• Most new users don't bother reading our rules. Here's the one that is ignored almost immediately upon signup: DO NOT ASK FOR FANEDIT LINKS PUBLICLY. First, read the FAQ. Seriously. What you want is there. You can also send a message to the editor. If that doesn't work THEN post in the Trade & Request forum. Anywhere else and it will be deleted and an infraction will be issued.
  • If this is your first time here please read our FAQ and Rules pages. They have some useful information that will get us all off on the right foot, especially our Own the Source rule. If you do not understand any of these rules send a private message to one of our staff for further details.
  • Please read our Rules & Guidelines

My Year with Hitch

Garp

Well-known member
Messages
1,104
Reaction score
180
Trophy Points
68
Catching up on a few reviews:

Week 36: 'Strangers on a Train' [1950]
Source: Amazon Video [streaming]

During the course of this yearlong project, I keep coming across films that are so good that I find it difficult to believe I've never seen them before. Add 'Strangers on a Train' to that list.

As the title suggests, two strangers - Guy Haines (Farley Granger) and Bruno Anthony (Robert Walker) - meet on a train. Guy is an up-and-coming tennis player; Bruno is an overly friendly playboy type. Bruno has a proposition to get them both out of unhappy relationships - swap murders. Bruno will kill Guy's wife, who is pregnant with another man's child yet refusing a divorce, while Guy kills Bruno's father.  The perfect crime! When Bruno follows through with his half of the plan, Guy finds himself unwittingly embroiled in the insane scheme.

Based on a Patricia Highsmith novel, the plot is a simple one, without the usual convoluted Hitchcockian twists and red herrings. Familiar faces crop up once more - Farley Granger (less effective, I thought, than in 'Rope'), Leo G Carroll and, in a more substantive role, Hitchcock's daughter Patricia. The film, though, belongs to Robert Walker who stands shoulder to shoulder with Anthony Perkins as a great Hitchcock villain. Menacing, charming, stoic, unhinged - he is perfect in each scene, subtle and understated when it would have been so easy to overact.

There are so many great flourishes in direction that I'll only highlight the most obvious. We are introduced to the main characters by only their footwear and gait; when their shoes accidentally touch on the train, the story begins. Bruno follows his victim into the Tunnel of Love. There is a scream - the murder? No, it's a scream of laughter, as she exits with her two beaus, Bruno still drifting behind them. The murder (a strangulation) shown in the reflection of the victim's glasses. The tennis match, in which heads in the crowd bob back-and-forth with the play - all except one head. Bruno Anthony, staring intently at his would-be partner, Guy Haines. 

There is a preview version (AKA the British version) included on the DVD which supposedly highlights the homoerotic nature of the main characters' relationship, which I have yet to see. I watched instead the HD version on Amazon Prime, and it looked great. Highly recommended for those who have yet to enjoy this excellent film.
 

Garp

Well-known member
Messages
1,104
Reaction score
180
Trophy Points
68
BONUS: 'Once you kiss a Stranger' [1969]
Source: DVD

This late 60's semi-remake of 'Strangers on a Train' utilises the same plot - strangers swapping murders - and transplants it onto the golf course. Jerry (Paul Burke) has acquired the nickname 'Second Place', but could be number 1 if something happened to his greatest rival. Diana (Carol Lynley, a Lee Remick lookalike, I thought) wants her psychiatrist out the way too. When she offs the golf pro with a putter, Jerry realises how truly crazy the cute-as-a-button Diana is.

Carol Lynley - who is truly cute-as-a-button in this - plays crazy right from the get-go. She uses a crossbow to puncture a little girl's beachball, then tries to squash her own cat into a fridge. No Robert Walker-like subtlety here. There is nothing particularly special about this film, and no obvious homages to Hitchcock that I noticed. In fact, I've forgotten most of it already. 

The DVD was fine - very good in places, very blurry and ragged in others. Like the film itself, nothing special.
 

Garp

Well-known member
Messages
1,104
Reaction score
180
Trophy Points
68
BONUS: 'The Designated Victim' [1971]
Source: YouTube [streaming]

Another plot-remake of 'Strangers on a Train', this time Italian. Stefano (Tomas Milian - looking a little like Nigel Tufnel) wants to sell his fashion-related business and move to Venezuela with his lover. His wife, however, refuses to sign the necessary paperwork. (Bad move.) Matteo (Pierre Clementi - dead ringer for Russell Brand) claims to want his violent brother dead. The solution? Well, you know it by now.

Shot in the early 70s mostly in Venice, this film had a groovy, late-hippie look about it. Matteo is a stoned Dandy throughout. The dubbing was pretty terrible, but the film kept my interest nonetheless. I don't think I'm spoiling much to state that there is a twist, as I'm sure most viewers, like me, will figure it out at least halfway through. Still, if badly-dubbed Italian 70s thrillers are your thing (the only nudity is during the opening credits, by the way), then you could do worse. (NB. The picture may look OK on a small screen; it looked awful blown-up via Chromecast on my 55" TV.)
 

TM2YC

Take Me To Your Cinema
Staff member
Donor
Faneditor
Messages
14,869
Reaction score
2,379
Trophy Points
228
Garp said:
The murder (a strangulation) shown in the reflection of the victim's glasses.

It's probably been a few years since I watched SOAT but that image is still etched on my mind.
 

Garp

Well-known member
Messages
1,104
Reaction score
180
Trophy Points
68
Week 37: 'I confess' [1953]
Source: Blu-ray

There's a lot to like in this oft-overlooked film. Montgomery Clift plays a priest wrongly accused of murder, whose Catholic vows keep him from exposing the true killer, known to him through the confession box. Add in some blackmail, terrific direction and outstanding acting (Karl Malden is particularly good) and you have a film that is just shy of great.

Hitchcock utilizes his location filming right off the bat. Shots of signposts in Quebec City (all stating 'Direction', no less) are used to lead us to the murdered body that sets the plot in motion. The lighting - notably the use of shadows, and scenes shot from below - harkens to Film Noir. The film begins to drag a little in the middle with a lengthy exposition flashback, but gets back on course when we enter the courtroom. Clift, employing Method acting that Hitchcock apparently disliked, comes across as uncomfortable and brooding, which is undoubtedly what he was going for. It's a sombre portrayal - indeed, there is no humour in this film at all. (Interestingly, the Lux Radio version features Cary Grant in the Clift role, who doesn't sound like he's taking it very seriously in contrast.) Karl Malden is perfect casting as the detective, as is O.E. Hasse as Keller (the killer. Geddit?)

I enjoyed this film more than I expected, but there is something missing still - a little lightness? A tighter 2nd act? I would still recommend it, though, especially if you are viewing the Warner Archives blu-ray. It is nigh-on perfect in both vision and sound.
 

Garp

Well-known member
Messages
1,104
Reaction score
180
Trophy Points
68
Week 38: 'Dial M for Murder' [1954]
Source: Blu-ray

"Hitchcock directs another play" may not sound like the most interesting prospect thus far into his career, yet he still manages to produce something special. He returns to colour again after a short break, and even dabbles in the 3D trend of the time. He finds his quintessential platinum blonde in Grace Kelly and mixes together a plethora of his favourite topics - murder, blackmail, the wrongly accused and love triangles.

Tony Wendice (an excellent Ray Milland) finagles an old college acquaintance down on his luck to agree to murder his adulterous wife (the luminous Kelly). When the plan goes astray, Wendice must scheme to put it back on track. Will the immaculately-attired Chief Inspector Hubbard (John Williams) ensnare the true culprit before an innocent person hangs?

Like the characters in 'Rope', Wendice attempts to pull of the perfect murder, with equally unsatisfying results. Also like 'Rope', Hitchcock frames the film almost entirely in one apartment, yet feels less 'stagey' than its predecessor. The direction is fine, with shots composed to take advantage of the extra dimension, no doubt. (I watched in 2D, so didn't get the full benefit.) An early shot of the clandestine couple's shadows parting when the husband appears is one of the better flourishes, though stylistically the brief encapsulation of the courtroom with just close-ups of faces and vividly coloured backgrounds is more dramatic. 

Milland is superb here - charming yet methodical - and you can almost see his wheels turning inside as he keeps having to think on the fly to keep his plan afloat. Robert Cummings (formerly of 'Saboteur') as Kelly's lover is bland, and Kelly herself is only fine. John Williams, though, is another stand-out in a role that must have been an inspiration for Columbo down the road.

The film gets bogged down a little with various zigzags in plot and clues, yet keeps your interest throughout nonetheless. Another minor classic that I find hard to believe I hadn't seen until today.

I watched a region-free Italian blu-ray copy (it was cheaper) from Warner Bros, which includes a 3D version that I don't have the wherewith-all to view. Probably due to the 3D process it was filmed in, the 2D version is very soft, almost blurry in places, although close-ups are noticeably better.
 

Garp

Well-known member
Messages
1,104
Reaction score
180
Trophy Points
68
BONUS: 'A Perfect Murder' [19998]
Source: Vudu [streaming]

'Dial M for Murder' gets a remake/reimagining with Micheal Douglas standing in for Ray Milland, Gwyneth Paltrow for Grace Kelly and Viggo Mortensen for Robert Cummings. David Suchet is the Chief Inspector in a role that is drastically, and sadly, reduced.

This version plays around with the basic plot, with Douglas hiring Moretensen himself to kill Paltrow. If you see an early twist coming, don't worry - there'll be several more to follow. Douglas plays the husband as cold, controlling and unlikeable - he's a Wall Street trader, of course. Mortensen is a freer, boho painter with a "past'. Paltrow does something for the UN, I think, and is a whizz with languages, for no apparent reason to plot as far as I could tell. Nobody really stands out except the underwritten Suchet. And I was disappointed that they didn't cast Blythe Danner as Paltrow's on-screen mother.

There are more zigzags, double crosses, misdirections and the same kerfuffle with the keys. It's entertaining enough, yet still not enough to recommend it. Unusually for a Hitchcock remake, I didn't notice any obvious reference to the man himself, but after a while I wasn't really paying that much attention.
 

TM2YC

Take Me To Your Cinema
Staff member
Donor
Faneditor
Messages
14,869
Reaction score
2,379
Trophy Points
228
Garp said:
BONUS: 'A Perfect Murder' [19998]

Time traveler confirmed ;) . Never heard of that remake before. David Suchet is always a good bet.
 

Garp

Well-known member
Messages
1,104
Reaction score
180
Trophy Points
68
Week 39: 'Rear Window' [1954]
Source: Blu-ray

At the risk of starting an argument, I'm going to go out on a limb and say that this is Hitchcock's most perfect film to date. Everything that he has experimented with previously comes together in these 112 minutes - elaborate sets, full colors, an arbitrary POV, excellent casting, dark humour... And did I mention that it's thoroughly entertaining to boot?

Adventure photographer Jeff (James Stewart) is nursing a broken leg. Left to his own devices for too long in his small NY apartment, he has taken to watching the activity of his neighbors across their shared courtyard. He begins to suspect that something malicious has happened to the wife of a traveling salesman (Raymond Burr), and tries to persuade his girlfriend, socialite Lisa (Grace Kelly) and his nurse (the brilliant Thelma Ritter) to prove that a murder has taken place.

Let us start with the set, which is incredible. Hitchcock took what he had learned from 'Rope' and ran with it. It is gorgeous to look at, each apartment a literal window into other people's lives. The script weaves a story for each of them, taking relationships as its theme in its various stages - free love, new love, no love, old love turned sour, old love turned to comfort, etc. These vignettes somewhat mirror Jeff's own musings, as he argues with Lisa as to the merits - and mostly demerits - of their forming a life together. With the depth of vision in the set, it is surprising that this wasn't Hitch's foray into 3D rather than the flatter 'Dial M for Murder'.

I'm not one to pay much attention to sound - I rarely remember soundtracks, or even notice them sometimes - but the soundtrack to this film is extraordinary. Not in melody, as there is little, but in the soundscape itself - the bustle of a NY street heard in the background, for example. It sounds so natural and so fitting.

Stewart is great in a role that gives him little physically to do. His acting here comes from his expressions - especially good when reacting with Stella, his nurse - and his frustrations that he cannot act upon his suspicions himself. Kelly is perfect as the socialite - she looks the part, of course, and can wear a fancy frock like no other - but also shows her bravado and stands toe-to-toe with Jeff's everyman. The age difference is a tad jarring at first, and there is some mystery as to what she sees in the grouchy photographer and why he is so reluctant to pursue their relationship (it's Grace Kelly, for god's sake!), but it is a minor flaw. Thelma Ritter is just brilliant as the voice of reason-slash-comic relief, providing a lot of the lightness and, conversely, dark humour.

So engrossed was I in this film (a first watch, incredibly) that I didn't stop to notice all the great flourishes I read about later, but a few caught my eye. The simplicity in which we learn as much as necessary within the first minute or so of the film, just by the sweep of Hitch's camera; the close-up introduction of Kelly; the few quick edits not from Jeff's POV (reaction shots of his neighbors, on the whole); the red afterglow of the flashbulbs. I know I will have to rewatch this film to truly appreciate it, and soon.

Beyond the wonky Jeff-Lisa relationship, a couple of other things didn't quite hit the mark, I felt. Miss Lonelyheart's spiral downwards seemed to be brushed aside too abruptly by both director and the characters, and the ending, including some necessary exposition (similar in a way to 'Psycho') felt rushed and heavy-handed. But, like I said - minor flaws. I LOVED this film.

I watched the blu-ray from the 'Masterpiece' Collection. It was better than 'Dial M for Murder' but still seemed to have a softness overall, although close-ups were incredible (check out the beads of sweat on Jimmy Stewart at the beginning).
 

TM2YC

Take Me To Your Cinema
Staff member
Donor
Faneditor
Messages
14,869
Reaction score
2,379
Trophy Points
228
^ Great write up.

My film-study teacher at college showed us 'Rear Window' because it was such an clear and obvious demonstration of how a master filmmaker operates. What Hitch chooses not to show the viewer, brings what he does into sharp relief. I love the way Jeff's inability to move from his chair, mirrors our own situation as movie watchers. You almost find yourself craning your neck to see round the corners with Jeff.

You should add this version of Rear Window' to your watch list (4-minutes into this clip) :D :

 

Garp

Well-known member
Messages
1,104
Reaction score
180
Trophy Points
68
BONUS: 'Rear Window' [1998]
Source: DVD

This TV-movie remake could be dismissed as merely a vanity project for Christopher Reeve, the star and the executive producer. Certainly, the story revolves as much around Reeve's accident (car in the film, not horse-riding as in real life) and his rehabilitation as it does the actual familiar plot - that of a murder seemingly witnessed by an invalid. But considering Reeve's circumstances, "vanity project" seems harsh. Undoubtedly, he felt compelled to document his recovery and perseverance, and shine a light on disability at the same time, and I felt it worked better than other reviewers I've since read. For a film that focuses on voyeurism, watching the paralyzed Reeve struggle for breath when an oxygen tube come loose, seeing a montage of his physical therapy, his steely-eyed monologues predicting his ability to walk again in the future - these were truly voyeuristic. (My wife, feeling so uncomfortable, baled out after about 10 minutes.) The film lingers over photos of the earlier, able-bodied Reeve; he sarcastically remarks about how people still offer him handshakes; he casually belittles his sex life - windows into his own life, no doubt. Yes, it overshadows the rest of the film, and it is impossible to separate Reeve the actor from Reeve the character here, but that was probably always going to be the case.

Unfortunately, the rest of the film is mediocre. Reeve's Jason Kemp is much creepier in his voyeurism, watching the undressing and sexual foreplay of attractive women from his window, even eliciting shared waves via proxy (his male nurse). His techno-gadgets - remote-controlled video cameras with zoom lenses - are installed without regard to the legality of his new hobby. But still, his neighbors, on the whole, are less interesting than James Stewart's Jeff and offer nothing to the film.

The film suffers from too many endings, none of them particularly satisfying. The only obvious nod to the original film I noticed was the lighting of a cigarette in a darkened room viewed from the opposite apartment. Otherwise, apart from the large shadow Reeve's real life traumas casts over it, this was an average TV movie.
 

Garp

Well-known member
Messages
1,104
Reaction score
180
Trophy Points
68
TM2YC said:

BONUS: 'Rear Window' by Mr. Dibley [1954, released 1970]
Source: YouTube [streaming]

An faithful take on Hitch's original, especially in the use of the single POV. However, I felt it dragged a little in the middle.
 

Garp

Well-known member
Messages
1,104
Reaction score
180
Trophy Points
68
BONUS: 'Disturbia' [2007]
Source: Amazon Video [streaming]

Not a rip-off of Hitchcock's film, nor the short story it was based on (a successful lawsuit proved it), so let's just say that 'Disturbia' shares some DNA with 'Rear Window'. (An aside: I'm reminded of a quote from 'City Slickers II' - "I can't believe you two are from the same gene pool" / "He's from the shallow end")

Kale (Shia LaBeouf) is under house arrest for punching his teacher - not for pointing out that he shares his name with a leaf cabbage, but for snidely referencing his recently deceased father. As three months of forced isolation begins to weigh heavily upon him, he takes to spying on his neighbors - the obligatory cute-girl-next-door (and new-to-the-neighborhood, no less) Ashley (Sarah Roemer) and the shy yet suspicious Robert Turner (David Morse). One of these he lusts over and the other he suspects to be a serial killer. What a twist it would have been if the film-makers had switched these characters around! But, no, it is as you would expect, and the ending is as neat and tidy as Kale's bedroom isn't.

Sarcasm aside, I quite enjoyed this film. I was about half-way through when I thought 'I've seen this film before'. Not in the 'It's Rear Window again' way, but that I actually did see this when it first came out, I think. LaBeouf is convincing in this role, which admittedly was like every other role he was taking at the time, but it was before he started to take himself too seriously/have mental health problems. David Morse was the most effective of the villains in all three of the 'Rear Window'-esque films, portraying a creepiness more in line with this teen-horror-thriller. The ending is stretched too long, ramping up the horror element to unbelievable proportions, but again befits this genre. There is nothing greatly original nor special about 'Disturbia' but it entertained me enough at the time. As it was definitely not a 'Rear Window' remake, I didn't notice any Hitchcock references (nor would I expect there to be. Please don't sue me.)
 

Garp

Well-known member
Messages
1,104
Reaction score
180
Trophy Points
68
Week 40: 'To catch a thief' [1954]
Source: Blu-ray

This is arguably Hitch's most sumptuous-looking film to date, but in terms of plot and suspense 'To catch a thief' is Hitchcock-lite.

A string of jewel robberies plagues the beautifully-shot French Riviera. All eyes turn towards ex-cat burglar John Robie (Cary Grant), who decides to apprehend the real thief and clear his name. Caught up in his plan is Frances Stevens (Grace Kelly), daughter of a rich, jewel-bedecked widow. Shenanigans ensue.

Pair Grant with Kelly in the lush beauty of the 1950's French Riviera and you are bound to get something special. Certainly the film looks wonderful, a postcard brought to life, and a great advertisement for French tourism at the time, no doubt. But coming so quickly after 'Dial M for Murder' and especially 'Rear Window', I was expecting something more when Hitchcock is thrown into the mix. As it is, the story is secondary to the glamour of its stars and locale. Yes, there is a man wrongly accused, reluctantly coupled with a beautiful woman - a scenario close to Hitch's heart - but it plays as a whodunnit minus any real stakes or suspense. Grant seems to be enjoying himself, and it's contagious, while Edith Head provides Kelly with some of her most striking get-ups. John Williams returns (formerly of 'Dial M for Murder') as the nervous and fussy insurance man, and Jessie Royce Landis is splendid comic relief as Kelly's mother.

There are some nice touches to go along with the gorgeous landscape. After the titles (artfully superimposed onto a travel agent's window in subtle perspective) we see the close-up of a woman screaming - a great Hitchcock motif. However, the scream is for her stolen jewels rather than a murder as you might expect from this director. Shots eluding to the cat burglar by showing an actual cat padding over roof tiles could be seen as heavy-handed, but I liked it. (Night shots had a definite green tint on my screen - unusual but effective.) I think I'm right in stating that this was the first Hitchcock film (that I've noticed, anyway - correct me if I'm wrong) that employed aerial photography. Again, it showed off the South of France to great advantage and added something to an early car chase. At one point, Kelly slips into shadow, her face obscured but her diamond necklace in full, gleaming focus.

Ultimately, despite the beauty on display, this film failed to win me over. I actually nodded off around the funeral scene and had to rewind about 5 minutes to catch up.  It reminded of a later, and better, film starring Grant - 'Charade' - which I will return to more frequently than this one if I need a mix of Grant, charm and Sunday afternoon whimsy.

If I cannot truly recommend the film, at least I can recommend the blu-ray, which looks gorgeous. Colours are bright in that 1950s slightly artificial way, but it works here. The stereo sound mix also impresses (as a non audiophile purist, I opted for faux surround sound through my receiver and enjoyed the hell out of it).
 

Garp

Well-known member
Messages
1,104
Reaction score
180
Trophy Points
68
Week 41: 'The Trouble with Harry' [1955]
Source: Blu-ray

I hit the pause button for the fourth time and inwardly groaned; there was still another 15 minutes to go.

I did not like this film. I did not find it funny. I thought it was dull and self-indulgent. It was, however, beautifully shot.

The 'trouble' with Harry is what to do with him now that he is dead. Several characters believe they had a hand in his demise, but as no one truly cares about the recently deceased, it is better to just bury him and have done with it. Then dig him up again. Then bury him again. Rinse and repeat until you hit the pause button again to see how much longer this farce will continue.

And it is a farce, in that it takes a simple premise and stretches it to ridiculous lengths. It's just that it Isn't Very Funny. The humour, such as it is, is wrought from the casual manner in which a dead body is perceived and handled. But that joke can't be sustained over 99 minutes, no matter who's directing. Hitch no doubt loved the dark humour he could bring to the material, but it appears he was pleasing himself rather than an audience, who largely stayed away in the US.

The acting is fine (Shirley MacLaine's first film role, and Edmund Gwenn's fourth appearance in a Hitchcock film) except for Dwight Marfield as the doctor, who is terrible. There is one notable shot, that of the little boy standing over the corpse, filmed from below with the dead man's feet in close-up. And New England looks absolutely stunning here, with autumn colors in vivid VistaVision.

It is perhaps no coincidence that this film premiered only a few days before 'Alfred Hitchcock Presents' on TV, as it seems like an extended episode, only with better production values and in colour. I feel sorry that I treated 'To catch a Thief' so harshly last week, as I would much rather re-watch that than sit through 'The Trouble with Harry' ever again.

This film is part of the 'Masterpiece Collection' on blu-ray, and so if you have that boxset (and you should) then you may as well view it and get it out the way. The picture is stunning, even better than 'To catch a Thief', but truly it's the only recommendation I have for the film.
 

Garp

Well-known member
Messages
1,104
Reaction score
180
Trophy Points
68
BONUS: 'Alfred Hitchcock Presents: Revenge' [1955]
Source: Hulu [streaming]

This was the first episode of Hitch's TV career, and one which he directed himself. It's a strange one to kick off with, as the story isn't very interesting although the twist (albeit a tad obvious) must have been thrilling at the time. It also pairs Hitchcock with Vera Miles for the first time, who is lovely throughout, even during her zombie-like performance in the latter half of the episode. A murder is filmed off-screen, as must have been dictated by TV censors, but still has the Hitchcock touch; it is shot through an open door, reflected in a mirror. Hitchcock provides an introduction and prologue to the camera, as would become famous, and it is interesting to see how comfortable he already was in front of as well as behind the camera.
 

Garp

Well-known member
Messages
1,104
Reaction score
180
Trophy Points
68
[font=Raleway, sans-serif]BONUS: 'Alfred Hitchcock Presents: Breakdown' [1955][/font]
[font=Raleway, sans-serif]Source: Hulu [streaming][/font]

[font=Raleway, sans-serif]Hitchcock directs his 2nd TV episode, starring Joseph Cotten. Hitchcock quickly establishes that our leading man is not a nice guy, casually firing a long-standing employee via telephone and mocking him for crying about it. Comeuppance is not long in coming as Cotten is immediately paralyzed in a car accident. This leads to some interesting scenes, as Cotten is completely immobile for the rest of the episode - so much so that everyone assumes him to be dead. We hear Cotten's thoughts, becoming more desperate as he realises that no one is attempting to rescue him. Hitchcock shoots the pseudo-corpse from various angles - below, through smashed glass, a close-up of the lower half of his face, etc - as well as some shots from Cotten's POV. It's effective, mostly, and adds to the claustrophobic feeling. The ending ties into his earlier callousness - neatly, if not realistically - but the whole episode is an exercise in suspension of disbelief (no one checks if he's actually dead..?).[/font]
 

Garp

Well-known member
Messages
1,104
Reaction score
180
Trophy Points
68
[font=Raleway, sans-serif]BONUS: 'Alfred Hitchcock Presents: The Case of Mr. Pelham' [1955][/font]
[font=Raleway, sans-serif]Source: Hulu [streaming][/font]

[font=Raleway, sans-serif]Tom Ewell (best known for 'The Seven Year Itch') is directed by Hitchcock here about a man who believes someone is impersonating him. The story is engaging enough, and Hitchcock keeps the direction simple, only adding some trick photography at the end. It feels the most dated - 30-something Ewell has a 'servant', which is necessary for the plot. Hitch probably liked the man-wrongly-accused type angle, but this was probably something he tossed off after a long lunch one afternoon.[/font]
 

Garp

Well-known member
Messages
1,104
Reaction score
180
Trophy Points
68
Week 42: 'The Man who knew too much' [1956]
Source: Blu-ray

I went back to re-read my review of the original version of this film, and it seems I wasn't that impressed. Unfortunately, my opinion is about the same for the remake.

The set-up is the same - here we have James Stewart, Doris Day and their son on holiday in Morocco, witnessing the death of a virtual stranger who imparts mysterious last words to a bemused Stewart regarding an impending assassination. Complications ensue when their son is kidnapped, compelling them to fly to London to save him and the intended victim.

There is certainly stuff here to like. Stewart is amiable as the doctor caught up in international espionage, and the early scenes in Morocco are beautiful to look at. (The film takes on almost a travelogue sense for a while, especially during the restaurant scene which looks improvised in places.) Oddly for me, I noticed more sound tricks than visual flourishes. Hitchcock builds the suspense in the airport interrogation with noises from planes taking off/landing, and the later concert scene is dialogue-free for long stretches. Stewart flicking the edges of a phone book nervously remains with me vividly, though unfortunately not much else about this film does. Doris Day seemed miscast - fine for the singing parts (which I personally could have done without, though it did provide a plot point, I suppose) but dramatically I found her weak.

The scene at the taxidermist's office was supposed to provide comic relief in an otherwise sombre film, I assume, but it left me cold. Blame a slight sickness, tiredness and/or the film itself, but I nodded off twice towards the end and admit that I didn't bother rewinding the bits I missed the second time.

I saw the blu-ray from the 'Masterpiece Collection' and it looked good, overall - too good in places, as the back projection stood out too noticeably in early scenes. I noticed more specks and signs of age as the film progressed, but nothing too distracting.
 

Garp

Well-known member
Messages
1,104
Reaction score
180
Trophy Points
68
[font=Raleway, sans-serif]BONUS: 'Alfred Hitchcock Presents: Back for Christmas' [1956][/font]
[font=Raleway, sans-serif]Source: Hulu [streaming][/font]

[font=Raleway, sans-serif]Hitchcock directs John Williams again in a neat little episode about murder. Williams is planning to kill his wife and bury her in the basement prior to a pre-Christmas holiday in the States. With his usual brevity, Hitchcock shows us the hole being buried, the murder weapon and Williams visually sizing up his wife in comparison with her would-be grave within the first few minutes. He then lets us wallow in suspense for the act to occur, whilst his wife busies herself with final preparations and friends are gathered for the bon voyage. Hitchcock uses the cross-talk chatter of the friends to heighten Williams malaise with his life, in one of a series of nice touches. The twist is fairly easy to deduce but still fun nonetheless. One of the best of his directed episodes so far.[/font]
 
Top Bottom