Change Your Image
frogsaroyan
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Lists
An error has ocurred. Please try againReviews
The Lady Vanishes (1938)
Eerie film that would have shocked you in 1939
The Lady Vanishes is a perfect film, masterful in its own way, and a must-see for the true Hitchcock fan.
I was surprised by the complexities in the film, there despite the suggestion of screwball. For one thing, make no mistake, this is a violent film. We have an endless shoot out. A real brawl. And when it's creepy it's creepy. Throughout, it gives me the depressing feeling that things are going to keep getting worse. When Iris, the main character, makes it onto the train and there's a close up of the wheels spinning rapidly, I feel as if in a bad dream.
The hotel at the beginning has a nightmarish atmosphere that I think would have been more obvious to viewers in 1939. Something could easily go wrong there. Which is why some of the comedy is more unnerving than amusing. Michael Redgrave plays his bit in Iris' room more flirtatiously than comedic, resulting in a scene which would have been perceived as rife with sexual tension, even threatening, back then. And things do go strangely wrong there.
There's something about Iris that reminds me of Marion Crane, the main character from Psycho. It was the idea that even though she's seemingly ordinary, she has a dark secret. In Iris' case, she doesn't love her fiancé. She also reminds me of Gregory Peck's conspired-against, gaslighted character in Spellbound.
The ongoing and extended violence - tame or campy as it might seem now - in The Lady Vanishes is a good and important indication of the depths that Hitchcock would go to in the future to scare his audience.
Queen of the Desert (2015)
What A Beautiful Film
I believe that Queen of The Desert is greater than the sum of its parts, and that its parts are inspired to begin with. So many things about this film are beyond beautiful, they are sublime. I watched it twice. I don't know if Werner Herzog wanted to make a Hollywood-style period romance, and it doesn't matter to me whether anyone else thinks he achieved creating one or not.
The film isn't about a romance, it's about romance, period. Specifically, the romance that can find itself at the center of someone's life. Herzog told a story in which Bell had multiple romantic relationships that weren't just with people. In this way he gave her character a deep spiritual life. She had a fling with poetry and writing, an affair with the desert, passion for traveling, true love with multiple men, and loving friendships. In addition, every main character is shown to be loving in some way. I like TE Lawrence's character (played delightfully by Robert Pattinson) because he tries like mad to avoid romance, but also seems to be feigning his aversion.
In QOTD, many characters risk their lives for love, and some do give their lives. It isn't just one or two main characters, and it isn't just for the love of another person.
Near the end of QOTD, a bedouin leader asks Bell why she loves them (Arabs) so much. By her answer, which is a tribute to her trusted guide Fattuh, we understand what she's all about, and what this film is all about. It's beautifully written dialogue by Herzog.
One of my very favourite things about this film was the number of times Kidman was shown laughing. There is hardly a character in the film with whom she isn't seen sharing a good laugh. The film isn't funny, and Bell wasn't meant to be comedic. And yet there is this frequent laughter. That's joy. There's joy in this film. This is what has made Queen of The Desert one of my favourite movies of all time.
I enjoyed the "dreaminess" of the film. In no way was it psychedelic or self-referential (done for effect). It was written into Gertrude Bell's character. This was a wonderful artistic choice.
Random things I loved: The references to poetry and literature. The loud camels nearly ruining the grand orchestral score. The steampunk-ish pistols in the case. James Franco flirting like only James Franco can. The snow in the desert! No subtitles. And most of all, the use of a good number of truly great actors from around the world who are of Arab descent.
Some favourite moments: the close-up on Bell when she and Cadogan hold hands for the first time. When Doughty-Wylie kisses her for the first time and her reaction is shown at length (such complex acting from Kidman and Lewis here, especially Kidman). The hand-held camera at the desert camp. The pain of the young Arab messenger as he confesses to Bell, "I would give anything for a woman like you," knowing he would never see her again but for that moment. The Shiek of the Druze talking Virgil.
Anytime a filmmaker is both writer and director, like Herzog is here, there will be a divergence from the tropes of the genre in which his film may be expected to fit. Hopefully the audience will buy in to his vision. I did wholeheartedly.
Witness (1985)
A Visionary Film with Details Not To Be Taken For Granted
It is easy to see why Witness took home the Oscar for Best Screenplay. In the first 15 minutes, fewer than 20 lines are spoken, and they are all inconsequential. Even the first full line of the line of the film spoken by a recurring character is just a joke about a horse's prowess. Nothing is said, and yet everything is so clear. Too clear. We see everything and feel everything, just like the boy. It takes a very good screenplay to say so much with next to nothing.
The scenes where Samuel takes the train and wanders through the station could be its own short film... "Amish Boy Takes The Train." I don't think that these moments, and the beautiful shots of Pennsylvania country, should be taken for granted. This film was made with care. I believe it's a visionary film, and I was transfixed. It is a film about a boy, as the title suggests, not about Harrison Ford. Samuel is part angel, witnessing the deeds of humanity, and he is human, witnessing how we share our sins. We learn from this boy, as do the other characters.
The most important detail is this... the little boy witnessed a murder. This isn't something that will go away for him or be given compensation. Some reviewers have said they don't like how certain scenes and characters appear smarmy. Well, to a little boy with innocence, any person who doesn't have the highest personal integrity and truthful intentions appears smarmy. The murder itself is messy and mean, because that's what most murder is. It isn't some slick and stylish operation carried out by highly intelligent hit men.
About the music. It sounds like the score by Maurice Jarre was influenced largely by Aaron Copland. Jarre was regularly hired for visionary films; ones with a "person who sees the value in what other people don't" theme like Gorillas In The Mist and Dead Poets Society, or ones with religious themes like Almost An Angel and Witness, or supernatural themes like Ghost and Jacob's Ladder (and Prancer!). The synthesizer is dated, yes, and therefore it's slightly unnerving, but if taken at face value and in context you can hear the "otherworldly" effect that Jarre is going for. It is music for strings, but airing in sampled sounds... so what you hear are the ghosts of the strings, the echo, the strings reincarnated. It's eerier. Besides that, the music is complex, sophisticated, and it's front and centre. It isn't in the background, nor should it be. I believe that for the average moviegoer who doesn't regularly enjoy listening to a variety of orchestral music, the score might seem like "too much" and therefore distracting. It's too bad that some people can't admit that complex orchestral music isn't too their taste, and instead they judge the music as "bad". It most certainly isn't bad. Perhaps in places it really is "too much", but there are places where the movie overall is too much, music aside. Easily forgiven.
Houseguest (1995)
Not smart, but some funny and fun scenes thanks to Sinbad's comic work.
The plot is formulaic, the characters are trite. Even worse, the characters are all negative stereotypes without any parody with which to lampoon them. As such, the movie is nearer to a Saturday morning cartoon than to National Lampoon. It is not smart. Still, much of Sinbad's comic delivery is fun, I'll admit! His "award-acceptance" monologue near the beginning I find hilarious. I can picture a golden age icon like young Mickey Rooney or Jimmy Stewart doing the same scene with a zany innocence... but Sinbad is a comic for our times and because of the edginess of his character (who was set up to look like a petty criminal) that scene couldn't have been more funny. I also enjoy the tooth-removal sequence. It's comedy worthy of Jerry Lewis or Lucille Ball, and that the entire film is really a build up to that scene makes it forgivable. I watched it because mistaken/hidden identity stories are often funny... and I watch any and every movie with Jeffrey Jones.