MovieChat Forums > ElizabethJoestar > Replies
ElizabethJoestar's Replies
I don't own many box sets, but I treasure my Criterion Collection Jacques Demy and Marlene Dietrich/Josef von Sternberg sets. I also own a Kubrick bluray set (everything he made between LOLITA and EYES WIDE SHUT), though the packaging was busted when it came in. Luckily, the movies were not damaged.
I absolutely agree! People often write this one off as a more serious and less interesting take on the same themes as DR STRANGELOVE, but I found FAILSAFE to be a classic in its own right. I was riveted throughout the film and stunned by the finale. It still plays so well.
@ecarle, can you believe that, beyond its bad reputation, one of the prime reasons I avoided TOPAZ for a long time was because of its uninspiring poster art?
I mean-- it just focuses on the fact that Hitchcock is adapting a novel... wow. The film, flawed as it is, does have some iconic images the poster artist could have exploited. Surely, they could have come up with something better than what we got!
Good poster art should hype you up or at least intrigue you. It's like when it came to TOPAZ, they didn't know how to sell the movie, maybe because it was so different from typical Hitchcock fare. Same with MARNIE.
Because they didn't care and did not seem to think it interfered with their experiment at all.
When they realize Alex is tormented by associating the music with his suffering, they shrug it off and say, "There's the punishment element, I suppose." In the book, this is explicitly linked with the head of the prison, who says he prefers the idea of an eye for an eye and not reformation. So, it can be assumed that A) the scientists don't care either way and B) they feel the opponents of the reformation angle (the eye for an eye bunch) can at least take some pleasure in Alex not getting off scot-free.
That's what I was going to say-- even though I did find the movie enjoyable. But then, I think the movie is enjoyable because of Arkin and Caan's chemistry, which elevated a pretty haphazard script. Take them out and I'm not sure the movie would be the cult hit it still is.
At the very least, he was professional enough to not phone his performance in.
@BeaSouth, perfect analysis of this movie! I too really loved the juxtaposition of the silent Nicole of Harry's imagination and the talkative, warm-hearted character she turned out to be in reality. It was such a clever touch.
I'm glad Cary Grant passed it up. Caine was so perfect in the part-- and this really is a case where you need a young actor (unlike CHARADE, which could get away with a 50-plus Grant).
I'm always amused by Kubrick's tastes. It's like half the usual arthouse material you would expect and half crowdpleasing popcorn movies.
For example, he made a list of favorite films in 1963 and it included Roxie Hart, a Ginger Rogers comedy from the early 1940s. Not knocking it of course (I like Roxie Hart more than its bigger, flashier remake Chicago), but it is amusing since Kubrick is seen as so chilly and intellectual by most.
It's indeed a wonderful little movie. The romance was rather understated, but I found it very effective.
I found the first 25 minutes brilliant. You see just how idealized this whole scenario is in Caine's head and it makes it all the more suspenseful and humorous when reality turns out completely differently.
It also shows the guy's hubris too. He sees himself as smarter than everyone else, when in reality he was the most clueless of everyone involved!
@swanstep, it's weird-- I totally get your opinion, but Hepburn's casting does not bother me as much. I agree she was getting long in the tooth for ingenue roles, especially by 1966. However, she always projected a sense of youthfulness that belied her clearly being in her mid-thirties, so I didn't find her so flat in terms of performance. I actually think this is one of her better comedic performances. But as they say, different strokes!
And yes, that Hitchcock magazine is a great bit!
I agree with you. I see a lot of disparaging remarks about INDISCREET but I thought it was a nice bit of frothy fun and it's refreshing to see a romantic comedy between middle-aged actors. I feel a lot of the negativity comes from comparing this to NOTORIOUS-- and that's a high bar for any movie to clear!
She was being sarcastic and just wanted people to leave her alone. A "don't get involved" kind of mentality, so to speak.
Afraid so. In Wait Until Dark, you never really take him as a serious "thug" -- he seems out-of-his-league and vulnerable to the psycho Arkin from the get go(and Arkin DOES kill him, though a stunt man and a dummy get run over by the killer car.) Truth be told, I'm not sure that Crenna was quite believable as a baddie, either -- he turns "good" at the end, anyway(and dies.)
--
To be fair, in WUD those two guys were mainly con-men-- professional liars after money rather than thugs/hired killers. The weapons they had on them seemed more a precaution against any possible angry victims or fellow criminals.
When I think of Weston, I tend to think of his criminal roles-- this, WAIT UNTIL DARK, and THE THOMAS CROWN AFFAIR. He has such an odd presence. You're right to say the juxtaposition between his bumbling, seeming affability, and criminal inclinations make him a memorable presence even in small roles.
I wasn't that impressed with the story either. It starts off intriguing then just develops into one big anti-climax. However, the supporting actors were awesome. I wish we got more of Matthau's character in this.
I thought Phillips was the best part of the whole movie. A shame drugs wrecked her career.
I find Tarantino's statement about late periods for directors a bit offputting in that some filmmakers did their best work or at least some of it in their "late period." For example, Kurosawa's final films are some of his best IMO: RAN ties with HIGH AND LOW for my favorite of his works, and KAGEMUSHA was a great film as well. Kubrick's late period was still brilliant, even if I prefer his 60s and 70s movies to FULL METAL JACKET and EYES WIDE SHUT.
Hitchcock's late period is hit-and-miss for sure, but not terrible. TOPAZ has some brilliant scenes and really isn't as wretched as its reputation suggests (I gave it a 7/10). FRENZY is a cult favorite that I appreciate the more I see it and I will defend the goofy but likeable FAMILY PLOT with my dying breath.
Billy Wilder seems to be another deal. I loved his SHERLOCK HOLMES movie, which while old-fashioned, still has an elegaic elegance and wit that makes it worth seeing. However, FEDORA was an embarrassment, a tired retread of SUNSET BLVD. I haven't seen his other 70s movies yet, but FEDORA sure does not whet the appetite.
At any rate, I think if QT wants to retire, if he feels he has nothing more to offer in terms of cinema, then he may as well go off into the sunset. It's his career and his call, though I will miss having new work from the guy. However, if he's scared of turning out crap just because he's getting up there, I'm with ecarle: older people are generally healthier these days. I mean, look at Clint Eastwood, who's still directing and acting.
It's hardly the worst Hitchcock movie-- unlike TORN CURTAIN, it doesn't put me to sleep. For me, the leads of SABOTEUR were so-so, but there are so many memorable setpieces in the movie and Norman Lloyd is such a great screen presence.
It's definitely a movie I appreciated more on the second watch, though I still found it unpleasant. But you know what's weird? It's that even though every time I say "wow that was unpleasant," I still get the urge to rewatch it every now and then because the brilliant stuff really does work. Who knows-- by the time I rewatch it a third time, I might love it.