suze-4 Reviews

Baby the Rain Must Fall (1965)

This is not a great movie come on now

[3/10 · 9 February 2024]

To anyone under 70 writing a review here. Be aware that all movies made in this time frame mid-60s were like this. So were all TV dramas. There's nothing special here and plenty that's irritating. I can't believe how many of these reviewers think that something is stunning because it's in black and white. Everything was in black and white at one time. It doesn't make it great and neither do long silences - that's just a style of acting. Anyway aside from this I just want to say only one other person seems to have noticed Steve McQueen was lip syncing very badly to a crummy version of this famous song. It was constantly on the radio at the time and yet even now over 50 years later it irritates me that it's all throughout this movie little parts of it in every scene. And yet they don't bother playing the full hit song at all like what's up with that? I mean I just watched it on YouTube it seems to be complete except the song is missing and maybe they couldn't get the rights to the song although they got the rights to the movie?. But worse than that is the almost constant over acting. It's very much like a soap opera I mean that's fine if that's what you like. If that's what you're in the mood for that's fine. But it's only useful if you want to examine the movie Style of the mid-60s or see the various actors in it that you like. I do have all respect for this motion picture. It's just that it's only of its time and doesn't hold up. Of course it's watchable if you're in the mood. I just find it average and don't understand all the extreme accolades here.

Mr. D (2012–2018)

The best thing on TV right now

[10/10 · 17 December 2018]

The show is the funniest thing on TV. Unfortunately it is in its final season. I am grateful it is on Netflix so I can watch them again and again.

I see a lot of criticism here. No show can be perfect. You look for the little moments that are funny and ironic and if you don't like it, you move on. I do find it hilarious most of the time and if there are one or two plots that aren't that great I don't care. I find it very entertaining and it often has a touching moral. He seems to be a selfish jerk, but he also has a good heart. Consider when he wanted to see the Celtics but because his co worker got drunk and sick, he missed the game to take care of him. But the plots where he is just plain clueless are funny.

The ensemble cast includes several gifted comedians. They all add so much to the show. It's not just one guy carrying the show. It's the whole cast. If someone doesn't find it funny, to each his own. I don't find Two Broke Girls or any other current American sitcom funny. They are heavy handed. This show is light and sarcastic and absurd. It's Canadian.

The Outer Limits (1963–1965)

Outstanding show that was totally underrated

[10/10 · 25 June 2017]

Yes I watched this sometimes but I was 13 and I was overdue to see it again and appreciate it more now than I am nearly 70. Suddenly, ME TV has brought it back. I happened to see an episode with Martin Landau and I was utterly dumbfounded by its excellence. I was shocked to see the beautiful and young Shirley Knight as well (the mother in As Good As It Gets). The episode was about a time conundrum and it was gripping and heartbreaking.

The Outer Limits was at the time considered a gimmick, a Twilight Zone imitator, but I see clearly now 50 years later: it was not. Unlike the cynical, tongue in cheek typical Twilight Zone, this is dark and brooding and frightening. It is not a little half hour playlet; it is a one hour long drama, relentlessly upsetting, disturbing and uplifting all at the same time. I have set it to record all episodes now. They are just showing two per week on Saturdays.

I was dismayed to look it up just now and find it was cancelled in the middle of the second season because it didn't draw in viewers after it was moved to another day.

Great actors, great scripts, a noble TV show, totally underrated!

Dirty Dancing (2017 TV Movie)

This was awful

[2/10 · 25 May 2017]

I don't know where to begin. I wish I hadn't watched this as it just taints the memory of the original.

The girl who plays Baby, though cute and charming, is graceless and talentless on the dance floor, as if they are trying to say a chubby, untalented girl can win a dance contest with enough lessons from a pro. The guy is fine, but in the original movie they were smoking hot together. One skilled dancer plus one chubby, awkward girl does not equal first prize material. That wasn't the meaning of the original at all. It wasn't about having pity for the girl. When the dad says in this version "I didn't know you could do that" it fell flat - do what? Dance horribly? So many remakes are embarrassments, ill conceived, and failures. This one goes to the very top of the list. Yes, it's worse than the remake of Psycho or any other you could think of.

Also they made it into a musical like Grease where the cast breaks into song all the time. Ew. This is not worth watching and I looked up other reviews which echo my view, including Variety. Plenty of critics had some choice words. Read those if you want to hear some harsh criticism which they try desperately to couch in politeness. There's no way to soften this - it's a horrible remake in every possible way. Spare yourself the discomfort and just skip it. I can't imagine anyone who loved Dirty Dancing in 1987 being able to watch and enjoy this without cringing and feeling dismayed at the way it was massacred.

Stranger Than Fiction (2006)

One of my favourite movies of all time

[10/10 · 26 March 2017]

If you haven't seen it, you are in for a treat. Don't read any spoilers, just see it. I've seen it several times and it never gets old. It is a fabulous movie and I don't want to ruin it by saying anything. I give it my highest rating which means it could not be improved.

Perfect casting, acting, plot, suspense, comedy, drama, music. Stunningly good. There are so many bland, offensive, or unwatchable comedies out there. This is not one of those. This is a masterpiece. It has tremendous heart.

X Company (2015–2017)

Amazing series

[10/10 · 20 March 2017]

I care about this subject matter because my father was involved in similar work in WW II. This is edge of your seat tension and drama and it brings WW II back so vividly, in a way that makes you feel for these characters and the peril the whole world was in at that time. I started with season 3 (my cable on demand only had that much) and am dismayed to hear that it was cancelled and there will be no season 4. Good news is that seasons 1 and 2 are out on DVD. Season 3 will surely follow in time (the finale was just last week). I can't recommend this highly enough. Previously my best series of all time was the Sopranos. This one moved me far more and is just as excellent as far as acting, scripts, sets, everything. Just watch any episode and you will be hooked and have to find out what happens. When I saw the very first episode after watching season 3, all my questions were answered about the way these five people were recruited. The way it introduces them is sublime. And yet you don't even need to start at the beginning to love this series. Jump in anywhere and you can follow along.

Absolutely ten out of ten stars because there's nothing better on TV.

Scent of a Woman (1992)

Unfairly downgraded with the passing of time. It still holds up.

[9/10 · 17 March 2017]

Al Pacino deserved his Oscar for this role. Right on this page is a link to an article about Oscars that were "mistakes"and that includes this one. I just saw this again for the first time since I saw it in the theatre in 1992. It still moved me. This was not a sympathy Oscar. It was fully deserved. Pacino was brilliant and I am so fed up when I come across this kind of reassessment which implies that the entire Academy voted in some temporary trance. No. I am so tired of people saying this movie is only known for the "hu-ah." Hardly. How about actually watching it to the end. It's about morality and the human spirit. A blind, broken vet finding a common humanity and bonding with a young student who is hired to look after him. They both have something vital to offer to each other through the course of the few days they spend together. No, it's not a shoot-em-up western or a violent mafia bloodbath or a sci-fi CGI blockbuster. It's an old style human drama and you can't help loving the characters. If nothing else will make you want to watch it, you might enjoy seeing the very young Todd Louiso (High Fidelity) and Philip Seymour Hoffman.

The Perfect Roommate (2011 TV Movie)

The unbelievably bad acting and plot make it semi-fascinating

[2/10 · 18 April 2014]

I just got the W movie channel and this is what they showed tonight. The listings said Contact with Jodie Foster was on. Instead, they showed this derivative, hackneyed, poorly acted and amateurishly written made-for-TV movie. Someone is clearly asleep at the channel, but I gave it a chance. It does have a plot that seems to be leading up to a violent encounter a la Single White Female. There is tension - who is going to get hurt or killed? Everything that is going to happen is telegraphed and obvious. I won't put any spoilers here, but it was watchable purely because of the hilariously bad (like a high school play) acting and the unbelievably overdone plot - haven't we seen a story like this about 1,000 times only without the plot fizzling out? PS I found out the name of it by typing in the keyword "roommate" in IMDb.

The Bourne Identity (1988)

surprisingly touching and excellent adaptation

[8/10 · 18 February 2008]

I didn't expect too much from a TV mini-series based on an adventure novel, which was later made into a big budget action film.

I had not enjoyed the 2002 version of The Bourne Identity with Matt Damon, but this one was gripping from the first frame. I read a lot of the reviews and posts here as I always do to compare reactions, and found people were praising some elements, and criticizing others. Here is how it affected me.

Primarily it was a story about a man's search for his identity, and Chamberlain, never known as the greatest actor in the world, was very believable and effective. Jaclyn Smith was just adequate in her role and she is definitely one of the worst actresses they could have chosen, but one can't have everything. She makes good eye candy. The movie's other characters played pivotal roles and delivered excellent characterizations. Notably Denholm Elliott as the doctor.

The story was a fast moving adventure, which was almost Hitchcockian, the story of one bewildered man with villains trying to kill him, and a random pretty girl he abducts to help him (also echoes of the Redford movie Three Days of the Condor), and the extensive scenery of Paris was beautiful. Except for the obvious pauses where commercials used to be, this looks like a real movie and not a TV series. It doesn't look cheaply made. They obviously took pride in this production.

But to me the most surprising thing of all was the human element, the complex emotions in the amnesiac's story. Richard Chamberlain delivered them far above what one would expect from him, or from a TV movie. Yet this movie is all but forgotten since the theatre versions were made. I think that Hitchcock, if he had been alive to make this picture, would himself have chosen Chamberlain as he was very much like the James Stewart "everyman" who raced against time to solve the mystery of his amnesia.

There are a few places where key scenes from the past are shown briefly and never explained (apparently a sequel was planned, which would explain them), and yet I was able to fill in a likely explanation, from my own imagination. This is the mark of good film making.

There were no fantastic special effects or avant garde techniques. It was straightforward story telling.

I am easily bored, highly critical, and so because I loved this, I am very surprised and had to post about it, in case it might help someone decide to go ahead and see it. Yes, it is well worth it and highly enjoyable. It hails from another era (where the story was more important than the chases and effects).

I am glad it is still available in video, and if I find it in DVD I will buy it because it was a movie I would like to see again. I still think about it - and went to the library to get the book the next day - and that rarely happens with an action movie of this type.

Thirteen at Dinner (1985 TV Movie)

underrated gem

[7/10 · 8 December 2007]

For a TV movie this is surprisingly well done. Many twists and turns in the plot. Good characterizations by all the players.

I disagree with the negative comments here. The movie held my attention throughout and was a delight to watch. Faye Dunaway's portrayal of the dual roles was over the top but that was the nature of the two women she played. The actress Jane Wilkinson is clearly based on some of the mannerisms of Marilyn Monroe and Faye does this convincingly.

I didn't initially think Peter Ustinov would make a good Poirot, but he captures the detective's droll and determined persona and is quite convincing.

I wish they would make more movies like this. Though Peter and Faye are clearly the lead actors in it, there's an ensemble cast that works together to lead us on a merry chase of suspects. The locations are magnificent. All in all this is definitely worth watching even if it lacks the big budget of the ones Ustinov made for theatrical release.

The Lives of Others (2006)

my highest rating

[10/10 · 15 September 2007]

I used to rate every movie I saw from one to four stars, and I was very strict; four stars was the highest and it meant that: It surprised me more than once (it was not predictable); it had a wonderfully rich story; no plot holes or annoying gimmicks; good acting; no flaws; gripping; held my attention throughout, and I cried at the end, because it moved me so much. With this strictness, you can see that other "great movies" would not get 4 stars from me.

Well, I am not going to write any spoilers or any reasons why I loved this movie. Let me just say that I don't care that much about rating movies anymore and most of them disappoint me either totally or in part and would get, say, 2 and a half stars even for quite a good movie.

But this movie, it shocked me - for once the critics weren't wrong: it is great.

It fulfilled my strictest criteria, and I have given it my highest rating.

I am especially pleased at the many extras on the DVD which add to the richness of the presentation of this story.

Wonderful - wonderful movie.

Bachelor in Paradise (1961)

almost a documentary on 1961 housing in California

[10 January 2007]

Bob Hope was 58 and Lana Turner was 40 when they made this movie. They have no chemistry whatsoever so a romance is not believable. Perhaps with softened makeup and hair she would have been appealing. Anyway the story is beside the point now, 45 years later.

The movie is all about the huge, spacious, tract developments in undeveloped parts of California in 1961. I lived in one, so this movie takes me back there. Watching it takes me back to those days when Kennedy was the new president, when there were brand new houses in pale pink, light green, and yellow; each house divided from its neighbour by a row of cacti. Families moved to them from the older, two-story traditional houses. It was supposed to be a great thing to have no stairs; to live in a sprawling "rancher." Just looking at the houses with the huge kitchens and wall phones brings nostalgia, as only the very rich can afford space now; back then it was taken for granted.

A major "comedic" event in this film is Bob putting too much detergent in the washer, and the ensuing crisis when soap suds flood the entire house.

The houses were spacious and everything was inexpensive - such houses were $20,000 new. Nowadays any surviving houses from that era have been remodeled and no longer have the orange built-in bars, the gold appliances, or wood grained walls.

This is my parents' world, post-war - 16 years after the end of WW II. This is an era where everything is available, where the kitchen is the size of a restaurant, but there is no happiness whatsoever.

A scene in the supermarket is jarring when a little girl who had been left in the car by her mother is talking to Bob Hope and her mother comes along and just leaves her with him as she goes about her shopping. That would never happen now and reminds us of a more innocent and trusting time.

The development is called Paradise. It's more like Paradise Lost, or Discarded. There's a dark subplot of an unhappy marriage, a couple that is "practically divorced" and the wife (Janis Paige) is throwing herself at Bob Hope. But he's secretly a gentleman who only has eyes for the stiff, unmarried Lana Turner, and when he finally gets her, there is the obligatory panning across the floor showing their discarded clothing and then we hear her giggles. Just like a Rock Hudson/Doris Day ending.

Then the movie ends and I guess maybe we are meant to think they will have a real life together. They're too old to start having kids to populate the housing tract and be ignored and spoiled, so maybe they will write and think and discuss real things and have a happy life together.

The sixties are gone - but here in this movie we have the remnants of what it started out to be, if people could only have held on to it and preserved something for the future.

Who knew a fluff piece like this would be so thought provoking 40 years later.

I thank Turner Classics for realizing these are valuable period pieces that give us insight on a bygone age. An age where people lost the values they had in the 30s and 40s. After the war, people wanted comfort and ease, and wanted their kids to enjoy a carefree life without the privation of the depression and the war. Unfortunately it only shows that comfort and ease do not bring happiness.

Adventures of Superman: The Jolly Roger (1956) Season 4, Episode 13

A comic book come to life

[6/10 · 5 October 2006]

This is the last episode of season 4 so I sadly wait for seasons 5 and 6 to be released and then there are no more that will be "new".

First of all this one has good colour and film quality unlike many of the previous colour episodes (except for the grainy and scratched stock footage of the naval ships inserted at various points in the story).

The plot is absurd yet it's possible to get into it simply because they all play it straight. Jimmy and Lois, in peril again, tied up and blindfolded, only this time Clark Kent is among them. It's a comedy but it's not very funny - just surreal. Leonard Mudie is one of the main pirates - he was Brockhurst in the most frightening and memorable episode, A Ghost For Scotland Yard. Here he plays a slapstick role in elaborate Shakespearean style.

The problems that keep this just a comic book episode are in continuity and plot holes. We see several pretty young women and there is no explanation where they came from. If the pirates are part of a family descended from other pirates who landed 300 years ago, where are the older women who would be the mothers of these girls? And inexplicably, one of the young women makes eyes at Jimmy Olsen even though they were never introduced. I suppose several scenes were trimmed out since there is so much going on.

Superman has to pretend to be tied up and captive until no one is around and he can change into Superman, which provides some tension, but since we know it's a matter of time till he saves the day, there's really no fear. The story falls apart as the pirates and the two criminals meander around doing random things. The criminals have a vague plan to steal the plane and escape with some of the jewels but they dither around and it never happens.

Superman finally gets to rush to the naval ship and tell them not to shoot, but they think he has gone insane when he tells them there are pirates living on the island. So he has to go back and bring proof: a photo he makes Jimmy take, and develops into a negative using his x-ray vision. Yet he never delivers the negative to the ship; it's too late as they start bombing and he has to stop each bomb and blow it up in mid air. We aren't able to see this because there would be no possible special effect - so various characters talk about what he is doing. These are some of the problems with the story. Too many things going on and it doesn't all flow together or end with proper resolution. Why have the whole picture taking scene unless the photo is going to be delivered in time to stop the bombing? I still think it's a fun episode, but it kind of plays like a comic book fantasy. Despite that, our heroes remain in character and give it their all.

Adventures of Superman: The Big Freeze (1956) Season 4, Episode 3

Another absurd premise

[5/10 · 4 October 2006]

This is probably more implausible than any of the other outrageous scripts in this season. First of all, if Superman is frozen solid and chalky white, putting on Lois Lane's makeup (all over his face, neck, hands and hair!) would not make Clark look that natural. There would have to be some plausible reason why it would fool them. But this could only happen in a cartoon or a comic book. I just felt sorry for all of them having to act in this terrible story. This is not the real Superman series - the first two seasons are. Having said that, I still enjoyed the action and the danger. It's just that there is such a lack of subtlety or craftsmanship in these later episodes.

Adventures of Superman: Topsy Turvy (1956) Season 4, Episode 5

I'm afraid this one made me queasy

[8/10 · 4 October 2006]

The upside down effect and the noise of the machine were absolutely nauseating which made this a hard episode to watch. Not to mention the invention made no sense at all. Compared to this I think I'd rather watch the episode with all the stolen bent knives, or the one with Chuck Connors and the mule. When the audio and visuals are both assaulting your senses, and the story is absurd, there is nothing else left but to ask "why did they do this?" This was probably the epitome of the show going downhill. It was 100% a kid's show by this point. Ah, what's the use in criticizing these later episodes - they too were made 50 years ago... how dare I nitpick? Well I'd like to go back in time and have some better episodes than these, that's all. They did not do justice to the great talent and charisma of George Reeves. He deserved better scripts than this.

Adventures of Superman: The Wedding of Superman (1956) Season 4, Episode 8

I thought it was sweet

[4 October 2006]

There are only 104 episodes. This is the only one where he calls her darling and she calls him dear, so why begrudge them? In every Superman movie and in the original comic book, there is some kind of romance between Superman and Lois Lane. It had to occur at least once in this series.

My problem with it was simply that there wasn't enough romance and there wasn't even a kiss. It was too austere. If you are going to have a dream for Lois, it should be a white wedding. What was the matter with a white gown and veil? It's not as if she had been married before, or was over 50.

The worst part was the end. It totally fell apart. In her dream, Superman had confessed that he was Clark Kent and told her she must never tell anyone else. Then she goes ahead and blurts out in front of two other people "aren't you Superman?" Nice going Lois.

Then she doesn't want to know who sent her flowers in real life just in case it isn't Superman or Clark. Whoa. It doesn't ring true.

Anyway it was stilted and fake, but let's be fair, it was Lois's dream. As dreams go it was not the worst one ever shown on TV. And at least they got to embrace.

Adventures of Superman: The Seven Souvenirs (1955) Season 3, Episode 12

Sorry to say this one was terrible

[3 October 2006]

I really could not fathom the premise of the knife collection, and the knife thefts. Even when it was explained it made no sense at all. It is like they reached the bottom of the barrel in their list of ideas for screenplays. Too bad! This is a very confused and convoluted story without any really satisfying conclusion and without enough tension. It's worth watching twice though, just to try to figure out what they were trying to do with the story line, but it is frustrating. Superman and Clark Kent hardly get a chance to shine in this one. After watching it twice I still can't give you a good plot outline that would make you want to see it. It's certainly one of the weaker episodes of the series, unfortunately.

I am sorry to have to compare it with the excellence of the many episodes that remained memorable to me more than 50 years after I saw them as a child. But maybe that alone proves that this one does not meet the standards they had in the beginning.

Adventures of Superman: King for a Day (1955) Season 3, Episode 13

a funny episode that works

[3 October 2006]

Though I am more a fan of the darker film noir type episodes of seasons one and two, this offering from season three is enjoyable. The grainy colour film is quite muddy and garish, and the plot is outlandish, but Jack Larson and George Reeves give understated comic performances aided by an outstanding supporting guest cast.

I won't ruin it for any new viewers by quoting, but there are some hilarious lines in here, particularly from Jimmy Olsen. The episode is indeed overdone at times yet there is some whimsical, slapstick humour when Clark Kent foils several assassination attempts against "Prince" Jimmy in a row.

I also think it's the first episode where Jimmy gets to kiss a girl.

Not once is this a believable story in any way, yet it is fun and still contains moments of tension and worry that our Jimmy might be harmed.

My one problem with it is the poor editing, inserting a little bit at the beginning that belongs in the middle. They seem to be experimenting with techniques in this season and it doesn't quite work as the glimpse of Jimmy in a crown and monocle is shown before we find out why he will be dressed that way later.

Adventures of Superman: Flight to the North (1955) Season 3, Episode 11

This is one of the worst episodes

[3 October 2006]

I've recently been renting all the discs of the Superman DVD sets and so I have seen all of the first two seasons, which were just as scary and chilling as I remembered from childhood. they are impressing me to no end; I am amazed by the quality. But now, in season three and four, we have a whole different approach - it's a mishmash of nonsense scripts and it's just a comedy. I am sad to see what happened to this show after the first two excellent seasons. So far the first three colour episodes I watched are just embarrassingly poor, though of course they are of historical interest and they do have our favourite actors and characters in them and a few cute lines. The thing is, I was so shaken by the excellent early episodes that I remembered some of them - even though I was only 6 when I saw them. This includes The Clown that Cried, and A Ghost for Scotland Yard. They remained spellbinding when I saw them 52 years later! But I have no memory of these colour episodes. For one thing, they were never shown in colour back in 1955. No one had colour TV until the mid 60s. But it's not just the colour, it's the silly scripts and poor directing and transitions.

The first two seasons were so dramatic and dignified and serious, though with much deliberate humour and irony. They were carefully crafted. Now in season 3 and 4 it's all ruined and yet I will watch them all. I'm sad for what happened to this wonderful show but at least we have the greatest episodes to watch and admire, again and again.

As for the problems with this particular episode. We have Chuck Connors, later famous as the Rifleman, playing a stereotyped hick character named Sylvester Superman. No one questions that ludicrous last name or asks his first name. The whole premise of the thugs' bet about the pies, the woman wanting Superman to fly her lemon meringue pie to her fiancé in Alaska, the weird behaviour of the fiancé who is knitting an over-long scarf in a tiny cabin (obviously has cabin fever), and all the events when people visit him, it's more like a cheap sitcom than the Adventures of Superman. I shudder to think that more episodes this dumb are in the rest of the final 4 seasons. If they are, I could begin to believe George Reeves was depressed and that may be why he self medicated with alcohol. I still don't think he committed suicide though. But I am so sorry that his stature as an actor was so trampled on in episodes like this one. It very much reminds me of the trashy movies Elvis's managers made him do, after the first 4 or 5 which were good.

Thankfully we can return to the finer episodes to cleanse the palate from trash like this one...even the one about the monkey had an intricate and mysterious plot, despite the undertone of comedy there was a very compelling story which was tragic. Sorry but you need a good story, and some trace of believability. Even the premise of Superman glowing from radioactivity, or stopping an asteroid, did not offend the sensibilities even though they were scientifically impossible. There's just something about the 3rd and 4th seasons that is a mockery of what Superman started out to be, like they were just going through the motions....

The Pledge (I) (2001)

For those who don't understand

[9/10 · 8 February 2002]

CONTAINS SPOILERS

I could not believe the comments I read here that this movie was "boring" or "slow" or "depressing", etc. But it's the same with many of the excellent movies I look up here; unfortunately these people writing reviews have not understood the movie. Why write a review only to say "I don't understand it. Therefore don't waste your time seeing it". These people are completely uninformed and apparently unable to absorb what they see, having never read or seen tragedy (or good filmmaking).

There are bad movies and stupid, pointless movies - oh, such as the teen genre - all of it - which has destroyed young peoples' ability to know good story telling by focusing on taboos and cheap laughs or gratuitous violence - but this is not one of those movies. Why is it considered a failure then? Because you have to watch it and pay attention to the story unfolding. Those who wrote that there was no story, I suppose they went out to buy popcorn and missed some key scenes. The whole story is there and it is clear. It is an ugly story, child murder, but the focus is on the retired cop, Jack Nicholson, who is determined to find the killer. It is good versus evil, the oldest plot in the world, one which is never boring. There is evil in the world; there are people who do evil and then people who try to find justice.

First of all anything Jack Nicholson is in is worth your while as he is one of the greatest actors on the screen. He becomes the character. So those comments about what a stupid movie this is are way off base; even if it was pure trash, he would have made it worth while. But the movie is clearly not trash. I would totally compare it to The Swimmer with Burt Lancaster, in mood. But in this case the character is not living in his own dream world - he is right and everyone else is wrong - it is about bureaucracies and assumptions - which we are all faced with sometimes - knowing you are right but the authorities are too blind and dimwitted to admit it. A man who knows he is right and goes down to defeat and yet good still triumphs in spite of the personal tragedy to him. This is the classic storyline of all time and therefore quite like Hitchcock, but why was this movie rejected? I absolutely cringe when true trash becomes big box office and gems like this are brushed aside.

And for all those who didn't understand what was happening, the writer from Germany gave the entire explanation in his post. I could not believe someone could see the movie and not be mesmerized by the horror of the story unfolding. This man dedicated himself to finding the killer, who clearly existed, but no one else believed him. We the audience are shown that he is right, but the movie does not show the killer until the end, and we are left knowing that the retired cop was right and everyone else was wrong, his life is destroyed, and yet it doesn't change that justice was indeed done even if it was by the Grim Reaper and even if no one else knew.

This is chilling and this is important. I really wish ignorant viewers would not bother posting "I don't understand this movie". Next time why not watch it again before jumping on line and typing in some drivel - or read several other reviews and make an attempt to pay more attention when watching cinema.

Run Lola Run (1998)

Breaks the heart and mends it again

[10/10 · 29 November 2001]

I first saw this movie a year ago. It was the second or third of the

evening and I was about to doze off as I often do in front of the tv

but it snapped me into total alertness which has never happened

before when I was that sleepy. I was astounded by the video-game-like quality, the incredible effects, the hypnotic music,

and the way it depicted alternate universes so matter of factly. The

heroine is immediately likeable, her dire situation is laid out clearly

and the sense of urgency never lets up. I knew I would have to see

it again and again but I couldn't stand to until now as it is too

intense. It took me a year to absorb it and to contemplate it and to

write this review. The effect was just as profound this second time.

It is upsetting but thrilling, horrifying but healing. It is done almost

in shorthand; only the essentials are there.

The other reviews here mention everything important but I want to

say look out for the quotation by TS Eliot at the beginning. If you

have had something horrible happen in your life it is at least

comforting to imagine that you could start over from the last good

moment before the tragedies started, and have a second - and

third - chance to get it right. Somehow it is healing to see Lola run -

not for her life but for her lover's. She is totally selfless each time

but tiny errors ruin the outcome the first two times. Life cannot be

like this and we cannot start over again but in this fantasy we can

experience the feeling of getting another chance.

A totally satisfying and exhilarating experience.

Three Colors: Blue (1993)

My most perfect movie

[10/10 · 23 November 2001]

Contains spoilers, please do not read unless you've seen this movie.

I have debated in the past whether this movie or Vertigo is greater, as both of them are profound studies of the human experiences of obsession, loss and pain, and can be watched again and again, always revealing new things. Citizen Kane is considered to be the greatest movie ever made but I would say that both Blue and Vertigo are as great in their masterful use of all the techniques of movie making, and their timeless stories of love and loss. Unlike the other two, Blue does not end with despair but with redemption and hope; therefore it is more satisfying.

Blue, unlike the necessarily complicated story-telling of the other two movies, is simple and straightforward, and the heaviness is in its assault on the senses and emotions, using the cinematography plus the musical score which gradually unfolds. Like a siren coming clearer as it draws nearer the despair gives way to acceptance and a new life for the one who mourns, using the materials at hand in her life. It is matter of fact to this woman that there is no other way than to withdraw from life and then to be forced, by one's own nature, to participate again.

I first rented Blue in 1994 and watched it at my friend's house. Then I rented it again several times over the years, and the last time in particular about two years ago, I was powerfully moved, even though I had no loss in my life at the time.

Today I watched it again because my friend has died and I hoped it would help me through this time. As always I was moved by the story itself but in a new way because I remembered the tears I wept the last time I saw it, and the powerful way it affected me the first time I saw it at my friend's house when everything was all right and it was only a movie, and I didn't know that one day I would be weeping for him as I watched it. I can only say it is a good movie to see to prepare yourself for the inevitable loss of loved ones, and also cathartic to watch when that loss has happened to you.

One thing that surprised me was that this copy did not translate into subtitles the Greek chorus, which is the love chapter of Corinthians. Every other time I saw it the words were printed which added to the emotional impact of the final scenes. For those who don't know Greek, that is as vital as giving subtitles for the French. Only because I saw it before did I know what they were singing which is the whole message of the film. The emotional impact of that end is unparalleled in cinema.

I cannot say that about Red and White, although they are brilliant too, of course. Blue simply outshines them in every way, though they should be watched as part of the trilogy for they also have important messages and are beautifully made.

Eyes Wide Shut (1999)

As bad as everyone said

[2/10 · 13 April 2000]

I waited nine months to see this and being a Kubrick admirer I was ready to prove everyone wrong. They said it was a disappointment, not up to his earlier work, boring, and of course it was a box office dud. I was sure I would love it anyway because of Kubrick's earlier work. How bad could it be?

Well everyone was right. This movie is just a dreadful domestic fantasy, a bored couple slumming on the dark side for an evening, and unintentionally ludicrous in parts. The famous "orgy" scene has chanting so annoying I had to turn the sound down. I don't know how theatre-goers stood it.

The movie is not exquisite or amazing, as someone else here said. The slowness of the scenes is just irritating, and there's nothing charming about all the Christmas lights. So what? It is pointless and only of interest to see what all the hype and hoopla were about. Nothing, really. See Tom and Nicole overact and overreact. A supposed mystery unfolding which just fizzles, a number of distasteful scenes, and then a silly comic ending.

Oh well. Rent Lolita or Dr. Strangelove instead. They are masterpieces.

Rope (1948)

Stunning film deserves to be ranked among Hitchcock's greatest

[2 February 2000]

This movie is always brushed aside as "minor", and "an experiment that failed", EVEN by Hitchcock himself. I can't let that mistaken judgment stand.

I have seen it many times over the years and always found it moving and disturbing but never analyzed why it had this effect. On viewing it again tonight immediately after watching To Catch a Thief, I became aware that Rope remains brilliant whereas the other movie was merely a pretty and lightweight, average 50's period piece.

The really strange thing is that Hitchcock's movies fall into certain distinct periods which have been written about at length (from early British to late Hollywood; from suspenseful dramas to macabre comedies), but this does not fit into any of them. It is a forties movie, like Saboteur, yet it is shot in colour so it looks like a much later film. To everyone, forties equals black and white. This is a stage play and takes place all in a one room set, but there is the remarkable effect of the huge window which shows the sun going down in real time over the course of the movie, over Manhattan buildings. This is of course done carefully with special lighting effects, but it gives the perfect illusion of the sun setting. It is just that there are fewer skyscrapers there than we would see today.

Some of the slang is dated (but charming), and such elements as a cigarette case could never play a part in a movie made today, but even with these few period references it seems to be a very modern film. The subject matter was horrifying and shocking for 1948, but is rather less so now, as we are unfortunately used to seeing gore and mindless violence. The homosexual subtext would now be played overtly, but the way it is filmed gives it a more ominous atmosphere than movies which have everything spelled out.

This is a movie filled with suspense from the first frame, without any extraneous footage. All the dialogue sounds genuine, not "stagey" as most plays generally do when made into movies. Examples: Glengarry Glen Ross, Oleanna, Boys in the Band etc. All good movies, but all scream out "filmed stage play - actors emoting!" whereas this movie simply draws you into its scenes of gradually dawning horror. I doubt if any Hitchcock film contains more pure tragedy and pathos, or a stronger moral message.

It is a powerfully modern film and yet it is 52 years old. Even the dinner party repartee is filled with wry comments that would not be out of place at a dinner party today - about such topics as the astrological signs of movie stars.

Yet under the witty dialogue is an undertone of tragic irony as the two hosts play an elaborate and secret prank on their guests, simply for their own smug satisfaction.

But it isn't simply the two hosts being in on it together; they are at odds, they bicker, and we are kept on edge because (as Hitchcock wants us to) we are forced to empathize with them to a degree, as well as hating them; we are fascinated by their quirks, played out in subtle nervousness. In taking us into the minds of the criminals as well as the minds of the innocent bystanders, we are left in torment for the horrifying state of humanity, until finally we are forced to take sides.

There are so many brilliant touches in this movie that I can only list a few (without giving anything away). Jimmy Stewart idly setting the metronome in motion as Farley Granger plays the piano, making him play faster and faster while he questions him. The preoccupied worrying of Sir Cedric Hardwicke as he looks out the window hoping to see his son, who is late, as the others chatter; the gradual coming together of the estranged couple who were hostile about each other's presence at the beginning; the unbearable tension as the plates and candles are being cleared away by the housekeeper while the guests and hosts are heard conversing off camera.

The devastation in Jimmy Stewart's face as he realizes that his careless armchair philosophy has fed the imagination of two unstable minds and therefore he too is guilty.

I can't say enough good about this film. It is underappreciated, never on any list of Hitchcock's greatest, but the time is long overdue for it to be appreciated as a masterpiece of suspense and art.

It has none of the irritating Hollywood production glossiness of otherwise great movies such as Vertigo and North by Northwest, none of the blatant psychological mood shots of films such as Marnie. It doesn't have the simplistic filmmaking style of the forties and yet it springs from that era, not fitting in with anything else from the period, decades ahead of its time.

Psycho (1998)

Total vanity project!

[22 January 2000]

I only saw this movie because I had some coupons for free videos and decided to finally see how bad it was.

I've read some of the reviews here and everyone pretty much agrees that it is a ludicrous, pointless failure. So I will limit my comments mostly to observations I didn't see in the other reviews.

It's full of careless touches. For instance, during the murder of Marion, the knife is totally clean and shiny each time it comes up after stabbing her. It never gets any blood on it.

No one carries parasols on sunny days except elderly Chinese women, and haven't any time from the fifties up to the present.

Choosing this talentless actor to play Norman Bates didn't have to be a total loss. Many killers have that bland kind of baby face. However, he did not carry it off. In fact, no one really could carry it off because of the way it was filmed, supposedly shot for shot like the original. Unfortunately that forces you to compare them.

If the movie had been shot from a different angle, say the same story but retold in a new way, it could have been fun. But slavishly following the scenes and camera angles while throwing in the occasional thing that wasn't in the original is just jarring.

In the original, Lila finds a mysterious book in Norman's boyhood bedroom which has no name on the spine. It is clear from her reaction it is horrendous pornography. But in the remake it's been changed to a skin mag, in case the unmarked book was too subtle for today's "stupid" audience. I just want to say, if people are stupider it is because no one allows them to think and figure things out anymore. Everything is now laid out in graphic detail.

William H. Macy, in choosing to wear a parody of a 50s fedora, immediately turns the movie into a cartoon. He overplays the detective in such a campy way that it doesn't fit in with the attempts by the others to play it straight.

This is purely a vanity project by the director and should not have been released at all - it is without merit. Watching it reminded me of the time I saw a stage play of Send Me No Flowers, and afterward saw the movie with Rock Hudson and Doris Day. There was no comparison, the movie had eliminated half the humor of the stage play by casting actors who read their lines too broadly, and by changing the dialogue.

This remake of Psycho could have been better with a more relaxed attitude about following the exact blocking of the scenes. This just makes you feel tense to see where they do and do not depart from the original. And if the Anne Heche and Julianne Moore roles had been reversed it would have been superior. No one cares if Anne Heche's Marion is killed; she has failed to make her character likeable as Janet Leigh did, whereas if Julianne Moore were killed off in the beginning it would be more upsetting.

Last but not least, I have to say that Tony Perkins made the original Psycho what it was. Even though others have pointed it out, I must reiterate that this is the major, major problem with any remake. He was so effective in it that it typecast him as a psycho for the rest of his life. New audiences would not realize that Tony Perkins was previously cast in normal, romantic movies. When his flair for the nervous twitch was discovered it was all over for any other kind of role.

Whereas this bland actor who tried to portray a psychopathic killer can go on tomorrow and play any kind of role under the sun.

This was not the way to pay tribute to Alfred Hitchcock, but everyone knows this by now.Hopefully people will lay off this remake idea now

In closing I want to point out that Hitchcock remade his own Man Who Knew Too Much and IMPROVED it. Now, if this Psycho was truly Hitchcockian it would have been greater than the original. That did not happen!