MovieChat Forums > ebertfan91
ebertfan91 (997)
Posts
James Berardinelli review - *** out of ****
James Berardinelli review - ** out of ****
James Berardinelli review - *** out of ****
James Berardinelli review - * out of ****
James Berardinelli review - *** out of ****
James Berardinelli review - ***1/2 out of ****
James Berardinelli review - ***1/2 out of ****
James Berardinelli review - *** out of ****
James Berardinelli review - **1/2 out of ****
James Berardinelli review - **1/2 out of ****
View all posts >
Replies
[quote]The film’s director is John Pieplow, whose only other credit was the obscure 1996 made-for-TV movie, Jurassic Women (I know of no one who has seen it so I can’t vouch for its actual existence). Judging by the way Strangeland was shot, it’s not surprising he didn’t get another job after this one. It’s likely that Snider, who gets official credits as the writer and producer, may have been heavily involved in the directing as well. Regardless of who gets the blame, keeping them away from other projects was a public service.
Strangeland was a box office bomb. Although a cadre of Twisted Sister fans showed up, no one else did. The subject matter and word-of-mouth about “upsetting” scenes were probably enough to keep viewers away and those few who did attend were probably less disturbed by the depictions of torture than by the ineptitude of the filmmaking. Like many bad movies with a hardcore group of supporters, Strangeland has been labeled as a “cult classic.” Considering what that term often implies about general quality, it likely applies, but those who aren’t already indoctrinated shouldn’t expect to be converted by Captain Howdy and his array of piercings and tattoos.[/quote]
[quote]Anora has proven to be liked by both critics and everyday movie-goers, at least those that give it a chance. (I saw it on its local opening night and there were only a dozen attendees.) After winning the Golden Palm at Cannes, it went on to capture the Audience Award at Toronto and currently holds a 91 rating (Universal Acclaim) at Metacritic. But marketing the film has proven tricky for distributor NEON. The movie’s essential qualities don’t translate well to a two-minute trailer and the confusing platform release strategy has left some viewers uncertain when it might open at a theater near them. Here’s hoping the movie finds its audience because it’s one of the freshest and most audacious films available in this year’s sparse cinematic landscape.[/quote]
[quote]Heretic is fundamentally more satisfying than the cavalcade of low-budget horror films that Blumhouse churns out because, unlike those movies, this one has ambition. It’s not trying to capture the widest teen audience. It isn’t relying on jump-scares. It hasn’t toned down things to get a PG-13 rating and isn’t awash in fake blood. It gets under the skin and into the mind and does what good psychological horror does best: leaves the viewer unsettled and perhaps a little shaken even after the end credits roll and the lights turn back on.[/quote]
[quote]Here is in no way a sequel to Forrest Gump, but Zemeckis has brought the band back together: himself as director, Eric Roth as screenwriter, cinematographer Don Burgess, composer Alan Silvestri, and actors Tom Hanks and Robin Wright. The alchemy that made the 1994 film so beloved is almost entirely missing. As for the de-aging technology used to allow the 68-year old Hanks and the 58-year old Wright play younger versions of themselves, I’m not as much of a critic as some. There are times when it lends a “plastic” element to the characters’ features but, with close-ups rarely used, it’s far less distracting than the disjointed narrative approach.
It's hard to imagine any form of Here being a great movie. The story lacks depth and nuance and the filmmakers do it no favor by presenting it in this endlessly frustrating fashion. I kept thinking it would function better as a 15-20-minute short. I appreciate that Zemeckis tried something different – few mainstream directors would have attempted something this offbeat with A-list actors and a major studio providing funding – but, although it’s interesting at times, it’s never fully successful. In the end, I was more letdown by the movie’s inability to draw me in than impressed by its offbeat premise.[/quote]
[quote]When one thinks about film noir, images of dark alleys and long shadows come to mind. Hitchcock flips the pattern by setting Shadow of a Doubt in broad daylight in the heart of a town where people don’t lock their doors and a friendly neighbor (played by Hume Cronyn in his debut) can wander in and chat about detective novels and murder mysteries. But the shadows are there and they eventually come out, heralded by the billowing cloud of black smoke high above the train that brings Uncle Charlie to Santa Rosa and being seen frequently when he’s around.
Despite being the director’s personal favorite, Shadow of a Doubt isn’t among Hitchcock’s most accomplished films. It’s beautifully crafted but the screenplay is creaky and full of holes, some of which are evident even during a first watching. Nevertheless, the suspense is there and Cotten and Wright play off one another wonderfully. For those who enjoy ‘40s movies, this is one to see.
*: Hitchcock coined the term “refrigerator movie” to refer to a film that works in the moment but may fall apart on closer, later inspection. For example, after going home, when opening the refrigerator to get a snack, it hits you: “Wait a minute! That doesn’t make any sense!”[/quote]
[quote]Both leads, Joseph Cotten and Teresa Wright, had long and productive careers. At the time when Hitchcock cast them, Wright was something of a fresh face but she was riding a wave of popularity after having been Oscar-nominated for her first three movies (The Little Foxes, Mrs. Miniver, and Pride of the Yankees. She won for Mrs. Miniver.) Despite those accolades, one can make a compelling case that the best work she ever did was in Shadow of a Doubt. Cotten was more of a veteran than his co-star but his career was also on the rise. Often associated with Orson Welles, his biggest breaks came in Citizen Kane and The Magnificent Ambersons. His work here is often cited as a career-best and it’s not hard to see why. The way he transforms from a seemingly likeable good guy into a monster is spine-chilling.
Cotten’s signature monologue, a rant delivered to Young Charlie in a restaurant where he first loses control, is an example of the actor going to the edge without tumbling into campiness. “The cities are full of women, middle-aged widows, husbands dead, husbands who’ve spent their lives making fortunes, working and working. Then they die and leave their money to their wives. Their silly wives. And what do the wives do, these useless women? You see them in the hotels, the best hotels, every day by the thousands, drinking the money, eating the money, losing the money at bridge, playing all day and all night, smelling of money. Proud of their jewelry but of nothing else. Horrible, faded, fat, greedy women.” The litany of bile and misogyny completes Young Charlie’s change in perception of her uncle. She knows what he is. And he knows she knows. What will she do about it? What will he do about it? Therein lies the root of the suspense.[/quote]
[quote]If Ghost Story has one thing going for it, it’s the film’s ability to develop and sustain a powerful and compelling atmosphere. Unfortunately, the rushed screenplay disallows viewers the opportunity to fully absorb it. As for the acting… the cast may be populated by notable names but few are in peak form. Fred Astaire, despite having the most screen time, lacks presence, reminding the audience that, although he was beloved as a song-and-dance man, his dramatic skills were middling. Melvyn Douglas, who was dying in real life at the time (he didn’t survive long enough to see Ghost Story’s release) is credible in the role of a sick old man. Douglas Fairbanks Jr. retains an element of his legendary charisma but he’s only around for a few scenes. John Houseman, whose career had experienced a boost as a result of appearing in The Paper Chase, is in top form. Of the younger actors, Alice Krige leaves a decisive impression while Craig Wasson leaves none whatsoever.
Ghost Story never achieved the success its producers envisioned. The nostalgia angle wasn’t as potent as expected and younger viewers weren’t impressed by the mangled storyline. Although the reappearance of silver screen icons in combination with the strong, spooky atmosphere was sufficient to satisfy a minority of critics, most were disappointed by the film’s mediocrity. And fans of Straub, like the author himself, were turned off by the various deviations from the source material. Ghost Story hasn’t improved with age. It remains an early ‘80s curiosity but there’s little reason to revisit it 40 years later unless one is intrigued to see the final performances of three venerated stars or to be bewitched by Krige in her signature role.[/quote]
[quote]I don’t know that Smile 2 is likely to expand the fanbase developed by the original (which is sizeable – Smile made over $100M domestic) but it will almost certainly please those familiar with Finn’s breakthrough effort. The relentless pace, which flags only occasionally, and entrancing storytelling make this follow-up an even more satisfying experience than the one provided by the 2022 production.[/quote]
[quote]Notorious represented a second collaboration for Hitchcock with screenwriter Ben Hecht, one of Hollywood’s most in-demand authors. Following a positive working relationship developed with Spellbound, they were able to assemble the script for Notorious quickly and with minimal drama. The movie was successful upon release and became a foundational block in the reputations of Bergman and Grant. Their chemistry in combination with Hitchcock’s unerring sense of how to manipulate the audience allows this movie to work for modern audiences far better than many of its contemporary releases. Notorious has stood the test of time and deserves the labels of both a classic and one of Hitchcock’s most formidable early American productions.[/quote]
[quote]Notorious becomes increasingly tense as it races toward a climax in which Alicia’s life hangs in the balance. At this point, Devlin ceases to be a bystander and jumps into action. Although there’s suspense aplenty during the final 10 minutes, there are no fights or shoot-outs. (In fact, the movie is noteworthy for its almost complete lack of on-screen violence.) Devlin springs a meticulously thought-out trap that results in a bittersweet ending.
When it comes to visual presentation, Hitchcock enjoyed pushing the envelope throughout his career, whether toying with the “single-shot” approach of Rope, the voyeur’s p-o-v in Rear Window, the spinning vortex in Vertigo, or the seemingly bloody shower scene in Psycho. Here, there are two notable sequences. The first is the painstakingly choreographed kiss. The second is a brilliant tracking shot that starts high above a ballroom and dives down to a key grasped in Alicia’s hand. It’s ostentatious to the extent that it calls attention to itself but is effective nonetheless.
There are a few aspects of the story that seem dated and/or rushed. The romance between Alicia and Devlin develops too quickly and Alex, despite being involved in a dangerous and risky endeavor requiring great secrecy, is too trusting of his old/new love, especially with Devlin hanging around. Notorious also introduces a recurring theme in Hitchcock movies about the controlling influence of a mother figure. Although she’s no Mrs. Bates, Alex’s mother (Leopoldine Konstantin), has a less-than-benign influence on her son’s politics and actions.[/quote]
View all replies >