Spoilers What Movie Are You Watching?

Shrink said:

Saw "The 39 Steps" again last night.
...
This film, although not great by any standard,...

Click to expand...

Nicely put, diplomacy much? Well, I like it, very entertaining and it never gets boring. The lead was great imho. You've seen it on TV, didn't you? Because it is somewhat really difficult to find a good print on DVD - not to mention BluRay. If I remember correctly, it was due the fact that it actually is not forbidden to publish The 39 Steps yourself, so there are a lot of VERY mediocre versions out there.

I can imagine to publish it myself one day - as crispy as the day.

twietee said:

Nicely put, diplomacy much? Well, I like it, very entertaining and it never gets boring. The lead was great imho. You've seen it on TV, didn't you? Because it is somewhat really difficult to find a good print on DVD - not to mention BluRay. If I remember correctly, it was due the fact that it actually is not forbidden to publish The 39 Steps yourself, so there are a lot of VERY mediocre versions out there.

I can imagine to publish it myself one day - as crispy as the day.

Click to expand...

Diplomacy!!?? ME??!!

You are right, I did see it on TV. But I was not commenting on the quality of the print, although the quality was not bad. My interest was with seeing an early Hitchcock, as mentioned in the post.

In old movies, I'm very forgiving about print quality. Happily, my classic movie station (TCM) always has the most up to date, recently restored and cleaned up prints. It was the film itself that I was evaluating.

I'm glad you enjoyed it. I realize my feelings about Hitchcock are not necessarily widely shared. "The 39 Steps" was OK, and as I said, a very interesting example of the good quality of his early work which showed much promise, a promise not fulfilled, IMO, in his later, American, color stuff.

Shrink said:

Diplomacy!!?? ME??!!

You are right, I did see it on TV. But I was not commenting on the quality of the print, although the quality was not bad. My interest was with seeing an early Hitchcock, as mentioned in the post.

In old movies, I'm very forgiving about print quality. Happily, my classic movie station (TCM) always has the most up to date, recently restored and cleaned up prints. It was the film itself that I was evaluating.

I'm glad you enjoyed it. I realize my feelings about Hitchcock are not necessarily widely shared. "The 39 Steps" was OK, and as I said, a very interesting example of the good quality of his early work which showed much promise, a promise not fulfilled, IMO, in his later, American, color stuff.

Click to expand...

As has been discussed earlier by a number of us (notably yourself, myself and twietee), I agree with you re Hitchcock. And agree, also re the difference between the earlier British movies and some of his later (but better known) US movies.

What did you think of 'Rebecca'?

Shrink said:

But I was not commenting on the quality of the print, although the quality was not bad. My interest was with seeing an early Hitchcock, as mentioned in the post.
...
It was the film itself that I was evaluating.

Click to expand...

I know, I know. Sorry for bothering you! But since this isn't our first Hitchcock critique (would be the third or fourth since I'm lurking around here ~ one year) I got already a rough understanding about your feelings about his works...

Two things though: First, since you mentioned it to me, I watched Kill the Irishman. But wasn't exactly my cup of espresso. Not a bad movie I guess, but yeah...nevertheless, it's always a huge pleasure to watch Christopher Walken, so it wasn't completely a waste of time. Have you seen The Funeral?

Second: Watched The Private Life of Sherlock Holmes by Wilder. Good entertainment and quite versatile.

Scepticalscribe said:

What did you think of 'Rebecca'?

Click to expand...

Haven't seen it, I guess. Do you like it?

Scepticalscribe said:

As has been discussed earlier by a number of us (notably yourself, myself and twietee), I agree with you re Hitchcock. And agree, also re the difference between the earlier British movies and some of his later (but better known) US movies.

What did you think of 'Rebecca'?

Click to expand...

I liked it. None of the cutsey "trademark" stuff. A good story, well told, well acted (in the style of the time), well directed (in an unobtrusive but effective manner), good cinematography.

Olivier was excellent, accepting his frequent overplaying, Joan Fontaine was fine (even though I wanted to shake her for being such a wimp!), Dame Judith Anderson was wonderfully hateful (really wanted to slap her upside the head), and George Sanders did his usual wonderful job playing a snotty, smarmy mountebank.

I enjoy it every time I see it. Hitchcock at his best, sans the usual garbage.

Just watched the 1982 The Thing again, the special effects still look amazing, the movie has aged really well.

twietee said:

I know, I know. Sorry for bothering you! But since this isn't our first Hitchcock critique (would be the third or fourth since I'm lurking around here ~ one year) I got already a rough understanding about your feelings about his works...

Two things though: First, since you mentioned it to me, I watched Kill the Irishman. But wasn't exactly my cup of espresso. Not a bad movie I guess, but yeah...nevertheless, it's always a huge pleasure to watch Christopher Walken, so it wasn't completely a waste of time. Have you seen The Funeral?

Second: Watched The Private Life of Sherlock Holmes by Wilder. Good entertainment and quite versatile.




Haven't seen it, I guess. Do you like it?

Click to expand...

You're right, Mate. Sorry about the repititiousness of my Hitchcock commentary. One of the effects of the cognitive decline of old age is perseveration.

I, too, always enjoy Walken. He's completely nuts and mannered, but I love watching him do his stuff. I have seen "The Funeral" and liked it. Sorry you didn't like "Kill The Irishman". I'll try to learn more about your tastes so I can make better suggestions about films to watch. What was it that you disliked about the film? I appreciate our disagreements, I'm just curious.

Also saw "the Private Life Of Sherlock Holmes" quite a while ago. If you like Wilder and generally I do, depending on my mood, it was enjoyable.

Watching SWAT on HBO...

ReanimationN said:

Just watched the 1982 The Thing again, the special effects still look amazing, the movie has aged really well.

Click to expand...

Agreed, it aged very well. Although I don't share its visualization of Lovecraft's horror / monstrosities, I thoroughly enjoyed it. The haunting dog scene at the beginning already topped it for me + the blood testing.

Shrink said:

You're right, Mate. Sorry about the repititiousness of my Hitchcock commentary. One of the effects of the cognitive decline of old age is perseveration.

I, too, always enjoy Walken. He's completely nuts and mannered, but I love watching him do his stuff. I have seen "The Funeral" and liked it. Sorry you didn't like "Kill The Irishman". I'll try to learn more about your tastes so I can make better suggestions about films to watch. What was it that you disliked about the film? I appreciate our disagreements, I'm just curious.

Also saw "the Private Life Of Sherlock Holmes" quite a while ago. If you like Wilder and generally I do, depending on my mood, it was enjoyable.

Click to expand...

Well, don't let the younger ones fool you, Shrink!

Haven't seen The Funeral, but will do so now I guess. Walken never let me down. But please, honestly, don't try to learn about my tastes...beside it being a vast waste of precious time I actually, like presents, prefer recommendations unfiltered and more personal by that.

Can't really say why Kill the Irishman didn't work for me though. It felt rushed and and slowed down at the wrong moments maybe. Why did the waitress fell into deep love with a guy who was literally just sitting (for the first time) in her bar, readig a book while everbody else was celebrating? It came across either like a über-cliché or just rushed. Also his relationships to his friends...so it failed where it tried to excell imho: making this monster partly human. But what do I know.

And I agree on The Private Life of...one should be in the right mood to enjoy it. Mind, that there is a censored version, mainly aired in the US before, so be sure we're talking about the same film here: the gay couple Holmes and Watson and so on. (Love the scene in the beginning at the ballet with Watson dancing quite merrily at first..)

Huntn said:

I admit there are many versions of Sherlock Holmes I have missed. Here is a Top Ten List. Since the ultimate Basil Rathbone renditions, of which I watched as a child, IMO the best SH stories that followed over the decades, maintained that atmosphere. That's what makes it SH.

Click to expand...

I liked Brett a lot when I saw it on TV some 10+ years ago. Maybe I should watch it again one day. The geeklist is no good imho...there is just no place for Downey Jr. at all. But good to know that Rathbone did some 200 recordings of SH stories for the radio...can imagine buying that for myself next Christmas (if available). Besides that, I thought Robert Stephens did a remarkable job with his 'Private Life' Holmes - Watson wasn't on par though.

Huntn said:

What about Psycho? Come on guys, admit this is an exceptional movie followed closely by Vertigo. Was there anything equivalent in it's time? I could be wrong, but Hitchcock's product was thrilling and unique.

I admit there are many versions of Sherlock Holmes I have missed. Here is a Top Ten List. Since the ultimate Basil Rathbone renditions, of which I watched as a child, IMO the best SH stories that followed over the decades, maintained that atmosphere. That's what makes it SH. It's been a while, but I want to say Young Sherlock Holmes (1985) while not a great movie, Holmes was portrayed like I wanted him to be. I even rank the Star Trek Next Generation holodeck Holmes-Moriarty episodes superior to Guy Richie fare. BTW, I have nothing against Robert Downey Jr. He has lots of energy and is entertaining, but he does not embody the Holmes character as I imagine him.

Image

Image



It's in my video library- the ultimate compliment. The other thing it has more than the 2011 version is the "who can I trust" angle.

Image

Click to expand...

I thought "Psycho" was OK. Hitchcock did something to create a feeling of total unpredictability in the audience's mind by breaking an unspoken rule between filmmaker and audience. There is an unspoken rule that the major stars ALWAYS male it to the end of the movie. They may die at the end, but only at the end. In "Psycho", he killed off a major star in the first half hour. It was startling (both the killing scene, and the fact that Janet Leigh was killed at the beginning of the movie). Having done that, he created in the audience a feeling of total unpredictability...anything can happen, if that can happen. I thought that was interesting and unique. The rest of it was pretty good. I wasn't impressed with the FX in the Martin Balsam death scene...just a nit to pick.

I really wasn't crazy about "Vertigo". I haven't seen it in a very long time (because I wasn't crazy about it ), so I can't give you specifics. Generally, I recall that I felt that it was the usual Hitchcock bloat, affectation, and "icy blond" thing. Nothing notable or particularly original, IMO.

But then...what the hell do I know.

twietee said:

Agreed, it aged very well. Although I don't share its visualization of Lovecraft's horror / monstrosities, I thoroughly enjoyed it. The haunting dog scene at the beginning already topped it for me + the blood testing.

Click to expand...

That dog was a ridiculously good actor! The way it crept around once inside the compound and the way it would unblinkingly stare out the window really nailed the vibe the movie was going for.

I watched Ted this weekend and expected more from it. It was overhyped.

Saw Lincoln last night, I must say I did enjoy it. Daniel Day Lewis really came alive as Abe Lincoln.

Huntn said:

I tried hard getting into Lovecraft when in my 20's. Those stories had great potential but never really won me over.

Click to expand...

Hmm...no, I don't agree. Actually, I never read anything of him since now - just finished The Call of the Cthulhu and other short stories, and I'm loving it. Quite different to Poe, but alas, not one jota less imaginative. Btw. you know if The Mask of the Red Death was ever brought to celluloid? Favorite short story of mine.

edit: seems I'm too slow.

edit II: re Lovecraft: since quite a lot of his stories are playing in New England - home of the Shrink - nearby Arkham, I'm quite sure to know now where our movie and espresso expert is working his shifts...

Shrink said:

I liked it. None of the cutsey "trademark" stuff. A good story, well told, well acted (in the style of the time), well directed (in an unobtrusive but effective manner), good cinematography.

Olivier was excellent, accepting his frequent overplaying, Joan Fontaine was fine (even though I wanted to shake her for being such a wimp!), Dame Judith Anderson was wonderfully hateful (really wanted to slap her upside the head), and George Sanders did his usual wonderful job playing a snotty, smarmy mountebank.

I enjoy it every time I see it. Hitchcock at his best, sans the usual garbage.

Click to expand...

Yes, I must say that I really enjoyed 'Rebecca' too, but I had also loved the excellent book it was based on (by Daphne du Maurier - the movie stuck closely enough to the original book, which means Hitchcock was confined, constrained, or otherwise controlled, to some extent, by his primary source material, which was no bad thing in the circumstances.)

I thought the cast was excellent; Olivier's ego suited the character of Maxim, and I thought Joan Fontaine was superb as the wimpy second wife (the whole point of her perspective was her powerlessness and her feelings of inadequacy, social as well as personal - of course, I wanted to kick her, and shout at her, but she played a superb part; Judith Anderson was simply superb; and George Sanders was also excellent.

Huntn said:

What about Psycho? Come on guys, admit this is an exceptional movie followed closely by Vertigo. Was there anything equivalent in it's time? I could be wrong, but Hitchcock's product was thrilling and unique.

I admit there are many versions of Sherlock Holmes I have missed. Here is a Top Ten List. Since the ultimate Basil Rathbone renditions, of which I watched as a child, IMO the best SH stories that followed over the decades, maintained that atmosphere. That's what makes it SH. It's been a while, but I want to say Young Sherlock Holmes (1985) while not a great movie, Holmes was portrayed like I wanted him to be. I even rank the Star Trek Next Generation holodeck Holmes-Moriarty episodes superior to Guy Richie fare. BTW, I have nothing against Robert Downey Jr. He has lots of energy and is entertaining, but he does not embody the Holmes character as I imagine him.

Image

Image



It's in my video library- the ultimate compliment. The other thing it has more than the 2011 version is the "who can I trust" angle.

Image

Click to expand...

No, I'm with Shrink on Hitchcock and his ghastly and creepy obsession with blondes. 'Psycho' is clever and well made; but, having seen it, I'm in no hurry to re-visit it. This is not a deep, or compelling, or thought-provoking tale. It is a clever and well made unsettling piece of entertainment. Worth an afternoon, or evening of my life , but no more.

Moreover, I'm also stunned that 'Vertigo', a clever film with a bizarre plot, has recently superceded 'Citizen Kane' as the 'best film ever made'. This is a deeply depressing reflection of recent societal preferences for the merely clever over the profoundly intelligent.

'Citizen Kane' was superb, profoundly intelligent, deeply moral, a thought provoking examination on life itself, ambition, morality, values, relationships, an absolute cinematic tour de force, a superbly intelligent movie which demands that we examine the values of our lives, think about what we have seen, amazing acting, phenomenal narration technique (and multiple narrators), incredible cinematography and such sheer virtuoso class that I would never tire of seeing it.

Shrink said:

I thought "Psycho" was OK. Hitchcock did something to create a feeling of total unpredictability in the audience's mind by breaking an unspoken rule between filmmaker and audience. There is an unspoken rule that the major stars ALWAYS male it to the end of the movie. They may die at the end, but only at the end. In "Psycho", he killed off a major star in the first half hour. It was startling (both the killing scene, and the fact that Janet Leigh was killed at the beginning of the movie). Having done that, he created in the audience a feeling of total unpredictability...anything can happen, if that can happen. I thought that was interesting and unique. The rest of it was pretty good. I wasn't impressed with the FX in the Martin Balsam death scene...just a nit to pick.

I really wasn't crazy about "Vertigo". I haven't seen it in a very long time (because I wasn't crazy about it ), so I can't give you specifics. Generally, I recall that I felt that it was the usual Hitchcock bloat, affectation, and "icy blond" thing. Nothing notable or particularly original, IMO.

But then...what the hell do I know.

Click to expand...

Again, I agree with you.

Happybunny said:

Saw Lincoln last night, I must say I did enjoy it. Daniel Day Lewis really came alive as Abe Lincoln.

Click to expand...

I have not managed to see it yet, but am looking forward to doing so.

Happybunny said:

Saw Lincoln last night, I must say I did enjoy it. Daniel Day Lewis really came alive as Abe Lincoln.

Click to expand...

I think Daniel Day Lewis is a scary good actor. Incredibly intense. I'll see "Lincoln" just to see him.

And if you haven't seen it, run, do not walk, and get "There Will Be Blood". Extremely disturbing movie! He is truly unbelievable in that film. Frighteningly intense and he creates a character with brilliance. It is definitely not a feel good movie...but I think one of the most brilliant films I've seen.

Scepticalscribe said:

Moreover, I'm also stunned that 'Vertigo', a clever film with a bizarre plot, has recently superceded 'Citizen Kane' as the 'best film ever made'. This is a deeply depressing reflection of recent societal preferences for the merely clever over the profoundly intelligent.

'Citizen Kane' was superb, profoundly intelligent, deeply moral, a thought provoking examination on life itself, ambition, morality, values, relationships, an absolute cinematic tour de force, a superbly intelligent movie which demands that we examine the values of our lives, think about what we have seen, amazing acting, phenomenal narration technique (and multiple narrators), incredible cinematography and such sheer virtuoso class that I would never tire of seeing it.

Click to expand...

I completely agree. You have captured in one paragraph a wonderful précis. I hadn't heard or read that "Vertigo" was considered better than "Citizen Kane". "Vertigo" doesn't belong in the same room with "...Kane" Not mentioned in the same breath!!

There are, perhaps some films that can almost measure up to "Citizen Kane" ("The Third Man" comes to mind), but Vertigo!!?? Blasphemy!

Shrink said:

I think Daniel Day Lewis is a scary good actor. Incredibly intense. I'll see "Lincoln" just to see him.

And if you haven't seen it, run, do not walk, and get "There Will Be Blood". Extremely disturbing movie! He is truly unbelievable in that film. Frighteningly intense and he creates a character with brilliance. It is definitely not a feel good movie...but I think one of the most brilliant films I've seen.

Click to expand...

Same here. I'm somewhat really not interested in Spielberg movies in general - and just learned that, if Spielberg hadn't been completely keen on making Schindler's List, Billy Wilder would have done it - but There Will Be Blood was indeed bloody brilliant. So Lincoln, same as Django, will be the next Hollywood outings for me.

twietee said:

Same here. I'm somewhat really not interested in Spielberg movies in general - and just learned that, if Spielberg hadn't been completely keen on making Schindler's List, Billy Wilder would have done it - but There Will Be Blood was indeed bloody brilliant. So Lincoln, same as Django, will be the next Hollywood outings for me.

Click to expand...

OOH, somebody else who is not crazy about Spielberg! I think his stuff is a mile wide and an inch deep. His characters are cardboard cut-outs, his stuff is maudlin and cheaply sentimental. He pushes cheap emotional buttons, instead of earning an emotional response from the audience. It's easy...first reel - a boy and his dog. Second reel - kill the dog. Third reel - everybody cries. I don't mean this literally in any of his films, but that's the general approach.

I grant that visually his films are usually impressive. But when you have all the money in the world, getting something visually impressive up on the screen is not that hard.

For the most part, I think his stuff is crap. I didn't see "Schindler's List" for several reasons, the most important of which is I don't want to see Spielberg's depiction of the time and event related to the Holocaust. Stupid, I guess, because I'm pre- judging the film based on his history, and I know many liked it. It's just not a subject I trust to Spielberg.

obeygiant said:

Hotel Transylvania with Adam Sandler. Pretty funny!

Click to expand...

It was funny, I laughed a bunch. It's not a great movie, but was worth watching.

Django. Utterly enjoyed it. Prost und auf Wiederseh'n!

twietee said:

Django. Utterly enjoyed it. Prost und auf Wiederseh'n!

Click to expand...

I'm delighted to hear that you enjoyed the movie.

I've yet to see it - along with 'Lincoln' (who was my hero when I was a kid), it ('Django')is on my must-see-soon list, when opportunity arises.

Well I am currently off work so watching TV and movies is occupiing much of my day.

Right now watching Wargames. I love this movie (remember seeing it when it was first on home video in about 1984/5) - Its cheezey but still a great film.