60/60 Review #38: North By Northwest.

And I didn't think it could get better than Rear Window. Eagle Eye--I mean, North by Northwest tells us the story of Roger Thornhill (Cary Grant), an advertising executive who gets mistaken for an undercover CIA agent by Philip Vandamm (James Mason), a foreign spy. Roger is thrust into a series of events that eventually makes him a very wanted individual by the authorities, so he has to stay on the run. He eventually meets up with Eve Kendall (Eva Marie Saint), a young woman who seems to want to help. But nothing is as it seems, and Roger faces twists and turns trying to figure out just what is going on and how he can get out of it.

Whereas almost every other Hitchcock film I've seen this month has had a long build-up to the suspense, this one hits you about 6 minutes into the movie. It really takes only the required time to set up the lead character before shoving him into this mess. And from that point on, it never slows down or holds back. While the movie is over 2 hours long, I didn't think there were any major pacing problems. I did wonder a couple times where the film was going to go now that it seemed it was almost over ("There's still an hour left? It feels like we're almost to the climax!" "There's still 30 minutes left? Aren't we at the climax?"). I guess in a sense this could be seen as a good thing, considering the entire last half of the movie felt like one long climax/suspense scene that just kept throwing more twists at you just when you thought you were almost there.

I thought the writing in Rope was top notch, but this one takes the cake. While the story at times feels almost too complex (I actually got lost a couple times), the characters are just so great that it keeps you involved. Cary Grant plays such a smart-ass, which is a refreshing change of pace. He wasn't over-dramatic or anything like that. It's like he took everything going on with a grain of salt and reacted. Then we have Eva Marie Saint, who plays such a fine Femme Fatale that I could never keep a handle on whether she was a good guy or not.

I think what I enjoyed most about this film is that while there is a lot of suspense, it has a ton of humor. And I don't mean just dark humor like Hitchcock has given in previous films I've watched--but sarcasm and witty dialogue. And boy was I surprised at the amount of sex talk allusions in this film, particularly the scenes on the train. For 1959, this was probably pretty dang close to scandalous the lengths Hitchcock went with it. There's a whole discussion full of innuendo about them going back to have sex all night, despite the fact they just met.

The music was also pretty good. It had a much more modern feel. Older films tend to have a grander sound to their soundtracks, sometimes overwhelming the scenes. I'm not a music or soundtrack aficionado, so I can't tell you what it was... it just feels like this particular soundtrack was at a turning point in film.

And I kind of had that feeling about the film as a whole. Of all the Hitchcock films I've watched this month, this one felt the most 'modern', I suppose. The only thing about it that felt old school was the kissing scenes. Besides that, it didn't really feel dated at all. Now, almost every month, there's generally at least 1 movie I watch that I'm tempted to go out and buy after viewing it (but I never do). There have been 3 this month (this, Rear Window, and Rope), but for the first time I'm considering going and actually buying this film. I could definitely see myself getting in the mood for this one and just popping it in for the fun of it.

That being said, this nudges out Rear Window as my favorite Hitchcock, despite its sometimes confusing plot (I'll need to rewatch it to catch a few things). And this actually means a lot considering this is the one I was most looking forward to watching, so my expectations were already pretty high (and that typically doesn't end well when that happens during this project). Instead of just rambling on, I guess I'll leave it at that, since I honestly don't have anything profound to say--oh, except that I started picking up on the number 13 in this film. I don't know if it was on purpose, but all the numbers (room numbers and whatnot) given in this film seem to add up to 13. And I caught the Hitchcock cameo for the second time this month. Anyway... that's it.


Royale With Cheese

(P.S. That's it for Hitchcock Month! I'll be honest, I was a little disappointed overall. I had such high expectations for this month, and about half the films kinda fell short for me. But the good ones were really good. And it was a good month overall. Anyway, next week we're moving on to the longest month on this entire project (the only month to have 10 films including extras), Crime Month Part 1--since there are 2 back-to-back months full of crime films. This first month deals more with heists and cops/robbers... so it should be a fun one! See you then.)

60/60 Extra: Strangers On A Train.

I think I've reached that time of the month where I'm just kinda bored with the theme and am ready for something new and different. Though I'm not saying this was bad, either. Let's just get into it. Bruno (Robert Walker) seems like a nice enough guy at first, but you slowly realize he's quite the psychotic socialite when he begins chatting up pro tennis player Guy (Farley Granger). He has the crazy idea to commit the perfect murder: In order to avoid getting caught with motive, swap murders with a complete stranger. Guy blows this off at first until Bruno kills Guy's wife, Miriam (Kasey Rogers), so that he can be with his true love, Anne (Ruth Roman). Now Bruno waits, expecting Guy to knock off his father, and when that doesn't come... he starts getting a bit too obsessive.

It's funny that the next Hitchcock film I have planned to watch after seeing Horrible Bosses is Strangers on a Train. (If you haven't seen the former yet, it takes some inspiration from and even references the latter on multiple occasions.) Anyway, thankfully that didn't detract too much from seeing the film, since the overall story is much different. Still, though... I found it hard to stay focused at times.

I think a lot of that had to do with the pacing. The whole movie seems to go from interesting moment to completely dull moment way too often. It's more prevalent in the first hour, I feel. But after the damn near perfect pacing of Rear Window, this one seemed more of a let down. The build up is strange as it almost takes too long but then ends abruptly on the first kill. I totally wasn't expecting it right then (despite the fact he literally stalks her out in the open like an idiot for 10+ minutes of the film). I will say, though, that Miriam's death scene is hands down one of the best shot murder scenes I've ever seen on film. The reflection through her glasses is totally surreal and fantastic, and it's easily the best part of the entire movie.

Besides that, the best part comes from Robert Walker in the last 30-40 minutes of the movie. You know he's a bit crazy before this point, but it's here when you really start feeling uncomfortable suspense, like he can do anything whenever he wants to. There are some fantastic moments of suspense, including a part where Guy is leaving Bruno's house very slowly, since there's a bit of danger involved. I knew there was still 20 minutes left, but I honestly had no idea whether or not Guy would die--that wouldn't have surprised me with Hitchcock at all.

Overall, it was a good film with some problems here and there. I think it could have been a bit tighter, personally (but what do I know?). The symbolism of the tennis match juxtaposed against the lighter bit didn't hit me right away, but even after I got it, I felt maybe the editing could have been slightly different. By the time we reached the relatively cool climax on the merry-go-round, I had nearly lost interest in the film. Again, that's not to say it's a bad film... I just think it was a mix of things in the timing of my viewing (and I don't mean due to Horrible Bosses). I'll probably like it more in the future, but I'll just leave it as is for now.


I Am McLovin!

(P.S. For the first time this month, I actually saw Hitchcock's cameo--though to be fair, it's probably been the most blatant of the bunch.)

60/60 Review #37: Rear Window.

Let's get this out of the way at the start: Yes, I knew the film Disturbia was a remake of this film... I just didn't know how much. I thought it just took the basic concept, but no. There is a ton of stuff that film takes from this. But did basically knowing the movie beforehand through its remake affect the viewing of this film?

For those that don't know, the film tells the story of L.B. Jeffries (James Stewart), a photographer stuck in a wheelchair due to a broken leg. He has one week left in the cast and contends with a spunky nurse named Stella (Thelma Ritter) and his nearly perfect model girlfriend, Lisa (Grace Kelly). To pass the time, he spies on all his neighbors. One day, however, he starts believing that one of the men, a man named Lars Thorwald (Raymond Burr) might have murdered his own wife and is trying to get rid of the evidence. Even bringing in an old detective friend, Thomas Doyle (Wendell Corey), he has a hard time convincing anyone that his suspicions are true.

This is probably one of the most perfectly paced films I've ever seen. The first 30 minutes or so set up all the characters, including the ones he spies on. It sets up the relationships and how everything will inevitably evolve throughout the rest of the film. After this, once the murder aspect is tossed in, it slowly builds its suspense. It takes us on a "is he or isn't he?" trail... though I figured I knew the ending based on Disturbia. Still, it didn't really deter me from enjoying the film or feeling the suspense.

So far in each Hitchcock film I've watched, it seems there's at least one character that bugs me. Here, that's not the case. Every character has a purpose, and almost every relationship goes somewhere. (The gorgeous) Grace Kelly begins as this perfectly little model who is kind of in her own world of fashion and glam. Because of this, Jeffries is conflicted on their relationship as she's not really adventurous or even close to the type of person he is. Of course, this changes as the film goes on. And then James Stewart (yet again) is here, again in a type of detective role. It's no real shock that I enjoyed him--but I will also add that this is definitely my favorite role/movie of his that I've seen thus far. My favorite character, though, had to be the nurse, Stella. She was really funny, and her acting felt much more modern than of those around her. And I haven't even mentioned all the neighbors who might not even speak, but still get their own story arcs.

The writing is very tight and clever. There's a lot of good dialogue, the cleverest usually coming between Jeffries and Doyle or Stella. But the characters never say more than they need to. This does leave a handful of things up to the imagination, though, due to some unanswered questions (a handful of "why"s, at least for Thorwald).

The directing and camera work was top notch. As we know, I love a good film in a tight space. The whole film takes place in that apartment--or at least through the perspective of the apartment--with a couple minor exceptions. And there were also a handful of great single takes panning around the apartment buildings (which was really, at that time, the biggest indoor set for the studio). Hitchcock really was great at manipulation. Even the music (with the exception of the very beginning) was done completely within the realm of the film--no external movie music added--adding a deeper sense that you're trapped in this apartment complex.

Overall thoughts? If you've seen and like Disturbia (as I will admit, I do), and would like to see the less modernized original (and not to mention where the accused is much less obviously evil), definitely check it out. Actually, I'd say check it out, anyway. It's quite excellent. Anyway, there are only a couple more Hitchcock films left for me to review this month, but as of now, this one just slipped into first place as my favorite.


Royale With Cheese

60/60 Extra: The Birds.

I've always known of this film, even as a little boy. There's a certain time of the year, every year, here where I live where hundreds and hundreds of blackbirds pack the power lines, bridges, etc., and are always cloaking the sky. My mother would always make the joke "The Birds!" in reference to this film. But now I've finally seen it. I wasn't sure how I was going to feel going into it. There are very few older horror films that are scary to people of this modern age. And after two let-downs in a row, I was starting to get nervous.

The Birds focuses on the daughter of a San Francisco newspaper mogul, Melanie Daniels (Tippi Hedren). She makes acquaintance with a young lawyer named Mitch Brenner (Rod Taylor), who plays a prank on her to get her back for something she had done in a courtroom a while back. This perks her interest, so she decides to return the favor by following him to his hometown for the weekend to deliver a pair of lovebirds for his little sister's (Veronica Cartwright) birthday, since his joke on her involved this information. While she's there, however, all the birds start acting funny and attacking the townsfolk, and they must barricade themselves inside to stay alive. The film also stars Jessica Tandy as Mitch's mother.

I liken the film to Jaws for a few reasons, outside the obvious "animal attack" genre. Both movies are roughly 2 hours long, and the first hour of each is more focused on character building and giving us the setting than anything else. Sure, both have minor attacks here and there, but it's mainly a slow build to the good stuff. Then, of course, the second hour has all Hell break loose. Both even have a relatively older person who is an expert on the animal in question.

First I'd like to talk about the first hour. It's strange, because I simultaneously really liked it but had issues with most of it. The character of Melanie is not a good person. In fact (much like James Stewart in the second half of Vertigo), she's a total creeper. She goes out of her way to stalk this man she doesn't even know, being vague about her reasoning, and admitting she doesn't know the guy or his family, but wants to know where they live--all the while with a smile on her face. Not to mention she tracks down his 11-year-old sister's school teacher to find out her name, then further admits she doesn't know her, but wants to give her a present. Tell me how that doesn't come off like a pedophile. And nobody in the town does anything about it. They might give her a strange look at first, but they just go along with it! Then there's the relationship between Mitch and his mother that comes off more incestuous than how they explain it in the film.

But after a while, the setup starts to become a bit much. Sure, I suppose almost everything was necessary to set up characters and whatnot, but there could have been plenty to cut down on. It didn't need to last as long as it did. Fortunately, it's not too dull. The relationship between Melanie and Mitch is fun and entertaining. Hitchcock also throws in some quirky humor here and there (I particularly laughed at one bit where she's driving like a crazy person, and the lovebirds in the cage are leaning left and right to match the turns). If there hadn't been the chemistry between the characters, I would have had a bigger problem with the first hour, but overall it seems to work.

Then the second hour starts and the real horror begins. Talk about freaky stuff. There were some truly terrifying moments in this film. I'll tell you what--I dozed off a couple times near the end (due to the time of night, not the movie itself), and I was still feeling the suspense and freaky-ness just hearing flapping of wings and other sound effects, which would startle me back awake and focused. That's how intense the movie gets (and all without a soundtrack!). And although the effects and/or how they filmed some of the bird scenes seems old or dated now, it's sure mind-blowing how he pulled it off for the early 60s.

If I found fault in any of the attack scenes, it would actually be in one of the most famous scenes in the film. Melanie and Mitch are in a restaurant as the birds start attacking, then she ends up trapped in a phone booth and watches the entire town being attacked. First, why the heck would over half the people in the restaurant run out onto the street when the killer birds start attacking people? Why leave safety for no reason? And then once Melanie is trapped in the phone booth, she knows the birds eventually stop attacking in their pattern, but she tries to open the door at least 3 times with birds flying right at her (and this is before they start breaking the glass). None of that made any sense to me. Stay inside!

Otherwise, the movie is pretty damn good. It's quite scary (in the same way Jaws is scary), the chemistry between the leads is good, and the effects are fascinating for the time period (I do know that he used real birds, though sometimes they were there and sometimes they were superimposed or something). If you like this kind of movie, and haven't seen this already, definitely check it out.


A Keanu 'Whoa'

60/60 Review #36: Vertigo.

At the time of its release in 1958, Vertigo was a public and critical failure--only later to be considered, along with Psycho, one of Hitchcock's best films... possibly even his masterpiece (and on top of that, considered one of the greatest films ever made). Like with Rope 10 years prior, one of its biggest complaints was that some (including Hitchcock) felt James Stewart was miscast. In fact, despite Stewart being one of his biggest collaborators, Hitchcock never worked with him again after this film.

The film focuses on a San Francisco detective, John "Scottie" Ferguson (James Stewart). After a bad case that ended in another cop's death and that left Scottie hanging from the rafters, Scottie gained a bad fear of heights and vertigo. He quits his job because of it, but is soon hired by an old college buddy, Gavin Elster (Tom Helmore), to follow his wife Madeleine (Kim Novak) because she keeps wandering off, and he thinks she's been possessed by the spirit of her great grandmother. But in the process, he becomes too obsessed with her, and his sanity starts slipping the further into the case he gets.

Most people's biggest complaint seems to be the complicated plot, but that didn't really bother me (at least not directly). In fact, there were parts that reminded me somewhat of Kiss Kiss Bang Bang (very loosely, mind you)--complicated, but with a damn good twist. Speaking of comparisons, very early on in the film I was reminded of Les Diabolique, which you might remember I reviewed back in May. Coincidentally, I discovered that this is based on a book that the authors wrote specifically for Hitchcock after he failed to get his hands on the adaptation of their other book... which, you guessed it, was adapted into Les Diabolique.

No, my biggest issue stemmed from the fact this movie never seems to end. At about the 50-minute mark, I felt I was about to reach the climax of the film as it seemed it had been going on so long. This movie is 128 minutes. It's a very long, drawn-out, slow film... and there actually is a huge twist about the 90 minute mark that would normally go at the end of the film. But there's still another 40 minutes after that. Long story short, it definitely could have been trimmed down.

There also seems to be a strange issue with time. By that I mean that it's very hard to discern just how much time has gone by at any given point. I figure for most of the first hour, only 1-3 days tops has gone by (and in that time, he falls madly and dangerously in love with a woman he barely knows... which I'll get to shortly). Then there's a part I really can't get in to without spoiling anything, but there's apparently this large time jump. I had to look it up to find out it was a whole year, as it's not really clear at all within the film how much time had passed.

I've said it in my other two reviews with the man during this project, but I really like James Stewart. His acting was superb in this film. That being said, his character bugged the heck out of me at times. He starts out likable enough, but he just goes nuts, falls for this woman he doesn't even know (a woman who is supposed to be married, at that), and--later--gets obsessive to the point of crazy creepy freak, who I would have called the cops on more than once during this movie. That aside, everyone else's acting is decent, though it does eventually delve into that cheesy, over-the-top, "old-timey" acting that I don't care for (except, of course, in Gone With The Wind).

All of that being said, this is definitely one I need to see again. I mean, seriously, even the IMDb FAQ on the film says first-time watchers tend not to care for the film, as they focus too much on the intricacies of the plot, some implausible things, and the fact that the movie never seems to end (partially thanks to the twist). I can agree with all of that, frankly, but it is one I'd be willing to give a second chance now that I know the story and wouldn't be nearly as focused one what the heck is going on.

Unfortunately, however, this review is for my initial viewing. And upon said viewing, I thought the film was too long, I didn't care for the main character (despite his generally great acting), and I felt the story and pacing didn't match up well enough (a different issue to me than it being too long, but somewhat related... if that makes sense). The movie is saved by innovative filmmaking and a fantastic twist, though. There's just too much other stuff that, at least at first glance, makes the film appear rather flawed.


Stop Saying OK! OK.

(P.S. I was originally going with a higher scoring. But as I let my thoughts settle and the film sink in, most of the initial positive emotions evened out and I felt this was more appropriate. And I prepare to be flogged for it.)

60/60 Extra: Psycho.

Warning: If, for whatever reason, you don't already know really anything about Psycho and are curious to see it, there are spoilers ahead. But I'm sure there can't be many of you out there.

------------

Psycho is considered by quite a few (apparently) as Hitchcock's best, or at least as a fan favorite. Regardless, it's the one everybody knows. But that also means it had the highest possibility of disappointment going in... but was I? The story at first focuses on Marion Crane (Janet Leigh), a young woman who ends up stealing $40,000 and running away. On the road for hours, she ends up at Bates Motel, run by shy nice guy Norman Bates (Anthony Perkins). Norman, however, starts to show all is not what it seems when he begins having mommy issues... and peeks through a hole in the wall to spy on Marion in her room. And then Marion is killed in the shower (spoiler?), and the rest of the movie has a private detective named Arbogast (Martin Balsam), as well as Marion's boyfriend Sam (John Gavin) and sister Lila (Vera Miles), trying to find her.

So I'll start off with the admission: Unfortunately, to me, Psycho suffered from a mix of "classic film overhype downfall" and "I knew everything about it already anyway." And that's a hard mix to get over on your first viewing. For the first hour, I was pretty dang bored. The first 30 minutes is just Marion's personal life, stealing the money, and making a run for it. There's some suspense here and there with cops and whatnot, but she's such an unlikable character that I didn't care. The next 30 minutes is the most famous part of the movie. She shows up at the Bates Motel, Norman gives some classic lines ("We all go a little mad sometimes"), and we see the classic shower scene. But that whole part of the movie, while good, was so inundated in my movie knowledge--as it is with most movie fans--that I felt like I'd seen it a hundred times already.

However, we move into the last 45 minutes or so, which is the part of the movie I didn't know much about at all. The film becomes more of a detective mystery (despite knowing the mystery upfront), and it picked up quite a bit for me here. The film garnered some suspense because, even though you know Norman isn't the good guy, you somehow don't want him to get caught. But then, during the last 10 minutes of the movie, we're dragged to a halt. We get nothing but exposition here. It's a guy telling us the psychosis behind Norman and why he acted the way he did. Some of it was interesting, but a lot of it did drag.

The acting was decent, primarily from Anthony Perkins, who was the highlight of the movie. I felt the movie suffered when he wasn't on screen, as his moments were the best. And it was interesting to see Martin Balsam in something outside of 12 Angry Men. Everyone else, though... they were good, but it suffered from "classic acting" syndrome, which I think is a bit strange for a movie in the 60s, but maybe not. Not to mention it's strange that this movie feels more dated than Rope, a film made 12 years prior.

Overall, it was good, but I think I was too hyped on it (again, mixed with knowing almost everything major about it). Because of knowing most of it, I felt the suspense was very little. If you're going to watch classic mystery/thriller or Hitchcock, however, it's an essential. Definitely watch it for Anthony Perkins' performance. Otherwise, and especially if you know most of the twists and whatnot, try not to go into it with the mindset that you're about to watch one of the greatest director's greatest movies... or, like me, you'll leave disappointed.


I Am McLovin!

60/60 Review #35: Rope.

Let us begin now with my very first Hitchcock film. Doing a bit of research, I found the behind-the-scenes stuff was almost as interesting as the film itself. But let's start with the film first. Rope tells the story of two young men, Brandon (John Dall) and Philip (Farley Granger), who have just finished murdering David (Dick Hogan) by strangling him with a bit of rope... just because they wanted to see if they could get away with it. Brandon is exhilarated by the whole event, while Philip has become a bottle of nerves which could fall apart at any minute. To add to the game, Brandon has decided to throw a dinner party that includes their maid Mrs. Wilson (Edith Evanson), David's father (Sir Cedric Hardwicke), David's aunt (Constance Collier), David's girlfriend Janet (Joan Chandler), and their friend Kenneth (Douglas Dick), whom Janet left for David. To top it off, they're keeping David's body in a chest in the middle of the living room, and Brandon decides to use it as a table, having their food served off of it. But things start going downhill for them when another guest, their old professor and mentor, Rupert Cadell (James Stewart), starts picking up clues and begins to realize what's really going on.

The first thing I noticed about this film was how much John Dall looks like Ben Affleck. But I guess the first thing most people will pick up on is the fact that the entire movie is made from a set of 10 long takes lasting anywhere from 4 and a half to 10 minutes long each. I didn't actually pick up on it until halfway into the movie when I realized the film kept zooming in to somebody's back to black out and hide the cut. Apparently, this made things very hard during filming. This was Hitchcock's first color film, and the cameras were huge. On top of that, the actors had to keep stepping over the big wires on the floor and try not to trip. There was even one moment where the camera dolly ran over the cameraman's foot, breaking it, but in order not to ruin the take, they gagged him and pulled him off set--and that take is used in the movie! It's a very clever technique, giving the illusion of real time (even though another technique is used to make events seem 20 minutes longer than it actually is). One of my favorite takes was just the camera sitting still with most of the cast off screen, and you can hear them talking. But all you see is Mrs. Wilson clearing the food and things off the chest and into the kitchen. It's not until she's about halfway done that you realize what's going on and that she's probably going to attempt to open the chest very soon, and that's when suspense skyrockets. It's a great moment.

The writing in the film is superb. The dialogue is engrossing, and it's full of double entendres. Literally over half of what is said once the party starts could be taken at face value or in a much darker way. The whole thing was very clever and very tight. That being said, there was one thing I might have liked to see done differently. Near the end of the film, I thought it would have been even better had they not shown the actual murder at the beginning. That way, you were left guessing the entire film whether there was a body in that chest or not, helping the suspense even more. Well, apparently, this was actually the original intent. Hitchcock even assured the writer he was going to do this. But apparently at the last minute or something, Hitchcock changed his mind and filmed the opening murder sequence and put it in the film, surprising the person he had promised otherwise--and some feel this was a detriment to the film as a whole.

But the writing itself can't do much without good actors. And here, we have some fantastic acting from all involved. Of course, I was fascinated with James Stewart, especially since the only other movie I've seen him in at this point is Harvey--a completely different type of film and role. However, one of the controversies with the film was the decision to cast James Stewart (and Stewart himself said this was the only film between he and Hitchcock he didn't like). I can definitely understand why people felt he was greatly miscast, though I still feel Stewart played the detective role quite well. However, the personal connection with the two former students was missing... and that was an important aspect, mostly for the next big controversy about the film.

Really early on, I noticed something about the film and the actors, but I told myself that wouldn't be the case--not in 1940's cinema. It would be way too controversial for the time period. Sure enough, though, after doing some after-the-fact research, I found out that the two lead characters--and even James Stewart's character--were meant to be homosexual. It's never stated in the film, but the body language between the two leads and how they react and speak to each other strongly suggests it ("It" apparently being the only thing Hitchcock and the producers, etc., would call the homosexuality theme when talking about the film). This was the one strike against Stewart that I and others saw. There wasn't that personal connection between Stewart and the two leads that was supposed to be there, despite having the core investigator part of the role own solid.

There are a handful of people who consider this one of Hitchcock's best, but not necessarily at the top. That notion makes me incredibly excited for what's to come considering I loved this movie. Nearly everything about it was fantastic--the writing, the acting, the pacing (which only had one slight drop in the 5 or so minutes before Stewart was introduced), the technical aspect. It doesn't really feel too dated, either. If you're a fan of thrillers or Hitchcock and haven't already seen this one, I'd definitely suggest checking it out.


Royale With Cheese