stretch009 said:
EyeShotFirst said:
DuracellEnergizer said:
Dial M for Murder (1954)
Bland direction, no likable characters, and all that convoluted nonsense with the keys near the end make this one of the most overrated movies I've ever seen. Ray Milland's performance is the only real saving grace this picture has.
I'm positive that were it not for Hitchcock's name, this movie would've been forgotten decades ago.
C-
I agree completely. I was going on a Hitchcock binge recently and Dial M for Murder was the only film I just couldn't get into. I just don't thing it grabs the audience like Hitchcock films do. Why is this considered one of his masterpieces, and Marnie considered a crapsterpiece?
I really liked Dial M but it's definitely no masterpiece. I've seen a lot of Hitchcock movies and Marnie is easily my least favorite.
You must keep in mind it was one of his numerous "run for cover" films; films he would make to provide a greater response at the box office-especially after some of his more personal or artistic films hadn't done so well. Dial M was based on the stage play and Hitch felt it was a surefire hit. He couldn't really change anything and this combined with a short schedule and the extremely cumbersome 3D camera holds the film back. What is incredible is the depth of the photography visible even in 2D all these years, the attempted murder, the direct usage of camera technique to underline story, the fact that we get to look at Grace Kelly, Anthony Dawson as the ill-fated blackmailee, and one of Ray Milland's finest performances. He truly is the picture.
Marnie is a flawed gem. Outdated, old-fashioned, dreamlike in places, held back by censors and MCA-Universal, and featuring a lead actress so remote and frigid that she works far better in this psychologically damaged character than in The Birds. Had Hitch been able to make the film as he wanted and kept Kelly in the role, it would be among the masterpieces. I still find it a striking and gorgeous at times masterpiece (I can somewhat criticize Hitch at times, but no one made pictures like him--even his heavily compromised ones.) but it is frustrating to watch because of all the heavy compromising and the fact that Hitch was losing touch with his audience at this time in addition to being reined in by the studio. BTW, Connery is outstanding here, steals the picture, and again proves how great he can be when given a direction to go in.
Reached #20 on my usual marathon which I do almost monthly at times.
Die Another Day-Dolby EX.
It's not necessarily bad, nor does it deserve it's terrible reputation. What cannot be ignored though is how the story seems to give up entirely after the first act. This is where the curse of Purvis & Wade really came into full force and has tarnished everything since. They cannot develop a single idea properly and in the Brosnan era which already had these sorts of problems it proved a deathblow. And what hurts even more is just how good Brosnan was getting into the role at this point. It is a shameful waste.
Some good moments, plenty of underdevelopment, terrible CG sequences, godawful director show-off bits of slo-mo, a flipping "yo mama" joke, weak villain ripping off Fleming's brilliant Hugo Drax, far too many nods to the past, product placement galore and of course the horror known only as Jinx. For all those who have a problem with the nuclear scientist in TWINE, I give you this annoying idiot. Thank god the proposed spinoff never happened!!!!
And still I give this somewhere around a 3.5 out of 4. At least it's well made.
In regard to Thunderball, my theory is that the problem is twofold: First the novel is based on the original treatment by Fleming, Wittingham and McClory. It lacks the usual panache of Fleming's other books and already on its own feels a bit long winded and has less zest. Then the film script was based around Richard Maibaum's original 1961 draft for when TB was proposed as the first Bond film.
Second: The original rough cut ran for four hours and Peter Hunt had to beg UA for more time to make something coherent out of it. This pushed the film to December '65 and resulted in many scenes being dropped. It seems the shoot held to the script which was rather faithful to the novel instead of essentially abridging the source for film as the previous three films had done. If Guy Hamilton had stayed on it would have all fallen apart. That's not a slight, just that Hamilton worked in the opposite way. At least with Terrence Young returning there was that drive again that instills vitality in scenes otherwise flat.