Jedbu wrote:Andy, I totally agree with you about the '82 and '83 Oscar winners, and I'll go even further and put TOOTSIE in there with E. T. over GANDHI. Pollack's film has grown in stature over the years and I think that today you would have many people torn over which of the two to choose. I'm submitting a new topic today re: past Best Picture winners to see what people think about previous winners and what they would change.
Thank you, Andy for the compliment and respectful reply on the Oscar thread as well.
THE BIRDS B+/A-
Never having seen this film all the way through and never at all on the big screen, I went to a free TCM screening at the Arclight in Hollywood with Robert Osbourne interviewing Tippi Hedren before the film. I was amazed at how deep a sense of dread this film has, more than any other Hitchcock film I've seen. Even though he did not include the ending scene he wanted (the Golden Gate bridge covered with birds when the main characters arrive, along with birds on the St. Louis arch and the Empire State building and Statue of Liberty) it has to be one of his most downbeat endings-the antagonist is nature, and how do you defeat that?
I also thought that Hedren was very effective if a little inexperienced in some scenes (especially the ones towards the end) and having Herrmann use electronic sound effects instead of a score worked beautifully.
I don't know if I would classify this as a favorite Hitchcock (I put NOTORIOUS, NORTH BY NORTHWEST, REAR WINDOW, STRANGERS ON A TRAIN, VERTIGO and PSYCHO in that category) in that it does not have the sense of fun the others do (maybe I wouldn't classify VERTIGO as "fun," so to speak)-although it does start off that way-but this is strong filmmaking and along with THE WRONG MAN, probably the director at his most serious. I hope someone does not decide to remake this and dump a few more gallons of blood in the meantime. . .
Blowup (1966) - I just saw this for the first time last night and can't even rate it yet. I'm going to make time to watch it again this weekend. I will say, though, that I can't remember the last time a movie sucked me in the way this one did. At the end of it, I wasn't quite sure what I saw -- just like the photographer. (The "point," no doubt.) It's interesting to me that this character spends his time time photographing images that are essentially lifeless (models drained of all expression, men in an overnight shelter with the life sucked out of them) and the one bit of human contact he does capture on film may actually be a prelude to a killing. (And when confronted with a "real"corpse, he is unable to photograph it.) I don't want to reveal too much for folks who haven't seen this (although clearly there's a lot open to interpretation here) but would be interested in what other folks have to say about this film. I'm intrigued.
THE BIRDS has a grim quality to it that makes it an interesting follow-up to PSYCHO. I agree that this is indeed one of Hitchcock's less fun movies, as is MARNIE (though it is less oppressive than the other two). One reason FRENZY is considered a return to form for Hitchcock is that it does have that sense of play.
I had the same reaction as Castile did to BLOW UP. It has this tone of oddness to it that kept me watching--it felt like you were just observing the character as opposed to seeing scenes a director was imposing on the material. The hero's listlessness is a real comment on the Swinging London "hip" characters, who can't respond to anything from a rock guitarist's broken guitar to a body. The photograph scene, where he tries to figure out what's in the picture, is really involving--I was squinting at the pictures and saying "What the hell IS that...?" The final scene is an amazing final comment on the nature of the *perception* of reality, which is the whole theme.
Generally intelligent throwback to 70's conspiracy thrillers is sleekly-directed and well-performed (if humorless and a tad dry), but what really distinguishes this film is a literally spectacular 15-minute shootout sequence set in NYC's Guggenheim Museum, that's like a Peckinpah/Woo squib-filled bloodbath as choreographed by Brian De Palma. "Worth the price of admission", as they say.
Generally intelligent throwback to 70's conspiracy thrillers is sleekly-directed and well-performed (if humorless and a tad dry), but what really distinguishes this film is a literally spectacular 15-minute shootout sequence set in NYC's Guggenheim Museum, that's like a Peckinpah/Woo squib-filled bloodbath as choreographed by Brian De Palma. "Worth the price of admission", as they say.
Ooooh, I love good shootouts. I' ll have to check around for this. Is it a theatrical release? i seem to have heard of this recently.
JSWalsh wrote:Ooooh, I love good shootouts. I' ll have to check around for this. Is it a theatrical release? i seem to have heard of this recently.
It opened in theaters last Friday. Don't wait too long to see it, though, as it had a fairly mediocre $10 million opening weekend. That shootout is worth seeing on the big screen.
JSWalsh wrote:Ooooh, I love good shootouts. I' ll have to check around for this. Is it a theatrical release? i seem to have heard of this recently.
It opened in theaters last Friday. Don't wait too long to see it, though, as it had a fairly mediocre $10 million opening weekend. That shootout is worth seeing on the big screen.
Twyker's made some interesting movies, obviously -- even when they don't quite work (PERFUME), they're watchable, and that film was also extremely well scored.
Jedbu wrote:Thank you, Andy for the compliment and respectful reply on the Oscar thread as well.
THE BIRDS B+/A-
Never having seen this film all the way through and never at all on the big screen, I went to a free TCM screening at the Arclight in Hollywood with Robert Osbourne interviewing Tippi Hedren before the film. I was amazed at how deep a sense of dread this film has, more than any other Hitchcock film I've seen. Even though he did not include the ending scene he wanted (the Golden Gate bridge covered with birds when the main characters arrive, along with birds on the St. Louis arch and the Empire State building and Statue of Liberty) it has to be one of his most downbeat endings-the antagonist is nature, and how do you defeat that?
I also thought that Hedren was very effective if a little inexperienced in some scenes (especially the ones towards the end) and having Herrmann use electronic sound effects instead of a score worked beautifully.
I don't know if I would classify this as a favorite Hitchcock (I put NOTORIOUS, NORTH BY NORTHWEST, REAR WINDOW, STRANGERS ON A TRAIN, VERTIGO and PSYCHO in that category) in that it does not have the sense of fun the others do (maybe I wouldn't classify VERTIGO as "fun," so to speak)-although it does start off that way-but this is strong filmmaking and along with THE WRONG MAN, probably the director at his most serious. I hope someone does not decide to remake this and dump a few more gallons of blood in the meantime. . .
Of the bunch I'd select Vertigo as being one of the most overrated films ever. I believe Hitchcock acknowledges that he's baffled why fans find this to be his best. I find it mesmerizing in spots and dry/dull in others.
Of the bunch I'd select Vertigo as being one of the most overrated films ever.
I wrote that and the FSM board members said I was crazy. Where were you to bail me out? lol.
I intially wrote a list of them in a topic there including Cool Hand Luke (a botched storyline if you ask me). Some, like Vertigo, just to piss people off. Then later another topic started (maybe yours) and a couple people said Vertigo. So it worked out in the end.
Interesting thing about Edward Zwick: he almost reminds me of Stanley Kramer. He can be preachy and he can be obvious, but he is such a better director and really knows how to stage the big scene. Hounsou is so good in this and DiCaprio really was put through the wringer in the two films he made in this year (THE DEPARTED being the other one). He still hasn't totally "grown up" yet IMHO-he needs more lines in his face-but he is getting there.
Oh, The Pessimist: putting a film into a discussion merely as a subterfuge-not too cool.
Interesting thing about Edward Zwick: he almost reminds me of Stanley Kramer. He can be preachy and he can be obvious, but he is such a better director and really knows how to stage the big scene. Hounsou is so good in this and DiCaprio really was put through the wringer in the two films he made in this year (THE DEPARTED being the other one). He still hasn't totally "grown up" yet IMHO-he needs more lines in his face-but he is getting there.
Oh, The Pessimist: putting a film into a discussion merely as a subterfuge-not too cool.
One of the very best documentaries ever, Criterion released this some time ago. It's been years since I first saw it but this compilation of actual NASA footage--several missions' worth of footage is edited to give the impression of one moon trip--is very simply a movie everyone should see.
When they reused a cue of Eno's score in 28 DAYS LATER I had a pleasant backflash. From zombies to moon launches--ain't movies grand?
It's interesting to me that this character spends his time time photographing images that are essentially lifeless (models drained of all expression, men in an overnight shelter with the life sucked out of them) and the one bit of human contact he does capture on film may actually be a prelude to a killing. (And when confronted with a "real"corpse, he is unable to photograph it.) I don't want to reveal too much for folks who haven't seen this (although clearly there's a lot open to interpretation here) but would be interested in what other folks have to say about this film. I'm intrigued.
