Search
The Open Boat
Book
None of them knew the color of the sky. Their eyes glanced level, and were fastened upon the waves...
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Vampires Suck (2010) in Movies
Aug 8, 2019
Vampires suck – but does the movie? We open on the San Salvatore Festival with the angsty Becca watching her beau, Edward Sullen, disrobe and expose his sparkly secrets- he’s a vampire! Cue the “True Blood- 40oz” toting, Mono-fang vampire to take Edward out….wait, we have to get the rest of the story! What follows is a parody of the first two movies of the Twilight Saga. Most of the characters analogous to the spoof’s target are introduced in the first 30 minutes; few of them are actually seen again throughout the movie.
Becca (newcomer Jenn Proske) is forced to move to Sporks, Washington, with her deadbeat father and town sheriff, Frank Crane (Diedrich Bader of The Drew Carey Show). Frank’s best friend is the rough-and-tumble paraplegic Native American, Bobby. His contribution to the plot is his hunky teenage son, Jacob White (Chris Riggi of Gossip Girl). The town of Sporks seems to have vampires on the brain and its population is only growing smaller.
Our heroine is introduced to Edward Sullen (Matt Lanter of Disaster Movie) and what follows is the “classic” story of girl-meets-vampire, girl-loses-vampire, girl-gets-threatened-by-vampire-nemesis, etc. Writers/Directors Jason Friedberg and Aaron Seltzer use their formulaic approach to spoof movies by making the plot a cliff-notes version of the Stephanie Meyer’s original material, with ample jokes thrown in-in an attempt to beef up their rendition.
In fact, there are so many visual jokes in the movie that it left me wondering what a sight-impaired person might conclude of the movie. “What are all these people laughing at?” I noticed a few of the dialogue driven jokes weren’t even played off by the actors. They seemed to have been missed by everyone, including the editors. Other jokes are pop-culture references that will get stale with time. They’re integrated well, but definitely dated. The movie is redolent with the classic American comedy tradition of slapstick, which occasionally comes off as funny.
The production value left something to be desired as several scenes were obviously one-takes. I counted several instances where Becca’s kiss left Edward’s mouth with a smudge of his own flesh-tone showing through. But hey- at least single takes have continuity, right? The contacts, no doubt purchased in bulk, gave the characters an occasional Marty Feldman goggly-look. The effect is hilarious, although I’m not always sure if it’s intentional.
The cast has its standouts. Jenn Proske’s Becca comes dangerously close (like copyright-violating close) to the performance of Kristen Stewart’s Bella as the fidgety, twitchy, sullen and hormone-y heroine. And Ken Jeong (The Hangover) as Daro, while not appearing on screen much, definitely makes his comedic presence felt.
All in all, “Vampires Suck” didn’t really suck… it kind of chews, like gum. Gum out of the package is fresh, flavorful, but the longer you chew it, the tougher and more stale it becomes. This movie is fresh, funny, and quirky right now, but it won’t stand the test of time like more accomplished parodies.
Becca (newcomer Jenn Proske) is forced to move to Sporks, Washington, with her deadbeat father and town sheriff, Frank Crane (Diedrich Bader of The Drew Carey Show). Frank’s best friend is the rough-and-tumble paraplegic Native American, Bobby. His contribution to the plot is his hunky teenage son, Jacob White (Chris Riggi of Gossip Girl). The town of Sporks seems to have vampires on the brain and its population is only growing smaller.
Our heroine is introduced to Edward Sullen (Matt Lanter of Disaster Movie) and what follows is the “classic” story of girl-meets-vampire, girl-loses-vampire, girl-gets-threatened-by-vampire-nemesis, etc. Writers/Directors Jason Friedberg and Aaron Seltzer use their formulaic approach to spoof movies by making the plot a cliff-notes version of the Stephanie Meyer’s original material, with ample jokes thrown in-in an attempt to beef up their rendition.
In fact, there are so many visual jokes in the movie that it left me wondering what a sight-impaired person might conclude of the movie. “What are all these people laughing at?” I noticed a few of the dialogue driven jokes weren’t even played off by the actors. They seemed to have been missed by everyone, including the editors. Other jokes are pop-culture references that will get stale with time. They’re integrated well, but definitely dated. The movie is redolent with the classic American comedy tradition of slapstick, which occasionally comes off as funny.
The production value left something to be desired as several scenes were obviously one-takes. I counted several instances where Becca’s kiss left Edward’s mouth with a smudge of his own flesh-tone showing through. But hey- at least single takes have continuity, right? The contacts, no doubt purchased in bulk, gave the characters an occasional Marty Feldman goggly-look. The effect is hilarious, although I’m not always sure if it’s intentional.
The cast has its standouts. Jenn Proske’s Becca comes dangerously close (like copyright-violating close) to the performance of Kristen Stewart’s Bella as the fidgety, twitchy, sullen and hormone-y heroine. And Ken Jeong (The Hangover) as Daro, while not appearing on screen much, definitely makes his comedic presence felt.
All in all, “Vampires Suck” didn’t really suck… it kind of chews, like gum. Gum out of the package is fresh, flavorful, but the longer you chew it, the tougher and more stale it becomes. This movie is fresh, funny, and quirky right now, but it won’t stand the test of time like more accomplished parodies.
Digger Games for Kids and Toddlers : discover the world of excavators ! FREE game
Education and Games
App
Help your child to discover the world of diggers with this great app! A wonderful game and a great...
Tiny Firefighters: Police & Firefighters for Kids
Book and Games
App
Let your kids exploring our world of firefighters and policemen: just tap and watch the scenes...
Lee (2222 KP) rated Skyscraper (2018) in Movies
Jul 13, 2018
Surprising Enjoyable Action Movie
As I headed into Skyscraper at my local cinema, I tweeted something about disengaging my brain for a couple of hours, fully open to the prospect of some completely ridiculous action, courtesy of Dwayne 'The Rock' Johnson. That's exactly what I ended up with, and I actually really enjoyed it all too.
The movie opens 10 years ago, with FBI agent Will Sawyer (Johnson) and his team attending a domestic hostage situation which goes badly wrong. Back in the present, Will is now an amputee and married to the military nurse that cared for him during that incident (Neve Campbell). They've got 2 young kids and the whole family is in Hong Kong where Will has been hired as security consultant for The Pearl, a new state-of-the-art skyscraper and the tallest building in the world. A news reel montage fires off lots of impressive facts and figures about the building, hardly giving you time to digest or even question them. Let's just say, it cost billions of dollars, looks incredibly futuristic (and a bit silly) and is a scientific wonder of the world. Before The Pearl opens up its doors for people to live and work in though, Will needs to sign off on fire safety and security.
We're shown Will putting on his false leg, letting us know how that all works in preparation for later scenes in the movie. Will then fixes his wife's phone before he rushes out of the door and ushers a line so obviously important to the movie it's actually annoyingly distracting. So important is this piece of information, he actually uses two variations of it within minutes of each other too - "Remember, you can fix 90% of problems by just turning it off and on again...". Like I say, just disengage your brain, don't worry about it, and you'll be fine.
If you've seen the trailer, you'll have gathered that Wills family are the only residents in The Pearl, with the buildings owner and his team way up top in the penthouse. You'll have gathered that this is attempting to be a Die Hard / Towering Inferno crossover, and that there are bad guys involved. You'll no doubt have also seen the famous leap from a crane by Dwayne Johnsons character into the burning skyscraper. This is where the movie really kicks into action.
Now, I was watching this in 3D, so I'm not sure if it will have quite the same effect on a TV screen at home, but I was literally on the edge of my seat whenever Will was either dangling or jumping 96 floors in the air (which is a lot), while a Hong Kong crowd gasps and cheers on the streets below. The action and peril is relentless, repeatedly moving Will and his family from one dangerous set piece to another. While not quite as funny or charming as he is in his other movies, Skyscraper is still all about Dwayne Johnson though, and all other characters come out of this pretty short changed. Neve Campbell gets a couple of chances to kick some ass, but otherwise she's pretty underused. The bad guys aren't particularly effective, or memorable, neither are the police team down on the ground.
It's predictable and it's ridiculous. But I absolutely loved it.
The movie opens 10 years ago, with FBI agent Will Sawyer (Johnson) and his team attending a domestic hostage situation which goes badly wrong. Back in the present, Will is now an amputee and married to the military nurse that cared for him during that incident (Neve Campbell). They've got 2 young kids and the whole family is in Hong Kong where Will has been hired as security consultant for The Pearl, a new state-of-the-art skyscraper and the tallest building in the world. A news reel montage fires off lots of impressive facts and figures about the building, hardly giving you time to digest or even question them. Let's just say, it cost billions of dollars, looks incredibly futuristic (and a bit silly) and is a scientific wonder of the world. Before The Pearl opens up its doors for people to live and work in though, Will needs to sign off on fire safety and security.
We're shown Will putting on his false leg, letting us know how that all works in preparation for later scenes in the movie. Will then fixes his wife's phone before he rushes out of the door and ushers a line so obviously important to the movie it's actually annoyingly distracting. So important is this piece of information, he actually uses two variations of it within minutes of each other too - "Remember, you can fix 90% of problems by just turning it off and on again...". Like I say, just disengage your brain, don't worry about it, and you'll be fine.
If you've seen the trailer, you'll have gathered that Wills family are the only residents in The Pearl, with the buildings owner and his team way up top in the penthouse. You'll have gathered that this is attempting to be a Die Hard / Towering Inferno crossover, and that there are bad guys involved. You'll no doubt have also seen the famous leap from a crane by Dwayne Johnsons character into the burning skyscraper. This is where the movie really kicks into action.
Now, I was watching this in 3D, so I'm not sure if it will have quite the same effect on a TV screen at home, but I was literally on the edge of my seat whenever Will was either dangling or jumping 96 floors in the air (which is a lot), while a Hong Kong crowd gasps and cheers on the streets below. The action and peril is relentless, repeatedly moving Will and his family from one dangerous set piece to another. While not quite as funny or charming as he is in his other movies, Skyscraper is still all about Dwayne Johnson though, and all other characters come out of this pretty short changed. Neve Campbell gets a couple of chances to kick some ass, but otherwise she's pretty underused. The bad guys aren't particularly effective, or memorable, neither are the police team down on the ground.
It's predictable and it's ridiculous. But I absolutely loved it.
Kung Fu Panda 2 Storybook
Book and Education
App
★ #1 in Books (iPhone) - May 2011 ★ #2 in Books (iPad) - May 2011 ★ Featured in What's Hot...
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Hamilton (2020) in Movies
Jul 5, 2020
Captures the power of being in "the room where it happens"
I'll just cut to the chase, the filmed version of the mega-hit stage musical HAMILTON (now streaming on Disney+) is terrific. If you are one of the few that have not seen this, check it out - you'll be glad you did.
I could go on and on about the Pulitzer-Prize winning show, the script, the music, the performances and/or the cross-cultural casting - all of which works to perfection, but what separates this film from the other hit Broadway shows that are converted to film is how well that the filmmakers were able to translate the power of being inside the theater during a live performance of this show.
Credit, of course, needs to go to the visionaries responsible for this show, creator/writer/star Lin-Manuel Miranda and Director Thomas Kail. They realized pretty early on (when the show was becoming the phenomenon that it has become) that they wanted to preserve this event for future generations, so started making plans to film the show - in High Def - with an audience and without an audience (for close-ups). In June 2016, about a month before the original cast started leaving the show (and right after the show won 11 Tony Awards), they spent $10 million to capture the show - with live audiences on Sunday and Tuesday and then spent the rest of Sunday night and all day Monday doing close-ups and crane shots to augment the action.
The results are outstanding. The wide-shots show the breadth of the production - showing the strong, Tony Award winning choreography by Andy Blankenbuehler, the unique, minimal and highly versatile set, the Tony Award winning costumes by Paul Tazewell and the Lighting Design that earned Howell Blinkley a Tony. All of these are showcased in this film - special note should be made about the Lighting that needed to be tweaked on the spot for the filming.
As for the close-ups, they showcase the wry smile and comedic delight that Tony winner Daveed Diggs shows in his roles as Lafayette/Jefferson, the power and sorrow of Tony Award winner Renee Elise Goldsberry - her spotlight number SATISFIED is as "perfect" a musical number as you will ever see. The powerful acting of Leslie Odom, Jr. as Aaron Burr (who won the Tony as Best Actor over Lin-Manuel's performance as Hamilton) as well as terrific supporting turns by the likes of Anthony Ramos (Lawrence/Phillip), Chris Jackson (showing real leadership as George Washington) and Okieriete Onaodwoan as Hercules Mulligan (one of my absolute favorite characters in this show)./James Madison.
Special note should be made to Jonathan Groff's portrayal of King George III - it is, basically, a cameo role, but he is filmed with such tight close-ups (showing spittle rolling down has chin as he sings) that marvelously juxtaposes King George's real emotions with that of the words he is speaking.
But, of course, the real star is Lin-Manuel Miranda - the genius creative force behind Hamilton. Interestingly enough, I thought his performance was the weakest of the lead cast (don't get me wrong, he was still excellent - just not "as excellent" as some of the others). His true vision, of course, was to tell the story of "the people of that era" as told by "the people of our era".
That is the true genius of Hamilton.
Letter Grade: A+
10 stars out of 10 (can I turn this up to 11)?
I could go on and on about the Pulitzer-Prize winning show, the script, the music, the performances and/or the cross-cultural casting - all of which works to perfection, but what separates this film from the other hit Broadway shows that are converted to film is how well that the filmmakers were able to translate the power of being inside the theater during a live performance of this show.
Credit, of course, needs to go to the visionaries responsible for this show, creator/writer/star Lin-Manuel Miranda and Director Thomas Kail. They realized pretty early on (when the show was becoming the phenomenon that it has become) that they wanted to preserve this event for future generations, so started making plans to film the show - in High Def - with an audience and without an audience (for close-ups). In June 2016, about a month before the original cast started leaving the show (and right after the show won 11 Tony Awards), they spent $10 million to capture the show - with live audiences on Sunday and Tuesday and then spent the rest of Sunday night and all day Monday doing close-ups and crane shots to augment the action.
The results are outstanding. The wide-shots show the breadth of the production - showing the strong, Tony Award winning choreography by Andy Blankenbuehler, the unique, minimal and highly versatile set, the Tony Award winning costumes by Paul Tazewell and the Lighting Design that earned Howell Blinkley a Tony. All of these are showcased in this film - special note should be made about the Lighting that needed to be tweaked on the spot for the filming.
As for the close-ups, they showcase the wry smile and comedic delight that Tony winner Daveed Diggs shows in his roles as Lafayette/Jefferson, the power and sorrow of Tony Award winner Renee Elise Goldsberry - her spotlight number SATISFIED is as "perfect" a musical number as you will ever see. The powerful acting of Leslie Odom, Jr. as Aaron Burr (who won the Tony as Best Actor over Lin-Manuel's performance as Hamilton) as well as terrific supporting turns by the likes of Anthony Ramos (Lawrence/Phillip), Chris Jackson (showing real leadership as George Washington) and Okieriete Onaodwoan as Hercules Mulligan (one of my absolute favorite characters in this show)./James Madison.
Special note should be made to Jonathan Groff's portrayal of King George III - it is, basically, a cameo role, but he is filmed with such tight close-ups (showing spittle rolling down has chin as he sings) that marvelously juxtaposes King George's real emotions with that of the words he is speaking.
But, of course, the real star is Lin-Manuel Miranda - the genius creative force behind Hamilton. Interestingly enough, I thought his performance was the weakest of the lead cast (don't get me wrong, he was still excellent - just not "as excellent" as some of the others). His true vision, of course, was to tell the story of "the people of that era" as told by "the people of our era".
That is the true genius of Hamilton.
Letter Grade: A+
10 stars out of 10 (can I turn this up to 11)?
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated The Amazing Spider-Man in Apps
Sep 25, 2019
The Amazing Spider-man, starring Andrew Garfield, came out 10 years after Maguire's ill-fated first attempt, on 3rd July 2012. Co-starring some greats, including Emma Stone, Rhys Ifans, Martin Sheen and Sally Fields. You might as well read the last summary for this one too, but add in the fact that he's out to solve his parents' mysterious death.
Peter is less nerd, more loser this time around. And generally he comes across as a bit more sad than before. But you'd expect that as we started the movie with a sad farewell. He has a bit of a "moment" with his dad's old briefcase to push that fact home a bit more.
No field trip for this Peter, instead he gatecrashes an intern enrolment to get a nosy at what might have to do with his parent's past. We learn lessons from this film too... in this one it is super easy to break into what must be highly classified labs.
Peter's transformation happens a lot quicker in this one, much to the trauma of everyone in the subway carriage with him. His little morning rampage gives me visions of Wolverine destroying the sink in X-men Origins: Wolverine... and now I come to think of it, doesn't Cyclops have a meltdown with his powers in a bathroom? What can we learn about this? Superpowers make you hate bathroom fixtures.
Did anyone else notice the guy who runs Jurassic World? Is he trying to pick up tips on how to super charge those dinosaurs? And while we're talking about mystery appearances, I'm torn about Spidey helping The Reaper rescue his son.
Honestly, my favourite line has to be... "Yeah, nobody likes your meatloaf." Sheen and Fields reacting to each other is just priceless.
Uncle Ben dying in this one is a lot more dramatic and sets Peter off on a bit of a crusade that leads to some better green screened wall walking. And some handy falling through a roof into a wrestling arena, gives him an idea for his costume, and we see a montage of him honing his skills and tech... we're a little bit past shooting some white gunk out of our wrists at this point. I like that he points out everything is spandex, yes Parker, there should be other options.
After the big costume reveal I feel like the film drags a bit. It's good, and I enjoy it, but I feel like there's a lot of film for not a lot of plot... does that make sense? Possibly not, but I know what I mean, so it's all good.
Just goes to show you how much I was paying attention in the last one. I missed Stan Lee's cameo. This one was much better, listening to music in his library while it gets destroyed in a fight behind him. Stan Lee, I love you. Genuine hearts all around.
The crane moving scene is, well, a little bit moving. One good deed deserves another, and let's fly a flag in the background for added effect.
We started sad, we end sad. I definitely prefer this film to Spider-man. It isn't without its own flaws though. While Spider-man was just over two hours, it didn't feel like that's how long you were watching for. The Amazing Spider-man felt like 2 hours 16 minutes of screen time. But the ending... she's angry at him, and then he whispers to her, and she gives that little smile, and as she dips her head he knows she's going to forgive him. And we're left with a spark of joy.
Peter is less nerd, more loser this time around. And generally he comes across as a bit more sad than before. But you'd expect that as we started the movie with a sad farewell. He has a bit of a "moment" with his dad's old briefcase to push that fact home a bit more.
No field trip for this Peter, instead he gatecrashes an intern enrolment to get a nosy at what might have to do with his parent's past. We learn lessons from this film too... in this one it is super easy to break into what must be highly classified labs.
Peter's transformation happens a lot quicker in this one, much to the trauma of everyone in the subway carriage with him. His little morning rampage gives me visions of Wolverine destroying the sink in X-men Origins: Wolverine... and now I come to think of it, doesn't Cyclops have a meltdown with his powers in a bathroom? What can we learn about this? Superpowers make you hate bathroom fixtures.
Did anyone else notice the guy who runs Jurassic World? Is he trying to pick up tips on how to super charge those dinosaurs? And while we're talking about mystery appearances, I'm torn about Spidey helping The Reaper rescue his son.
Honestly, my favourite line has to be... "Yeah, nobody likes your meatloaf." Sheen and Fields reacting to each other is just priceless.
Uncle Ben dying in this one is a lot more dramatic and sets Peter off on a bit of a crusade that leads to some better green screened wall walking. And some handy falling through a roof into a wrestling arena, gives him an idea for his costume, and we see a montage of him honing his skills and tech... we're a little bit past shooting some white gunk out of our wrists at this point. I like that he points out everything is spandex, yes Parker, there should be other options.
After the big costume reveal I feel like the film drags a bit. It's good, and I enjoy it, but I feel like there's a lot of film for not a lot of plot... does that make sense? Possibly not, but I know what I mean, so it's all good.
Just goes to show you how much I was paying attention in the last one. I missed Stan Lee's cameo. This one was much better, listening to music in his library while it gets destroyed in a fight behind him. Stan Lee, I love you. Genuine hearts all around.
The crane moving scene is, well, a little bit moving. One good deed deserves another, and let's fly a flag in the background for added effect.
We started sad, we end sad. I definitely prefer this film to Spider-man. It isn't without its own flaws though. While Spider-man was just over two hours, it didn't feel like that's how long you were watching for. The Amazing Spider-man felt like 2 hours 16 minutes of screen time. But the ending... she's angry at him, and then he whispers to her, and she gives that little smile, and as she dips her head he knows she's going to forgive him. And we're left with a spark of joy.
Bedtime Stories For Children
Education and Book
App
**** 180+ New Stories Added **** Story time is learning time with 'Stories For Children: Bedtime...
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Psycho (1960) in Movies
Oct 29, 2018
An all-time great performance by Anthony Perkins
I'm sure all of you have (at least) heard of the 1960 Alfred Hitchcock film, PSYCHO. And I'm sure most of you have seen (at least in part) the famous "shower scene". But when was the last time you really sat down and watched this film? It had been awhile for me and I walked away with the following impression:
PSYCHO is not all that scary, but it is suspenseful as heck with strong Direction by the "Master of Suspense" and very strong performances anchoring the front and back end of the film.
PSYCHO was billed when it came out as a "Janet Leigh Film". So, to give this review context, let's look at who Janet Leigh was at the time. Before shooting PSYCHO, Leigh was generally cast as the ingenue and/or love interest in mainstream fair such as LITTLE WOMEN, ANGELS IN THE OUTFIELD and HOUDINI (a modern "comp" to her might be someone like Anne Hathaway before she started doing "edgier" work). Leigh did show that there was more to her than just being an ingenue when she played the morally ambiguous wife of Charlton Heston's character in Orson Welles' TOUCH OF EVIL. This film (probably) gave Hitchcock the idea to cast Leigh in PSYCHO.
When 1960's audiences first saw Leigh on screen in PSYCHO, I'm sure that most of them were shocked for, instead of being the pure and wholesome ingenue and wife, she plays the entire first scene in a bra and slip. Her character, Marion Crane, is not morally ambiguous, she is morally corrupt - and when Leigh's character has a chance to act on her moral corruptness, she jumps at the chance. The rest of the first half of this film is Leigh trying to get away with her "crime". She is quite good in this part of the film and was nominated for an Oscar for Best Supporting Actress (deservedly so).
And then...Anthony Perkins shows up.
We are about 45 minutes into the 1 hour and 49 minute film when Perkins' Norman Bates first appears on screen and an interesting thing happened - I couldn't take my eyes off of him. I was enjoying Leigh's performance but instantly pushed her aside (and to the background) when Perkins shows up. Without giving plot away, let me say that there is much, much going behind Norman's eyes and the performance by Perkins strongly suggests this, without going over-the-top or being melodramatic. It is a perfect blend of actor, character and performance and I was shocked that he was not even NOMINATED for an Oscar (Peter Ustinov would win for SPARTACUS). Perkins performance is one of the all-time greats with one of the most interesting and unusual characters - and portrayals - of all time.
Much of the credit for Perkins' and Leigh's strong performances have to go to Director Hitchcock who was at the height of his Directing powers (and power). From the "get go", you can feel the Director's hand in this film, building suspense from scene to scene and shot to shot, first with Leigh's character and, later, with Perkins. Both characters are trying to get away with something and Hitchcock pulls his camera in close to make a point - from a distance all seems good, but when you get up close, you can tell that things are very bad, indeed.
The filming of the famous "shower scene" is well documented and is a Master Class in film and editing. It is worth the price of admission on it's own - as is a scene on a staircase with Private Detective Arbogast, played by Martin Balsam. Hitchcock chooses to heighten the realism in this scene on the staircase by going a more esoteric route (rather than traditional filming of the events) and, one can argue, it doesn't belong in this film. Until, that is, you think about it and then it makes great sense and absolutely, positively has to be in this film in that way.
Another aspect of this film that begs to be mentioned is the Film Score by the great Bernard Herrmann - Hitchcock's regular collaborator. The music in this film punctuates the action on the screen - from the persistent beat and pacing of the opening credits music - driving the audience forward into the action - that does not let go, reaching it's peak and crescendo in the shower scene and then floating down gently like an animal catching it's breath after great activity.
Does the entire film hold up almost 60 years later? Almost...but not quite. Most annoying to me was the "wrap-up" scene at the end where a character spells out everything for the audience. As if we are not smart enough to "get it" - and perhaps the audiences in 1960 weren't.
But that is a quibble for a film that is a classic and is one that, if you have not seen (or seen for awhile), begs to be seen. Check out this film, not for the scares, but rather, the suspense that is generated by Hitchcock and his performers throughout. A GREAT entree into the world of Alfred Hitchcock films.
Letter Grade: A
9 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank (ofMarquis)
PSYCHO is not all that scary, but it is suspenseful as heck with strong Direction by the "Master of Suspense" and very strong performances anchoring the front and back end of the film.
PSYCHO was billed when it came out as a "Janet Leigh Film". So, to give this review context, let's look at who Janet Leigh was at the time. Before shooting PSYCHO, Leigh was generally cast as the ingenue and/or love interest in mainstream fair such as LITTLE WOMEN, ANGELS IN THE OUTFIELD and HOUDINI (a modern "comp" to her might be someone like Anne Hathaway before she started doing "edgier" work). Leigh did show that there was more to her than just being an ingenue when she played the morally ambiguous wife of Charlton Heston's character in Orson Welles' TOUCH OF EVIL. This film (probably) gave Hitchcock the idea to cast Leigh in PSYCHO.
When 1960's audiences first saw Leigh on screen in PSYCHO, I'm sure that most of them were shocked for, instead of being the pure and wholesome ingenue and wife, she plays the entire first scene in a bra and slip. Her character, Marion Crane, is not morally ambiguous, she is morally corrupt - and when Leigh's character has a chance to act on her moral corruptness, she jumps at the chance. The rest of the first half of this film is Leigh trying to get away with her "crime". She is quite good in this part of the film and was nominated for an Oscar for Best Supporting Actress (deservedly so).
And then...Anthony Perkins shows up.
We are about 45 minutes into the 1 hour and 49 minute film when Perkins' Norman Bates first appears on screen and an interesting thing happened - I couldn't take my eyes off of him. I was enjoying Leigh's performance but instantly pushed her aside (and to the background) when Perkins shows up. Without giving plot away, let me say that there is much, much going behind Norman's eyes and the performance by Perkins strongly suggests this, without going over-the-top or being melodramatic. It is a perfect blend of actor, character and performance and I was shocked that he was not even NOMINATED for an Oscar (Peter Ustinov would win for SPARTACUS). Perkins performance is one of the all-time greats with one of the most interesting and unusual characters - and portrayals - of all time.
Much of the credit for Perkins' and Leigh's strong performances have to go to Director Hitchcock who was at the height of his Directing powers (and power). From the "get go", you can feel the Director's hand in this film, building suspense from scene to scene and shot to shot, first with Leigh's character and, later, with Perkins. Both characters are trying to get away with something and Hitchcock pulls his camera in close to make a point - from a distance all seems good, but when you get up close, you can tell that things are very bad, indeed.
The filming of the famous "shower scene" is well documented and is a Master Class in film and editing. It is worth the price of admission on it's own - as is a scene on a staircase with Private Detective Arbogast, played by Martin Balsam. Hitchcock chooses to heighten the realism in this scene on the staircase by going a more esoteric route (rather than traditional filming of the events) and, one can argue, it doesn't belong in this film. Until, that is, you think about it and then it makes great sense and absolutely, positively has to be in this film in that way.
Another aspect of this film that begs to be mentioned is the Film Score by the great Bernard Herrmann - Hitchcock's regular collaborator. The music in this film punctuates the action on the screen - from the persistent beat and pacing of the opening credits music - driving the audience forward into the action - that does not let go, reaching it's peak and crescendo in the shower scene and then floating down gently like an animal catching it's breath after great activity.
Does the entire film hold up almost 60 years later? Almost...but not quite. Most annoying to me was the "wrap-up" scene at the end where a character spells out everything for the audience. As if we are not smart enough to "get it" - and perhaps the audiences in 1960 weren't.
But that is a quibble for a film that is a classic and is one that, if you have not seen (or seen for awhile), begs to be seen. Check out this film, not for the scares, but rather, the suspense that is generated by Hitchcock and his performers throughout. A GREAT entree into the world of Alfred Hitchcock films.
Letter Grade: A
9 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank (ofMarquis)