mjb0123 Reviews

White Shadows (1924)

Technical question

[6/10 · 30 June 2017]

Does anyone know if the scene where the actress who plays both twin sisters is the first of its kind?

They are both on scene together at the same time, I assume spliced together. Is this the first time this had been done on film? This is a technical achievement because it is hardly noticeable and a viewer cannot see the edits.

Dinocroc vs. Supergator (2010 TV Movie)

But does it make money?

[30 July 2011]

OK, apparently, you have to either love these types of movies or hate them...Judging by the other reviews, that is what happens. Some really like these monster movies and others wonder why they bothered.

What I want to know is: Do these movies make MONEY?

Average commercial price during these is about $10k. I guess if they run the entire movie half a dozen times, then they make back the budget. But do a lot of people watch them? So advertisers are either getting a really good deal or wasting their money. I can't imagine the DVD doing well, only from rental places that might carry it...

I am just really curious if these movies make their money back, and why some other movie projects don't get green lights.

Murderers Among Us (1946)

The Melancholy of the Film

[7/10 · 30 July 2007]

Unit 5 film discussion Matt Butcher The Murderers Are Among Us is a film made immediately after World War II in East Germany. The melancholy of the film is derived from its main characters, a female concentration camp survivor who returns to her old apartment to find it occupied by an ex-military doctor. This military doctor drives the main conflict of the film in that his conscience is slowly eating away at him for his apparent actions during the war.

In this regard, the film acts as a conscience for the people of East Germany, slowly asking themselves about their past and how they are going to live with it. It was a tumultuous period of reconciliation that the Germans were trying to live through. This movie tries to act on those feelings.

Silberman notes that another film of this time, Rotation, "constructs a narration based on identification and emotional catharsis rather than on the cognitive terms of epic distanciation." The Murderers Are Among Us also tries to wipe the slate clean. It comes out and admits that what happened was wrong, hence the horrible feelings that the doctor is going through. They cannot completely distance themselves from these previous events, these earth-shattering events, unless they work through these feelings.

Under Capricorn (1949)

Under Capricorn is under the best

[6/10 · 21 June 2006]

I had never gotten around to renting this one before. Somehow, it has always slipped under my radar. It came up finally under my Netflix queue and voilà! From 1949, Under Capricorn pairs up two of my favorite screen stars so this is another wonder that I had never seen this one yet. An uncharacteristic historical novel set to the screen for director Alfred Hitchcock, it stars Joseph Cotten and Ingrid Bergman as a married couple in 1830s Australia. You know what they say about Australia being populated by nothing but criminals. That is why Cotten was sent there from his home country of Ireland. Bergman followed him, foolishly in love.

The story starts with some Irish git gentleman that has not a penny in the world and wants to find his stake. He finds Cotten who is now one of the richest men in New South Wales. When he finally meets Bergman, and small world that it is as she was once his sister's best friend, she is drunker than a skunk and can barely stand.

That starts the slight mystery. There is a wicked staff employed by Cotten and some little things to figure out along the way, such as Bergman seeing things that aren't there. I was watching waiting for it to get better.

It was worth watching. I was enthralled at the characters. Cotten and Bergman again did supremely excellent jobs, although I thought Bergman overacting a bit during one emotional scene, making it the same acting job as in her movie GASLIGHT. The actor who played Charles the Irish gentleman, Michael Wilding, was okay, I mean, he played the role well, but I think it needed to be someone bigger, with a greater stage presence and rugged good looks. Maybe that is why I did not see the love triangle as anything but forced because he did not seem suave enough. That might just be my tastes there.

I just don't see why Hitchcock did this one. I will have to research that. He wasn't under his contract with David Selznick anymore. It had the feeling of a very well done made-for-TV movie. The soap opera elements made it interesting to watch. I had to keep watching just to find out how it would all explode.

For the Hitchcock fan, or a Cotten or Bergman fan, it was well worth watching. It is not one of Hitchcock's better movies, but then I am comparing this to some of his really supreme movies out there. Now that I have seen this once, I can check it off my list of Hitchcock movies and leave it at that. I will give it three out of five stars because I was interested in this the first time around, but unlike his other movies, I don't think I will go out of my way to see this one again.

Mystic River (2003)

A+ film

[9/10 · 14 May 2005]

I sat down this afternoon when Madison was asleep to watch a movie. Morgan was out playing and Amy was at work. I was bored. I could have logged onto my National University class and done my stupid responses to other people's posts, but I didn't feel like it (I still gotta do it by midnight though).

I have had the DVD for Mystic River for a week or so. I kept putting it off because I thought it was some "acting" movie. You know the ones. The ones that everyone says was acted well but nobody ever says anything about the plot. Acting is secondary, if you ask me. A good movie will be helped by good acting, and most good movies are still pretty good even with bad acting. But bad movies are still bad, even with good acting.

So I popped in Mystic River. I didn't even know what it was about before it began. I was hooked from the start.

This movie was never dumb. All the characters acted in the way they were supposed to at all times. And it looked like real life, in every way. Every pretense flowed into the next and was thought-provoking and rich with meaning. Yet it did not tell you what to feel. The clues and motives naturally allowed your mind to fill it in. This movie was simple yet never seemed to think the audience a dummy. Yeah, and the acting was good. All the top stars turned in great performances.

Clint Eastwood did a marvelous job too. This movie could have been screwed up. This movie could have just been some B movie flop, even with the grade A talent. It seemed to me that Eastwood could have directed my ninth graders into a fine movie with this one. So this is a case where good acting helped an already good movie.

As I sit here staring at the screen, I want to say more about it. But I can't. I honestly see now why I didn't know what the movie was about: no one wanted to spoil it for me. I want to talk about the way the twisting plot twisted me, but that would give too much away.

A+ film.

To Catch a Thief (1955)

Good movie overshadowed by other masterpieces

[8/10 · 3 April 2005]

I was mightily impressed by this new (to me) Hitchcock film. To Catch a Thief starring Cary Grant and Grace Kelly was a delightful romp that seems to be overshadowed by Hitchcock's other masterpieces.

Set on the French Riviera, it stars Cary Grant as a retired jewel thief and French resistance hero. When the robberies start happening again, the authorities immediately think of him. So Grant has to go out and clear his own name by catching the real thief.

Grant is electric on the screen. I was never really a Cary Grant fan, but under close scrutiny recently of watching Notorious, North by Northwest, and now To Catch a Thief, I must say that I like him. He's personable and yet haughty and arrogant. I wonder what it was like to meet him. And then Grace Kelly, ah Grace!, delivered the best performance I've seen her in ( I must find other movies with her).

I must say that it kept me guessing throughout the movie. I caught myself saying that Grant was still committing the burglaries even though he was making us think otherwise. I caught myself saying, "Let it be Grace," because it seemed her character bended toward that. I can't go much farther without giving it away but let me just say that I didn't see it coming, and when it did, I said, "Of course!" I kept asking why this one wasn't shown as often as the others, like Vertigo, Rear Window, or Psycho. I still don't have much of a reason. This was very entertaining. Hitchcock directed another spectacular show. I wouldn't say it was one of his best, but when you are in that elite company, it would be extremely hard to be.

Good movie. Worth a look and worth a hearty recommendation.

North by Northwest (1959)

The Leader of the Pack of movies--imitated but never exceeded

[9/10 · 3 April 2005]

At first, North by Northwest, directed by Alfred Hitchcock and starring Cary Grant from 1959, has the feeling of "I've seen it before." That's because many moviegoers probably have seen it many times--in other movies since 1959 that were so inspired by it that they put their own spin on it. You feel like you've seen it before because it was the first of its kind, spawning many rehashes, rip-offs, and remakes.

Cary Grant gets abducted under mistaken identity as a secret agent. He gets away but nobody believes him and he alone searches out for the truth. But the truth puts him straight into a secret agent world of death and secrets and he gets blamed for knifing a top official in the United Nations. That scene alone is marvelous because as it enfolds, you shout at the character not to touch the thrown knife. "No! They'll think YOU did it!" That is precisely what the bad guys want, but anyone in that situation would probably act just like Grant does, clutching the man to help, figuring out what this thing is in his back.

Amazingly done throughout the movie is the suspense that this normal man is thrust into extraordinary circumstances. Some of his escapes are just cerebrally cool, as he causes a ruckus at the auction to be taken out by the police instead of taken out back by the bad guys. The scene where the famous biplane tries to chase him down in the middle of a field is the antithesis to noir classics where a dark alley conceals death. The open field is scarier, in that the world is open but there is nowhere to hide. The climax atop Mt. Rushmore is a cinematic gem. You will always remember it when you see pictures. Visiting the monument in 1999, I said to myself, "Look! Cary Grant!" Go see this movie. I give it my highest possible recommendation and this is one of Hitch's best.

The Birds (1963)

Good but not the best Hitch

[6/10 · 3 April 2005]

The Birds starring Tippi Hedren is one of those movies that everybody knows, but I'm not sure if everyone has actually seen it.

From 1963, this movie has been called one of the horror classics, even though I don't think it is one of Hitch's best. Don't get me wrong, it is superbly done, especially for its time period and special effects. Watching a piece on it a while back, Tippi said that the attic scene where she is attacked by birds took three days to film with the crew constantly just throwing birds at her. With what Yoda can do on the screen now, this would probably be a cgi-created scene now. Yet the Hitchcock movie effects lend a touch of realism to it.

I watched this movie a week or so ago, and was going to review it but first wanted to mull it over in my head. I didn't like it. It was scary and suspenseful in that a sitting flock of birds made you cringe. That was great stuff. You never knew when they would come, the ultimate in suspense.

The character development was weird. Hedren is basically a stalker as she follows this man 60 miles north just to prove her point. The man's own family situation was weird and that other girl that moves to be near him was sad. But maybe that was what it was saying about real life. Sometimes it is just sad the mistakes and decisions we make, even though we think they are the right ones.

You are almost halfway into the movie when this bird thing starts. Random attacks first plague the little hamlet, getting worse in intensity as the movie goes. Conjecture about the birds taking over the earth by their sheer numbers is monster-movie banter at its best. When the attacks come, the viewer forgets completely about the lives of these characters.

Maybe that was the point. Maybe Hitch wanted to portray regular everyday stupid life and then shock us with an immense horror of unending implications. If these seemingly innocuous birds did decide to conquer, would our pathetic existence seem worth saving? The movie is well worth seeing, even if just for its historical significance to the cinema, and well worth talking about and engaging about further. I want to learn more about what others see in the movie. This may b e one of those movies, like Kubrick's 2001: A Space Odyssey that, come on, is just crap by yourself, but talking about it with others is what makes it fascinating. Go see it and come back and tell me...The Butcher Shop at Blogger.

Young and Innocent (1937)

Underrated but great

[8/10 · 19 March 2005]

I believe that this movie is very underrated Hitchcock. Young and Innocent is about another seemingly docile situation that blows up in a young man's face. While wandering the beach, he comes across the dead body of a woman he knew (we saw the brief fight the woman had with her husband at the very beginning of the movie). As he runs to go get help, two ladies think he is running away from the body. As his trial proceeds, he is able to duck out and go on the lam with the daughter of the chief of police. With her help, they go to prove his innocence.

One can't help but feel for the young couple as they go on their adventure. Mainly, Hitchcock really works the camera on this one. There is one scene in particular, a great panoramic shot that comes to focus on a single pair of eyes, those twitching eyes from the very beginning of the movie.

Maybe it is because it doesn't have a big name or didn't have any real "jump out and get you" moments that it is forgotten. It is worth a look and I recommend seeing it, especially if you like old movies.

Dial M for Murder (1954)

A great thriller because of great script

[9/10 · 19 March 2005]

Dial "M" for Murder is one of Hitchcock's best movies. However, that may have to do more with the superb script than with Hitch's directing ability.

This movie was remade as A Perfect Murder starring Michael Douglas, Gwyneth Paltrow, and Viggo Mortensen. I believe the remake surpasses its original. This one is hard to talk about without giving too much away, but a husband is planning his wife's murder. Hitchcock must have loved trying to commit the perfect murder on the screen. This one almost pulls it off except for one little thing. That thing is pure genius when it reveals itself to you on the screen.

This is a fantastic movie and stars Grace Kelly, so what else could you want. It will keep you riveted as you wonder who will stumble first. The story is the great part about this movie. I actually think just about any director could have pulled this off. The remake takes extra twists and turns and pulls itself off better as a movie. This probably makes just as fantastic a novel as a movie.

Dial "M" for Murder still receives a major recommendation. Hitchcock did not overplay a strong script. That may have been his intent. I will have to think about this one.

The Ring (I) (1927)

Only watch if into silent flicks

[3/10 · 19 March 2005]

No, it's not the horror movie...This one is actually a love story.

The Ring is a silent film from 1927 that stars two boxers and the woman that comes between them. She loves the boxer known as "One Round" Jack. She loves him until the champion comes along, that is. Even though she marries One Round, she starts overtly flirting with the champion until the climactic final boxing fight between One Round and the champion. She comes back to One Round's corner, just when things look their bleakest, and he miraculously finds the inner strength to win the fight and win his wife love back.

This film was very early in Hitch's career, but the limitations of the time must not have made him make a lasting film. Although there are special film tricks, and some comedy relief, this film just does not hold up to any of his later work. It must have been extremely risqué for the time period though, with the shameless adulterous wife. That may have been the draw back in 1927. While looking through all of these old films, it is amazing how I think that they could be redone on today's screen and really come off. Maybe I should be the one....

Skip this movie unless you are planning on watching all of Hitchcock's films. You could fall asleep in the middle.

The Man Who Knew Too Much (1934)

Hitch's first go at the same movie

[8/10 · 19 March 2005]

Hitchcock actually made two movies called The Man Who Knew Too Much. This first one from 1934 starring Peter Lorre is known as the British version, coming a full 22 years before the lavish Hollywood remake starring James Stewart. This is an excellent movie, very fast paced and full of wit.

A couple has their child kidnapped in order to prevent them divulging any information that a dead spy has told them. Can you see the theme of regular people facing extraordinary circumstances seeping out? Hitch again makes it compelling to the average viewer because we are the star, putting ourselves in the position of the leading characters.

The great part of this movie is that you never scream at the characters for what they should be doing. The bad guys are very bad and do not commit any stupid mistakes, although you can see the appropriate ending coming as the mother is a famous sharp-shootist. There's always a reason that they don't shoot on sight, in order to keep the others from prying. And Peter Lorre, who did not know English at the time and had to learn the part phonetically, was extremely scary. That sneer of his made it possible for him to explode at any time. Hitch contains it until an explosive final confrontation.

This movie receives a major recommendation as I believe it sets some cinematic foreshadowing of movies to come.

Rear Window (1954)

An amazingly perfect movie

[10/10 · 6 March 2005]

One of the most famous movies by Hitch was Rear Window, starring James Stewart and Grace Kelly (who shined on the screen of my TV--I can't imagine how she looked on the big screen).

Stewart stars as a war photographer that is confined to a wheelchair because of a broken leg or hip. The only thing to do in 1954 was to watch the neighbors through the windows. The multiple levels of voyeurism are amazing in this movie, especially noticeable after several viewings (I think I have watched this four or five times). Stewart sees a microcosm of different points of his own life as he watches Miss Torso, the happy-go-lucky gal with a million gentlemen callers, Miss Lonelyhearts, who is apparently becoming an old maid, the Wedding Couple, with their wedded bliss, and the married couple and the arguments that they are apparently facing. Stewart watches people for his job, in a movie where we the viewers are watching somebody watch others. It's enough to make anyone think they are seeing things.

Stewart thinks something is fishy with the married couple when the woman seems to disappear into thin air. His deductive skills are on the move and he thinks there is foul play. Or is there? The amazing part of a movie with only one set is how deep it can actually be. It doesn't have to take place all over New York or the world. This seemingly simple man is thrust into a dire situation, and that is Hitchcock's trademark. Danger may lurk in your own backyard. Will you be up to the challenge? I wonder how many false alarms were made in the mid-1950s by other apartment dwellers because of this movie? How many today? This movie receives my highest possible recommendation.

The Lady Vanishes (1938)

An early view into Hitch's genius

[8/10 · 6 March 2005]

From 1938, The Lady Vanishes is clearly where Hitch was getting comfortable in his trade. Starting slowly, it soon revs up with mystery and intrigue. But I think that was the whole point. A seemingly innocuous day can lead itself into adventure.

Starting in some remote European village, a woman meets a little old lady. Getting on the train the next day, the old lady vanishes without a trace while she is asleep. When she asks about the lady, people say that there was no old lady. The mystery then ensues as our leading lady tries to uncover the plot behind a woman she knows was there.

The main aspect of this movie is the everyday humor that is applied. The two English fellows who are only looking for the latest cricket scores, score themselves some remarkable laughs. Our hero that comes to the leading woman's assistance is funny and charming himself. The time spent at the beginning in the hotel may seem to be off topic, making a viewer wonder where the mystery is, but the point is that the viewer becomes acquainted with the characters and are much more believable to the viewer. Again, I think Hitch was showing us our next door neighbors and how they can rise up against unusually dangerous circumstances. I think my analysis of Hitch would be his championing the moral fiber of everyman. I think that is why Hitchcock films still stand today as some of the best ever made.

This movie receives my major recommendation. Not done yet. I got more to view and review. What fun!

Rope (1948)

An Unloved Classic

[8/10 · 5 March 2005]

I stayed up late last night to watch another Hitchcock movie. It's pretty easy to stay up watching Hitchcock because he keeps you so engrossed. Last night I watched his intellectual suspense drama called Rope. It stars James Stewart and Farley Granger, both of which starred in other Hitchcock movies as you'll remember when you see it.

First off, this was a bit of an experimental picture for Hitch. It was a color movie from 1948 and it also tried to capture the film as if it were one loooong camera shot. There is no switching from camera to camera and the camera follows them across the apartment, the only set of the picture. The most amazing thing that you don't notice the first time is that Hitch allows dusk to happen gradually throughout the picture, showcasing light sources being illuminated throughout the movie and new light angles that make it interesting, especially by the end when all that is really left are the colorful neon signs lighting the set.

Stewart is of course fabulous in this one. He's the only actor I've ever known that can keep you riveted with only himself on screen (if you've never seen The Spirit of St. Louis about Lindbergh, go watch it). When he is on stage, we see the wheels of his mind turning as he tries to unravel the mystery (no pun intended on the rope).

The main aspect about this one is Hitch's belief that evil can be disguised as two good-looking prep students. In the first five seconds, we see them strangling a man with a rope. What becomes truly evil is that we see they did it as an experiment on murder and hold a party to celebrate, all the while the dead body is in a chest in the middle of the room.

When evil looks like the kids next door, that they are getting away with it, that is truly evil. This is an excellent picture and worthy of a major recommendation.

Blackmail (1929)

Hitchcock was ahead of his time

[7/10 · 1 March 2005]

I have been a devout fan of Hitchcock for a long time. I have tried to locate and watch all of his movies. This movie, though early in Hitchcock's career, clearly starts to establish the root of most of his work. While this is his first talkie, he only presents words when they further the plot. The beginning of his use of suspense starts in this movie. The moment when everything turns worse when the main character gets into trouble is a good switch; something you don't see coming. There are some really good camera moments that if Hitchcock had made this film today could more easily have been portrayed. Some of his panning and blending would really come over well today. As it is, it is well ahead of its time. The plot was intriguing but could have been better. It's almost that you expect there to be more. I think a new director and writer could really take this premise and basic formula and run with it.