Search
Search results
Lee Sinden (93 KP) created a poll
Apr 24, 2020
J.J. Abrams recommended Rear Window (1954) in Movies (curated)
The Chocolate Lady (94 KP) rated The Girl in White Gloves in Books
Oct 5, 2020
Grace Kelly was a beautiful and talented actor who left a budding but already successful screen and stage career behind to marry a prince, literally. Author Kerri Maher's second novel is all about this special woman. See what I thought of it in my latest #bookreview on my blog here. https://tcl-bookreviews.com/2020/02/28/the-highest-of-serene-societies/
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Rear Window (1954) in Movies
May 14, 2020
Perfect Match of Director and Material
1954's REAR WINDOW is my favorite of all of the Alfred Hitchock films. So when it came time to expose my college-aged children to the works of "the Master of Suspense", it was a "no-brainer" as to which film it would be.
And...they loved it.
Starring "everyman" Jimmy Stewart and the always fabulous Grace Kelly, REAR WINDOW tells the tale of photographer L.B. Jefferies (Stewart) who is laid up in his New York apartment with a broken leg. His only means of entertainment is looking out of the "rear window" of his apartment into the courtyard - and the other apartments (and the people) therein.
This is a treatise on voyeurism and the pairing of this material with a master of film like Hitchcock is a marriage made in heaven. He sets up most of the movie so you are viewing the events as though you are Jefferies - confined to his apartment. Each apartment around the courtyard are their own little viewing boxes. He does a neat, subtle trick in this film. When he pans counter-clockwise, he is just browsing the apartments (like channel surfing on TV). When he pans clockwise - or goes straight to an apartment - he is focusing on that place/story. More often than not, the scenes in the apartments that Jefferies is looking at is mirroring what is going on in the relationship between Stewart and Kelly - sometimes with a sinister undertone. As always, Hitchcock ratchets up the suspense in a way only he can - focusing on a mundane item/thing until it becomes malevolent. This could have easily been a boring/static film, but in Hitchcock's capable hands, there is movement aplenty and the film flows beautifully.
As for the performances, Stewart has never been better as the audience stand-in/everyman who goes from charming scamp just snatching peeks of his neighbors to "peeping-tom" voyeur who is intruding in the private lives of his fellow courtyard denizens. Grace Kelly is just radiant in the way Hitchcock photographs her and in the way that all-time great costumer Edith Head dresses her. She is perfectly made-up and costumed to make her "the most beautiful woman in the world". But...what caught me in this viewing was how good of an acting job she does in this film. In previous viewings I was swept up in the look and feel of the actress. This time, I was taken in by the character and she became the one in this film I was rooting for. Well...either Grace Kelly or the great character actress Thelma Ritter as insurance nurse (and willing accomplice) Stella. She almost steals the movie from the two leads...almost.
All of the elements at play in this film work - acting, costuming, scenic design, cinematography and script - all wrapped up by a Master Director at the top of his game.
If you only watch one Alfred Hitchock film, make it REAR WINDOW. You'll be glad you did.
Letter Grade: A+
10 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
And...they loved it.
Starring "everyman" Jimmy Stewart and the always fabulous Grace Kelly, REAR WINDOW tells the tale of photographer L.B. Jefferies (Stewart) who is laid up in his New York apartment with a broken leg. His only means of entertainment is looking out of the "rear window" of his apartment into the courtyard - and the other apartments (and the people) therein.
This is a treatise on voyeurism and the pairing of this material with a master of film like Hitchcock is a marriage made in heaven. He sets up most of the movie so you are viewing the events as though you are Jefferies - confined to his apartment. Each apartment around the courtyard are their own little viewing boxes. He does a neat, subtle trick in this film. When he pans counter-clockwise, he is just browsing the apartments (like channel surfing on TV). When he pans clockwise - or goes straight to an apartment - he is focusing on that place/story. More often than not, the scenes in the apartments that Jefferies is looking at is mirroring what is going on in the relationship between Stewart and Kelly - sometimes with a sinister undertone. As always, Hitchcock ratchets up the suspense in a way only he can - focusing on a mundane item/thing until it becomes malevolent. This could have easily been a boring/static film, but in Hitchcock's capable hands, there is movement aplenty and the film flows beautifully.
As for the performances, Stewart has never been better as the audience stand-in/everyman who goes from charming scamp just snatching peeks of his neighbors to "peeping-tom" voyeur who is intruding in the private lives of his fellow courtyard denizens. Grace Kelly is just radiant in the way Hitchcock photographs her and in the way that all-time great costumer Edith Head dresses her. She is perfectly made-up and costumed to make her "the most beautiful woman in the world". But...what caught me in this viewing was how good of an acting job she does in this film. In previous viewings I was swept up in the look and feel of the actress. This time, I was taken in by the character and she became the one in this film I was rooting for. Well...either Grace Kelly or the great character actress Thelma Ritter as insurance nurse (and willing accomplice) Stella. She almost steals the movie from the two leads...almost.
All of the elements at play in this film work - acting, costuming, scenic design, cinematography and script - all wrapped up by a Master Director at the top of his game.
If you only watch one Alfred Hitchock film, make it REAR WINDOW. You'll be glad you did.
Letter Grade: A+
10 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
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.
LoganCrews (2861 KP) rated Dial M for Murder (1954) in Movies
Sep 20, 2020
A mid-tier episode of "Law & Order" from the 50s that's as mildly rousing as it is boring in a nearly 1:1 ratio. Yes the writing is impressively airtight, and always leaves you looking for some sort of holes to no avail - one of those films where you play a fun little guessing game in your head every time a character says or does something. Could they have slipped up? Do the other characters know that? But here's my main problem with this: it's so DRY holy shit. Yes the story is rigorously optimized for this sort of deal, but that's all there is to chew on here - nothing else. The characters in this movie exist only to explain and inform each other about the story as it happens - outside of the first couple scenes there are no little moments of interpersonal interaction between characters that involves anything else besides telling people what just happened, no moments of humor outside of a bad gay joke and a couple telegraphed duds, no personality building beyond how they react in relation to - again - the singular crime narrative. That's virtually every single scene, so it quickly feels like you're just watching the same thing over and over again. This goes straight past staunchly formal and almost into rudimentary, but Grace Kelly and Ray Milland are wonderful enough to carry this very talky one-trick pony along with the sheer attention to detail of the plot. Still definitely fair but way too straightforward, I can't act like dozens of better ones have been done even if this did potentially pave the way for a lot of them.
Gareth von Kallenbach (962 KP) rated Neighbors 2: Sorority Rising (2016) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
In the 1st film Mac (Seth Rogen) and Kelly (Rose Byrne) move to the suburbs when they welcome an infant daughter into their lives name Stella (Zoey Vargas). All goes well with the couple, until Delta Psi Beta fraternity moves in next door. The fraternity leader Teddy (Zac Efron) aspires to join Delta Psi’s Hall of Fame by throwing a massive end of the year party, which end up shutting down the fraternity once and for all.
In the sequel, a few years after Mac and Kelly, pregnant with their second baby, are preparing to sell their house, when another couple agrees to take their property off their hands with one condition 30 days to inspect the house and make sure that everything is up to snuff. Unfortunately there is some bad news; the new tenants of the house next door are going to be louder than the previous ones.
The freshmen, Beth (Kiersey Clemons), Nora (Beanie Feldstein) and Shelby (Chloe Grace Moretz) tried joining to one of their school sororities, but found out that only the fraternities are allow to throw parties, and when they do the girls are victims of constant harassment, the drinks are spiked and the guys trying to have sex with them every minute even if is consensual or not. So Beth, Nora and Shelby decide to start their own sorority, Kappa Nu, where the girls don’t have to dress to impress, where they embrace self-respect and partying hard as a show of defiance.
The member of Kappa Nu are Mac and Kelly’s new neighbors, who are not very pleased about it, but when Mac ask them to keep quiet during the escrow period, he becomes just another man telling them what to do, so the war begins.
Neighbors 2 is uproariously funny, ridiculous and almost breathtaking dirty providing a successful attempt to have a great sequel. Being able to watch Zac Efron shirtless and wearing short shorts for prolonged periods of time is always a plus. It is hard to believe than nine years ago Seth Rogen was the chubby stoner with a terrible idea for a porn site in Knocked up and now He is the father of the year. Although I think that it is a shame that ,LLCoolJ ,didn’t make it to the final cut as was shown in the trailer, but I have to admit it was a nice touch having Zoey Vargas playing Stella for the second time, she is adorable. I only can say you’ll laugh if you’re young, you’ll laugh if you’re old, there is plenty of jokes and many disgusting and strong visual gags, and I loved it.
In the sequel, a few years after Mac and Kelly, pregnant with their second baby, are preparing to sell their house, when another couple agrees to take their property off their hands with one condition 30 days to inspect the house and make sure that everything is up to snuff. Unfortunately there is some bad news; the new tenants of the house next door are going to be louder than the previous ones.
The freshmen, Beth (Kiersey Clemons), Nora (Beanie Feldstein) and Shelby (Chloe Grace Moretz) tried joining to one of their school sororities, but found out that only the fraternities are allow to throw parties, and when they do the girls are victims of constant harassment, the drinks are spiked and the guys trying to have sex with them every minute even if is consensual or not. So Beth, Nora and Shelby decide to start their own sorority, Kappa Nu, where the girls don’t have to dress to impress, where they embrace self-respect and partying hard as a show of defiance.
The member of Kappa Nu are Mac and Kelly’s new neighbors, who are not very pleased about it, but when Mac ask them to keep quiet during the escrow period, he becomes just another man telling them what to do, so the war begins.
Neighbors 2 is uproariously funny, ridiculous and almost breathtaking dirty providing a successful attempt to have a great sequel. Being able to watch Zac Efron shirtless and wearing short shorts for prolonged periods of time is always a plus. It is hard to believe than nine years ago Seth Rogen was the chubby stoner with a terrible idea for a porn site in Knocked up and now He is the father of the year. Although I think that it is a shame that ,LLCoolJ ,didn’t make it to the final cut as was shown in the trailer, but I have to admit it was a nice touch having Zoey Vargas playing Stella for the second time, she is adorable. I only can say you’ll laugh if you’re young, you’ll laugh if you’re old, there is plenty of jokes and many disgusting and strong visual gags, and I loved it.
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Neighbors 2: Sorority Rising (2016) in Movies
Jun 11, 2019
More of the same
After the phenomenal success of Captain America: Civil War, the multiplexes have calmed down a little; that is until the release of X-Men: Apocalypse next week.
Sandwiched in between these two box-office behemoths is the sequel to Universal Studio’s surprise comedy hit, Bad Neighbours. But does another helping of Seth Rogen and Zac Efron’s adult humour hit the spot?
It’s fair to say that these films have a target audience firmly in mind. The first film was received best by University students and younger men according to box-office analysts and managed to gross a whopping $270m on an $18m budget – a sequel whilst completely unnecessary was as likely as an April shower.
Bad Neighbours 2 follows a very well-worn path, so well-worn in fact that it shoehorns the exact same premise from its predecessor into another 90 minute comedy, with just a few new twists and turns to stop it from being a carbon copy.
So, what are these twists and turns I hear you cry? Well, for one, Zac Efron’s Teddy Sanders is all grown up for one, returning to help Seth Rogen’s Mac, and Rose Byrne’s Kelly face-off against a sorority (instead of a fraternity) – headed by the excellent Chloe Grace Moretz.
Plot wise, that’s about it; in fact there is no plot to speak off and the real highlight in this simple film are the reams and reams of adult gags. The majority of them hit the spot; a brilliantly shot sequence at a college ‘festival’ is absolutely hilarious, and then a few of them don’t – but that’s to be expected in any comedy.
When it comes to the acting, it’s a by-the-numbers affair. Seth Rogen and Rose Byrne are dependable with the latter’s credentials in the genre expanding by the day. From Bridesmaids to Spy, she’s fast becoming a new comedy star, and there’s no complaint from me there.
Zac Efron is now utterly typecast but I doubt he’ll care if his movies keep packing out cinemas across the world. Despite his usual reliable performances, he’s starting to look a little older than his ‘frat boy’ characters would have you believe and if he can’t shake off that tag, he’ll end up in the bargain bins alongside Tobey Maguire. That’s a shame, as his more serious roles prove he has the acting chops to go with his good looks.
Elsewhere, Chloe Grace Moretz is the only sorority girl to make an impact and her sweet, if predictable backstory provide Bad Neighbours 2 with its only real sense of emotion.
Overall, Bad Neighbours 2 is a very funny adult comedy despite its lack of plot and the by-the-numbers casting. Returning director Nicholas Stoller has introduced a more female-orientated film that will no doubt pay dividends at the box-office. It definitely wasn’t needed, but as is the case in the film world, money talks.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/05/14/more-of-the-same-bad-neighbours-2-review/
Sandwiched in between these two box-office behemoths is the sequel to Universal Studio’s surprise comedy hit, Bad Neighbours. But does another helping of Seth Rogen and Zac Efron’s adult humour hit the spot?
It’s fair to say that these films have a target audience firmly in mind. The first film was received best by University students and younger men according to box-office analysts and managed to gross a whopping $270m on an $18m budget – a sequel whilst completely unnecessary was as likely as an April shower.
Bad Neighbours 2 follows a very well-worn path, so well-worn in fact that it shoehorns the exact same premise from its predecessor into another 90 minute comedy, with just a few new twists and turns to stop it from being a carbon copy.
So, what are these twists and turns I hear you cry? Well, for one, Zac Efron’s Teddy Sanders is all grown up for one, returning to help Seth Rogen’s Mac, and Rose Byrne’s Kelly face-off against a sorority (instead of a fraternity) – headed by the excellent Chloe Grace Moretz.
Plot wise, that’s about it; in fact there is no plot to speak off and the real highlight in this simple film are the reams and reams of adult gags. The majority of them hit the spot; a brilliantly shot sequence at a college ‘festival’ is absolutely hilarious, and then a few of them don’t – but that’s to be expected in any comedy.
When it comes to the acting, it’s a by-the-numbers affair. Seth Rogen and Rose Byrne are dependable with the latter’s credentials in the genre expanding by the day. From Bridesmaids to Spy, she’s fast becoming a new comedy star, and there’s no complaint from me there.
Zac Efron is now utterly typecast but I doubt he’ll care if his movies keep packing out cinemas across the world. Despite his usual reliable performances, he’s starting to look a little older than his ‘frat boy’ characters would have you believe and if he can’t shake off that tag, he’ll end up in the bargain bins alongside Tobey Maguire. That’s a shame, as his more serious roles prove he has the acting chops to go with his good looks.
Elsewhere, Chloe Grace Moretz is the only sorority girl to make an impact and her sweet, if predictable backstory provide Bad Neighbours 2 with its only real sense of emotion.
Overall, Bad Neighbours 2 is a very funny adult comedy despite its lack of plot and the by-the-numbers casting. Returning director Nicholas Stoller has introduced a more female-orientated film that will no doubt pay dividends at the box-office. It definitely wasn’t needed, but as is the case in the film world, money talks.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/05/14/more-of-the-same-bad-neighbours-2-review/
Andy K (10821 KP) rated Dial M for Murder (1954) in Movies
Sep 15, 2019
An unsavory proposition
When ranking Hitchcock's elite films, Dial M For Murder doesn't usually get mentioned in the top 5 including Psycho, Rear Window, Vertigo North By Northwest and maybe The Birds, but it should be. I went through a Hitchcock phase myself a few years back (I would think most serious film fans would at some point). Although, I still have several to go, most still hold up as suspense/thriller classics definitely including this film.
Ex tennis pro Tony Wendice, now married to beautiful and wealthy Margot, has discovered her secret, she's been seeing another man. Months earlier he discovered a love letter from her lover in her handbag and secretly blackmailed for with this information.
Tony decides to invite an old college acquaintance, currently an unsavory character over to their home to explain his plot for this man killing his wife. He would then stand to inherit her fortunes as he is the beneficiary of her will. The man agrees so the plot is set.
The next evening, Tony is out with friends (to ensure his alibi) and phones Margot late in the evening so she rises to answer with the perpetrator waiting for her. After he slips a stocking around her neck to strangle her, a struggle ensues. Instead of her murder, Margot manages to stab the assailant in the back with a pair of nearby scissors. The man falls to the ground in pain driving the scissors deeper within finishing the job for him instead.
The ensuing police investigation initially feels the facts just don't add up since there was no break in and the man did not have a key on him, but he did have the love letter Tony planted on him before the police initially arrived. Fingers eventually point toward Margot as the killer since the facts seem to lead that way.
The 3rd act is brilliant in the way the eventual plot is discovered and how the police ensure Tony incriminates himself as the true antagonist.
Hitchcock's use of camera framing and movement to reveal certain scene elements only when he wants you to see them is one of my favorite elements of his films. He obviously chose source materials which suited his natural abilities to tell sinister or suspenseful stories and this one works just as well as some of his more famous classics.
Ray Milland is charming and diabolical as Tony, never letting on to his beautiful wife (the gorgeous Princess Grace Kelly) the dastardly scheme he has cooked up for her demise or his initial deeds of blackmail. The reveal at the beginning of the murder plot takes the audience on maybe a typical Hitchcock suspense route, but you never know where or when the twists are going to come, but you are willing to go along for the ride.
Your emotions turn from shock having seen the murder to disgust when Margot is eventually blamed for it and then finally to delight when Tony performs just as the police want him to in the end.
Ex tennis pro Tony Wendice, now married to beautiful and wealthy Margot, has discovered her secret, she's been seeing another man. Months earlier he discovered a love letter from her lover in her handbag and secretly blackmailed for with this information.
Tony decides to invite an old college acquaintance, currently an unsavory character over to their home to explain his plot for this man killing his wife. He would then stand to inherit her fortunes as he is the beneficiary of her will. The man agrees so the plot is set.
The next evening, Tony is out with friends (to ensure his alibi) and phones Margot late in the evening so she rises to answer with the perpetrator waiting for her. After he slips a stocking around her neck to strangle her, a struggle ensues. Instead of her murder, Margot manages to stab the assailant in the back with a pair of nearby scissors. The man falls to the ground in pain driving the scissors deeper within finishing the job for him instead.
The ensuing police investigation initially feels the facts just don't add up since there was no break in and the man did not have a key on him, but he did have the love letter Tony planted on him before the police initially arrived. Fingers eventually point toward Margot as the killer since the facts seem to lead that way.
The 3rd act is brilliant in the way the eventual plot is discovered and how the police ensure Tony incriminates himself as the true antagonist.
Hitchcock's use of camera framing and movement to reveal certain scene elements only when he wants you to see them is one of my favorite elements of his films. He obviously chose source materials which suited his natural abilities to tell sinister or suspenseful stories and this one works just as well as some of his more famous classics.
Ray Milland is charming and diabolical as Tony, never letting on to his beautiful wife (the gorgeous Princess Grace Kelly) the dastardly scheme he has cooked up for her demise or his initial deeds of blackmail. The reveal at the beginning of the murder plot takes the audience on maybe a typical Hitchcock suspense route, but you never know where or when the twists are going to come, but you are willing to go along for the ride.
Your emotions turn from shock having seen the murder to disgust when Margot is eventually blamed for it and then finally to delight when Tony performs just as the police want him to in the end.
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)