Lifeboat (1944)

Tags

Canada Lee, Drama, Henry Hull, Hitchcock, Hume Cronyn, John Hodiak, Lifeboat, Mary Anderson, Movie, Tallulah Bankhead, Walter Slezak, William Bendix

we're gonna need a bigger boat...

PG?

Tallulah Bankhead, John Hodiak, William Bendix, Hume Cronyn, Mary Anderson, Walter Slezak, Henry Hull, Canada Lee

Kovac: A crew member or skipper, he’s German!
Gus: Well, a guy can’t help bein’ German if he’s born a German, can he?
Kovac: Neither can a snake help being a rattlesnake if he’s born a rattlesnake!  That don’t make him a Nightingale!  Get him outta here!

Several survivors of a torpedoed ship are adrift on a lifeboat together along with a German crew member from the boat (which was also destroyed) that sunk them.

Another winner from Alfred Hitchcock.  Not one of his best, but certainly enjoyable.

It sort of reminded me of 12 Angry Men.  Basically it’s a group of people, representing various aspects of society, locked in close quarters, having to deal with each other and their differences.  There’s the mink coat wearing reporter who glorifies the war for her own personal gain, the grimy engine room worker who hates everything the reporter stands for, a young idealist medic who says she hates the war but still joined the military to help patch people up, the super rich factory owner, the African American man who has turned from a life of crime to a life of faith, and the rest (as they would say on Gilligan’s Island).

Plus, there’s the German.  His presence is the main focus of the arguments between the others.  Some want him immediately killed and tossed overboard, while others believe he is their best chance for rescue.  Is he to be trusted?  When people are most desperate, can they put their differences aside and work together?  I won’t reveal the details of what happens on that boat, but I will say this.  The war was still raging at the time this movie was made, and Hitchcock was clearly no fan of the Nazis.

It may not be the most realistic depiction of what it would be like on a lifeboat at sea for days and days – the awkward issue of people needing to…well…use the restroom…is never even brought up – but there’s good dialogue and some interesting twists along the way.  It’s also fairly dark, thematically, which is appropriate for the situation.  I mean, the first onscreen casualty is an infant, followed shortly by its suicidal mother.  Doesn’t get much darker than that…

Fish love diamond bracelets.

10 – 1 because it could have been a little more realistic as to what it would really be like adrift like that – .7 for a couple dull spots – .5 for a moment or two of overly dramatic acting = 7.8

The 39 Steps (1935)

Tags

Drama, Godfrey Tearle, Hitchcock, John Laurie, Lucie Mannheim, Madeleine Carroll, Movie, Peggy Ashcroft, Robert Donat, Suspense, The 39 Steps

check it out…four and a half finger discount…

PG?

Robert Donat, Madeleine Carroll, Godfrey Tearle, Lucie Mannheim, John Laurie, Peggy Ashcroft

Richard: Are you married?
Milkman: Yes, but don’t rub it in.

Richard (Donat) meets a mysterious woman, Annabella (Mannheim), who comes back to his apartment with him.  She reveals to him that she’s a spy trying to prevent an important secret from being exposed.  When she is murdered in his apartment, Richard must go on the run from the police (who suspect Richard) and Annabella’s killers as well.

This is a relatively early Alfred Hitchcock movie, and it didn’t appeal to me nearly as much as some of his later movies do.  There are many of his usual themes and images present, like a falsely accused man, trains, shadowy locations, etc, but it all just didn’t quite come together for me in this case.

It’s not a bad film, of course, it’s just a little routine.  Also, the leading man, Robert Donat, was a bit dull.  The three main women in the movie were much more interesting.  There’s Annabella, the spy at the beginning.  Then there’s Margaret, the farmer’s wife who helps Richard escape from the police.  And finally there’s Pamela.  She turns Richard in to the police twice, but ends up handcuffed to him and on the run for the final act of the film.

You can see some of Hitchcock’s inventiveness and creativity on display with camera angles and such, but not much in the movie really grabbed my attention.  I had a hard time staying awake through it, to be honest, which is not usually the case with Hitchcock movies.  Plus, the big secret reveal in the end hardly seemed worth all the trouble everybody had gone through.

Not terrible, just not a classic.

Don’t take mysterious women home with you.

10 – 3 because I didn’t find the story to be very compelling – 1 for a few dull performances, especially the lead = 6.0

Foreign Correspondent (1940)

Tags

Drama, Foreign Correspondent, George Sanders, Herbert Marshall, Hitchcock, Joel McCrea, Laraine Day, Movie, Suspense

dude, where's your hat?

PG?

Joel McCrea, Laraine Day, Herbert Marshall, George Sanders

Johnny Jones: I’m in love with you, and I want to marry you.
Carol Fisher: I’m in love with you, and I want to marry you.
Johnny Jones: Hmm…that cuts down our love scene quite a bit, doesn’t it?

It’s 1939 (I assume) and a newspaper reporter, Johnny Jones (McCrea), is sent to Europe to dig up facts about the impending war.  When he witnesses the assassination of a diplomat who was about to sign a peace treaty, Jones is caught up in a mystery that could put his own life at stake.

This is another early(-ish) Alfred Hitchcock movie, and it’s not one of my Hitchcock favorites.  I believe my main issue with it is that leading man Joel McCrea is a big dull dud.   I didn’t think he had any charisma whatsoever, which made it hard to believe the much too hurried romance.  This is the kind of role that Cary Grant would later excel at in other Hitchcock movies.  I think he would have taken this movie to another level.

The plot is okay, but it never felt like anybody was in any serious danger throughout it, so the few cat and mouse games between the characters lacked a certain punch.  Other than the rather intense assassination scene, the movie felt too lighthearted considering the subject matter.  It also had a somewhat bizarre pro-United States message at the end that seemed oddly out of place (unless it was intended to encourage the U.S. to get involved in the war).

George Sanders probably provides the best character as Scott ffolliott (there’s a funny scene where he explains the double lower case Fs), a British reporter who is skeptical of Jones’ story at first.  Day and Marshall are both fine in their roles, but nothing special.

The best stuff in the movie is probably the sets and the camera work.  There’s a great scene at a windmill that the assassin flees to, and a pretty decent looking plane crash later on.  It all looks good, and the movie seems like it should be working, but there was a certain impact missing from most of the scenes.  Maybe it goes back to McCrea’s performance not holding my attention, or maybe it’s just not that compelling of a story.

Hats are important.  Always wear a hat!  …Hats!

10 – 2.2 for McCrea’s less than inspiring performance – 1.5 because it seemed overlong and not very compelling = 6.3

Stage Fright (1950)

Tags

Drama, Hitchcock, Jane Wyman, Marlene Dietrich, Movie, Richard Todd, Stage Fright, Suspense

so I just killed my hubby, can you cover for me? k thanks bye!

PG?

Jane Wyman, Richard Todd, Marlene Dietrich

Det. Smith: I once had a cousin who had an ulcer and an extremely funny face, both at the same time.  Everybody laughed at him when he was telling his symptoms.  His name was Jim.
Eve Gill: That must’ve been terrible!
Det. Smith: Oh, I don’t know, Jim is quite a common name.

Jonathan (Todd) is obsessed with Charlotte (Dietrich), a well respected entertainer.  Enough that he even tries to cover up her guilt when she kills her abusive husband.  Jonathan is spotted by Charlotte’s maid while he’s staging a crime scene and must go on the run from the police.  Eve (Wyman) loves Jonathan and wants to prove his innocence, so she romances a police detective and goes undercover as a new assistant to Charlotte.

It’s another murder mystery from Alfred Hitchcock, though not quite up to par with his better films.  It does have some good moments of wit, a couple of good performances, and a decent amount of suspense, but the twist at the end left me thinking some of the earlier scenes were a bit of a cheat.  It seems like some of the early scenes were intentionally misleading in a way that just doesn’t make sense in the context of the whole film.

Jane Wyman is good and sympathetic as Eve, and Alastair Sim is very enjoyable as her father.  He’s the voice of reason and intelligence and brings some energy to a movie that does tend to drag at times.  Richard Todd, as Jonathan, isn’t as enjoyable, mostly overacting and looking wide-eyed for the whole movie.  Fortunately we follow more of Eve’s exploits than Jonathan’s.

As I mentioned, this one does seem to drag a bit at times.  I noticed that I was ready for it to end a good bit before it was, apparently.  The mystery just wasn’t compelling enough to really hold my attention.  The only person that seemed at risk was Jonathan, and seeing as how I didn’t really like him, I didn’t care so much.

There is some good here, and there is some boring here, but the good was plentiful enough to make it watchable.  I just don’t know if it’s going to be one I revisit very often when I want my Hitchcock fix.  I’ll probably rely on Rear Window or Notorious for that.

The usual Hitchcock lesson…don’t trust anybody!

10 – 1.8 for being a little dull and uninspiring here and there – 1 for a couple of performances/characters that could have been better – .9 for the ending making the beginning seem like a bit of a cheat = 6.3

I Confess (1953)

Tags

Drama, Hitchcock, I Confess, Movie

you've got the Minister and the Rabbi? okay, I've got the priest. let's get these three together and get this joke started...

PG?

Montgomery Clift, Anne Baxter, Karl Malden

Father Logan: I never thought of the priesthood as offering a hiding place.

A Catholic priest, Father Logan (Clift), hears the confession of a man who just committed murder, but does not turn him in because of his oath not to reveal anything overheard in confession.  When Logan himself becomes the prime suspect in the murder, he must decide whether to break his oath and clear his name or keep his oath and possibly face the death penalty.  Complicating the matter is the fact that his alibi for where he was could also bring some other controversial issues to light.

Yet another lesser known Hitchcock movie.  This one is quite dark and also very serious.  There is not much, if any, humor or even romance.  There is one flashback sequence that goes overboard with the romantic imagery, but then I think it was meant to be that way, as sort of an idealized contrast to the darker present.

The first half of this one didn’t hold my attention very well, I must admit.  It got more compelling in the second half when the characters really started to interact and Logan’s belief in his oath really got put to the test.  As is usually the case in Hitchcock movies, we know who the murderer is from scene one.  The real drama comes from whether or not the right man will be accused of the murder.

Clift is good in a relatively quiet leading role, and Karl Malden plays the detective with just the right amount of intelligence and intensity.  I thought the character of Ruth (Baxter) was a little bit dull, but she had a few good moments as well.

Though I would call this movie well done, both visually and story wise, I didn’t find it to be highly entertaining (mostly because of the lack of humor, romance, and many suspenseful sequences), and I don’t think it would stand up to repeated viewings.  At least, not for me.

There needs to be an “unless they confess murder” clause in that oath regarding confessions.

10 – 2.7 for no real humor, romance, etc – 1 for a dull first half + .4 for good visual style and good performances = 6.7

The Wrong Man (1956)

Tags

Drama, Henry Fonda, Hitchcock, Movie, Suspense, The Wrong Man

so...you're the RIGHT man...

PG?

Henry Fonda, Vera Miles

Robert: It says here Mozart wrote it when he was 5.  So, I should be able to play it.  I’m 8.
Greg: I’m 5, so I should be able to write it!

Chris Balestrero (Fonda) is mistaken for a hold-up man that apparently looks a lot like him.  Witnesses identify him, and handwriting samples are a close enough match to get him arrested.  As Chris awaits his trial, his wife Rose (Miles), believing she has failed her husband in some way, starts to suffer a sort of nervous breakdown.

This movie is based on a true story (a story which is right up Hitchcock’s alley), and you can tell that Hitchcock was going for a sense of realism here in order to get that point across.  Alfred himself gives an introduction at the beginning stating that everything in it is true, so obviously he didn’t want to do anything too fantastical that would stretch the credibility of that statement.

It was frustrating watching the evidence seemingly mount against the innocent Chris, and Fonda does a good job of looking lost and confused by it all.  Unfortunately, despite it being a truly odd situation, it didn’t make for the most compelling movie.  In Hitchcock’s hands, it’s probably as good as it could possibly be, but it definitely dragged at times.

Rose’s descent into depression and seeming madness sort of comes out of nowhere as well.  Maybe that’s how it really happened, but I would have liked to have seen a more gradual change in her and maybe more of an indication as to why such a severe effect occurred.  A whole movie focusing on her might have been more interesting.

So, to sum up, not one of my favorites from Hitchcock, but certainly watchable.  If you go into it expecting to see a frustrating situation of mistaken identity, along with a realistic, detailed depiction of how the police went about determining his guilt, you could get some enjoyment out of it.

Try not to look like other people.

10 – 2.2 for slow parts – 1.1 for not having enough character development and explanation = 6.7

Suspicion (1941)

Tags

Cary Grant, Drama, Hitchcock, Joan Fontaine, Movie, Romance, Suspense, Suspicion

what's the matter, dear? all that talk of murder by poison didn't frighten you, did it? now drink up...

PG?

Cary Grant, Joan Fontaine

Johnnie: Well, well.  You’re the first woman I’ve ever met who said yes when she meant yes.

Johnnie (Grant) and Lina (Fontaine) meet on a train, then have a whirlwind romance resulting in a quick marriage and romantic honeymoon.  Upon returning to their new home, Lina gets her first indication that Johnnie may not be the man she thought he was.  She learns he doesn’t have much money at all, and may have a gambling problem.  Gradually, though, she starts to suspect that he may have an even darker side.

Another solid Alfred Hitchcock movie.  It doesn’t rank among my favorites, but I enjoyed it.  My main problem came with the end of the film.  It felt a little weak and like a bit of a cheat.  I watched a short documentary, on the dvd bonus features, about the making of this film, and it indicated that the ending had to be changed while they were shooting.  The original ending seems much more appropriate in context with the rest of the movie.  That being said, the filmed ending wasn’t terrible.  It just didn’t feel as right as it could have.

Grant is effectively mysterious playing a less heroic character than he often played, and Fontaine makes for a very sympathetic heroine.  I thought she over-acted a bit here and there, but she won an Oscar for her performance, so what do I know?

There are a lot of typical Hitchcock moments in this movie, including a scene on a train, scenes by cliffs, bizarrely shadowy rooms, and people sitting around talking about murder over a nice dinner.  The camera work is interesting as usual, and the subtle shots of various clues to what’s going on are done well.  Despite a slow(ish) beginning and what I thought was a slightly disappointing ending, this is still a good mystery that’s worth seeing.

Rich people looooooove discussing murder.  (This is something I’ve finally learned after watching many a Hitchcock movie.)

10 – 1.2 for weak ending – .7 for sluggish beginning – .3 for some over-acting = 7.8

Mr. & Mrs. Smith (1941)

Tags

Carole Lombard, Comedy, Hitchcock, Movie, Mr. & Mrs. Smith, Robert Montgomery, Romance

I think 'yes' is the word you wanted to say...

PG?

Carole Lombard, Robert Montgomery

Harry: I guess she’s changed some, huh?
David: Well, she’s changed a little.
Harry: She once chased a dog-catcher a half a mile with a baseball bat!
David: Well…she hasn’t changed as much as you think.

David (Montgomery) and Ann (Lombard) Smith like to think that they have the perfect marriage, but one morning – after making up from a long fight – David makes the mistake of being a little too honest with Ann about something.  Later that day, they discover that their marriage was never legal due to a technicality.  This leads to a series of arguments and misunderstandings which leaves David trying to win back his wife’s love.

I’ve often thought that the romance and comedy elements of Alfred Hitchcock movies were underrated.  So, I was looking forward to seeing this romantic comedy from the famed suspense director.  For the most part, it lived up to my expectations.  Some of the screwball, physical comedy isn’t to my taste, though the scene in a crowded restaurant where David tries to give himself a bloody nose in order to get out of an awkward situation was very good.

Montgomery and Lombard work well together and create characters that clearly don’t belong with anybody but each other.  I was sad to learn that Lombard was killed in an an airplane crash shortly after this movie was made.  She was already a well established star, and no doubt had an even brighter future ahead.  She obviously had very good comedic timing and was also believable in the more serious scenes.

Another aspect I liked was that the character of Jeff, played by Gene Raymond, who Ann begins to date after separating from David, was not played as a jerk or idiot.  He’s a perfectly nice guy who would clearly be very good for Ann.  His only real problem is that he’s not David.  Often in romantic comedies, the lead will have to choose between two people, one of which is obnoxious or stupid, and one who is sweet and interesting.  There’s little mystery in that scenario.

I think I learned one more important lesson from this movie.  In fact, maybe that should be a new feature in my reviews, a “Lesson Learned” section.

When your wife asks you, “if you had it to do all over, would you marry me again,” do not say “no” if you want to stay married for long.

10 – 1.4 for some goofy physical humor that I didn’t care for – 1.2 for a couple of dull spots = 7.4

Dial M for Murder (1954)

Tags

Dial M for Murder, Grace Kelly, Hitchcock, Movie, Ray Milland, Suspense

can I call you back, some guy's about to strangle me...

PG

Ray Milland, Grace Kelly

Charles: What makes you think I’ll agree?
Tony: The same reason that a donkey with a stick behind him and a carrot in front always goes forwards and not backwards.
Charles: Tell me about the carrot…

Tony Wendice (Milland) has planned the perfect murder, and enlists an old school acquaintance to carry it out.  Tony’s wife, Margot (Kelly), is to be the unfortunate victim, but the murder does not go remotely as planned.  Tony must scramble to cover his involvement, even if it means framing his wife for murder.

As I watch more Alfred Hitchcock movies, I have to wonder if he and his friends sat around discussing murder as much as the characters in his movies do.  You’d think that was the number one topic of conversation in America if you were basing your opinion on his movies.

Once again we have a character, Tony, who is convinced he’s smart enough to pull this perfect murder off.  The problem is, when he enlists someone else to do it, his control of the situation goes out the window.  Then he is left improvising a whole new scenario that will still achieve the desired result: his unfaithful wife being dead.

It’s fun watching the detective try to piece together the clues (some left intentionally, some not) while Tony tries to stay one step ahead of him.  There’s not a huge amount of action here, and not as many tense, suspenseful situations as most Hitchcock movies, but I still found it fascinating to watch the verbal cat and mouse games being played by the characters.  When the dialogue is well written, that can be just as exciting as any other suspense sequence.

The scene with the attempt on Margot’s life is pretty intense, but thankfully, she gets in the last laugh…or stab, I should say.

10 – 1.4 for a few dull spots in the first third – .7 for some character behavior that was a little hard to believe = 7.9

North by Northwest (1959)

Tags

Action, Cary Grant, Eva Marie Saint, Hitchcock, James Mason, Movie, North by Northwest, Suspense

this whole situation seems to be going south actually...

PG

Cary Grant, Eva Marie Saint, James Mason

Phillip Vandamm: Do you intend to cooperate with us?  I’d like a simple yes or no.
Roger: A simple no.  For the simple reason I simply don’t know what you’re talking about!

Roger Thornhill (Grant) is just an average advertising man who, via a case of mistaken identity, gets roped into a world of espionage and danger.  After surviving an attempt on his life by Phillip Vandamm (Mason) and his men, Thornhill is framed for murder and must go on the run from the police in addition to Vandamm’s henchmen.

Another great Hitchcock movie, though this one is more expansive than usual.  There are an assortment of locations, train rides, plane trips, big cities, flat open fields, and even a trip to Mt. Rushmore.  The story might be a little hard to swallow at times, but that’s okay because it’s such an enjoyable ride.

Some of the best moments are between Cary Grant and Eva Marie Saint on the train.  There’s some seriously suggestive dialogue which is just fun to listen to.  For example:

Eve: It’s going to be a long night.
Roger: True.
Eve: And I don’t particularly like the book I’ve started.
Roger: Ah.
Eve: You know what I mean?
Roger: Ah, let me think. Yes, I know exactly what you mean.

They’re both really good, as are the rest of the performances, including an early, effectively creepy performance from Martin Landau as one of the henchmen.

My only real complaint about the movie – aside from a slightly lackluster ending – is that Hitchcock decided to include an odd scene with the FBI agents (or whoever they were) sitting around a table spouting exposition about all the goings on, as a way to fill the audience in on various details.  They explain and explain, over and over, to make sure everything is clear.  It seemed completely unnecessary, and actually spoiled what would have been an interesting twist to learn later in the movie.  It reminded me of the final scene in Hitchcock’s next movie, Psycho, where a psychiatrist is paraded out at the end to explain everything just in case the audience is confused.

Other than that, I enjoyed this movie thoroughly, and it further cemented Alfred Hitchcock on my list of all time favorite directors.

10 – .7 for that odd scene I mentioned – .5 for a somewhat lackluster ending = 8.8