Aftertaste: I was told (and how!) that our famous Hitchcockian producer, Senor Selznick, was all too responsible for molesting this film. He forced Hitchcock's hand in the casting, he forced a lot. He exerted much pressure upon the film, and ultimately Hitchcock is the one who had to have his name splayed all over it.Terry Gilliam wasn't free of the producer's reigns when he made The Brothers Grimm, and ultimately a film that SHOULD have been great, just ended up being mediocre, due to the producers, much like this one.

Notorious (1946)

2006-11-05T01:11:00.000-05:00

Hitchcock! Hitchcock! Hitchcock!

"Do you love Duran Duran?"

Genre: Romance Drama Thriller Noir

Starring: Cary Grant (To Catch A Thief; An Affair To Remember), Ingrid Bergman (Under Capricorn; Anastasia)

Directed By: Alfred Hitchcock (Dial M For Murder, Rope)

Overview: When a woman is asked to infiltrate a group of Nazis in Brazil, she find that her actions may lead to sacrifices that are all too great.

Acting: I don't think I like Cary Grant. Much to my surprise, I find him a touch on the fake side. So far the characters I've seen him play are so bold and out there that I wonder who buys that crap for a second. Humphrey Bogart, somehow, could pull it off. I guess it's because he went so far that we just laughed at how awesomely overboard it was. Ingrid's great, as always. Fantastic direction, as per usual.
Rating: 8

Cinematography: The rear projection in this one was fantastic. You know, that special effect where clearly they're superimposed in front of a screen? Well, you'd be surprised to know how often they used that in this one. In fact the actors never once set foot in Rio, even though most of the film was set there. For as fantastic as the Criterion Collection version of the print was, for as grandiose (if I may be so bold) the Selznick-inspired interior sets were, I really didn't find the film anywhere near as dynamic as I expected.
Rating: 8

Script: I will admit that there were a few lines lost here and there due to the company present, but it seemed apparent to all of us that constant declarations of love were all too-well understood. This is one of those 'damned if you do and damned if you don't' situations. If you only hear professions and proofs of love twice, you don't feel it strongly enough as a viewer. If it's done a lot, you know it's terrifically established, but enough already.
Rating: 7

Plot: To hell with the love interest plot, I'm sick of it. It's not Hitch's fault I suppose, but as I realize that more of his films involve love triangles than the suspense he's known as "the Master" of, it makes me mourn the fact that he made movies in a day when love was a necessary element of all plots. This is far too thick in the test of duty versus love for me to enjoy it as the classic it purports to be, no matter how well Hitch did it here compared to other works. In fact he does it all too well. I was constantly asking myself, "Well?! When's the spy stuff going to start?!"
Rating: 7

Mood: The themes I understood this film to be were diluted by the overall romance of it all. If you like Romance films in a hard-test setting, this is the film for you. It is indeed well done. But if you're looking for a spy flick with intrigue and espionage, you are going to find yourself sadly disappointed my friend. I wanted cloak and dagger and I got close-up kissing in glorious Black and White. Boo.
Rating: 7

"My, what a B.I.G. glass of hangover juice."

Overall Rating: 74% (Hardly Even Infamous)

Aftertaste: I don't think you know how much I want to like Hitchcock. I love Bergman, she's seriously cool. Hitch consistently uses great names and great talent in his films but I'm still not freaking out over him. It's all too slow in leading up to the big finish of his best known works. It hurts me to be in the minority.

One more thing: unless I missed some critical dialogue, the title is completely inapropriate. Someone explain this to me.

Spellbound (1945)

2006-11-03T09:22:00.000-05:00

Hitchcock! Hitchcock! Hitchcock!

No kids trying to spell in this, promise!

Genre: Mystery Romance Thriller Drama

Starring: Ingrid Bergman (Casablanca; Notorious), Gregory Peck (The Paradine Case; The Omen)

Directed By: Alfred Hitchcock (Strangers On A Train; The Trouble With Harry)

Overview: When a new doctor arrives at the mental institute, Constance is instantly attracted, however our good doctor may not quite be who he seems to be.

Acting: Mother of God for the whole first half I wondered what on earth happened to Hitchcock and Hollywood both. Even Gregory Peck isn't free from the cloud of ridiculously overzealous ham. Ingrid Bergman is way-out there archetypically cold and all the patients are just straight out of textbook farces. The second half, when people have shattered out of the two dimensions forced upon them, it gets a little better. If Lynch did this I'd have said it was Avant-Garde genius, but after 30 films, I don't attribute that style to Hitchcock. Hence, it's ugly.
Rating: 6

Cinematography: Salvador Dali designed the dream sequences that took place during this film, and yes indeed they are pretty cool. The climax has one hell of a great bit of camerawork like some tremendous Point Of View shots thanks to Hitchcock and big huge sets thanks to producer David O. Selznick. It's a beauty to watch, minus the occasional rear projection superimposed scenes that mesh poorly with the professional stunt doubles.
Rating: 8

Script: The writer should have taken a course in "How to stop being disgustingly expository, saving you from convincing the audience that you find them to be absolute imbeciles". Honestly. Maybe I'm being too harsh, especially since this was one of the first films to actually go into psychoanalysis, but it's written in such a way that for every wonderful piece of wordsmithing and tension-inducing line of dialogue, we have one that's basically someone saying "did you get it? Do you understand? I need to know that you understand."
Rating: 7

Plot: Issues galore. There's suspension of disbelief then there's psychoanalysis plots set in an Institute of Psychoanalysis, where there's psychoanalysis UPON psychoanalysists. I would have reduced the exponential degrees of mind-doctor themes just a little. I will admit however that though the beginning starts with too thick a premise and brings forth the clues a little too quickly, the end really is terrific.
Rating: 7

Mood: What's strange about this is that the overall feeling I had about this film was a really good one. The end is fantastic, the Dali stuff is superb and for as much as the quality of the film itself seemed rushed, it drew me in regardless. You know I'd bet it's some subliminal impulse left by Selznick's crew of mind-tweakers, making me enjoy it without really knowing why. Well just as this film explains, what you psychoanalyse comes to light, and what a better way to do it that in a critique of the film itself. Ha, I win. Eat that Selznick.
Rating: 8

I Spy, with my... HOLY JESUS

Overall Rating: 72% (Huh? What? Where Am I?)

Aftertaste: That's right I dumped all over Gregory Peck AND Ingrid Bergman, what do you have to say about it? Fine go ahead. Comment all you like, that's what it's there for.

This film also starts with an Overture. I don't understand introductory overtures. In fact I don't understand them so much that I hope someone gives me some important facts about them. Dancer In The Dark did that too, but at least that was a musical. Somebody explain this to me.

Lifeboat (1944)

2006-11-02T10:50:00.000-05:00

Hitchcock! Hitchcock! Hitchcock!

There's still hope, there's still hope!

Genre: War Drama

Starring: Tallulah Bankhead, Hume Cronyn (Shadow of a Doubt; The Postman Always Rings Twice)

Directed By: Alfred Hitchcock (Jamaica Inn; Frenzy)

Overview: The few survivors of a submarine attack try to work together as they await rescue aboard a lifeboat.

Acting: If the acting isn't very good in a film that's all character studies in a hyper-dramatic situation, you've got a real piece of garbage to suffer through. When you've got interesting folk like high-society journalists, Germans, crazy mothers and all sorts of other about-to-crack souls all directed by a guy with 30 movies under his belt already, uh, yeah, good times.
Rating: 8

Cinematography: At this stage you expect me to say, "well here's where the film suffers. There's really nothing to look at when it's one boat on the water and they're on it for the whole film." Well extreme-close ups and weather effects are photographed so well and with such brilliant timing that I was impressed to no end. How Hitchcock pulls off a mid-film cameo on a boat in the middle of the Atlantic... that the cherry on top.
Rating: 8

Script: Alright, first of all we have a story written by John Steinbeck. You have got to be a complete moron to mess up any of his works. In fact, making a film from one of his books is almost like cheating, it's so easy. Second, this is set entirely in one place so anyone involved in the production of this film knows it's got to be well written. Add those up and the only thing at risk is too many clichés, of which there are none. Fantastically told.
Rating: 9

Plot: Even though this is mildly predictable, there's a lot of very interesting elements that pop up. Not that I even like the show, but think of the television Series "Lost". Everyone has a secret, and survival is only half of the adventure. Interpersonal relationships build and collapse and twists and turns abound. It's a really immersive tale, pardon the pun.
Rating: 8

Mood: The best part about the whole film taking place on the lifeboat is that you can't get away from it. There's no flashback memories or scenes introducing the characters before they end up where they do (my biggest problem with The Incident), just water, water everywhere and people getting stinkier, hungrier and thirstier by the day. From time to time it's simply innocuous, but there's some real heavy moments that are deeply dramatic and terribly moving. The best of human drama.
Rating: 9

Yeah, no more hope. People are fickle.

Overall Rating: 84% (Worth Sea-ing)

Aftertaste: I'm a little surprised that I referenced "Lost" in this review, though I hope it will make fans of that mediocre show see this. Hitchcock's biggest gift was the ability of reaching out to the common man. That's what made his films so popular: simple stories told simply. This is one of the best examples I've seen. A total sleeper hit. I had no idea it would be this good.

Shadow Of A Doubt (1943)

2006-11-02T10:48:00.000-05:00

Hitchcock! Hitchcock! Hitchcock!

And his name isn't even DOUBT!

Genre: Film-Noir Thriller

Starring: Teresa Wright (Mrs. Miniver; The Pride of the Yankees), Joseph Cotten (The Magnificent Ambersons; The Third Man)

Directed By: Alfred Hitchcock (Sabotage; The Lady Vanishes)

Overview: When a welcome visit for a friendly uncle becomes somewhat of a strange mystery, his niece who shares his name finds herself full of Suspicion.

Acting: I would normally say "typical Hitchcockian direction", but all too often I've been disappointed. For all you who've read this string of my month-long marathon of Hitch, I'll be clearer: Amazing direction of quality talent makes this thriller worthy of remembering, and worthy of Hitchcock's name. The young bookworm of a girl was my personal favorite. She's so cute, in that librarian way.
Rating: 8

Cinematography: Sadly, the shot above was merely a publicity photo and not actually in the film, but Hitch uses a great many bottom-lighting effects to add a sinister feel to this everyday middle-America tale. Rather than fill the screen with high art and German expressionism, everything is subdued just enough to give us a feeling, rather than a knowledge, and it's very effective here.
Rating: 8

Script: My favorite part of the story is the dialogue. The words create vivid characters, especially amusing asides, like Dad and his friend having constant discussions about how they would kill each other and get away with it. The way that innocent banter is juxtaposed with the far too real doubts going through niece Charlie's mind adds a nice depth to her, that makes us realize that while everyone else is living well and care-free, she is haunted by something she cannot easily confirm.
Rating: 9

Plot: We open with a very suspicious introduction to Uncle Charlie, and the essence of the film is the mystery of his past. Whom did he flee from and why is he hiding? Is he misunderstood or guilty? As we near the end, the climax takes a nice long time to build up to a very impressive ending. What bothers me most about this story is its stunning resemblance to the film Hitch made just two years before, Suspicion.
Rating: 8

Mood: I will say that more than most of Hitchcock's films we have themes brilliantly conveyed and a slow and steady escalation that build up to a perfect climax. Rebecca did a similar thing, dropping hints and clues that, rather than answering questions, simply invite more. Having such a film set in a regular everyday, everyman setting makes it a far closer experience, and involving so many other people in the tale adds an element of normalcy to what could have been an otherwise long and drawn out story. The sub-plots are a nice touch.
Rating: 8

Father, I must go get more spotlights, I feel too softboxed!

Overall Rating: 82% (No, Actually, I Was Pretty Certain)

Aftertaste: At this point I realize that Hitchcock's problem is not that he was ahead of his time, it's that he should have been. Yes, he was too deep in the mire of 40s melodrama and it took another 10 years for him to be able to make films that were free of so many necessary establishing clichés, like the love triangle, love at first sight, or high society period pieces.

Bon Voyage & Aventure Malgache (1944)

2006-11-02T08:57:00.000-05:00

Hitchcock! Hitchcock! Hitchcock!

You think that's a bad moustache, you should see the extreme close up. UGH *Shudder* Gross

Genre: War Drama Shorts (UK)

Starring: Frenchmen

Directed By: Alfred Hitchcock (The Pleasure Garden; Foreign Correspondant)
Overview: French people patting themselves on the back, in their tales of how they fought the Big Bad Krauts.

Hey Kiddies,

Rather than go down that list you all know and hate by now, telling you in my Acting category how the French act even haughtier than highborn Anglos, I thought I'd make this a shorter review, as these two films are worth about as much of my time as [something worthy of a witty quip except I don't want to waste any more of my time].

One day, as I have discovered Hitchcock is wont to do, our brilliant director featured so prominently in Blog-O-Squish, decided to take a little spill, fall off the wagon and go make garbage following the success of Saboteur and Shadow Of A Doubt. By now I'm no longer surprised that he'd go off slumming rather than build up a proper reputation for himself, but there was plenty of time to go and do that later. I digress. The British Ministry Of Information asked good ol' Hitch if he wouldn't mind making films about the French Resistance. He agreed and made Aventure Malgache, a 30-minute story about French resistance fighters in the colony of Madagascar. Huffy over-polite dialogue teaches us that there was a French military base in Madagascar, and that the French were hoping the British would come save their asses... again. Lesson learned: Madagascar was a French colony, news to me.

The second film he made was Bon Voyage, a 26-minute film where a British pilot got shot down and now he's in league with French spies to get out. Wikipedia dares compare this to Kurosawa's Rashomon, a story told in five perspectives. In Bon Voyage, a soldier is asked what happened, then he's told what REALLY happened. I wouldn't even dream of comparing the two, please. Anyway, mild adventure, espionage and double-cross aside, I'm extremely glad this was a short. Lesson learned: 'debrief' is a fancy term for 'He Said, She Said'.

Now my recommendation to you, fine Hitchcock fan, is to only see this if you're obsessed with knowing everything about a subject. Otherwise watch something good. For as much as the lighting work is superb in this, there's full features that do just as great a job of showing Hitch's penchant for German Expressionism. Ironic having German influence in a French Resistance short.

Art seeps in where Armies fear to tread, I guess.

*Unworthy of wit*

Overall Rating: 65% (More Like Good Riddance)

Aftertaste: I'm glad I squoze this in between features rather than making a night of it. I'm sure Girlfriend Of Squish appreciates the sparing of such a thing.

Saboteur (1942)

2006-11-01T10:37:00.000-05:00

Hitchcock! Hitchcock! Hitchcock!

Germans loooove their Expressionism

Genre: Thriller Romance

Starring: Priscilla Lane (The Roaring Twenties), Robert Cummings (Dial M for Murder; The Devil and Miss Jones - No, not the PORNO)

Directed By: Alfred Hitchcock (The Lady Vanishes; Rebecca)

Overview: When an aircraft factory is sabotaged, the wrong man is hunted after by police. He must get to the bottom of it and clear his name before he's hung for treason.

Acting: In this film ripe with typical Hitchcockian direction, we have a professional cast who delivers superbly all the nuances of emotion without going overboard. Robert Cummings does such a good job of acting that not only do we forget he's acting, but we come back full circle and realize how awesome a job he is at not acting. That's right, a mobius strip of talent.
Rating: 8

Cinematography: This has that classic shot of people treacherously dangling from the hand of the Statue of Liberty, but no sir that's not all there is in store! I kept throwing my hands up for the whole first half of the film at the awesome and dynamic way that this was shot. The cinematographer did such a good job of impressing me with simple zoom-ins and establishing shots that I almost forgot to leave appreciation for the drama that unfolded, like that impressive warehouse fire. Man, I love big sets.
Rating: 9

Script: The best part about the writing is that rather than being all "Why did you do this?" "Because I'm greedy and evil! Mooahahahaha!", we engage in philosophical discussions about big picture stuff. Turns out it's almost better when a corrupt industrialist feels this common chump is so beneath him that he doesn't understand specifics. In fact, it's almost all too realistic. This is insanely relevant in today's Bush-laden world. And it flows nice too.
Rating: 9

Plot: The best part of Young And Innocent was the plot. I said so myself. Perhaps Hitchcock saw the value of a 'chasing while being chased' plot and rather than admitting defeat with the mediocre Young And Innocent, he decided to remake it with a much better flow. For as much as the ending was a touch anti-climactic, dramatic as it was, the whole film is a thrill-ride of mystery and double-cross very reminiscent of the profitable The 39 Steps. I was quite pleased with the trip indeed.
Rating: 8

Mood: Now perhaps I'm being a little prejudiced, having recently sat through a good load of free-floating toilet dregs, but then again perhaps it's the opposite. Maybe I'm reluctant to say that I was involved, engrossed and entwined in this tale because to date I hadn't expected much from this man whom I know deserves more respect. My fickle heart is warming to the chunky old Brit. It's about time.
Rating: 8

Liberty and Freedom for FALL!

Overall Rating: 84% (Throws In A Nice Wrench)

Aftertaste: I find it most interesting that Hitchcock should allow two of his films to share a title so close to one another. Just six years before his version of Joseph Conrad's The Secret Agent,

he released Sabotage. I guess the only thing more confusing would be The Man Who Knew Too Much, but that 1956 reworking of his original 1934 film was clearly intended to keep the same name. Point being. Don't call one movie Walking, and the other Walker. It makes the mind not like it, not to mention the logistical problems that arise when people call their girlfriends at the videostore on their cellphone.

Suspicion (1941)

2006-11-01T08:00:00.000-05:00

Hitchcock! Hitchcock! Hitchcock!

Not fair! Of course he looks suspicious there!

Genre: Film-Noir Mystery Thriller

Starring: Joan Fontaine (Letter from an Unknown Woman; Rebecca), Cary Grant (His Girl Friday; Notorious)

Directed By: Alfred Hitchcock (Psycho; Sabotage)

Overview: After a woman marries a man she hardly knows, she begins to doubt his worth not only as a provider, but wonders if he's also capable of murder.

Acting: The immortal Cary Grant! Big Woop! Can he play a deadbeat dick? Yes. I still don't think his role here was all that impressive. Joan Fontaine does a great job yet again, but I think she's a little typecast as the naive romantic love interest. I guess I can call myself fickle and say I'm bored of her. When you think of favorites though, I'll put my money on Beaky, the family best friend. I don't know why, Hitchcock failed me a little in this one.
Rating: 7

Cinematography: There's some Rebecca-reminiscent moments here with the interior lighting, ripe with streaks of web-like window panes and that one particularly dramatic milk scene that would be nothing without Hitchcock's signature silhouettes and ominous shadows. The sets were decent and though the driving scenes had that all too common fake projected screen look to it... oh my God I just remembered the horrible memory I repressed. Those painted sets. All the time standing on astro-turf in front of a fluffy blue canvas. ARGH!
Rating: 7

Script: This is what salvages the film. As much as the story may suffer from time to time, when looking at this from scene to scene, the sweet words, the lies, excuses, doubt and yes, even the suspicion is well maintained and introduces real situations that cause real believable stress to the characters involved. Yeah, this was nice.
Rating: 8

Plot: This story, about a woman who marries a man who's all smoke and mirrors, a gambler, a lazy sort, a man of questionable morality, goes south early on. Half way into it I was wondering why she was letting herself get into this, and by the end I asked myself why so many questions were left unanswered. Hmmm, it's almost like someone had planned ONE ending, then was told he had to end it the opposite.. hmmm.
Rating: 6

Mood: WTF is up with colorization?! I am of the opinion that some PR firm for a colorization company convinced the world that people wanted such a thing as vivid pastel colours exploring into our eyeballs. Some idiot beancounter in a white tower said, "Sure, you gotta spend money to make money!" and for ten solid years this little colourization firm was dancing because everyone had job security from their lies. Assholes.
Rating: 7

There now! Doesn't he look nice and sane. Handsome even!

Overall Rating: 70% (I Had My Doubts)

Aftertaste: A weak title for a weak film, I suspect the reason this failed in my mind is all the little inconsistencies that popped up. The theme was muddy due to great changes that took place between first draft and the final film, and although I was all eager to see Joan again and ready to be wowed by Cary Grant... something just didn't happen in the spark of enjoyment department. Where's the man I was told was a genius?!

Feast (2005)

2006-10-31T23:59:00.000-05:00

I actually don't remember who screamed better...

Genre: Horror Comedy Thriller

Starring: Balthazar Getty (Shadow Hours; Lost Highway), Duane Whitaker (The Devil's Rejects; Pulp Fiction)

Directed By: John Gulager's Directorial Debut

Overview: On a regular night at a regular dive of a bar, regular folks end up dealing with some most irregular monsters hungry for their flesh.

Acting: Henry Rollins as a motivational speaker is cute. No, he's not a good actor, but at least not taking himself seriously. That's the order of the day in this one. We have all these archetypal characters, like the old drunk woman, the young upstart, the hardened bartender, the bearded trucker and of course the ditsy big-breasted blonde. It's cute. In fact, so cute it works.
Rating: 8

Cinematography: Fish-eye lenses, rapid-paced editing and fast too-close shots making it hard to understand what's trying to come through the door make for an exciting thrill ride and pays homage to Sam Raimi's style used in the Evil Dead Series. Pretty fun and gory too!
Rating: 8

Script: The writing isn't all that memorable but at least it's not stupid (a tragic flaw of the action-horror comedy), with Slither as the exception proving the rule. There are however some lines that are pure gold, like the conversation the young upstart Getty has with the old drunk lady, asking her what's going on, insisting that she must know something, because she's old, and old people know about these sorts of things, you know legends and such. Hilarious.
Rating: 7

Plot: Here we have a story of some lazy Middle-America small town hicks dealing with a mix of Night of The Living Dead and Alien all at the same time. Aliens (it would seem) are trying to get in cause they're hungry. The bar patrons and staff are trying to make it through the night, barricade the three floors, and try not to get raped before they get eaten...yeah you heard me.
Rating: 8

Mood: Any film that introduces an alien monster by having it barge in and face-fuck a caribou head, shit that's special. Any film that follows up with monster on monster sex, then graphic birth, then even more graphic monster rape, my God I thought I was in Hentai heaven. It's crazy. Just crazy. Funny kitchy crazy.
Rating: 8

If you think that's a filthy facial, you'd better reconsider watching this, HOO SISTER.

Overall Rating: 78% (I'll Take Seconds!)

Aftertaste: Yeah, it's treacherous to pop in a movie when you're having a Halloween party. Is it going to fly? Should it just be background? Should such a party film have a silly Sam Raimi taste to it, or should it be far more classically serious?

Vote silly. People who aren't sitting comfortably do better with laughs that let them move around a little.

Saw III (2006)

2006-10-31T23:55:00.000-05:00

Yum Yum Yum!

Genre: Crime Horror Thriller

Starring: Tobin Bell (Saw; The Quick and the Dead), Shawnee Smith (The Blob)

Directed By: Darren Lynn Bousman (Saw II)

Overview: In this third instalment of the Saw series, we're still up to the same old tricks and traps, all while our sickly Jigsaw tries to impart his wisdom upon his protégé.

Acting: Say what you will about the directors that guide Horror films... or let me say it for you. Yeah, they tend to leak deep into the melodramatic, but when you play a psycho stressed to the max, or a victim stressed even more, it's bound to happen. having said that, Tobin Bell is amazing. Honestly. As a sick and calm stoic man his character is consistent, and his performance is the one worth paying attention to. Supporting roles played by Angus Macfadyen and Shawnee Smith are also really well done. My God, it's like they had a budget!
Rating: 8

Cinematography: We open with traps, we have different traps throughout and the traps are these heavy industrial monstrosities of exquisite medieval engineering. Nice. The location is a grungy underground warehouse / slaughterhouse. Sweet. There's a scene where someone is tied down while rotting, maggot covered pigs are ground to a paste and splashed all over him. Beautiful. The piece de resistance? A fully graphic two-minute-long brain operation with the best soundwork you'll ever hear. Awesome.
Rating: 9

Script: Wait, is this actually well written? It's got to be full of plot holes and inhuman reactions to fantastical situations, right? I mean whenever people come up with awesome visuals in a horror setting, it's always terribly written. What do you mean this is different? There's funny moments on purpose? There's motivations explained and almost poetically so? Bulsh. They paid you to say that.
Rating: 8

Plot: There's two plots. One is the fun traps that our man below is subjected to, a test of forgiveness, Jigsaw's way of bringing forth healing waters to a man's tortured soul, isn't that nice? The other is Amanda by Jigsaw's death bed, holding a doctor hostage to keep the sick sicko alive long enough to see this last test to its end. You know, that's enough for me. Simply told, the only down side would have to be all the constant flashbacks to the original Saw. Great ending by the way.
Rating: 8

Mood: Shot in the typical highly stylized cold blue grainy way used in such films as The Machinist, Lucid, and Fight Club, they played it pretty safe in the looks department, using these proven techniques. However, barring Michael Jackson's Thriller, I like my music videos to be around four minutes long. Why editors thought that I couldn't sit still long enough to see a shot longer than 15 seconds, I don't know, but for all the opportunities there were to have beautifully paced moments of monologues full of wisdom and motive, being distracted by the MTV garbage they fed me killed it just a little too much. It hurt my eyes!
Rating: 8

You know what they say, cold hands warm heart!

Overall Rating: 82% (See-Saw!)

Aftertaste: The best film of the Saw series, this one seems like a final chapter. Of course when we're talking horror movies, who knows. I mean anyone can go be a copycat right? For once in my life, I'll say how glad I am that there's a sequel and I hope that the sequels keep coming. Now all you people out there who tell me that I'm too forgiving of the horror genre can go cram it with walnuts, get your own site. If you like up-close, long-lasting original gore, this has what you're looking for. It's cool, it's gross, and it's pretty artsy too even.