MovieChat Forums > Psycho (1960) Discussion > OT: Streaming Goes Psycho, Universal and...

OT: Streaming Goes Psycho, Universal and Columbia Movies on Netflix and Prime

posted a year ago by roger1 (3647)
10 replies | jump to latest

I've been watching "old movies" on streaming services and a little report:

As of June 1, something has gone nuts with my streaming services, at least:

HBO became just plain "Max," and one has to jump through hoops to access it. I can't yet, and I pay for it.

Meanwhile, under whatever deals, Max IS available on ...Hulu and Prime. No cost so far, I guess I can access it on those places because I had HBO Max.

Discombulating in certain ways: I've been re-watching The Sopranos as I do from year to year -- I can't get the show through Max right now but I CAN through Hulu and -- rather as with the "old beat up print of Psycho" still playing on Netflix, the Hulu version of The Sopranos comes with something the HBO Max version did not -- those "Previously on The Sopranos" opening clips that help set the stage. In short -- Hulu bought a DIFFERENT version of The Sopranos to show?

North by Northwest having nestled back in as an HBO Max staple -- I can now watch on Amazon Prime -- AS a Max presentation.

What's going on here? I'm assuming there are some buyouts and takeovers underway. Nothing stays the same.

Meanwhile: Netflix is holding to ONLY Psycho(that bad print), The Birds, and Marnie as the "Hitchcock selections" -- all from Universal. Meanwhile they've added "good" Universal movies like The Sting and American Graffiti to the line-up, but after that initial burst of quality they've been moving on to the "Airport" series and this week, "Earthquake" which while fun in the theater during those earthquake sequences("Sensurround speakers" making the theater rumble real loud) was...just terrible in the script.

Watching Charlton Heston read the film's terrible, stilted soap opera lines, I'm reminded that Walter Matthau was offered that lead and -- being the discriminating fellow he was about scripts -- turned it down. Instead, Matthau agreed to a rather embarrassing cameo as a drunk in a bar frequented by cop George Kennedy. Matthau wears an awful polyester shirt and pants and a great big floppy pimp hat and frankly -- its an embarrassment. He looks terrible as the drunk(I guess he was doing things to his face makeup to LOOK drunk.) This was only a year after Matthau had played tough and cool and even sexy inthe well-scripted and directed Charley Varrick. What a comedown.

And without Sensurround, the earthquakes just look bad and "backlot cheap."

Which reminds me: Hitchcock was at Universal in the 1970s and managed with one of his two 70's pictures -- Frenzy - to avoid the "cheapjack70s Universal backlot" look of movies like Airport and Earthquake. Frenzy -- made at Pinewood Studios near London -- had no backlot work and the interiors didn't look like a Universal TV series set. The film had a mix of a "foreign film" with Hitchcock's polished fantastical elements.

Family Plot was not so lucky. Hitchcock had to make that one back in North Hollywood with a "cheapjack 70s Universal backlot look" (less some nifty location work in San Francisco and Los Angeles, mashed together into a fictional city.) And the sets indeed looked like leftovers from Columbo(but shot with more theatrical feature polish.)

How Hitchcock got AROUND the "cheapjack 70s Universal backlot look' of Family Plot was to...make a Hitchcock movie. Even at the very end, even with a cast of lower star wattage than he intended, even with cheapjack 70's Universal backlot values -- his VISUAL organization(composition, POV shots, travelling shots, use of color and perhaps above all, use of silence and pauses) allowed Hitchcock to DEFEAT being stuck at Universal, one last time.

Interesting to me: Psycho famously looked like a Universal TV series of the 50's(like Alfred Hitchcock Presents) in black and white, which gave it a great look "forever more," but I suppose if Hitchcock had made Psycho with a "cheapjack 70's Universal backlot look' in the 70's...it would have looked like Family Plot. But it was made in 1960, so it didn't. And movie history was late.

Interesting to me: in 1983, Psycho II now had an EIGHTIES cheapjack Universal backlot look -- it still looked cheap but the film stock was diffrent or something. If Psycho looked like "Alfred Hitchcock Presents" and Family Plot looked like "Columbo", then Psycho II rather looked like "Murder She Wrote"(which, indeed, set one of that show's whodunnits AT the Psycho house.)

Its all a matter of a film's texture and production values, I suppose, but Psycho in 1960 ended up looking best of all, and Hitchcock made1976's Family Plot at least FEEL like a Hitchcock movie, and Psycho II ended up the worst of all: no Hitchcock at the helm for direction or script editing, but cheapjack 80's Universal backlot values on screen.

---

CONT

[–] roger1 (3647) a year ago

Over at Amazon Prime, a feed of Columbia films i haven't seen or haven't seen in years are still turning up.

I looked at "To Sir With Love" from 1967. Sidney Poitier as an engineer who can't land an engineering job and in the meantime makes ends meet as a school teacher in a slum school(of sorts) in the East End of London. (It did not strike me as a true "slum" given that the youth in question seemed to have parents with jobs and at least an inkling of manners for Poitier to bring out in them.)

I remember how Lulu's rock song was all over the radio in 1967 -- as with Georgy Girl from the year before and ITS theme song, there is a strong dose of nostalgia just in hearing that song again. And it gets played a FEW times in the movie. And Lulu herself is one of the students, doing "double duty" as theme song singer and actress.

There are two other British actresses of note in "To Sir With Love" and I always used to confuse them and in this movie, they are properly separated by AGE: Judy Geeson(as a teenage student with a crush on Poitier) and Suzy Kendall(as a peer teacher held out as a willing age appropriate girlfriend.) Geeson and Kendall were two pretty "birds" of the Swinging 60s and into the 70s, but of the two it was Kendall who had the chops to be a full on sexpot (see: 1970's Darker Than Amber, with macho Rod Taylor as private eye Travis Magree and Kendall usually in a bikini.)

But I digress.

CONT

[–] roger1 (3647) a year ago

Of Hitchcockian note: "To Sir With Love" begins with Poitier taking a crowded bus to his school assignment and a heavyset, not terribly attractive woman(in a head scarf making her look like Andy Capp's lady, Flo) taking a seat next to Poitier and crowding an amused Poitier while talking her sex life with the equally plain woman in front of her.

Its a funny opening bit, setting the "London stage" for Poitier's story but -- I looked closer at her, checked her IMDB credits and I tell you what -- its "Mrs. Rusk" -- weird mother of psycho killer Bob Rusk -- nuzzling against Poitier. The actress's name is Rita Webb.

Rita Webb only has one line in Frenzy ("Pleased tuh meet ya, I'm shuh") but she stuck out as somewhat too weird a mother for the the dapper Rusk -- until we later found out that Rusk was a sex killer and then we figured ...she had to have had something to do with his development AS a sex killer.

And here she is, crowding the handsome Sidney Poitier and getting a lot of lines and I was STILL creeped out by her.

Rita Webb gets later, sympathetic scenes in To Sir With Love, as we learn she is the mother of one of Poitier's students, one with the highest grades, and very much Poitier's ally -- working as she does, from a farmer's market fruit stand that predicts where her "son," Bob Rusk, will work in Frenzy.

Everything is connected. And To Sir With Love, like Frenzy, was filmed at Pinewood Studios near London.

To Sir With Love was part of the Ultimate Sidney Poitier trifecta of 1967 --- three major hit movies in one year, two of which were nominated for the Best Picture Oscar, one of which WON the Best Picture Oscar:

To Sir With Love(with its Number One radio hit single)
Guess Who's Coming to Dinner(Spencer Tracy's final role; Kate Hepburn and Poitier around him;a Best Picture nominee.)
In the Heat of the Night(the Best Picture winner)

CONT

[–] roger1 (3647) a year ago

This would be a heady set of hits for any movie star; and they dutifully put Poitier(as I recall) in the Number One movie star spot for the late sixties.

I recall seeing all three of these films in 1967(and I think into 1968 with In the Heat of the Night.) Each viewing came with a story: In the Heat of the Night -- a white bigot slaps Poitier and he slaps him right back(my grandmother gasped); Guess Who's Coming to Dinner -- an aged, frail but eloquent Spencer Tracy speaks of his love to a tear-ridden Kate Hepburn (my grandmother cried, which I rarely saw.) To Sir With Love -- I went with a bunch of kids because it was one's birthday and we all went "to the movies" with him and his mother thought To Sir With Love would be the right pick.

The thing of it was this: I was only the audience for In the Heat of the Night, because it was a murder mystery and liked mysteries and thrillers and action and Westerns. Guess Who's Coming to Dinner and To Sir with Love were DRAMAS and I went rather reluctantly.

Watching To Sir With Love this week for the first time SINCE 1967 , it still wasn't my cup of tea. Poitier was good but the story line seemed to force everything: (1) these kids mock him; (2) these kids hate him; (3) these kids love him. The arc has to be what the arc has to be. And there was a "companion piece" movie in 1967 called "Up the Down Staircase"(which I also saw) in which flibbergibbet Sandy Dennis played Poiter's female equivalent in a tough NYC school. BOTH movies fought against the "horror movie vibe" of The Blackboard Jungle(1955) in which teacher Glenn Ford is up against a classroom of thugs and psychopaths and rapists and fights 'em all(with the help of side-switching thug ..Sidney Poitier. Full circle.)

CONT

[–] roger1 (3647) a year ago

Whatever craziness is going on with the streaming channels(their main crime , it seems, is losing their individuality -- I can get The Sopranos on Max OR Hulu OR Prime), the ability to take a tour through movies unseen for years(like To Sir With Love -- Columbia seems to have taken a bunch of movies out of their vaults for Amazon prime) or fondly remembered for their cheese factor(Earthquake and -- Charlton Heston sure made a lot of money in 70's cheese, but wrecked his career in the process; it was like a "retirement fund sacrifice.")

Its kind of fun, and yes, a journey to a past of movies long gone, the good AND the bad of them.

(Which reminds me: during this week I also watched Dog Day Afternoon -- which is very much a GOOD one from the 70s.)

[–] Information-Police (4889) a year ago

I had a little trouble upgrading *of it can be considered an upgrade) to the MAX app on my Firestick. It got hung up the first time and I had to start over and had no problem.

I don't like the paltry information on the offerings on the Max app. Frankly, I don't really know if it changed, or if it was always that way. But PLEASE, give a couple of sentences about what is about and let me know the lead roles and director. I don't care if it get "a great reaction at the Toronto film festival."

[–] PF4Eva (293) a year ago

Switching over was as simple as logging back in and turning captions back on. (I've always used it on Firefox.) The quality is about the same as HBO Max was. I've been watching HBO/Max originals so far (The Sopranos, Tina, Sarah Silverman, Sex Lives of College Girls, The Idol). But I love their classic and contemporary Warner Bros. offerings and classic films in general. They have some great Criterion offerings as well.

I think Psycho II is a solid thriller. Of course, it will never be the original Psycho.

I'm gonna have to check out NXNW. One of those Hitchcock classics that I've never gotten to see.

[–] roger1 (3647) a year ago

Switching over was as simple as logging back in and turning captions back on.

---

Thank you for the advice.

I'm all thumbs with computers at times and it is getting the e-mail and password to work that are causing me problems. But I shall keep trying. I pay for the damn thing!

What remains weird is the availability of the new "Max" (HBO series and movies) on both Hulu and Amazon Prime. A short term promotion? Or is some sort of merger coming?

---
(I've always used it on Firefox.)

--

I'll look into that.

---

The quality is about the same as HBO Max was. I've been watching HBO/Max originals so far (The Sopranos, Tina, Sarah Silverman, Sex Lives of College Girls, The Idol). But I love their classic and contemporary Warner Bros. offerings and classic films in general. They have some great Criterion offerings as well.

---

Yes. HBO Max had this great "one stop shopping page" that had all the classics(curated by TCM) including a lot of foreign films I promised myself that I would see. I've lost access to that page for now -- the Max stuff is rather showing up in dribs and drabs on Hulu and Amazon Prime.

Keeps my mind young, dealing with this.

---

CONT

[–] roger1 (3647) a year ago

I think Psycho II is a solid thriller. Of course, it will never be the original Psycho.

---

That seems to be the take on Psycho II. Ironically, I think Psycho III (directed by Anthony Perkins and written by the co-writer of Cronenberg's The Fly) is better than Psycho II, but the third one never seemed to get Psycho II's love. (Except by Roger Ebert, who really liked Psycho III.)

So few sequels have ever matched the originals. Godfather II at the top of the list(it won the Best Picture Oscar in 1974 as The Godfather had in 1972.) Next, James Cameron's "Aliens" exceeded Ridley Scott's "Alien" for sheer NUMBER of aliens(natch) but actually replaced a haunted house horror movie with a "big action" horror movie.

Coppola directed Godfather I and II . Had Hitchcock made Psycho II, maybe we'd have had something special(with a better script.) A great director(Cameron) took over for another great director(Scott) on the Alien franchise. (The Psycho sequels weren't directed by top guys, with the exception of Perkins, who was a fine actor but a first timer on directing.)

I'm the wrong guy to compare the original Psycho to any of the sequels. I have a series of threads around here called "My Psycho is Not Your Psycho" which are intended to communicate how that short, small 1960 movie OWNED the entire 1960s: first release in 1960, re-release in 1965, SECOND re-release in 1969(the end of the decade) with a historic removal from the nationwide CBS broadcast in 1966 and a cult-like series of local showings in 1967 and 1968. Psycho was at once "always there' in the 60's(an event, with billboards all over Los Angeles for the 1967 showing) and always "forbidden"(censored in some cities; pulled from CBS, moved to late night for its first showing.) Psycho was a big deal -- and the sequels never were.

CONT

[–] roger1 (3647) a year ago

I'm gonna have to check out NXNW. One of those Hitchcock classics that I've never gotten to see.

--

I recommend it. But it, too comes from another time, another era.

NXNW was released LESS THAN A YEAR before Psycho (July 1959 vs June 1960) and I've always felt that Hitchcock with those two back to back "hit classics" set the template for pretty much every thriller to follow them. NXNW is the action movie that begat James Bond, Indy Jones, Die Hard and The Matrix. Psycho is the modern horror movie that begat Wait Until Dark, The Exorcist, Jaws, Halloween and Silence of the Lambs.

Pretty much every summer action blockbuster owes something to NXNW which was "the only movie of its type" in 1959 -- now MANY summer action movies crowd the market in its place.

Still, expect an "old movie" with NXNW. It was very modern then, it looks very old now.