An Update

Well, the past few days I've been recovering and now I feel at 100%. However, today I've been playing the start of Mass Effect 2 for the first time (I know, welcome to 2010 but it's true) and tonight I have to watch the Monday Night Football game and the Tampa Bay Rays baseball game where the winner qualifies for the playoffs; with all that and the recent start of a live broadcast of a podcast recording... no time to do anything else tonight. However, tomorrow night I'll be back as I plan on rewatching something for my Letterboxd account so I can do a nice review for it. It will be Attack the Block. I thought I had reviewed it already for that site but I was wrong. Given how much I dig the movie, I'll be happy to see it again.

Gang Wars

Gang Wars (a.k.a. Devil's Express; 1976)

Runtime: 83 minutes

Directed by: Barry Rosen

Starring: WARHAWK TANZANIA (yes, that's the actor's stage name; I have no idea what his birth certificate name is), Thomas D. Anglin, Wilfredo Roldan, Brother Theodore (yes, the old monologuist who was Uncle Reuben in The 'Burbs)

From: Mahler Films

Yep, this is a left turn from what I've mainly been talking about this month. I figured it was time to do some real obscure grindhouse fare (something I need to do more often) and how can I NOT watch a movie with a dude who calls himself Warhawk Tanzania and who happens to look like a cross between basketball legend Julius Erving and Ludacris? Yep, he's a buff black dude with a great afro and nice mustache but he's no Jim Kelly by any means.

The plot synopsis, as written by me: it's a blaxploitation/kung-fu/monster movie! It starts off in “China: 200 B.C.” and you see an amulet be hidden as it basically carries evil powers and can cause huge problems, which is demonstrated later. You then move on and see that Luke (Warhawk) does martial arts training (he even helps out “honky cops”) and he has a buddy named Roldan (yeah, Wilfredo Roldan; I'd like to think that the character name was Rodan instead!), and Rodan is an annoying weasel of a dude. I know that's how the character was written, but still... they go to Hong Kong (yea, it looks like New York; no surprise given that everything with this production looks like this was a real low-dollar affair) and Rodan digs up an amulet and brings it along as they return to NYC. In short, it results in someone being possessed and they start off with ping pong balls for eyes and yet he doesn't get noticed in 1970's New York City, which I know was a rough place, but still...

You get funky music, even funkier fashions, and random fights, and even more random fights as the thing hides in the subways and attacks random people, as random sh*t happens, not a lot of it all that interesting, to be honest. This movie is decidedly average in every which way (except for the music) from the fighting to the acting (“average” is being kind); sure, there's wackiness, from the ping pong ball eyes to how the thing can speak in a monotone children's voice speaking English in order to trick a victim, but there's not enough of that. There is no gore to speak of. 

Like I said, average, and definitely not as gonzo or as insane or as wacky as I was hoping given the premise. Mr. Warhawk is a pretty terrible actor, BTW, and he really doesn't deserve  While it may sound awesome to hear that Warhawk fights a “demon” (dude in a wacky costume), it's done in a really dark subway so it is not always easy to see and how it ends... lame! It's on YouTube so if you must you can watch the whole film, but there's no real need to.

I'll be back on Monday night, as the next few days I'll be busy at times and I'll also try to watch a horror documentary or two, which will take up some time.

Nope, Not Tonight

I wish I could be doing a review tonight, but it's a no-go. It's not really even that I am feeling under the weather now. Rather, I am preoccupied with trying to book a plane flight for someone and it should be a simple thing but it's turned into something that I don't know when it will end, so it'll be best to return tomorrow and by then things should be good and I will have watched something by then and written something down in Word in order to copy and paste here.

Saboteur

Saboteur (1942)

Runtime: 109 minutes

Directed by: Alfred Hitchcock

Starring: Robert Cummins, Priscella Lane, Otto Kruger, Alan Baxter

From: Universal

Out of all the Hitchcock films I could watch tonight, I decided to go with this one, as because at least I can tell an interesting tale about it. Earlier this month I decided to bookmark it to watch later, as I hadn't seen it before... or that is what I thought until I later realized that I HAD seen it before. And it was after I moved to Florida in May of '04; I don't know what it means that I did not remember right away this would be my second viewing of the film.

To copy and plot the synopsis from the IMDb: “Aircraft factory worker Barry Kane goes on the run across the United States when he is wrongly accused of starting a fire that killed his best friend.” It's more complicated than that but I'll elaborate. A man named Fry sets up Barry Kane (Cummings) in a case of sabotage after he hands Barry a fire extinguisher that is actually filled with gasoline and causes Kane's friend to die. He has to go on the run because he is wrongly accused (a common theme, as you've read here the past few weeks) and he hooks up with a blonde who at first doesn't believe him but then she changes her mind (yep, another common theme).

I'll be honest; it's not as great as the similar North by Northwest or The 39 Steps. Sure, there are tense moments and suspense and drama and black humor, but those movies did do it better. North by Northwest and The 39 Steps did not have such things as rampant patriotism (it's understandable considering the time period), some speechifying, an old blind man who at times acts like he is Daredevil or Zatoichi, and a circus troupe where you see the hero and lady hang out with a fat short woman, a midget man, a bearded lady, and Siamese twins, so there's that. Wackiness, I tell you. Needless to say those were the moments of the movie I remembered the most as I viewed it again.

This is uneven and some parts I am kind of “eh” on, but there still are strong moments and as usual for a Hitch movie, it has a big and memorable ending; not to spoil it but it involves the Statue of Liberty. It's unfortunate that the movie goes to The End screen sooner than you expect after the big thing happens, but what can you do? That memorable ending helps and I'll likely give this 3 ½ out of 5 stars on Letterboxd, if you care to know. It's not one of his all-time classics but if you enjoy the director you certainly could do worse

I'll be back Wednesday night.

The Wizard Of Oz

The Wizard of Oz (1939)

Runtime: 101 minutes

Directed by: Well, a whole slew of people; George Cukor, Mervyn LeRoy, King Vidor, and Norman Taurog, but most of it was Victor Fleming

Starring: Judy Garland, Margaret Hamilton, Ray Bolger, Bert Lahr, Jack Haley

From: MGM

I'll be honest here, this review here is just an expanded verison of what I said on Letterboxd yesterday. I don't need to go over the plot as everyone knows it; I presume that everyone has seen it, too.

I watched this Friday night on the big screen as for one week only they are showing it in IMAX 3D. I ended up not even noticing the 3D stuff as believe me it's rarely a factor; at least it did look nice in that format. If you enjoy the movie, it's probably worth it to watch it on the (very) big screen. If nothing else, it obviously disproves a longstanding rumor concerning the flick; no, not the one involving The Dark Side of the Moon album, but rather the one concerning how in one scene you can see someone deceased in the shot as they had just killed themselves via hanging. On a giant screen and with a clear picture, it's obvious that it was what many people said it was... a large black bird.

Sure, nostalgia may be part of my enjoying this on the big screen but hey, it's still an entertaining tale with great-looking sets, memorable songs, plenty of phrases that have become legendary and are said even today, and for the kids some important life lessons to learn. It may be “hip” to hate on this movie or say it's overrated or what have you; I think that talk is poppycock.

I don't know what else to say about this wildly popular classic so I'll mention that this time I was able to laugh at the wacky things, such as there being sentient trees, a talking man/lion creature, villages full of "vertically challenged people" and of course those flying monkeys. I can only imagine what watching this on drugs is like, and honestly when you have a scene where the heroes fall asleep in a poppy field and are suddenly full of pep after having a white powdery substance fall on them... of course the topic of drugs will pop in my head.

Anyhow, I will return tomorrow night.

Foreign Correspondent

Foreign Correspondent (1940)


Runtime: 120 minutes


Directed by: Alfred Hitchcock


Starring: Joel McCrea, Laraine Day, Herbert Marshall, George Sanders


From: Walter Wanger Productions


Here is a Hitchcock movie I knew little about beforehand; I picked it to watch last night mainly due to it being on a VHS tape and I needed that tape cleared by Sunday for more taping. I know, I know... but it's me and it's true. The plot to this just before World War II drama/mystery, courtesy of the IMDb:


“Johnny Jones is an action reporter on a New York newspaper. The editor appoints him European correspondent because he is fed up with the dry, reports he currently gets. Jones' first assignment is to get the inside story on a secret treaty agreed between two European countries by the famous diplomat, Mr. Van Meer. However things don't go to plan...”


Yes, I do laugh at the Johnny Jones name as I can't help but think of the MMA fighter known as Jon “Bones” Jones. The editor gives him a fake pen name of Huntley Haverstock, which is great. Just odd is the character name that George Sanders is. His name is Scott ffolliott. Yes, it's correct and threre's two lower-case f's; the movie explains it away in a goofy way; it's just an interesting quirk, I suppose. Anyhow, Scott does figure into the story of how Jones is shipped off to England in late summer 1939 to cover what was predicted to be the start of a major war. That was actually predicted as they started making the movie and well, if you don't know your history it WAS around that time when due to Germany invading Poland, England and some other countries declared war on the Germans; it must have been odd when the movie first came out and shortly thereafter The Blitz attack on London was started by Germany...


Anyhow, now that you know the climate of the movie (England and Germany are real close to war) and Jones is there to cover it and get any hot info about what may happen. He meets up with some people who preach peace and are trying to prevent war. Things happen and the guy sometimes known as Haverstock unwittingly gets involved and the tale involves spies, cover-ups, and double crosses. It twists around and sometimes goes places I wasn't expecting at all, but overall I did enjoy it for sure; not as much as something by North by Northwest or Psycho, but still something I'll likely give 4 out of 5 stars on Letterboxd, to list a method of comparison.


While it is a fantastical tale at times, it's still always interesting once things really get going. The acting is at least fine all across the board and there are some greatly acted scenes. There are also some interesting setpieces and of course there's plenty of tense and suspenseful moments. A lot of the action is in England but some of it is also in Holland; yes, you do see windmills. In fact, they are part of the plot. And wow that was quite final 20 or so minutes.


There is a romance and at least to me it seemed like a case of “Well, THAT escalated quickly” but that is OK as McCrea and Day have very good chemistry with each other. Plus, I hear that part of a key scene that seems wacky actually had basis in real life, as it actually happened to Hitch and the lady who would become his wife.



I'll be back Sunday afternoon; I plan on watching another classic film of old, but not one directed by Hitchcock.

North by Northwest

North by Northwest (1959)

Runtime: 136 minutes

Directed by: Alfred Hitchcock

Starring: Cary Grant, Eva Marie Saint, James Mason, Leo G. Carroll, Martin Landau

From: MGM

Due to my Amazon Instant free trial expiring on Friday, I figured I should watch and review this long movie tonight while I still can use that service. My apologies for this being posted Thursday morning instead of Wednesday night; things happen.

This is one of the most famous and best rated movies that Hitch ever did, both with movie fans and with critics. Yes, critics are also fans of movies, but you know what I mean. There are several legendary and iconic moments, from the cropdusting plane in the field chasing Cary Grant to the Mt. Rushmore stuff, the ending... and that one scene in the cafeteria that led to a famous movie mistake where in the scene they put in the movie you can see a young boy plug his ears before someone suddenly fires a gun as he knows from previous takes the gunshot would be loud... OK, that last part may only be famous to me, but I find it to be memorable.

The short version of the plot from IMDb: “A hapless New York advertising executive is mistaken for a government agent by a group of foreign spies, and is pursued across the country while he looks for a way to survive.” Of course it's more complicated than that.

Things start off great right away with the awesome opening credits, from Saul Bass. It starts off real fast and there's rarely a dull moment as due to circumstances Roger Thornhill (Grant) is believed to be a secret agent working for the government and there are evil forces set out to get rid of him as they believe him as a secret agent would expose their nefarious plans. From New York you go to Chicago, a field in the middle of nowhere Indiana, then to Mt. Rushmore.

This is not the first time I've seen the movie and I've always thought that a few times, there are some “wait a minute here...” moments with the plot. That aside, I am able to excuse that when the story is so exciting, there is acres of great snappy dialogue, the cinematography and score are great and work well separately and together, and you have awesome performances, especially from Cary Grant, who is a man amongst men. Stuff like that and how this is a long movie (which doesn't seem like over 2 hours when you watch it) helps make up for any logical fallacies. Yep, this is great.

I'll be back Friday afternoon.

Think Big

Think Big (1989)


Runtime: 87 minutes


Directed by: Jon Turteltaub


Starring: Peter Paul, David Paul, Ari Meyers, Martin Mull, Richard Moll


From: Motion Picture Corporation of America


This wasn't what I originally was going to watch, but last night a podcast I listen to did a livestream of the 1987 movie The Barbarians, starring the twin buff jacked up bodybuilders known as the Barbarian Brothers, Peter Paul and David Paul, who made some movies in the late 80's and early 90's but made their debut with D.C. Cab, as reviewed by me last year. This was a movie I saw as a kid more than once way back when, but I don't even know how many years ago that was and I barely remember it at all. Anyhow, that podcast review inspired me to try and find this, and thankfully someone uploaded it to Youtube.


The plot, as described on IMDb: “A teen genius (Ari Meyers) escapes from a teen think tank with the plans for a secret weapon. On the run, she stows aboard a truck driven by two slow-witted brothers (Peter and David Paul) who are transporting toxic waste across the country. Martin Mull also appears as the mentor of the think tank, Claudia Christian is the school's psychologist, and David Carradine is a repo man.” I did not go with the plot description where the brothers were described as “somewhat retarded”, as that's just not nice. Sure, Rafe and Victor are dumb jocks and they are really superstitious, but mentally retarded is not nice.


Besides the stars I mentioned already, there's Tiny Lister as “Z”, so I'll presume that stands for Zeus, Richard Moll (as the world's tallest stereotypical nerd), Michael Winslow, and Richard Kiel. Some really tall people are in this movie, obviously. Overall, the movie is pretty stupid and goofy, but in a good way. It's inoffensive and I did laugh, which is the important thing. I mean, the “secret weapon” is a silly “impossible device” that looks like a late 80's remote control and it allows to turn on or shut off anything with an electronic circuit. Really. The wacky trio drive from Montana to Southern California and they have to do it in a set time or they'll get fired and lose their truck. They experience wacky adventures while avoiding those people that are trying to get the device and the girl back.


I mean, there are some action/fight scenes and there's plenty of goofy humor, so you shouldn't hate it if you want to check it out for the first time. I mean, the opening and closing credits of the film are actually RAPPED by the twins. This is as good as you'd imagine. Also, plenty of late 80's Oldsmobile sedans are seen throughout. It was nice as a piece of nostalgia as something I watched years ago and to see all of those old actors as of course I saw them in other movies back in the day. I am thankful it was on YouTube so I could watch it again; otherwise I imagine it could have been difficult to track down.



I'll be back tomorrow night. It isn't quite exactly what I wanted to see but I changed things around so I will be able to watch that sometime later. The next movie should be one of Hitchcock's best, as said by most people.

A Perfect Storm...

No, not the movie. Rather, several things came together to not allow me to review any films tonight.

1. I feel tired and run-down; not so bad that I couldn't go out in the afternoon, but still tired.

2. I had to help a parent get their new Nook working, which took longer than expected.

3. A podcast I listen to started their livestream of their new episode a little less than an hour ago.

So, I'll be back tomorrow night (barring anything major or catastrophic) and I should be doing one of the more famous and highly regarded Hitchcock movies.

You're Next

You're Next (2011)


74% on Rotten Tomatoes (out of 127 reviews)


Runtime: 94 minutes


Directed by: Adam Wingard


Starring: Sharni Vinson, Nicholas Tucci, Wendy Glenn, AJ Bowen, Joe Swanberg


From: Lionsgate


Here is a movie that was actually made in '11 but for whatever reasons (I'll blame it all on the incompetent Lionsgate, and I also blame them for the movie bombing at the box office) it did not get put out until a few weeks ago. Now, the more I heard about it from people the more it sounded up my alley, something that I would dig, and that the advertising for the movie wasn't completely accurate in portraying what sort of movie it'd be.


Yet, I did not go right away to see it because I heard bad things about the director's last feature film (A Horrible Way To Die, or rather, A Horrible Way To Film a Movie due to a lot of shaky-cam being used), the director using his indy director buddies to fill out the cast, and how I wasn't impressed by those guys and their contributions to the anthologies V/H/S and The ABC's of Death. But finally, I did see it this past Thursday.


The plot, from the IMDb: “When the Davison family comes under attack during their wedding anniversary getaway, the gang of mysterious killers soon learns that one of victims harbors a secret talent for fighting back.” To elaborate, a bearded dude (Bowen) and his Australian girlfriend Erin (Vinson) meet up with his rich family out in their compound, which of coruse is in the middle of nowhere right by the woods. The brothers and sister are all dysfunctional so there is arguing that goes on with everyone. Suddenly, they are attacked by three killers whose faces are obscured with animal masks. Their weapons include a crossbow. Various twists and turns happen which of course I won't spoil and Erin is the one who fights back the most.


When it comes to filmmaking, I have little to complain about. There was hardly any shaky-cam at all-thank the Lord-and it was just shot well, I thought. The music was like what you'd expect from John Carpenter in the 70's or 80's... meaning to me that it was great. I saw some complain about the acting but I thought it was fine overall, even from the directors and even from Ti West, a guy whose work I really don't care for.


Overall, what the movie is... more of a thrill ride, actually. Sure, there's suspense and a lot of gore but there's also dark humor and exciting moments; while I am having trouble finding something to compare it to, note that it's not a completely dour humorless joyless pile of misery and unpleasantness like you seemingly get a lot in recent years. It's fun to watch while you have all the horror violence and people getting killed. Sharni Vinson is awesome as the lead girl; you can believe her as a very tough, wily woman. By the end, I was greatly amused by some preposterously sweet things that happened. It's a damn shame this did not do better at the box office; hopefully once it's on demand or can be bought on physical mediums, it becomes a cult favorite. Depending on how things go the rest of the year, this may be on the list of the Top 10 movies I saw in 2013, no kidding.


Oh, and it's pretty cool that the movie has now made famous this obscure late 70's soft rocking song due to it being used a few times, Looking for the Magic by the Dwight Twilley Band.

I'll be back Monday night.

Insidious/Insidious: Chapter 2

Insidious (2010)


66% on Rotten Tomatoes (out of 164 reviews)


Runtime: 103 minutes


Directed by: James Wan


Starring: Patrick Wilson, Rose Byrne, Ty Simpkins, Lin Shaye


From: FilmDistrict


Insidious: Chapter 2 (2013)


38% on Rotten Tomatoes (out of 77 reviews)


Runtime: 105 minutes


Directed by: James Wan


Starring: Patrick Wilson, Rose Byrne, Ty Simpkins, Steve Coulter


From: FilmDistrict


I figured that on the night of a Friday the 13^th, it'd be appropriate to talk about horror films, and last night I saw a double bill of the original Insidious (which I have seen on DVD before but I never gave an official review to) and its brand new sequel. I wish the crowd at the screenings would have been more ideal and not such rude A-holes but I don't want to get into that.


You likely know the plot of the first movie already: the normal Lambert family move into a new house when strange things start happening; they presume the house is haunted (the oldest son also falls into a mysterious coma) so they move... but the strange things continue. They seek help from an odd woman (Shaye) and her Ghostbusting pals; such odd things as astral projection and a place known as The Further is brought up.


I say that it's uneven but still a fine watch. I enjoyed it more than the first time around. Sure, the budget limitations do hurt in the presentation of The Further, but I am able to laugh at the wackiness that happens, as there are wacky things that happen. It is still a movie that has effective thrills and chills so it's an entertaining enough time.


The sequel... of course I don't want to spoil much but I do have to say that this is different from the first movie. There are still thrills and chills to be had, and there are also allusions to movies of the past; I won't mention which one as you may figure out what I'm referring to. Those allusions are mostly organic and don't seem like blatant cheap things done to fill up the plot. There's still wackiness present, by the way. It's already gotten mixed reviews so your mileage may vary. I thought it was a little better than the first overall.

It's no The Conjuring, but it's still nice if you enjoy the horror genre. I am glad that this year there have been some quality horror films out.



I'll be back tomorrow night with the movie I saw yesterday afternoon on the big screen before the double bill.

The 39 Steps

The 39 Steps (1935)


Runtime: 86 minutes


Directed by: Alfred Hitchcock


Starring: Robert Donat, Madeline Carroll, Lucie Mannheim, Godfrey Tearle, Peggy Ashcroft


From: Gaumont British Picture Corporation


Via YouTube (which has the 86 minute version rather than other copies that are a few minutes shorter) I watched this famous public domain film, one that many say is the first great movie that Hitchcock ever did. After seeing it, I tend to agree.


To copy and paste from the IMDb page concerning this movie largely set and filmed in Scotland: “A man in London tries to help a counterespionage agent. But when the agent is killed and he stands accused, he must go on the run to both save himself and also stop a spy ring trying to steal top secret information.”


To elaborate, the man (Donat in a great performance) is a Canadian who is in London and he gets entangled with a lady spy with a foreign accent of unknown origin (Mannheim). She gets killed with a knife to the back and he decides to escape as well, it's obvious that he will be accused of murdering the woman, which is exactly what happens. He knows from her that she was going to go to Scotland to warn someone about The 39 Steps (which is briefly explained in the movie; the book that it's based on explains it further and I'll leave it at that) and a plot to smuggle important secrets out of Great Britain. The rest of the movie is him on the run avoiding the authorities and other people who want to silence him. He runs into a blonde (Carroll) and they end up unwittingly connected to each other.


In terms of structure, this is quite similar to North by Northwest. A falsely accused man (a common theme for Hitch) is on the run and he has to stop a massive plot from happening and causing a lot of harm and damage. It's fastly paced, you get pretty rural Scotland scenery and there are colorful memorable characters throughout, even those that you only see for a few minutes. It's greatly plotted and always interesting due to the situations our unwitting hero gets put in. A guy missing part of a finger figures into the procedings. Donat and Carroll have awesome chemistry in dealing with each other and they provide humor in this fun yarn. I am glad I finally saw this tale of mystery and intrigue as it is one of a good number of great films that he made.



Like I said last night, I'll be back on Friday the 13^th in the evening and I should be talking about something horror-related.

My Schedule For The Next Few Days

I just decided on this tonight, but tomorrow night-barring anything unexpected-I'll be reviewing another Hitchcock film. Thursday I plan on seeing THREE movies at the cinema, including a double-shot of Insidious and its sequel, as I've never done a review for the first one here. Friday and Saturday I'll be posting the reviews of those motion pictures. Until then...

Blackmail

Blackmail (1929)


Runtime: 85 minutes


Directed by: Alfred Hitchcock


Starring: Anny Ondra, Charles Paton, Sara Allgood, John Longden, Cyril Ritchard


From: British International Pictures


Yes, this is another early Hitchcock film. I picked this one out so that I could finish all that I had recorded on a VHS tape; yes, that's how I still tape things on TV in 2013. Anyhow, now that tape can be used later. This movie is usually considered the first “British talkie”, or at least the first popular one. There's a silent version of this movie but that's obscure and real hard to find.


The plot, from the IMDb: “Alice White is the daughter of a shopkeeper in 1920's London. Her boyfriend, Frank Webber is a Scotland Yard detective who seems more interested in police work than in her. Frank takes Alice out one night, but she has secretly arranged to meet another man. Later that night Alice agrees to go back to his flat to see his studio. The man has other ideas and as he tries to rape Alice, she defends herself and kills him with a bread knife. When the body is discovered, Frank is assigned to the case, he quickly determines that Alice is the killer, but so has someone else and blackmail is threatened.” Of course, during this time period, all you see of the attempted rape is he grabbing her, their figures in the shadow, then you only hear the struggle and you see her grab the knife to stab him.


Overall, I do have to say that I enjoyed this more than I did Murder! It wasn't as slow or dull at times like that one was. I'll say this was a little above average, with some ambiguity and it was finely acted. As expected, it was well-filmed and had some quality shots done that you'd expect from Hitch.


There was even some nice audio gags. Speaking of audio, silent star Ondra had to be dubbed as she had quite the Czech accent. She was a pretty blonde (of course, with who was directing it) whose career went kaput once the talkies began. Anyhow, the actual blackmailing is a small part of the plot, and I'll leave it at that and say that things can be a two way street sometiems; there are some twists and turns along the way, and the ending was at least memorable.



I'll be back tomorrow night.

Murder!

Murder! (1930)


Runtime: 104 minutes


Directed by: Alfred Hitchcock


Starring: Herbert Marshall, Norah Baring, Phyllis Konstam, Edward Chapman


From: British International Pictures


Here's a movie that was on TCM last Sunday but I did not record it; however, it was on Amazon Prime for free so I figured I should watch it. Plus, I was greatly amused that the title was Murder with an exclamation point. To borrow the plot from the IMDb:


“A juror in a murder trial, after voting to convict, has second thoughts and begins to investigate on his own before the execution.”


I will elaborate. A lady (Baring, who isn't bad-looking...) is accused of murdering someone, a fellow actress in a stage play. She does not remember what happened but the evidence makes it look like she's guilty. You get a brief amount of the trial then some deliberations in the jury room with Sir John (Marshall; he is also an actor) It isn't awful; just slow and it's no 12 Angry Men. Then again, the movie is pretty slow and talky for the most part. Think of that how you will. Me, I think the movie is alright and I wasn't bored with it due to its plotting. It just isn't action-packed by any means. Anyhow, Sir John and two pals do some investigating. There at least are some things of note to mention, and not just that the lead guy at times somewhat looks like Pacific Rim's Burn Gorman, or that the print of the movie on Amazon sometimes looked as if it might as well have been from 1830.


It was at least filmed well with some nice tracking shots and other nice shots. Some performances were odd but otherwise they were fine. A suspect is someone who often cross-dresses in roles. He does not make for a pretty lady! Hitch does try some interesting things. They don't always work out but at least he tries. You hear Sir John having an internal monologue as he's looking in the mirror shaving. I hear that was the first time it was ever done in a movie, so there's that. And, the ending is memorable as it's not something I saw coming and it was a “Holy crap” sort of thing. You can find both on YouTube.



Overall, I say that this was about average and unless you're a Hitchcock completist, you don't need to rush out to try and see this. I'll be back tomorrow night.

Shadow Of A Doubt

Shadow of a Doubt (1943)


Runtime: 108 minutes


Directed by: Alfred Hitchcock


Starring: Teresa Wright, Joseph Cotten, Macdonald Carey, Henry Travers, Patricia Collinge


From: Universal


Here is a movie I picked out as it was one of the ones I taped this past Sunday when it was on TCM. It turns out that out of all the movies he did, this one was Hitch's favorite. So it makes sense for me to talk about it eventually, and I decided to do it tonight.


The plot, which I took part of from the IMDb: “Charlotte 'Charlie' Newton is bored with her quiet life at home with her parents and her younger sister. She wishes something exciting would happen and knows exactly what they need: a visit from her sophisticated and much traveled uncle Charlie Oakley, her mother's younger brother. Imagine her delight when, out of the blue, they receive a telegram from Uncle Charlie announcing that he is coming to visit them for awhile. Charlie Oakley creates quite a stir and charms the ladies club as well as the bank president where his brother-in-law works. Young Charlie begins to notice some odd behavior on his part...” I wanted to end it there as I did not want to spoil anything concerning this mystery.


This is a tale where the first half you try to figure out what's wrong with Uncle Charlie (Cotten). At first, the teenaged girl known as Charlie (Wright; two characters having the same first name actually is never confusing) is happy to see her uncle as early on she has an existential crisis about her life and how it's so boring and plain. She was happy to see her uncle, until she ran into two detectives who were following him as they had their suspicions about him but it wasn't a solid case for them. Suddenly things change and I'll leave it at that.


While there are two young kid characters who can be annoying at times, otherwise I have little to carp about with this movie. There is a lot of suspense, thrilling moments, and great dialogue you hear. There are intense conversations between the two people known as Charlie; the performances by and large are at least good (and I was not used to seeing old man Hume Cronyn looking youthful in his film debut) and there is some dark humor in that Hume's character and the dad of the family are friends and they enjoy detective mysteries and they discuss what would be the best way to kill someone and get away with it. But it is Wright and Cotten who make the film with their great performances. That helped me enjoy this a lot; and there is quite the awesome ending that I thought was great in thought and execution.



To think that I wasn't really familiar with the film before they played it on TCM; now I am glad I saw it, for sure. He's had many great films but I say that this is one of them. I'll be back Sunday night. 

Psycho (The Original)

Psycho (1960)


Runtime: 109 minutes


Directed by: Alfred Hitchcock


Starring: Anthony Perkins, Janet Leigh, Vera Miles, Martin Balsam


From: Paramount (although it was filmed on Universal's lot)


While I have seen this movie a few times before (on VHS, DVD and even one time on the big screen way back when... for me I consider that to be 2006 or so, which is when I believe I saw it), I figured this was the best time to give it another watch. It's difficult to figure out what to say about this all-time classic that hasn't been said before... or try to say it as well as all the experts who have talked about this for the past 50 years plus. You don't need to know what the plot of this one is, as we should all know the tale of Norman Bates, his “mother” and Marion Crane.


When you look at the ill-advised 1998 remake (which I reviewed here) and compare it to this, the original shines especially bright. While the remake added some dumb things and the leads were a guy who played it way too creepy and a girl who did not play it right and in real life is at best a giant flake... the original has the right people and the right performances for the main roles. Leigh is great as the secretary who turns bad due to love and Perkins is all-time great as the oddball Norman Bates who looks like a meek nerd but aside from being awkward he seemed like a decent guy... until you find out the truth. The other performances work; none of them detract at all.


There are academic articles that explain the differences between the original and the remake and how there's a lot of minutiae in the original that the remake just did not do as well; whether it's the obvious or the not so obvious, this movie does things oh so well and that's why it's still beloved in 2013. It's hard to say if this is Hitch's best due to his amazing output, but it's one of the best.


Point is, the 1960 version and how it was constructed shows all the talent that was behind the camera along with in front of it (and to think that this was filmed on the cheap mainly with people from the TV show that Hitch had at the time) and it was all done masterfully with care and skill to create a work that is still effective in the 21st century as a creepy and terrifying film. From the score to the infamous scenes, the subtle moments and all the unconventional things done with the story... I am happy to revisit this.



I'll be back Friday night.

The Lodger

The Lodger (1927)


Runtime: 99 minutes


Directed by: Alfred Hitchcock


Starring: Ivor Novello, Marie Ault, Arthur Chesney, June, Malcolm Keen


From: Gainsborough Pictures


This is the first silent movie I've reviewed for this blog, which I started up August of '09. I certainly have seen silent movies before but that was a long time ago. The excuse for me to watch this: Sundays this month on Turner Classic Movies they will spent a lot of time showing movies from this legendary director. Thus, I hope to be busy this month watching and rewatching movies and then writing about them here.


I picked this one out as they showed it late on Sunday night and I might as well start off with what even the director said was his first true movie in his style. After this I'll be reviewing his movies in a non-chronological order. The plot, from the IMDb: “A serial killer known as "The Avenger" is on the loose in London, murdering blonde women. A mysterious man arrives at the house of Mr. and Mrs. Bunting looking for a room to rent. The Bunting's daughter is a blonde model and is seeing one of the detectives assigned to the case. The detective becomes jealous of the lodger and begins to suspect he may be the avenger.”


The silent movies I watched in the past were mostly of the comic variety: Charlie Chaplin, Buster Keaton, Harold Lloyd, that sort of thing. A crime drama mystery silent is a new thing for me. Overall, it's different to watch a movie that way but overall I say that this was good with those circumstances. There aren't many title cards (the shots where you get to read what the characters said) and instead you have to use context clues often to figure out what's going on, which is fine.


The story wasn't complex but it was usually interesting. I won't list what the tropes are as they're spoilers but even back in the late 20's you get to see some tropes that you often saw in Hitchcock films, including his love of blondes; it's like Tarantino and feet in how obvious that fetish is. Anyhow, there's also some black humor and visual puns in that a few times it looks like The Lodger is going to kill the blonde daughter but he's actually doing something else. Stuff like that amuses me.



Anyhow, this movie has some great shots and if you enjoy the director then I say this may be worth tracking down. I'll be back tomorrow night.