Search
Search results
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated The Woman in the Window (2021) in Movies
May 24, 2021
It is NOT Rear Window
A piece of advice for you when you start to watch the “Alfred Hitchcock-esque” thriller, THE WOMAN IN THE WINDOW. If you are at all a Hitchcock fan, you will be spending the first part of this film comparing it to the 1954 classic REAR WINDOW and this would be a disservice to this film.
For…THE WOMAN IN THE WINDOW is no Rear Window, nor is it intended to be. It has many, many elements that are the same as Rear Window (most notably, the setup: a housebound person thinks they have witnessed a murder in a neighboring apartment), and THE WOMAN IN THE WINDOW is just like Rear Window…until it isn’t.
And that’s when I started to like this film, when I stopped comparing it (in my head) to Rear Window.
Based on the Best Seller by A.J. Finn (adapted for the screen by Tracy Letts who also appears in the film), THE WOMAN IN THE WINDOW tells the tale of Anna Fox, an agoraphobic who watches life go on outside her window. When she thinks she has witnessed a murder, she (and the audience) must decide is it real? Did she truly witness a murder? If so, who dunnit? If not, is she just hallucinating things? Is Anna crazy?
The answers to these questions were satisfying enough to me that I ended up enjoying the film experience that I had - but I have to be honest and tell you that, for awhile, my enjoyment of this film was hanging by a thread.
Amy Adams (ENCHANTED) is terrific - if unspectacular - in the title role. Her Anna Fox is murkey (that is meant as a compliment) and struggles through most of the film trying to determine what is real and what is an illusion. Adams does a “journeyman’s” job with this role. She acts her way through it in such a workmanlike fashion that I almost forgot that it is Adams on the screen.
Wyatt Russell (Kurt’s son who is also the new Captain America in THE FALCON AND THE WINTER SOLDIER) fares the best of the Supporting players for he has the most to do. Unfortunately, Director Joe Wright (ATONEMENT) and Screenwriter Letts wastes such strong actors as Gary Oldman (DARKEST HOUR), Julianne Moore (STILL ALICE), Anthony Mackie (The Falcon in the Marvel Movies), Jennifer Jason Leigh (HATEFUL 8), Brian Tyree Henry (GET OUT) and Letts himself in terribly underwritten roles that serve (mostly) as red herrings - and each of their characters are interchangeable and forgettable.
And that, ultimately, is where this film comes apart. While I cared about Anna and the solution to the mystery - I didn’t care very much about the other characters involved.
Which is why, I think, I’ll pull my DVD of Rear Window out and watch that film for the umpteenth time.
Letter Grade: B
7 Stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
For…THE WOMAN IN THE WINDOW is no Rear Window, nor is it intended to be. It has many, many elements that are the same as Rear Window (most notably, the setup: a housebound person thinks they have witnessed a murder in a neighboring apartment), and THE WOMAN IN THE WINDOW is just like Rear Window…until it isn’t.
And that’s when I started to like this film, when I stopped comparing it (in my head) to Rear Window.
Based on the Best Seller by A.J. Finn (adapted for the screen by Tracy Letts who also appears in the film), THE WOMAN IN THE WINDOW tells the tale of Anna Fox, an agoraphobic who watches life go on outside her window. When she thinks she has witnessed a murder, she (and the audience) must decide is it real? Did she truly witness a murder? If so, who dunnit? If not, is she just hallucinating things? Is Anna crazy?
The answers to these questions were satisfying enough to me that I ended up enjoying the film experience that I had - but I have to be honest and tell you that, for awhile, my enjoyment of this film was hanging by a thread.
Amy Adams (ENCHANTED) is terrific - if unspectacular - in the title role. Her Anna Fox is murkey (that is meant as a compliment) and struggles through most of the film trying to determine what is real and what is an illusion. Adams does a “journeyman’s” job with this role. She acts her way through it in such a workmanlike fashion that I almost forgot that it is Adams on the screen.
Wyatt Russell (Kurt’s son who is also the new Captain America in THE FALCON AND THE WINTER SOLDIER) fares the best of the Supporting players for he has the most to do. Unfortunately, Director Joe Wright (ATONEMENT) and Screenwriter Letts wastes such strong actors as Gary Oldman (DARKEST HOUR), Julianne Moore (STILL ALICE), Anthony Mackie (The Falcon in the Marvel Movies), Jennifer Jason Leigh (HATEFUL 8), Brian Tyree Henry (GET OUT) and Letts himself in terribly underwritten roles that serve (mostly) as red herrings - and each of their characters are interchangeable and forgettable.
And that, ultimately, is where this film comes apart. While I cared about Anna and the solution to the mystery - I didn’t care very much about the other characters involved.
Which is why, I think, I’ll pull my DVD of Rear Window out and watch that film for the umpteenth time.
Letter Grade: B
7 Stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated The Lighthouse (2019) in Movies
Oct 24, 2019
Growing up I remember watching Alfred Hitchcock Presents on USA network and catching the occasional twilight zone on the weekends. In fact, it’s hard to believe that our second TV was a small black and white 13” TV that we would watch all types of shows on when our living room TV was otherwise preoccupied. While all these shows were only available in black and white, they still portrayed a frightening imagery that likely would lose a lot of their suspense if the show had been presented in color. The Lighthouse, the second feature directed by Robert Eggers (The Witch) utilizes not only a black and white picture to build on the dread of loneliness the film wishes to convey, but also presents itself in a boxy format, to better mimic silent films of a bygone era.
The Lighthouse features Willem Dafoe as Thomas Wake, a grizzled old lighthouse keeper who begins his four-week duty on a secluded lighthouse with Ephraim Winslow (Robert Pattinson), a man who has never worked a lighthouse in his young life. Thomas a former seaman who longs for his time back on the waves directs Ephraim around in his duties as one would expect from an experienced sea captain, teaching Ephraim the way of a lighthouse keeper. One rule that Ephraim must obey is that no one manages the light except Thomas, and no one may look upon its glory except Thomas. Reluctant to obey but not wishing to lose his pay Ephraim obliges and the two spend four weeks managing their duties as best as they can.
It’s after the four weeks, when their relief fails to arrive, that things begin to go off the rails. It is here where the secrets begin to emerge, and the audience is left to wonder whether these two will ever make it off the island. It’s here where the film begins to intensify as the struggle for survival with dwindling supplies, and the effects of loneliness and solitude begin to rear its ugly head. Where each mans sanity will be tested and the bond, they have built over the past four weeks will be put to the test.
The Lighthouse is a movie that is difficult to put into any one genre. Much of the movie plays out like a drama, where the old man and the newcomer work to overcome their differences as one mentors the other. The movie always has an underlying sense of dread, wondering what will come next. As the film progresses, the genre changes, and the suspense and horror begin to develop. What was a job where each man understood their roles becomes a race for survival. The questions begin to mount as we see the characters relationship morph and change. Why did Ephraim choose a life of solitude so far from civilization?
Why doesn’t Thomas allow anyone to man the light but him? What is each men hiding from one another?
William Dafoe does another outstanding job as the gruff, old lighthouse keeper. His accent, mannerisms and evening toasts all are performed with such authenticity that it’s hard to distinguish the actor from the character.
The real surprise was the performance of Robert Pattinson who is best known for his previous works on the Twilight series. He brings so much character to the screen that I would have had a hard time recognizing him if I didn’t know he was in the movie. He delivers a performance that is likely to garner Oscar buzz, something that wouldn’t surprise fans of William Dafoe, but might shock fans of Robert Pattinson. Robert Pattinson in this role is by far the best performance he’s ever done in his career and all, including his most devoted fans, will be pleasantly surprised by his performance in this film.
As I discussed in the opening paragraph, some films and shows play best to the medium that they are recorded on. Much like the old Alfred Hitchcock movies/shows, The Lighthouse benefits from its use of black and white and its boxy presentation. While there is certainly plenty of dialog throughout, it still takes on a very “silent movie” feel. One that you could almost expect to see placards of dialog appear instead of the actual words coming out on the screen. It is this stunning use of the above that truly brings The Lighthouse alive, and if done in color would have lost much of its personality in the process.
There is a ton of imagery and symbolism which I’m sure will be argued about on numerous Reddit posts for the next few days and weeks to come. I won’t pretend to understand much of it, and I believe that Eggers leaves many of what we see open for interpretation. Everything from the lighthouse itself, to the seagulls, to the mermaids (yes you read that correctly) all are open for discussion. After watching it I couldn’t help but wonder what the discussion of this particular film would have led to in my theater appreciation course back in college. That’s not to say that you can’t simply sit back and enjoy it for what it is, I just think its far more beneficial to think of what was seen and try to understand the meaning of it all.
The Lighthouse isn’t a movie that will appeal to everyone. For those who want a scary and suspenseful movie, it would be difficult to recommend.
While it certainly has suspense, it suspenseful in the way of an old Twilight Zone or Alfred Hitchcock movie, as opposed to something more recent like Paranormal Activity. The black and white video and the odd boxy aspect ratio may turn off a lot of folks as well, although I certainly don’t see it being as fascinating if it was done in any other way. There is a lot to love in this movie, and the character portrayals deserve the Oscar buzz that is certainly right around the corner. It’s a movie that is far easier to experience then to explain in a review, so I encourage those with even a little bit of curiosity to take the plunge and experience it for yourself.
The Lighthouse features Willem Dafoe as Thomas Wake, a grizzled old lighthouse keeper who begins his four-week duty on a secluded lighthouse with Ephraim Winslow (Robert Pattinson), a man who has never worked a lighthouse in his young life. Thomas a former seaman who longs for his time back on the waves directs Ephraim around in his duties as one would expect from an experienced sea captain, teaching Ephraim the way of a lighthouse keeper. One rule that Ephraim must obey is that no one manages the light except Thomas, and no one may look upon its glory except Thomas. Reluctant to obey but not wishing to lose his pay Ephraim obliges and the two spend four weeks managing their duties as best as they can.
It’s after the four weeks, when their relief fails to arrive, that things begin to go off the rails. It is here where the secrets begin to emerge, and the audience is left to wonder whether these two will ever make it off the island. It’s here where the film begins to intensify as the struggle for survival with dwindling supplies, and the effects of loneliness and solitude begin to rear its ugly head. Where each mans sanity will be tested and the bond, they have built over the past four weeks will be put to the test.
The Lighthouse is a movie that is difficult to put into any one genre. Much of the movie plays out like a drama, where the old man and the newcomer work to overcome their differences as one mentors the other. The movie always has an underlying sense of dread, wondering what will come next. As the film progresses, the genre changes, and the suspense and horror begin to develop. What was a job where each man understood their roles becomes a race for survival. The questions begin to mount as we see the characters relationship morph and change. Why did Ephraim choose a life of solitude so far from civilization?
Why doesn’t Thomas allow anyone to man the light but him? What is each men hiding from one another?
William Dafoe does another outstanding job as the gruff, old lighthouse keeper. His accent, mannerisms and evening toasts all are performed with such authenticity that it’s hard to distinguish the actor from the character.
The real surprise was the performance of Robert Pattinson who is best known for his previous works on the Twilight series. He brings so much character to the screen that I would have had a hard time recognizing him if I didn’t know he was in the movie. He delivers a performance that is likely to garner Oscar buzz, something that wouldn’t surprise fans of William Dafoe, but might shock fans of Robert Pattinson. Robert Pattinson in this role is by far the best performance he’s ever done in his career and all, including his most devoted fans, will be pleasantly surprised by his performance in this film.
As I discussed in the opening paragraph, some films and shows play best to the medium that they are recorded on. Much like the old Alfred Hitchcock movies/shows, The Lighthouse benefits from its use of black and white and its boxy presentation. While there is certainly plenty of dialog throughout, it still takes on a very “silent movie” feel. One that you could almost expect to see placards of dialog appear instead of the actual words coming out on the screen. It is this stunning use of the above that truly brings The Lighthouse alive, and if done in color would have lost much of its personality in the process.
There is a ton of imagery and symbolism which I’m sure will be argued about on numerous Reddit posts for the next few days and weeks to come. I won’t pretend to understand much of it, and I believe that Eggers leaves many of what we see open for interpretation. Everything from the lighthouse itself, to the seagulls, to the mermaids (yes you read that correctly) all are open for discussion. After watching it I couldn’t help but wonder what the discussion of this particular film would have led to in my theater appreciation course back in college. That’s not to say that you can’t simply sit back and enjoy it for what it is, I just think its far more beneficial to think of what was seen and try to understand the meaning of it all.
The Lighthouse isn’t a movie that will appeal to everyone. For those who want a scary and suspenseful movie, it would be difficult to recommend.
While it certainly has suspense, it suspenseful in the way of an old Twilight Zone or Alfred Hitchcock movie, as opposed to something more recent like Paranormal Activity. The black and white video and the odd boxy aspect ratio may turn off a lot of folks as well, although I certainly don’t see it being as fascinating if it was done in any other way. There is a lot to love in this movie, and the character portrayals deserve the Oscar buzz that is certainly right around the corner. It’s a movie that is far easier to experience then to explain in a review, so I encourage those with even a little bit of curiosity to take the plunge and experience it for yourself.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Rear Window (1954) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
“Hmm… must have splattered a lot”.
Maddy at Maddy Loves Her Classic Films is hosting The Alfred Hitchcockblogathon. A fine idea, celebrating the life and works of the “Master of Suspense”. My contribution comes from his 1954 masterpiece “Rear Window” starring James Stewart and Grace Kelly.
rw-poster
In one pan around his small apartment, and without a word of dialogue required, Hitchcock deftly fills in all the back-story you need: Stewart plays ace photo-journalist L.B. Jefferies, laid up from jetting the world to worn-torn regions by a broken leg in a full-cast with only his courtyard view to entertain him. In sweltering summer temperatures all the apartments are open to the elements, so he can be well entertained by the menagerie before him: “Miss Torso”, the scantily-clad and frequently showering ballerina; a sculptress with an eye towards Henry Moore; a struggling composer (who has his clock wound by someone very familiar!); a newly-wedded bride threatening to wear out the groom; a salesman and his bed-ridden wife; a dog-loving and balcony-sleeping couple; and “Miss Lonelyhearts” – a hard-drinking spinster forced to create imaginary male dinner-guests.
Stewart plays his usual ‘Mr Ordinary’ watching perfectly ordinary goings on in a perfectly ordinary apartment block.
Or not. Jefferies is drawn to some odd-events in the apartment of the salesman (Raymond Burr, still 13 years before his career-defining role in TV’s “Ironside”). His rampant suspicions infect not only his cranky middle-aged physiotherapist Stella (Thelma Ritter) but also his perfect (“too perfect”) girlfriend, the fashion expert Lisa (Grace Kelly). Of course his police friend Doyle (Wendell Corey) is having none of it… there is no evidence of any crime being committed. And the “murdered” wife has been seen being put on a train by her husband, and is sending him letters from the countryside.
Is Jefferies just going stir-crazy? Or is there really something to it?
The set for this film is masterly. Although depicting a genuine location in New York’s Greenwich village the huge set was constructed on the Paramount lot in Hollywood, and you can just imagine the army of carpenters and artists building the multi-layered structure.
It’s one of the stars of the film, allowing for a wealth of detail to be populated: in the apartments; in the street behind; even in the cafe over the other side of the street. And it’s this detail that really makes what could be a highly static film come alive. There are a half dozen films-within-the-film going on at once, with Stewart’s character – and you as the fellow-voyeur – having a multi-pass to watch them all simultaneously.
And watch he does. As what could be perceived as a seriously pervy character – something he is called out on by Stella – Jeffries gets to see an eyeful in particular of the shapely and scantily-clad ballerina (Georgine Darcy, agent-less and only paid $350 for the role!). These scenes must have been deemed quite risque for the year of release.
Where the film rather falters is in the bickering romance between Stewart and Kelly. As a hot-blooded man, I will declare that even today Kelly’s first dream-like appearance (with Vaseline lightly coating the lens) is breathtaking. She’s just the ‘girl-next-door’: if you live next to a palace that is! And yet (with Kelly 21 years Stewart’s junior) she’s just “too perfect” for L.B. , who feels (against her protestations) that she’s ‘too girly’ to hack the life of a war photographer on the road. The mysogeny, common for the day, is gasp-making: “If a girl’s pretty enough, she just has to ‘be'” intones Stewart, to no howls of protest or throwing of saucepans! In fact Kelly is greatly encouraged: “Preview of coming attractions” purrs Kelly, flaunting what she has around the apartment in a negligee.
These scenes though are rather overlong and somewhat get in the way of the murder mystery plot-line. Things really start to warm up when a death occurs, to piercing screams in the night: “Which one of you did it?” shouts a woman to the neighbourhood, as everything – momentarily – stops. “WHICH ONE OF YOU DID IT?”. Given your emotional involvement in the ongoing voyeurism, it’s hard as a viewer not to feel discomforted…. (“well, it wasn’t me”…. shifts uneasily in the seat).
From then on, Hitchcock proceeds to pile on suspenseful jolt after jolt, with first Lisa and then L.B. placed in harms way. While the perpetrator may seem clueless and incompetent, as most murderers of passion probably are, the denouement is satisfying, with a great trial use of green-screen ‘falling’ that would be perfected by Hitchcock for “Vertigo” four years later.
What’s curious for such as classic is that there are a number of fluffed lines in the piece: with two notable ones by Stewart and Kelly. Hitchcock was the master of long and uninterrupted takes, but did he not believe in re-shooting scenes when such errors occurred? Most odd.
Although tighter and more claustrophobic that some of his better known films, this is a firm favourite of mine. If you’ve never seen it, its well worth you checking out.
rw-poster
In one pan around his small apartment, and without a word of dialogue required, Hitchcock deftly fills in all the back-story you need: Stewart plays ace photo-journalist L.B. Jefferies, laid up from jetting the world to worn-torn regions by a broken leg in a full-cast with only his courtyard view to entertain him. In sweltering summer temperatures all the apartments are open to the elements, so he can be well entertained by the menagerie before him: “Miss Torso”, the scantily-clad and frequently showering ballerina; a sculptress with an eye towards Henry Moore; a struggling composer (who has his clock wound by someone very familiar!); a newly-wedded bride threatening to wear out the groom; a salesman and his bed-ridden wife; a dog-loving and balcony-sleeping couple; and “Miss Lonelyhearts” – a hard-drinking spinster forced to create imaginary male dinner-guests.
Stewart plays his usual ‘Mr Ordinary’ watching perfectly ordinary goings on in a perfectly ordinary apartment block.
Or not. Jefferies is drawn to some odd-events in the apartment of the salesman (Raymond Burr, still 13 years before his career-defining role in TV’s “Ironside”). His rampant suspicions infect not only his cranky middle-aged physiotherapist Stella (Thelma Ritter) but also his perfect (“too perfect”) girlfriend, the fashion expert Lisa (Grace Kelly). Of course his police friend Doyle (Wendell Corey) is having none of it… there is no evidence of any crime being committed. And the “murdered” wife has been seen being put on a train by her husband, and is sending him letters from the countryside.
Is Jefferies just going stir-crazy? Or is there really something to it?
The set for this film is masterly. Although depicting a genuine location in New York’s Greenwich village the huge set was constructed on the Paramount lot in Hollywood, and you can just imagine the army of carpenters and artists building the multi-layered structure.
It’s one of the stars of the film, allowing for a wealth of detail to be populated: in the apartments; in the street behind; even in the cafe over the other side of the street. And it’s this detail that really makes what could be a highly static film come alive. There are a half dozen films-within-the-film going on at once, with Stewart’s character – and you as the fellow-voyeur – having a multi-pass to watch them all simultaneously.
And watch he does. As what could be perceived as a seriously pervy character – something he is called out on by Stella – Jeffries gets to see an eyeful in particular of the shapely and scantily-clad ballerina (Georgine Darcy, agent-less and only paid $350 for the role!). These scenes must have been deemed quite risque for the year of release.
Where the film rather falters is in the bickering romance between Stewart and Kelly. As a hot-blooded man, I will declare that even today Kelly’s first dream-like appearance (with Vaseline lightly coating the lens) is breathtaking. She’s just the ‘girl-next-door’: if you live next to a palace that is! And yet (with Kelly 21 years Stewart’s junior) she’s just “too perfect” for L.B. , who feels (against her protestations) that she’s ‘too girly’ to hack the life of a war photographer on the road. The mysogeny, common for the day, is gasp-making: “If a girl’s pretty enough, she just has to ‘be'” intones Stewart, to no howls of protest or throwing of saucepans! In fact Kelly is greatly encouraged: “Preview of coming attractions” purrs Kelly, flaunting what she has around the apartment in a negligee.
These scenes though are rather overlong and somewhat get in the way of the murder mystery plot-line. Things really start to warm up when a death occurs, to piercing screams in the night: “Which one of you did it?” shouts a woman to the neighbourhood, as everything – momentarily – stops. “WHICH ONE OF YOU DID IT?”. Given your emotional involvement in the ongoing voyeurism, it’s hard as a viewer not to feel discomforted…. (“well, it wasn’t me”…. shifts uneasily in the seat).
From then on, Hitchcock proceeds to pile on suspenseful jolt after jolt, with first Lisa and then L.B. placed in harms way. While the perpetrator may seem clueless and incompetent, as most murderers of passion probably are, the denouement is satisfying, with a great trial use of green-screen ‘falling’ that would be perfected by Hitchcock for “Vertigo” four years later.
What’s curious for such as classic is that there are a number of fluffed lines in the piece: with two notable ones by Stewart and Kelly. Hitchcock was the master of long and uninterrupted takes, but did he not believe in re-shooting scenes when such errors occurred? Most odd.
Although tighter and more claustrophobic that some of his better known films, this is a firm favourite of mine. If you’ve never seen it, its well worth you checking out.
Amanda (96 KP) rated The Woman in the Window in Books
Mar 11, 2019
Anna has what's called Agoraphobia, meaning that she has anxiety leaving her house. Therefore, anything that needs to be done outside the house, she has done for her. Any medications she needs, groceries, etc., they are delivered to her house. She can't even bare to open a window because it would trigger her phobia. You learn there are different reasons for this kind of phobia.
Loss of a loved one.
Tragic accident.
Or...it could be something else entirely.
Ann also talks to other people with the same phobia and tries to also council them. You don't find out till much later as to why Anna who was a child psychologist now cannot bare to leave her home. She suffers from depression and is on multiple medications. She's separated from her husband, whom also has their daughter with him.
And she drinks...a lot.
One of the things I liked about Anna is her love for old movies. I loved how Finn incorporated some lines from different movies, including Alfred Hitchcock. Anna witnesses a murder in her neighbors house across the street. Try as she may, nobody takes her seriously and blame it on the medication she takes with alcohol.
“You can hear someone’s secrets and their fears and their wants, but remember that these exist alongside other people’s secrets and fears, people living in the same room.”
I kind of felt bad for her, but sometime during the story, I started to get frustrated with her as well. I really got a Girl on a Train feel. The main character always needs a drink or has to drink something in order to keep herself together, even though the alcohol doesn't help her situation at all.
On a different note, Girl on a Train was highly depressing.
The more the story progressed the more intrigued I got because there were quite a few twists that I honestly didn't see coming and I found myself yelling, 'WHAT?' Glad I was only listening to a book in the car and not in my house where someone could look at me funny. Not that people don't do that anyway, but such as life as a bookworm, I don't care.
“The definition of insanity, Fox, Wesley used to remind me, paraphrasing Einstein, is doing the same thing again and again and expecting different result.”
I've read a few psychological thrillers and while they were good, none kept me on my toes like this one. So many things happen with Anna and they come in bits and pieces but eventually make up a whole puzzle. You almost start to believe that perhaps Anna didn't see someone being murdered...maybe she did have an illusion.
Did it happen?
You have to read and find out.
I'd definitely give this 4 1/2 stars. Finn's writing in Anna's point of view is brilliant. You are inside her head and you are seeing everything through her eyes. She may start to ramble from time to time, but that just shows that she's still someone who is suffering. Other characters that play a major role in her life you don't know all that much...but you learn who they are in the end.
It's a long book, but every minute of it was well worth the listen. I will say that toward the beginning it was more like Girl on a Train, but it slowly morphs into Alfred Hitchcock's, Rear Window. I will say that I look forward to A.J. Finn's next novel.
Loss of a loved one.
Tragic accident.
Or...it could be something else entirely.
Ann also talks to other people with the same phobia and tries to also council them. You don't find out till much later as to why Anna who was a child psychologist now cannot bare to leave her home. She suffers from depression and is on multiple medications. She's separated from her husband, whom also has their daughter with him.
And she drinks...a lot.
One of the things I liked about Anna is her love for old movies. I loved how Finn incorporated some lines from different movies, including Alfred Hitchcock. Anna witnesses a murder in her neighbors house across the street. Try as she may, nobody takes her seriously and blame it on the medication she takes with alcohol.
“You can hear someone’s secrets and their fears and their wants, but remember that these exist alongside other people’s secrets and fears, people living in the same room.”
I kind of felt bad for her, but sometime during the story, I started to get frustrated with her as well. I really got a Girl on a Train feel. The main character always needs a drink or has to drink something in order to keep herself together, even though the alcohol doesn't help her situation at all.
On a different note, Girl on a Train was highly depressing.
The more the story progressed the more intrigued I got because there were quite a few twists that I honestly didn't see coming and I found myself yelling, 'WHAT?' Glad I was only listening to a book in the car and not in my house where someone could look at me funny. Not that people don't do that anyway, but such as life as a bookworm, I don't care.
“The definition of insanity, Fox, Wesley used to remind me, paraphrasing Einstein, is doing the same thing again and again and expecting different result.”
I've read a few psychological thrillers and while they were good, none kept me on my toes like this one. So many things happen with Anna and they come in bits and pieces but eventually make up a whole puzzle. You almost start to believe that perhaps Anna didn't see someone being murdered...maybe she did have an illusion.
Did it happen?
You have to read and find out.
I'd definitely give this 4 1/2 stars. Finn's writing in Anna's point of view is brilliant. You are inside her head and you are seeing everything through her eyes. She may start to ramble from time to time, but that just shows that she's still someone who is suffering. Other characters that play a major role in her life you don't know all that much...but you learn who they are in the end.
It's a long book, but every minute of it was well worth the listen. I will say that toward the beginning it was more like Girl on a Train, but it slowly morphs into Alfred Hitchcock's, Rear Window. I will say that I look forward to A.J. Finn's next novel.
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated Rear Window (1954) in Movies
Dec 24, 2018
Great Mystery
A photojournalist is wheelchair-ridden, watching people in his apartment complex from his window for hours. He’s thrown for a loop when he witnesses what he thinks is a murder. He wants to get to the bottom of it or die trying.
Acting: 10
Beginning: 10
Characters: 10
I’ll start with Stella (Thelma Ritter) who is easily my favorite character in the entire movie. She is an in-home nurse who is taking care of main character L.B. Jeffries (James Stewart). Out of all the characters in the story, she has the brightest sense of humor. I also loved that she takes zero guff from L.B., sometimes even making it seem like he works for her. She was stern and went beyond the parameters of her job doing everything from offering love advice to helping L.B. dive into the murder.
Of course I appreciated a number of the other characters as well, including the creepy Lars Thorwald (Raymond Burr). He is the object of L.B.’s accusation. Lars does a great job of making you think L.B. could be right. At other times, Lars seems like just a normal guy going about his daily routine. He takes strange to new heights. Each of the characters, the important ones anyway, help to frame the story and keep you intrigued.
Cinematography/Visuals: 10
Conflict: 8
Genre: 5
Memorability: 10
Pace: 9
Plot: 10
Rear Window succeeds with a script that’s extremely crisp and engaging. Mystery and tension abound as you try and figure out what’s going to happen next. The story is simple, yet is peeled back in layers. Very well done.
Resolution: 10
I won’t dive in too much here but I will say that the ending is perfect to the point that it answers all the right questions. It doesn’t overdo things and try and unnecessarily put a bow on things. We find out what we need to know and that’s that.
Overall: 92
Alfred Hitchcock puts together stories like a boxer puts together a fight. He hits you with little jabs that wake you up. Eventually he goes in for the kill with harder punches that you’re not ready for. He is definitely one of the greats and Rear Window is yet another one of his classics to show for it.
Acting: 10
Beginning: 10
Characters: 10
I’ll start with Stella (Thelma Ritter) who is easily my favorite character in the entire movie. She is an in-home nurse who is taking care of main character L.B. Jeffries (James Stewart). Out of all the characters in the story, she has the brightest sense of humor. I also loved that she takes zero guff from L.B., sometimes even making it seem like he works for her. She was stern and went beyond the parameters of her job doing everything from offering love advice to helping L.B. dive into the murder.
Of course I appreciated a number of the other characters as well, including the creepy Lars Thorwald (Raymond Burr). He is the object of L.B.’s accusation. Lars does a great job of making you think L.B. could be right. At other times, Lars seems like just a normal guy going about his daily routine. He takes strange to new heights. Each of the characters, the important ones anyway, help to frame the story and keep you intrigued.
Cinematography/Visuals: 10
Conflict: 8
Genre: 5
Memorability: 10
Pace: 9
Plot: 10
Rear Window succeeds with a script that’s extremely crisp and engaging. Mystery and tension abound as you try and figure out what’s going to happen next. The story is simple, yet is peeled back in layers. Very well done.
Resolution: 10
I won’t dive in too much here but I will say that the ending is perfect to the point that it answers all the right questions. It doesn’t overdo things and try and unnecessarily put a bow on things. We find out what we need to know and that’s that.
Overall: 92
Alfred Hitchcock puts together stories like a boxer puts together a fight. He hits you with little jabs that wake you up. Eventually he goes in for the kill with harder punches that you’re not ready for. He is definitely one of the greats and Rear Window is yet another one of his classics to show for it.
JT (287 KP) rated Don't Breathe (2016) in Movies
Mar 10, 2020
Building suspense is considered a difficult task. Alfred Hitchcock was a master of this. You need look no further than the shower scene in Psycho for an example of his work. When a film delivers on suspense it can sometimes take the emphasis off a predictable twist ending. If the audience leaves the screening visibly shaken then a director has done his job.
Don’t Breathe, directed by Fede Alvarez, follows three amatuer burglers, Rocky (Jane Levy), Alex (Dylan Minnette), and the aptly named Money (Daniel Zovatto), who are looking for a big pay day. When they hear about a retired blind war veteran who lives alone, and who may have $300,000 in cash, the trio decide he would make easy prey – how wrong they were.
Rocky is the more cautious of the three, but having grown up in an abusive family she is looking for an escape plan and to take her sister Diddy (Emma Bercovici) to safety with her. This job is a means to an end for that scenario to happen.
If the audience leaves the screening visibly shaken then a director has done his job.
The opening doesn’t offer much other than setting the scene but once the doors are bolted and windows locked it’s game on. Alvarez has a solid understanding of this genre, no matter what you thought of his bloodthirsty Evil Dead remake? In the confines of this house of horrors he is able to let The Blind Man (Stephen Lang) run riot as he attempts to put a stop to the break-in.
There is a sense that Alvarez is toying with his audience, in a bid to starve off the ending. He’s having too much fun. The atmosphere is excruciatingly tense, particularly when The Blind Man levels the playing field in the basement by turning off all the lights. A neat twist in the story tries to create empathy, but it’s a little too late for that and the final act ramps up the suspense to Hitchcockian levels.
Any other person would have dropped the money and looked for a way out as quickly as possible. That is not the case here as each opportunity to escape is met with a roadblock that send the burglars back down a different path. The home invasion horror has been around for a while but done right it can be incredibly effective and in this case Don’t Breathe gets it spot on.
Don’t Breathe, directed by Fede Alvarez, follows three amatuer burglers, Rocky (Jane Levy), Alex (Dylan Minnette), and the aptly named Money (Daniel Zovatto), who are looking for a big pay day. When they hear about a retired blind war veteran who lives alone, and who may have $300,000 in cash, the trio decide he would make easy prey – how wrong they were.
Rocky is the more cautious of the three, but having grown up in an abusive family she is looking for an escape plan and to take her sister Diddy (Emma Bercovici) to safety with her. This job is a means to an end for that scenario to happen.
If the audience leaves the screening visibly shaken then a director has done his job.
The opening doesn’t offer much other than setting the scene but once the doors are bolted and windows locked it’s game on. Alvarez has a solid understanding of this genre, no matter what you thought of his bloodthirsty Evil Dead remake? In the confines of this house of horrors he is able to let The Blind Man (Stephen Lang) run riot as he attempts to put a stop to the break-in.
There is a sense that Alvarez is toying with his audience, in a bid to starve off the ending. He’s having too much fun. The atmosphere is excruciatingly tense, particularly when The Blind Man levels the playing field in the basement by turning off all the lights. A neat twist in the story tries to create empathy, but it’s a little too late for that and the final act ramps up the suspense to Hitchcockian levels.
Any other person would have dropped the money and looked for a way out as quickly as possible. That is not the case here as each opportunity to escape is met with a roadblock that send the burglars back down a different path. The home invasion horror has been around for a while but done right it can be incredibly effective and in this case Don’t Breathe gets it spot on.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Silver Streak (1976) in Movies
Jun 7, 2020
The start of a wonderful comedic partnership
Most people remember Gene Wilder as the frazzled haired wild man in such Mel Brooks classic films as THE PRODUCERS, BLAZING SADDLES and YOUNG FRANKENSTEIN. Others will recall him as the mad genius that held our attention in WILLY WONKA AND THE CHOCOLATE FACTORY, but there was a 3rd phase to Wilder's career - his unlikely partnership with Richard Pryor - that started with 1976's SILVER STREAK.
Set aboard the titular passenger train, SILVER STREAK is part Alfred Hitchcock "wrong man" suspense thriller, part comedy and part action flick with strong performances at the center anchoring the action.
Surprisingly, Wilder brings a sincere quality to his "everyman" hero of this tale. His book editor, George Caldwell, just wants a quiet 2 1/2 day trip on the train from Los Angeles to Chicago. You root for George from the start. Wilder's performance is deftly tailored to this movie, keeping a lid on his more frenetic energy that helps keep his character grounded. He pairs nicely with Jill Clayburgh (remember her from the '70's?) as a women he meets (and falls in love with) along the way. Clayburgh burst into the spotlight with this performance - and the 2 have tremendous chemistry together.
They are joined by a bevy of wonderful character actors - Ray Walston, Richard "Jaws" Kiel, Ned Beatty, Clifton James, Valerie Curtin, Fred Willard and the great Scatman Crothers. All bring life and energy to this film. Patrick McGoohan is perfectly cast as the villain of the piece. His "buttoned-up" bad guy is the perfect balance to the Wilder's character.
But, of course, the person who steals this film is the great Richard Pryor as Grover T. Muldoon, a petty thief, con-man and "street-wise" hood who aids George in defeating the bad guys. Pryor doesn't show up in this movie until about 1/2 way through, but when he does, the energy (and pace) of this film picks up considerably and the roller coaster ride begins. The comedic partnership between Wilder and Pryor is magnificent, they play off each other very well and they will end up pairing together in 3 other films after this.
Director Arthur Hiller (THE AMERICANIZATION OF EMILY) does a strong, professional job of keeping the movie moving, keeping events grounded until a thrilling conclusion that is satisfying, indeed.
A fun action-thriller that is perfect summer fodder.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Set aboard the titular passenger train, SILVER STREAK is part Alfred Hitchcock "wrong man" suspense thriller, part comedy and part action flick with strong performances at the center anchoring the action.
Surprisingly, Wilder brings a sincere quality to his "everyman" hero of this tale. His book editor, George Caldwell, just wants a quiet 2 1/2 day trip on the train from Los Angeles to Chicago. You root for George from the start. Wilder's performance is deftly tailored to this movie, keeping a lid on his more frenetic energy that helps keep his character grounded. He pairs nicely with Jill Clayburgh (remember her from the '70's?) as a women he meets (and falls in love with) along the way. Clayburgh burst into the spotlight with this performance - and the 2 have tremendous chemistry together.
They are joined by a bevy of wonderful character actors - Ray Walston, Richard "Jaws" Kiel, Ned Beatty, Clifton James, Valerie Curtin, Fred Willard and the great Scatman Crothers. All bring life and energy to this film. Patrick McGoohan is perfectly cast as the villain of the piece. His "buttoned-up" bad guy is the perfect balance to the Wilder's character.
But, of course, the person who steals this film is the great Richard Pryor as Grover T. Muldoon, a petty thief, con-man and "street-wise" hood who aids George in defeating the bad guys. Pryor doesn't show up in this movie until about 1/2 way through, but when he does, the energy (and pace) of this film picks up considerably and the roller coaster ride begins. The comedic partnership between Wilder and Pryor is magnificent, they play off each other very well and they will end up pairing together in 3 other films after this.
Director Arthur Hiller (THE AMERICANIZATION OF EMILY) does a strong, professional job of keeping the movie moving, keeping events grounded until a thrilling conclusion that is satisfying, indeed.
A fun action-thriller that is perfect summer fodder.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated All of Me (1984) in Movies
Jul 28, 2020
Wonderful physical comedy performance by Martin
Over the history of cinema, there are certain Director/Lead Actor pairings that are perfect for each other. John Ford/John Wayne, Alfred Hitchcock/Jimmy Stewart, Martin Scorcese/Robert DeNiro, Steven Spielberg/Tom Hanks all come to mind. Add to that the inspired comedic pairing of Director Carl Reiner and the great Steve Martin.
Starting with THE JERK (1979), Martin and Reiner would make 4 films together the last of which was the 1984 comedy ALL OF ME starring Martin and Lilly Tomlin. And like all Reiner/Martin comedies this one is smartly written with heart and a physically comedic performance by Martin that must be seen to believed.
Martin stars as Lawyer Martin Cobb, an aspiring musician who views his lawyer job as a means to support his dream of becoming a musician. Lilly Tomlin co-stars as one of Martin's clients - a dour, serious millionaire who's dying wish is to have her soul transferred into the body of a younger woman. When the transfer goes wrong, Tomlin finds herself inside Martin's body and the two polar opposites spar each other whilst inside the same body.
A pretty ridiculous premise that is executed wonderfully under the watchful Direction of Reiner. He pushes the premise far - but not too far - focusing (wisely) most of the attention of this movie on Martin and his body's maniacal behavior as both Martin and Tomlin wrestle for control of his body.
Martin, of course, is perfectly cast in a role that was tailor made for him. His physical comedy skills are well used by Reiner and the scene of Martin walking down the street in control of the left side of his body while Tomlin is in control of the right side of his body is worth the price of admission right there. But Martin brings a heart and warmth to his character as well as his well known personae of a person who thinks he is the only sane one in the room - where, in fact, he is the INSANE one.
Tomlin fares less well in her role - being trapped (literally) inside Martin's body and is only seen as reflections in a mirror. Here character is the polar opposite of Martin's, so while Martin is "wild and crazy", she is dour and buttoned up - and this doesn't do her any favors.
Special notice needs to be made of Richard Libertini's turn as Prahka Lasa, the well-meaning "yogi" who is the conduit of the body switching soul. His limited English, earnest and well meaning almost steals the film from Martin.
All in all, an enjoyable evening at the movies which showcases Reiner's ability as a Director and Martin's ability as a gifted, physical comedian very well.
Letter Grade: B+
7 1/2 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Starting with THE JERK (1979), Martin and Reiner would make 4 films together the last of which was the 1984 comedy ALL OF ME starring Martin and Lilly Tomlin. And like all Reiner/Martin comedies this one is smartly written with heart and a physically comedic performance by Martin that must be seen to believed.
Martin stars as Lawyer Martin Cobb, an aspiring musician who views his lawyer job as a means to support his dream of becoming a musician. Lilly Tomlin co-stars as one of Martin's clients - a dour, serious millionaire who's dying wish is to have her soul transferred into the body of a younger woman. When the transfer goes wrong, Tomlin finds herself inside Martin's body and the two polar opposites spar each other whilst inside the same body.
A pretty ridiculous premise that is executed wonderfully under the watchful Direction of Reiner. He pushes the premise far - but not too far - focusing (wisely) most of the attention of this movie on Martin and his body's maniacal behavior as both Martin and Tomlin wrestle for control of his body.
Martin, of course, is perfectly cast in a role that was tailor made for him. His physical comedy skills are well used by Reiner and the scene of Martin walking down the street in control of the left side of his body while Tomlin is in control of the right side of his body is worth the price of admission right there. But Martin brings a heart and warmth to his character as well as his well known personae of a person who thinks he is the only sane one in the room - where, in fact, he is the INSANE one.
Tomlin fares less well in her role - being trapped (literally) inside Martin's body and is only seen as reflections in a mirror. Here character is the polar opposite of Martin's, so while Martin is "wild and crazy", she is dour and buttoned up - and this doesn't do her any favors.
Special notice needs to be made of Richard Libertini's turn as Prahka Lasa, the well-meaning "yogi" who is the conduit of the body switching soul. His limited English, earnest and well meaning almost steals the film from Martin.
All in all, an enjoyable evening at the movies which showcases Reiner's ability as a Director and Martin's ability as a gifted, physical comedian very well.
Letter Grade: B+
7 1/2 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated Catfish (2010) in Movies
Jun 22, 2019 (Updated Jun 23, 2019)
Nev Schulman is a photographer of dance that catches the eye of an 8 year old girl named Abby when one of his pictures is published nationally. She sends Nev a painting of his published picture, which begins a rather incredible friendship. Nev eventually gets the chance to talk to Abby's mom, Angela, and her older sister, Megan. Megan and Nev really start to hit it off and a relationship begins to form. That is until many of the things Megan has been telling Nev begin drifting further and further from the truth. Nev decides to fly to Michigan and get the answers he so desperately desires.
If somebody made me choose a favorite film genre, psychological thriller would quite possibly be my answer. Films that include incredible twist endings (Oldboy) or have elaborate storylines that make you think (Inception) are definitely some of the best times to be had when it comes to an entertaining movie experience. Catfish was marketed as a film that was not only a thriller, but also contained "a shattering conclusion" that was compared to Alfred Hitchcock. In the end, it didn't really have either of those things.
Catfish had this vibe the entire film like it was leading towards something dark near its conclusion. As Nev makes his way to Michigan, you get more and more anxious as he nears his destination. Even the music gets really unsettling. Is Megan's family going to be a bunch of chainsaw wielding cannibals or have Angela and Vince been keeping a kidnapped girl named Megan chained in their basement for weeks to lead young, single guys out there for them to torture as some sort of twisted way to get off? No, it's nothing like that. Catfish never really became thrilling or even came near diving into dark territory.
What Catfish winds up being is an interesting character study presented as a documentary. The film's heart resides in who Megan really is and how the entire experience affects Nev. Once the pieces of the puzzle are put together and everything falls into place, Catfish turns out to be a very raw, emotional, and heartfelt film. What's intriguing is the film revolves around Facebook and with The Social Network hitting theaters in about two weeks, it seems like a bit of a bold move.
What is arguably the best scene in the film is when it's actually explained why Catfish was chosen as the title in the final minutes. It is a pretty incredible explanation and fits the film perfectly.
Catfish isn't necessarily a bad film, in fact, it's pretty powerful once it really gets going. It probably isn't what you're expecting though. While Catfish is laugh out loud at certain points in the film, at its core, it's a documented love story that mostly resides on the internet. Maybe it just comes from personal experience, the way the film was presented, or the on-screen presence of the characters in the film, but Catfish felt genuine which isn't something that can be said about many films that have come out in 2010.
If somebody made me choose a favorite film genre, psychological thriller would quite possibly be my answer. Films that include incredible twist endings (Oldboy) or have elaborate storylines that make you think (Inception) are definitely some of the best times to be had when it comes to an entertaining movie experience. Catfish was marketed as a film that was not only a thriller, but also contained "a shattering conclusion" that was compared to Alfred Hitchcock. In the end, it didn't really have either of those things.
Catfish had this vibe the entire film like it was leading towards something dark near its conclusion. As Nev makes his way to Michigan, you get more and more anxious as he nears his destination. Even the music gets really unsettling. Is Megan's family going to be a bunch of chainsaw wielding cannibals or have Angela and Vince been keeping a kidnapped girl named Megan chained in their basement for weeks to lead young, single guys out there for them to torture as some sort of twisted way to get off? No, it's nothing like that. Catfish never really became thrilling or even came near diving into dark territory.
What Catfish winds up being is an interesting character study presented as a documentary. The film's heart resides in who Megan really is and how the entire experience affects Nev. Once the pieces of the puzzle are put together and everything falls into place, Catfish turns out to be a very raw, emotional, and heartfelt film. What's intriguing is the film revolves around Facebook and with The Social Network hitting theaters in about two weeks, it seems like a bit of a bold move.
What is arguably the best scene in the film is when it's actually explained why Catfish was chosen as the title in the final minutes. It is a pretty incredible explanation and fits the film perfectly.
Catfish isn't necessarily a bad film, in fact, it's pretty powerful once it really gets going. It probably isn't what you're expecting though. While Catfish is laugh out loud at certain points in the film, at its core, it's a documented love story that mostly resides on the internet. Maybe it just comes from personal experience, the way the film was presented, or the on-screen presence of the characters in the film, but Catfish felt genuine which isn't something that can be said about many films that have come out in 2010.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Knives Out (2019) in Movies
Dec 4, 2019
If they were to give it a go, this movie should justifiably be Rian's redemption from the harshest of his previous critics. For this is a really entertaining film. I found myself smiling with glee through a sizable proportion of the running time.
Multi-millionaire crime-fiction author Harlan Thrombey (the wonderful Christopher Plummer) is celebrating his 85th birthday with three generations of his family in his "Cludo-like" mansion. But all is not well with the family harmonic and the next morning Harlan is found dead in his room by his nurse Marta (Ana de Armas). Apparently, it's a suicide, but when private detective Benoit Blanc (Daniel Craig) arrives on the scene he starts turning over stones "oin seearch ov tha troooth" (sic) and dark secrets begin to emerge.
Key to success of this Agatha Christie-style movie is a dense portmanteau cast and a well-plotted script. Both are here present.
In terms of the cast, this is another candidate for the SAG Ensemble Cast award. For the cast is suitably stellar with Chris "Cap" Evans, Toni Collette, Michael Shannon, Jamie Lee Curtis and Don Johnson vying for the top billing with Craig and Plummer. They bounce off each other joyously, with Collette taking my prize for top acting kudos. She's just deliciously over the top as the scheming hippy chick with the rasping voice and the cutting one-liners.
With a starring role is Cuban bombshell Ana de Armas, here notching down the glamour to play the plainly dressed nurse. But she has a magnetic screen presence and is perfectly cast as the girl at the heart of all the action. She has the doe-eyed innocence that Alfred Hitchcock was always looking for in his leading ladies. Interestingly, she is soon to appear with Craig again as Bond-girl Paloma in "No Time to Die".
Elsewhere in the cast are some interesting cameos: the family's lawyer is none other than Frank "Yoda" Oz; and the ancient security guard is M. Emmet Walsh, who has an amazing filmography going back to the late 60's.
Writer/director is clearly his 'thing'. But Rian Johnson here pulls off a neat trick with the script which is brilliantly twisty and turny and 100% entertaining. Although it's presented as cuts between the 'present time' and versions of the night in question, the whole doughnut is never entirely in view until the final reel. It's a satisfying story, and some of the dialogue is laugh-out-loud funny.
A nice plot point is the inability for young Marta to tell a lie without vomiting. Wouldn't the UK General Elections be Sooooo much more colourful if that was a general trait!!
I've only the one real criticism of the movie, and that's Daniel Craig's appalling Southern drawl. It's really quite distracting. Aside from some witty lines of dialogue ("What is this? CSI KFC?") nothing would have been lost to cast him as an urbane English detective instead. They could have slipped in some Brexit jokes instead! I appreciate Craig wants to distance himself from Bond somewhat. He did the same thing as Joe Bang in "Logan Lucky". But - sorry - it didn't really work for me then and it doesn't work now either.
In summary, this is a really fun movie that a whole family with older children (the rating is 12+) can go and enjoy together. There's limited violence; limited swearing and sexual innuendo; and no sex (save for the Hitler youth in the bathroom!). But there is a whole lot of sleuthing fun to be had. Bravo Mr Johnson, bravo! For that reason it comes with a bob-the-movie-man "Highly recommended" tag.
(For the full graphical review please check out https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2019/12/04/one-manns-movies-film-review-knives-out-2019/).
Multi-millionaire crime-fiction author Harlan Thrombey (the wonderful Christopher Plummer) is celebrating his 85th birthday with three generations of his family in his "Cludo-like" mansion. But all is not well with the family harmonic and the next morning Harlan is found dead in his room by his nurse Marta (Ana de Armas). Apparently, it's a suicide, but when private detective Benoit Blanc (Daniel Craig) arrives on the scene he starts turning over stones "oin seearch ov tha troooth" (sic) and dark secrets begin to emerge.
Key to success of this Agatha Christie-style movie is a dense portmanteau cast and a well-plotted script. Both are here present.
In terms of the cast, this is another candidate for the SAG Ensemble Cast award. For the cast is suitably stellar with Chris "Cap" Evans, Toni Collette, Michael Shannon, Jamie Lee Curtis and Don Johnson vying for the top billing with Craig and Plummer. They bounce off each other joyously, with Collette taking my prize for top acting kudos. She's just deliciously over the top as the scheming hippy chick with the rasping voice and the cutting one-liners.
With a starring role is Cuban bombshell Ana de Armas, here notching down the glamour to play the plainly dressed nurse. But she has a magnetic screen presence and is perfectly cast as the girl at the heart of all the action. She has the doe-eyed innocence that Alfred Hitchcock was always looking for in his leading ladies. Interestingly, she is soon to appear with Craig again as Bond-girl Paloma in "No Time to Die".
Elsewhere in the cast are some interesting cameos: the family's lawyer is none other than Frank "Yoda" Oz; and the ancient security guard is M. Emmet Walsh, who has an amazing filmography going back to the late 60's.
Writer/director is clearly his 'thing'. But Rian Johnson here pulls off a neat trick with the script which is brilliantly twisty and turny and 100% entertaining. Although it's presented as cuts between the 'present time' and versions of the night in question, the whole doughnut is never entirely in view until the final reel. It's a satisfying story, and some of the dialogue is laugh-out-loud funny.
A nice plot point is the inability for young Marta to tell a lie without vomiting. Wouldn't the UK General Elections be Sooooo much more colourful if that was a general trait!!
I've only the one real criticism of the movie, and that's Daniel Craig's appalling Southern drawl. It's really quite distracting. Aside from some witty lines of dialogue ("What is this? CSI KFC?") nothing would have been lost to cast him as an urbane English detective instead. They could have slipped in some Brexit jokes instead! I appreciate Craig wants to distance himself from Bond somewhat. He did the same thing as Joe Bang in "Logan Lucky". But - sorry - it didn't really work for me then and it doesn't work now either.
In summary, this is a really fun movie that a whole family with older children (the rating is 12+) can go and enjoy together. There's limited violence; limited swearing and sexual innuendo; and no sex (save for the Hitler youth in the bathroom!). But there is a whole lot of sleuthing fun to be had. Bravo Mr Johnson, bravo! For that reason it comes with a bob-the-movie-man "Highly recommended" tag.
(For the full graphical review please check out https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2019/12/04/one-manns-movies-film-review-knives-out-2019/).
