Search
Search results
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)
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Promising Young Woman (2020) in Movies
Apr 10, 2021
Powerful
Emerald Fennell’s feature length motion picture Directing debut, PROMISING YOUNG WOMAN, is a difficult film to categorize. Is it a Dark Comedy? A RomCom? A family drama? A portrait of a character’s descent? A hard critique of sexism and sexual predators? A revenge fantasy?
The answer is - it is ALL of these and thanks to a wonderful script (by Fennell), strong Direction (again, by Ferrell) and a terrific, Oscar-worthy performance in the lead role (by Carey Mulligan) it is a very effective, very powerful film.
PROMISING YOUNG WOMAN tells the tale of Cassandra who we are introduced to at a bar, obviously drunk, getting picked up (and taken advantage of) by a “nice guy” at the bar. Once back at his place, it is clear that she is NOT drunk and she confronts the “nice guy”.
To say anything else would spoil this wonderful film.
At the center of this film is Carey Mulligan (deservedly) Oscar nominated turn as Cassandra. This is a tortured soul who is looking for some sort of catharsis from a previous trauma and seeks various ways to achieve this. You see an intelligence and sadness in Cassandra at every turn and Mulligan’s performance seemed rooted in reality and was, ultimately, an effective, chillingly and (yes) sad character brought to life. It is the type of performance that I will be rooting for in the Oscar race, it’s that good.
Most of the other characters in this film fleet in and out of Cassandra’s life but all are strong performances, seemingly willing to bring their “A” game to match Mulligan’s performance and the strong script. Kudos to Jennifer Coolidge, Alison Brie, Laverne Cox, Bo Burnham, Christopher Mintz-Plasse (yes, a McLovin’ sighting!), Alfred Molina, Moly Shannon, Connie Britton and, especially, the great Clancy Brown. They all enhanced the film with their performances, working off of Mulligan effectively.
But, credit to all of this must go to Writer/Director Emerald Fennell (probably best known for playing Camilla Parker Bowles in THE CROWN) who's script is smart and thought-provoking and who’s Direction is crisp and sure. She clearly had a certain type of film in her head - the type of film that does not easily lend itself to definition/classification and packs a powerful punch at it’s conclusion. Without spoiling anything, she “ups her game” at the end of this film and I sat in thoughtful silence as the end credits ran.
Fennell is up for the Oscar for both Best Director and Best Original Screenplay and I, for one, would vote for her Screenplay hands-down.
An intriguing film that is sticking with me a few days later…always a mark of quality.
Letter Grade: A
9 Stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
The answer is - it is ALL of these and thanks to a wonderful script (by Fennell), strong Direction (again, by Ferrell) and a terrific, Oscar-worthy performance in the lead role (by Carey Mulligan) it is a very effective, very powerful film.
PROMISING YOUNG WOMAN tells the tale of Cassandra who we are introduced to at a bar, obviously drunk, getting picked up (and taken advantage of) by a “nice guy” at the bar. Once back at his place, it is clear that she is NOT drunk and she confronts the “nice guy”.
To say anything else would spoil this wonderful film.
At the center of this film is Carey Mulligan (deservedly) Oscar nominated turn as Cassandra. This is a tortured soul who is looking for some sort of catharsis from a previous trauma and seeks various ways to achieve this. You see an intelligence and sadness in Cassandra at every turn and Mulligan’s performance seemed rooted in reality and was, ultimately, an effective, chillingly and (yes) sad character brought to life. It is the type of performance that I will be rooting for in the Oscar race, it’s that good.
Most of the other characters in this film fleet in and out of Cassandra’s life but all are strong performances, seemingly willing to bring their “A” game to match Mulligan’s performance and the strong script. Kudos to Jennifer Coolidge, Alison Brie, Laverne Cox, Bo Burnham, Christopher Mintz-Plasse (yes, a McLovin’ sighting!), Alfred Molina, Moly Shannon, Connie Britton and, especially, the great Clancy Brown. They all enhanced the film with their performances, working off of Mulligan effectively.
But, credit to all of this must go to Writer/Director Emerald Fennell (probably best known for playing Camilla Parker Bowles in THE CROWN) who's script is smart and thought-provoking and who’s Direction is crisp and sure. She clearly had a certain type of film in her head - the type of film that does not easily lend itself to definition/classification and packs a powerful punch at it’s conclusion. Without spoiling anything, she “ups her game” at the end of this film and I sat in thoughtful silence as the end credits ran.
Fennell is up for the Oscar for both Best Director and Best Original Screenplay and I, for one, would vote for her Screenplay hands-down.
An intriguing film that is sticking with me a few days later…always a mark of quality.
Letter Grade: A
9 Stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated Spellbound (1945) in Movies
Jun 13, 2022
Not the First Hitchcock You Should Watch
When Dr. Anthony Edwardes arrives at a mental hospital in Vermont to replace existing hospital director, Dr. Constance Peterson quickly recognizes him as an impostor. The impostor not only comes clean but also fears he may have killed the real Edwards. It is up to the impostor and Constance to find out the truth of what really happened.
Acting: 10
Gregory Peck is one of the shining actors of the 1940’s and his performance as the impostor doesn’t disappoint. His ability to draw in emotion always manages to root my attention into a scene. Ingrid Bergman was also sensational as Dr. Peterson. The chemistry between the two actors carried the majority of the scenes.
Beginning: 3
Characters: 10
The characters give you just enough throughout the story to move things along. While I did hold out hope that some of the characters would be fleshed out slightly better, I didn’t mind working with what the story gave me. I can’t give away too much without fear of spoilers, but i will say that some of the backstories took an interesting turn.
Cinematography/Visuals: 10
Another man that doesn’t disappoint when it comes to cinematography: Alfred Hitchcock. Mans is in his bag with some really creative shots that probably surprised a 1945 audience. From dream sequences to flashbacks, Hitchcocks devotion to his craft is on full display. Definitely a strong suit of this film.
Conflict: 4
Entertainment Value: 7
At one point in my notes I wrote, “The premise is great. I think it’s the execution that is a little off.” You can see glimpses of where Spellbound wanted to take off, but it’s usually shortlived. I hung in there for the creativity of the premise, but that can only get you so far. Too many lulls and letdowns spoiled the overall experience.
Memorability: 4
Pace: 2
The talking. All the damn talking all the time. Good…Lord. The film is STUFFED with dialogue, 111 minutes of talka-talka-talka. The lack of action begins in the first twenty minutes and becomes and ongoing theme, unfortunately. “Show don’t tell” did not apply here.
Plot: 9
Resolution: 10
Despite my disappointment with how slowly things moved, the film was wrapped up nicely. It actually made me even more upset with the movie as a whole because the ending was great potential for what ALL of Spellbound should have been. This film could have done a ton of things better. The ending, though? Solid.
Overall: 69
Not my favorite Hitchcock, Spellbound misses the mark in a number of different departments. I don’t know, it left a bad taste in my mouth and left me unfulfilled. If you’re looking to work through Hitchcock’s filmography, maybe save this one for later on down the road.
Acting: 10
Gregory Peck is one of the shining actors of the 1940’s and his performance as the impostor doesn’t disappoint. His ability to draw in emotion always manages to root my attention into a scene. Ingrid Bergman was also sensational as Dr. Peterson. The chemistry between the two actors carried the majority of the scenes.
Beginning: 3
Characters: 10
The characters give you just enough throughout the story to move things along. While I did hold out hope that some of the characters would be fleshed out slightly better, I didn’t mind working with what the story gave me. I can’t give away too much without fear of spoilers, but i will say that some of the backstories took an interesting turn.
Cinematography/Visuals: 10
Another man that doesn’t disappoint when it comes to cinematography: Alfred Hitchcock. Mans is in his bag with some really creative shots that probably surprised a 1945 audience. From dream sequences to flashbacks, Hitchcocks devotion to his craft is on full display. Definitely a strong suit of this film.
Conflict: 4
Entertainment Value: 7
At one point in my notes I wrote, “The premise is great. I think it’s the execution that is a little off.” You can see glimpses of where Spellbound wanted to take off, but it’s usually shortlived. I hung in there for the creativity of the premise, but that can only get you so far. Too many lulls and letdowns spoiled the overall experience.
Memorability: 4
Pace: 2
The talking. All the damn talking all the time. Good…Lord. The film is STUFFED with dialogue, 111 minutes of talka-talka-talka. The lack of action begins in the first twenty minutes and becomes and ongoing theme, unfortunately. “Show don’t tell” did not apply here.
Plot: 9
Resolution: 10
Despite my disappointment with how slowly things moved, the film was wrapped up nicely. It actually made me even more upset with the movie as a whole because the ending was great potential for what ALL of Spellbound should have been. This film could have done a ton of things better. The ending, though? Solid.
Overall: 69
Not my favorite Hitchcock, Spellbound misses the mark in a number of different departments. I don’t know, it left a bad taste in my mouth and left me unfulfilled. If you’re looking to work through Hitchcock’s filmography, maybe save this one for later on down the road.