Search
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Marnie (1964) in Movies
Nov 6, 2020
Mediocre Hitchcock - but still pretty good
Heading into 1964, Alfred Hitchcock was on quite a roll. He had just rolled out - in order, VERTIGO (1958), NORTH BY NORTHWEST (1959), PSYCHO (1960) and THE BIRDS (1963) and his anthology series ALFRED HITCHCOCK PRESENTS had made him into a household name throughout the world. So it was with great anticipation/expectation that the world awaited his next major motion picture.
And while this film, MARNIE was not the critical or commercial success of his previous outings, it still has enough good in it that makes it a worthwhile film to watch.
Starring Tippi Hedren (THE BIRDS) and Sean Connery (fresh off his James Bond success in DR. NO and FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE), MARNIE is, basically, a "two-hander" (a film that is primarily focused on conversation between 2 people) about an habitual thief, Marnie, with deep psychological troubles who is loved (and handled) by a man who is seeking to get to the root of what makes her tick.
And..in someone else's hands..this film could have been overly melodramatic, but in Hitchcock's adroit hands, it is a deep and disturbing psychological thriller that succeeds more often than it doesn't.
Starting with what works, Hitchcock's Direction (obviously) is at the fore. He knows how to play out a moment - especially a scene where Marnie steals from a safe. Hitchcock locks the camera in place and plays the scene with no music and just letting the events play out. It is a typical suspenseful Hitchcock scene and very well done.
The other thing that works is the performance of Connery. His charm and screen charisma shines brightly. making a problematic character like the one Connery portrays seemingly benign. Also...Tippi Hedren's performance at the end of this movie almost rescues her character...almost.
What doesn't work? Well...let's start with the title character, Marnie, as played by Hedren. She just doesn't have the charisma and charm of Connery and never really brings her character to life. She overacts at times when she has one of her "episodes" (I would think that both Hitchcock and Hedren share the blame for this) it is almost laughable in it's over-acting and she just seems in over her head with this role. It is said that Hitchcock had the film and role of Marnie written specifically as a comeback vehicle for Grace Kelly. It is too bad that this didn't come to pass, as I would have LOVED to see what an actress of her caliber would have done with this role.
The other thing that doesn't really work for me is the 2 characters at the forefront of this film. Both Hedren's Marnie and Connery's Mark Rutland are not likeable (though, as I said earlier, Connery's charm and charisma rescue's the Rutland character), but neither of these characters are ones that us, the audience, particularly care for - and that is a problem with a film that is pretty much focused on these characters.
Not one of Hitchcock's best...but still good...and the ending almost makes up for the weaknesses of the earlier parts of the movie.
Letter Grade: B
7 stars (out of 10) - even mediocre Hitchcock is till pretty good.
And...you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
And while this film, MARNIE was not the critical or commercial success of his previous outings, it still has enough good in it that makes it a worthwhile film to watch.
Starring Tippi Hedren (THE BIRDS) and Sean Connery (fresh off his James Bond success in DR. NO and FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE), MARNIE is, basically, a "two-hander" (a film that is primarily focused on conversation between 2 people) about an habitual thief, Marnie, with deep psychological troubles who is loved (and handled) by a man who is seeking to get to the root of what makes her tick.
And..in someone else's hands..this film could have been overly melodramatic, but in Hitchcock's adroit hands, it is a deep and disturbing psychological thriller that succeeds more often than it doesn't.
Starting with what works, Hitchcock's Direction (obviously) is at the fore. He knows how to play out a moment - especially a scene where Marnie steals from a safe. Hitchcock locks the camera in place and plays the scene with no music and just letting the events play out. It is a typical suspenseful Hitchcock scene and very well done.
The other thing that works is the performance of Connery. His charm and screen charisma shines brightly. making a problematic character like the one Connery portrays seemingly benign. Also...Tippi Hedren's performance at the end of this movie almost rescues her character...almost.
What doesn't work? Well...let's start with the title character, Marnie, as played by Hedren. She just doesn't have the charisma and charm of Connery and never really brings her character to life. She overacts at times when she has one of her "episodes" (I would think that both Hitchcock and Hedren share the blame for this) it is almost laughable in it's over-acting and she just seems in over her head with this role. It is said that Hitchcock had the film and role of Marnie written specifically as a comeback vehicle for Grace Kelly. It is too bad that this didn't come to pass, as I would have LOVED to see what an actress of her caliber would have done with this role.
The other thing that doesn't really work for me is the 2 characters at the forefront of this film. Both Hedren's Marnie and Connery's Mark Rutland are not likeable (though, as I said earlier, Connery's charm and charisma rescue's the Rutland character), but neither of these characters are ones that us, the audience, particularly care for - and that is a problem with a film that is pretty much focused on these characters.
Not one of Hitchcock's best...but still good...and the ending almost makes up for the weaknesses of the earlier parts of the movie.
Letter Grade: B
7 stars (out of 10) - even mediocre Hitchcock is till pretty good.
And...you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Long Shot (2019) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
#Punching.
#Punching refers to an in-family joke….. my WhatsApp reply to my son when he sent me a picture of his new “Brazilian supermodel girlfriend” (she’s not). Bronwyn is now my daughter-in-law!
Similarly, the ‘out-there’ journalist Fred Flarsky (Seth Rogan) has been holding a candle for the glacial ice-queen Charlotte Field (Charlize Theron) for nearly twenty years. At the age of 16 she was his babysitter. Always with an interest in school issues, she has now risen to the dizzy heights of secretary (“of State”) to the President of the United States (Bob Odenkirk). With Charlotte getting the opportunity to run for President, fate arranges for Fred to get hired as a speechwriter on the team to help inject some necessary humour into Charlotte’s icy public persona. But in terms of romantic options, the shell-suited Fred is surely #punching isn’t he?
A rare thing.
Getting the balance right for a “romantic comedy” is a tricky job, but “Long Shot” just about gets it spot on. The comedy is sharp with a whole heap of great lines, some of which will need a second watch to catch. It’s also pleasingly politically incorrect, with US news anchors in particular being lampooned for their appallingly sexist language.
Just occasionally, the humour flips into Farrelly-levels of dubious taste (one “Mary-style” incident in particular was, for me, very funny but might test some viewer’s “ugh” button). The film also earns its UK15 certificate from the extensive array of “F” words utilized, and for some casual drug use.
Romantically, the film harks back to a classic blockbuster of 1990, but is well done and touching.
Writing and Directing
The sharp and tight screenplay was written by Dan Sterling, who wrote the internationally controversial Seth Rogen/James Franco comedy “The Interview” from 2014, and Liz Hannah, whose movie screenplay debut was the Spielberg drama “The Post“.
Behind the camera is Jonathan Levine, who previously directed the pretty awful “Snatched” from 2017 (a film I have started watching on a plane but never finished) but on the flip side he has on his bio the interesting rom-com-zombie film “Warm Bodies” and the moving cancer comedy “50:50”, also with Rogan, from 2011.
Also worthy of note in the technical department is the cinematography by Yves Bélanger (“The Mule“, “Brooklyn“, “Dallas Buyers Club“) with some lovely angles and tracking shots (a kitchen dance scene has an impressively leisurely track-away).
The Cast
Seth Rogen is a bit of an acquired taste: he’s like the US version of Johnny Vegas. Here he is suitably geeky when he needs to be, but has the range to make some of the pathos work in the inevitable “downer” scenes. Theron is absolutely gorgeous on-screen (although unlike the US anchors I OBVIOUSLY also appreciate her style and acting ability!). She really is the Grace Kelly of the modern age. She’s no stranger to comedy, having been in the other Seth (Macfarlane)’s “A Million Ways to Die in the West“. But she seems to be more comfortable with this material, and again gets the mix of comedy, romance and drama spot-on.
The strong supporting cast includes the unknown (to me) June Diane Raphael who is very effective at the cock-blocking Maggie, Charlotte’s aide; O’Shea Jackson Jr. as Fred’s buddy Lance; and Ravi Patel as the staffer Tom.
But winning the prize for the most unrecognizable cast member was Andy Serkis as the wizened old Rupert Murdoch-style media tycoon Parker Wembley: I genuinely got a shock as the titles rolled that this was him.
Final thoughts.
Although possibly causing offence to some, this is a fine example of a US comedy that delivers consistent laughs. Most of the audience chatter coming out of the screening was positive. At just over 2 hours, it breaks my “90 minute comedy” rule, but just about gets away with it. It’s not quite for me at the bar of “Game Night“, but it’s pretty close. Recommended.
#Punching refers to an in-family joke….. my WhatsApp reply to my son when he sent me a picture of his new “Brazilian supermodel girlfriend” (she’s not). Bronwyn is now my daughter-in-law!
Similarly, the ‘out-there’ journalist Fred Flarsky (Seth Rogan) has been holding a candle for the glacial ice-queen Charlotte Field (Charlize Theron) for nearly twenty years. At the age of 16 she was his babysitter. Always with an interest in school issues, she has now risen to the dizzy heights of secretary (“of State”) to the President of the United States (Bob Odenkirk). With Charlotte getting the opportunity to run for President, fate arranges for Fred to get hired as a speechwriter on the team to help inject some necessary humour into Charlotte’s icy public persona. But in terms of romantic options, the shell-suited Fred is surely #punching isn’t he?
A rare thing.
Getting the balance right for a “romantic comedy” is a tricky job, but “Long Shot” just about gets it spot on. The comedy is sharp with a whole heap of great lines, some of which will need a second watch to catch. It’s also pleasingly politically incorrect, with US news anchors in particular being lampooned for their appallingly sexist language.
Just occasionally, the humour flips into Farrelly-levels of dubious taste (one “Mary-style” incident in particular was, for me, very funny but might test some viewer’s “ugh” button). The film also earns its UK15 certificate from the extensive array of “F” words utilized, and for some casual drug use.
Romantically, the film harks back to a classic blockbuster of 1990, but is well done and touching.
Writing and Directing
The sharp and tight screenplay was written by Dan Sterling, who wrote the internationally controversial Seth Rogen/James Franco comedy “The Interview” from 2014, and Liz Hannah, whose movie screenplay debut was the Spielberg drama “The Post“.
Behind the camera is Jonathan Levine, who previously directed the pretty awful “Snatched” from 2017 (a film I have started watching on a plane but never finished) but on the flip side he has on his bio the interesting rom-com-zombie film “Warm Bodies” and the moving cancer comedy “50:50”, also with Rogan, from 2011.
Also worthy of note in the technical department is the cinematography by Yves Bélanger (“The Mule“, “Brooklyn“, “Dallas Buyers Club“) with some lovely angles and tracking shots (a kitchen dance scene has an impressively leisurely track-away).
The Cast
Seth Rogen is a bit of an acquired taste: he’s like the US version of Johnny Vegas. Here he is suitably geeky when he needs to be, but has the range to make some of the pathos work in the inevitable “downer” scenes. Theron is absolutely gorgeous on-screen (although unlike the US anchors I OBVIOUSLY also appreciate her style and acting ability!). She really is the Grace Kelly of the modern age. She’s no stranger to comedy, having been in the other Seth (Macfarlane)’s “A Million Ways to Die in the West“. But she seems to be more comfortable with this material, and again gets the mix of comedy, romance and drama spot-on.
The strong supporting cast includes the unknown (to me) June Diane Raphael who is very effective at the cock-blocking Maggie, Charlotte’s aide; O’Shea Jackson Jr. as Fred’s buddy Lance; and Ravi Patel as the staffer Tom.
But winning the prize for the most unrecognizable cast member was Andy Serkis as the wizened old Rupert Murdoch-style media tycoon Parker Wembley: I genuinely got a shock as the titles rolled that this was him.
Final thoughts.
Although possibly causing offence to some, this is a fine example of a US comedy that delivers consistent laughs. Most of the audience chatter coming out of the screening was positive. At just over 2 hours, it breaks my “90 minute comedy” rule, but just about gets away with it. It’s not quite for me at the bar of “Game Night“, but it’s pretty close. Recommended.