I am very behind of my movie reviews. I may backfill some in a little while.
For now, though, this weeks' Netflix offering was the 1955 "Night of the Hunter".
This is a movie that seriously deserves to be remade. Any movie that has Lillian Gish kick someone's ass is worth watching. Even more so if it practically starts with a crazy guy saying to God "I know You don't mind the killin', Lord. Your book's full of killin'." But it was very much showing the time during which it was made.
For one, it could stand to have the story-telling method updated a bit. For example, there are sequences of scene after scene after scene where each scene consists of 2 or 3 lines of dialog and then it goes to the next scene. Let's fix that.
And maybe we could take out the "idiot" points. If you're going to hide a murder victim in a body of water, may I suggest you not chose the clearest body of water in 3 states? The one where you can see 50 feet straight down as though it were right in front of your face?
And if you happen to look into the clearest body of water in 3 states and see a murder victim just sitting there, go to the police. Just go.
(And to really add insult to injury, neither of these dumbs was necessary to the movie. They cancel out. You can completely take them out and not affect the movie one little bit.)
Oh, and let's not even pretend that the money's hiding place is a surprise to anyone, so just be honest about it up front. Honestly, the attempt at hiding it just mucks up a plot point.
Finally, I'd love to see this done with some child actors who can actually act. You know, since they have 80% of the camera time and all.
Despite that:
The character of Harry Powell is wonderful. I would love to see him played by a good actor, rather than just pointing the camera at Robert Mitchum and letting the melodrama spill out. I'm thinking do him as a more realistic sociopath/classic abuser. Start very charming, then kind of ramp up the abuse headfucking. And maybe we could suck the misogyny out of the rest of the movie and pile it all on him, because it really fits well there.
And maybe we could show the Harper's marriage as being abuse as well. It'd make Willow falling into Powell's trap more believable, I think. She's already primed to be beat down by someone and think it's her fault.
And the "bad religious person" versus "good religious person" thing at the end? Great job. I would file some of the rough edges off Ms. Cooper. Not make her saccharine, mind; there just seems to be a disconnect where she's very harsh sometimes, and utterly loving sometimes. Just keep the character a bit more consistent, or flesh out the seeming contradictions more (because people do have internal contradictions and faces they put on).
The original book may do it better, having more time to flesh things out. I don't know, although I am tempted to find a copy.
So, final conclusion. Good movie. Worth a watch. But, could benefit from the some technical updating.
Saturday, January 31, 2009
Saturday, January 3, 2009
Movie: The Man Who Knew Too Much (spoilers)
This was the original 1934 The Man Who Knew Too Much with Leslie Banks, not the remake with Jimmy Stewart -- which just seems wrong. You know, Jimmy Stewart as Average Dad turned super spy. I just... can't.
But that's not the one I watched. I watched the one from 1934, when they had kinder, gentler spy movies. For instance, gun fights are terribly messy business, so let's fight with chairs instead. Lots and lots of breakaway chairs. And our master spy (an unusually adorable Peter Lorre), when leaving the hero-turned-hostage under the watch of an underling, ominously orders "If he tries anything, shoot him -- in the leg." Because, you know, they wouldn't want to kill the hero. And of course, when you want to make sure a woman doesn't leave, the bad guys brutally shorten her skirt.
Seriously, that one was just a wonderful little culture shock. This woman comes in with her skirt hem at her knees, Peter is laughing his ass off, and I'm sitting there going "What? What's going on? What am I missing? Oh, it's 1934!"
The other fun little historical bit is that back then, evil spies were always automatically German. Russia hadn't figured out this spy thing yet. Always German. This really threw Fritz Lang for a loop when he made his movie Spies, because he was German. There he was, needed evil German spies, but his heroes had to be German. He ended up making his master spy more of a crimelord. (And a banker, so he may have been implying Jewish. After all, it was Germany in 1928.)
OK, I don't really know why Fritz did that.
(So, during the Cold War, did the Russians have spy movies with evil American villains. They had to, didn't they? Know where I can find one subtitled? That'd be awesome to watch! I bet it'd be flippin' hilarious.)
Anyway, back to the movie. I can't really suggest it. Talkies were still having the bugs worked out, and Hitchcock was still figuring out that directing thing. It's also very much an Idiot Movie. I mean, even looking past the basic fact that these expert professional spies are getting their ass kicked by Average Dad and Helpless Mom, the villains can't see anything like hostages just walking out behind them, they can't hear anything like hostages breaking through doors, they aren't smart enough to go "cops are shooting at us through the window. Maybe we shouldn't stand next to it." It's... just not good. And just to add insult to injury, the quality of cut that Netflix has is simply awful. Not visible attempt at restoration or preservation at all.
Spies are very good babysitters, though. I heartily suggest calling a few spies next time you want to catch dinner and a movie without the kids in tow.
Personally, I'm just here for Peter Lorre. Young, chubby, moon-faced, fresh off the boat, doesn't even speak English yet, Peter Lorre. With a piebald streak, for no readily apparent reason. Seriously, this was Lorre's first English film and he learned his role phonetically because he didn't really know much English. And yet he still acted circles around Leslie Banks. He was a really good master spy. Totally stole the show, such as it was. It's almost worth watching it for Master Spy Peter Lorre. But not quite.
And I think that's just my thing.
In the end analysis, if you're not a Lorre fan and you're not a diehard Hitchcock fan, there's not a lot of point to seeing it.
But that's not the one I watched. I watched the one from 1934, when they had kinder, gentler spy movies. For instance, gun fights are terribly messy business, so let's fight with chairs instead. Lots and lots of breakaway chairs. And our master spy (an unusually adorable Peter Lorre), when leaving the hero-turned-hostage under the watch of an underling, ominously orders "If he tries anything, shoot him -- in the leg." Because, you know, they wouldn't want to kill the hero. And of course, when you want to make sure a woman doesn't leave, the bad guys brutally shorten her skirt.
Seriously, that one was just a wonderful little culture shock. This woman comes in with her skirt hem at her knees, Peter is laughing his ass off, and I'm sitting there going "What? What's going on? What am I missing? Oh, it's 1934!"
The other fun little historical bit is that back then, evil spies were always automatically German. Russia hadn't figured out this spy thing yet. Always German. This really threw Fritz Lang for a loop when he made his movie Spies, because he was German. There he was, needed evil German spies, but his heroes had to be German. He ended up making his master spy more of a crimelord. (And a banker, so he may have been implying Jewish. After all, it was Germany in 1928.)
OK, I don't really know why Fritz did that.
(So, during the Cold War, did the Russians have spy movies with evil American villains. They had to, didn't they? Know where I can find one subtitled? That'd be awesome to watch! I bet it'd be flippin' hilarious.)
Anyway, back to the movie. I can't really suggest it. Talkies were still having the bugs worked out, and Hitchcock was still figuring out that directing thing. It's also very much an Idiot Movie. I mean, even looking past the basic fact that these expert professional spies are getting their ass kicked by Average Dad and Helpless Mom, the villains can't see anything like hostages just walking out behind them, they can't hear anything like hostages breaking through doors, they aren't smart enough to go "cops are shooting at us through the window. Maybe we shouldn't stand next to it." It's... just not good. And just to add insult to injury, the quality of cut that Netflix has is simply awful. Not visible attempt at restoration or preservation at all.
Spies are very good babysitters, though. I heartily suggest calling a few spies next time you want to catch dinner and a movie without the kids in tow.
Personally, I'm just here for Peter Lorre. Young, chubby, moon-faced, fresh off the boat, doesn't even speak English yet, Peter Lorre. With a piebald streak, for no readily apparent reason. Seriously, this was Lorre's first English film and he learned his role phonetically because he didn't really know much English. And yet he still acted circles around Leslie Banks. He was a really good master spy. Totally stole the show, such as it was. It's almost worth watching it for Master Spy Peter Lorre. But not quite.
And I think that's just my thing.
In the end analysis, if you're not a Lorre fan and you're not a diehard Hitchcock fan, there's not a lot of point to seeing it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)