Monsters, Inc.

Featuring jazz, nixie tubes & Ray Harryhausen references.

Believe it or not this was a first time watch for me. Most of Pixar's theatrical run as happened when I was an adult and in the past I haven't felt like watching those, especially the ones that were made before Disney bought them and subsequently that ended the great run they were on. As this is 20 years old and I've seen memes featuring all of the main characters, why not finally give this a shot? The high praise this has gotten also helps.

I am sure most are familiar with the story so that doesn't need to be explained; instead, I'll remark that it was creative to create a monster world and tie it to the childhood belief of “creatures in your closet/underneath your bed”, there being a reason why the scares happen and as this is a family picture, the monsters are actually afraid of all children. It has a nice cast of voice actors that unlike some other animated films was appropriate for each character (including apparent Chris Paul friend Billy Crystal) along with computer animation that still looks good-it was aided by being able to see this on Disney + in 4K and Dolby Vision-& there was enough laughs and entertainment to make me glad this was finally watched by myself.

Some other odds & ends: the opening credits made me happy. Besides them being an unknown to me at the time allusion to the climax, the art style was great and so was the jazz theme. Some clocks/timers resembling the nixie clocks of old was a quirky yet cool idea as nixie tubes are a cult favorite among nerds. I also enjoyed the sushi restaurant being named Harryhausen's. Overall, this is yet another one of those films which should have been seen much sooner but I am glad it was as charming as I hoped it'd be.

The Trouble With Harry

The Trouble with Harry (1955)

Runtime: 99 minutes

Directed by: Alfred Hitchcock

Starring: John Forsythe, Shirley MacLaine, Edmund Gwenn, Mildred Squared (Natwick and Dunnock)

From: Universal

Couldn't have had more people here if I'd sold tickets.

My last Alfred Hitchcock movie (it may be a few weeks before I see another one... or maybe it'll be a few months), it will be one that is abnormal for Old Alfred. Of course the vast majority of his work has at least a few comedic moments but films that were comedies first & foremost were quite rare. As I DVR'ed this a few days ago and figured the picture would look great-it did-last night was finally the time to discover if this would tickle my funny bone. As apparent from my nice rating, it did.

In the woods outside a bucolic small Vermont town, the titular Harry is found dead; various people stumble into him-sometimes literally-but as this was absurd, the residents don't seem too concerned about treating the corpse with a proper dignity-rather, they have their own concerns and are more worried about being seen with the cadaver by the law than letting someone like a coroner know about it or even feeling sad that he passed away.

Thankfully it wasn't (usually) too illogical in the nutty world it resided in and there were various colorful characters seen, from an old British man who was pretty awesome and was happy to go on a date (Edmund Gwenn) to a lady with a great pixie cut and young son-what a combo Shirley MacLaine and a pre Leave it to Beaver Jerry Mathers was; this was her film debut-to a quirky artist, a general store owner and more. The script provides plenty of darkly humorous laughs so the movie was rather humorous to me.

A tremendous bonus was that this was actually filmed in rural Vermont and it was during the fall season. Those worldwide may not know this but at least in the United States and probably Canada, the New England region is famous at that time of year for the leaves changing color and it is a popular destination for tourists. Throughout the movie leaves of various hues are seen and it was a gorgeous sight. The Trouble with Harry was a nice change of pace-as many movies very good or better that Hitch did, most were in a similar wheelhouse so something different was a swell idea.

 

Frenzy

Frenzy (1972)

Runtime: 116 minutes

Directed by: Yep, Hitchcock

Starring: Jon Finch, Barry Foster, Barbara Leigh-Hunt, Anna Massey, Alec McCowen

From: Universal

Bob's your uncle!

Somehow this was a first time watch for me despite of my knowledge of this being unfiltered Hitchcock for years now. He was known for years as someone who pushed boundaries in cinema but this was the only time he went totally explicit and made a hard R movie. Thankfully it is not unrestrained vulgarity and constant adult moments-rather, it is a typical sort of tale for Hitch (of course, he used various familiar tropes, but they still did not feel hackneyed or cliched and some were used for the very last time) where a man is falsely accused; however, this time there is more a ferocity and one extended scene in particular is very brutal & unpleasant even after almost half a century. Overall though, it is less explicit than something like Straw Dogs or A Clockwork Orange.

The accused man is Richard Blaney, someone who is rather flawed and has various vices. He is not as heroic as other Hitch protagonists by any means, although that's the point... it is easier to accept that the police would deem him as a viable suspect in a series of strangulations (via a necktie) of young women. Yet he is not such an irredeemable lout or a loathsome human being that I wouldn't piss on him if he was on fire-the actual killer is a rather hissable villain.

Frenzy is a dark tale set & filmed in London which thankfully was not so dour it made for a miserable two hours; in fact, there are plenty of darkly humorous moments, although some are definitely off-color in 2021. At times perhaps I shouldn't have chuckled at something... thankfully there were occasions which we could all find hilarious, such as lead investigator Oxford being served awful-looking (and I am sure pungent-tasting) food by his wife-don't forget a great closing line as well.

The cast overall is solid and so is the talent behind the camera; even if it's not among the best Hitchcock movies, it is well worth seeing if you're like me and have seen many of his pictures. An impressive effort from a man in his early 70's who had been making movies for almost 50 years at that point.

Suspicion

Suspicion (1941)

Runtime: 99 minutes

Directed by: Yes, another movie from Hitchcock

Starring: Cary Grant, Joan Fontaine, Cedric Hardwicke, Nigel Bruce, Dame May Whitty

From: RKO

Pro tip: never trust a loved one who constantly refers to you as “monkey face.”

As I continue on my marathon of reviewing Alfred Hitchcock films-who knows how many more days it will last-my opinion on this first time watch won't be as blasphemous as my take on Vertigo. The movie is pretty good although either the movie studio or “the production code”-I've heard both-necessitating a change in the story hampered the plot (an outside entity negatively impacting a motion picture and the director's intent? The more things change...) and in another case of history not changing, Joan Fontaine is said to have won an Oscar for her role here as atonement for her role in Rebecca not earning an Oscar the previous year... yes, the Academy Awards did such things even 80 years ago!

That is not to slight Fontaine in this movie-I've never seen Rebecca and she totally carried Suspicion. Cary Grant is usually pretty solid but here he either decided and/or was lead to play his role as totally obvious and one-note... from the beginning this “charming playboy” was totally a phony, a goof that the lead girl mainly falls for due to circumstance and wanting to break her “spinster” image. Old Joan was totally the highlight of the film.

Sure, the movie has a plot that never was boring, had some laughs before it got serious, and BEAKY was a character I dug due to his nickname and his jovial nature. But it was Fontaine who held everything together. As she learned more about her man's misfortunes and lies, her heart is broken and when she spots clues which seem to suggest that he wants to murder her for the insurance money... as typical it was a solid job of direction from Hitch. The aforementioned change from what Sir Alfred wanted to do is only a small part of the story, although it definitely changes the denouement and that is unfortunate. In any case, this shouldn't be viewed before his many classics yet it does have worthwhile elements and was at least an entertaining noir.

Vertigo

Vertigo (1958)

Runtime: 128 minutes

Directed by: Alfred Hitchcock

Starring: James Stewart, Kim Novak, Barbara Bel Geddes, Tom Helmore, Henry Jones

From: Paramount

Why is Turner Classic Movies showing 48 hours of Alfred Hitchcock movies in a row? Beats me but I'll take advantage of it.

A few days ago I discovered that TCM has this as programming for the entire weekend. The reason for the tribute is unknown to me as it's not his birthday (or even the date of his death); in any case, the next few days will be devoted to reviewing his work, as the DVR will be getting a workout. In addition, I will revisit a movie or two but not discuss it here.

I was excited to finally give Vertigo another shot. It was only seen once before, ages ago; my opinion was that it was liked more than loved, which will be blasphemous to many here. I'll discuss why in a bit, along with why my viewpoint has not changed. Not that long ago I saw about a minute of it in a recent TCM showing and from the print quality, they must be using the new 4K scan that can be viewed on 4K discs; on a 4K TV the picture will look great. This movie has a lot going for it: a twisty and turny plot, mirrors appearing often, the frequent usage of red and green, an awesome score from Bernard Herrmann, great Saul Bass opening credits, and a capable cast that tries their hardest.

Regrettably, the story I just don't care for, and likely never will. Someone becoming obsessed with a person's significant other after being asked to tail them for the purposes of investigating their whereabouts is fine as honestly, most people have become obsessed with a person, even if they are already romantically entangled w/ someone else. But there's a tease of reincarnation/possession and a whole lot of nonsense, some of which will forever be baffling to me. That's not even factoring in the lead's increasingly disturbing behavior, especially towards the gal known as Judy. Controlling your loved one's behavior will forever be creepy to me, even if it's done by Jimmy Stewart. I know, I know... this movie was basically Hitchcock playing out his id and he actually treated actresses like that, but that's pretty rotten and ever since discovering that and other unsavory stories, I was better off knowing less about the personal life and peccadilloes of a legendary director.

Most will disagree but the movie is just not that enjoyable for my tastes no matter if everyone else finds it to be a masterpiece. Instead of being haunted by this fact, I won't worry about ever watching Vertigo again and instead there will be the satisfaction that there are many Hitchcock films that are more enjoyable, fun, and even thought-provoking which are more worthy of revisit.

The Big Sleep

The Big Sleep (1946)

Runtime: 114 minutes

Directed by: Howard Hawks

Starring: Humphrey Bogart, Lauren Bacall, John Ridgley, Martha Vickers, Dorothy Malone

From: Warner Bros.

Philip Marlowe: Ladies Man?

It's been too long since I've watched any film noir; randomly I decided to finally watch this classic so it could be discussed here. The most noteworthy aspect is the complexity of the story and how not everyone is a fan of that. Personally, it is not THAT difficult to follow and comprehend; paying attention is important but when Marlowe recaps things more than once to another character as exposition, it is not a Gordian Knot that is extremely difficult to untie, in other words. Admittedly, I've heard for years (and presume it's true) that in Raymond Chandler's novel this was based on, he did not know who committed one of the murders. As others have noted, the investigation was more about the process than the end result, although the story of what happened was still interesting.

Philip Marlowe is a PI-or a shamus, as he's referred to a few times-who is asked by an old invalid rich dude to investigate a blackmail case involving one of his daughters, Carmen. Carmen is a wild child so she's been in trouble before; in contrast, Vivian is way more staid yet also causes problems for Philip in other ways. What results are various twists & turns, surprises, murders, etc. To reveal more would spoil the story; I will say that there are plenty of intriguing characters throughout, even if their screentime is limited. I think of such people as the bookstore lady who helps out Philip (and is one of the many women who act like he is absolutely irresistible, which resulted in me chortling whenever it happened) or the small role played by Elisha Cook, Jr.

It was a mystery I enjoyed trying to figure out, it has the usual noir trappings (nice usage of light & shadows, snappy dialogue, hardboiled moments, etc.) and it was simply a delight seeing legendary real life couple Bogie & Bacall interact with each other. Not my favorite noir but still a good time for me... and it may be for you as long as you are not intimidated by the idea of a complex plot.

A Quiet Place Part II

A Quiet Place Part II (2020)

91% on Rotten Tomatoes (out of 309 reviews)

Runtime: 97 minutes

Directed by: John Krasinski

Starring: Everyone in the family plus a new character played by Cillian Murphy

From: Paramount

As I mentioned in my review for A Quiet Place that was posted yesterday, I saw both movies theatrically for the first time yesterday. While I enjoyed that, I do think this was a little better. It was appropriate to see them back to back as Part II-after an intro that shows Day 1 of the invasion-picks up right after Part I concludes.

As this is new, much of the plot won't be revealed; instead it will be noted that from the trailers witnessed by my eyes, they did not reveal as much as they appeared to. Part II is a different beast from Part I in several ways: there are more monsters, more dialogue, more people, and more of the universe seen. This worked instead of flopping because the essence of the series is still the same and the lead characters all grow & mature from what was seen in the first movie.

John Krasinski has grown as a director since his debut; not only was he more assured and the overall product was less clunky, the very good sound design & score has returned and editing plays a big role in the final act... thank heavens Michael P. Shawver was up to the task. Two of the characters (one returning and one new) were the true highlights. Another relief was that this had more scares than the first.

The ending is on the abrupt side-I guess that's better than being relieved that the film is over, which has happened too often in modern movies. Personally, I am glad this movie is not a few things: something that shoehorns in humor that was not needed, avoids being needlessly long, and is not pretentious crap. Give me either of these motion pictures to most of the product of the “heightened horror” movement. Whenever Part III is released in the future, there will be no delay in my theatrical viewing of that. As I prefer Part II, expectations will be high for III.