MovieChat Forums > ElizabethJoestar > Replies
ElizabethJoestar's Replies
Some kids films still have some dark material in them, but yeah, nothing like what was seen in the 80s-- let alone even earlier, with movies like Pinocchio!
Those movies frightened me as a kid, but I also found them oddly compelling. Kids are tougher than people give them credit for being.
Wait Until Dark
The In-Laws
Catch-22
The Other Side of Hell
The Heart is a Lonely Hunter
Love the mirror disc dress during the party.
Loved him in Cape Fear.
It's weird, because I think they had good chemistry. I do think someone like William Holden would have been more ideal given the cynical nature of the role (and I do agree that Peck tended to be better off in heavier fare), but overall, I have never had a problem with the casting.
No problem being in a minority though-- we all have our opinions. (People often get shocked when they learn I don't care for Two for the Road, a movie often touted as Hepburn's best.)
I agree with your sentiments 100%!
I actually first noticed him in Wait Until Dark (first saw him in The Santa Clause 3, but you can forgive me for not being bowled over by him sleepwalking through that awful film), where he was just so chilling and coldblooded. I was a little shocked to find out he's mainly a comedic actor after watching it, even though it makes sense, since he peppers the performance with moments of dark humor.
But his range really is so impressive. Watching him as the sympathetic, almost saintly john Singer in The Heart is a Lonely Hunter right after seeing him chase Audrey Hepburn with a knife was a revelation. I find he did some great work in the 1970s too: Catch-22, The Defection of Simas Kudrika, The Other Side of Hell, and of course The In-Laws come to mind. Even the flawed Magician of Lublin gives him some great moments to work with.
Such a shame he's so underrated, but that's life, I guess.
I don't agree that the movie is insubstantial. I think Ann's character arc is very strong: after tasting freedom, she better appreciates her duties as a royal (and by extension, as an adult-- she very much comes of age and Hepburn sells this transformation well, down to changing the modulation of her voice at the end). There's a bittersweetness that belies the comedy and romance that I've come to appreciate with each rewatch.
But to each his own, of course!
I really enjoy this adaptation as well. The locations they used were breathtaking and the cinematography really captured the novel's blend of gothic and realism. And the Legrand score-- oh just so perfectly haunting.
I think it was all an act-- a great sacrifice for a man who savored his pride, allowing him to die in a sort of state of grace.
The novel is in my personal top ten. The film took two viewings for me to fully appreciate. At first, I was saddened that the dark humor and political satire of the novel were cut from the story, but on a second watch, I appreciated the movie more for the wonderful performances and bittersweet tone. Alan Arkin is one of my favorite actors and this is among my favorite performances of his-- in the late 60s, he really got to show off his range. Cicely Tyson and Sondra Locke were both amazing as well-- really, all the actors are phenomenal.
That would have been awesome had he been able to take the part. Still, the guy they got was perfect.
A lot of trailers are guilty of this (the animated feature SING comes to mind). It boggles the mind why they do this.
Aside from the overuse of fakeout jump scares, I agree. This had some fine suspense and build-up. The bathtub scene during the climax should be considered a classic thriller setpiece. No one in the room breathed when I watched this with my family.
I actually think this movie is quite well-regarded. Most classic movie fans seem to love it. It often gets hailed as the best Hitchcock movie Hitchcock never made. Among Stanley Donen's filmography, it is often presented as a highlight.
I wouldn't call it underrated at all. I rarely see people hate on it.
"Shakespeare never said that!"
Leona is definitely hard to like. I would never want to be acquainted with such a person myself. However, I found her and Burt Lancaster's characters really interesting to watch, so it didn't matter that they weren't very likeable.
It doesn't have the same richness of characterization that REAR WINDOW has, but it is a pleasant "Hitchcockian" mystery. I was surprised by how much I enjoyed it.
Just curious, ecarle, have you ever seen PEEPING TOM? That's my number two for 1960-- in some ways, I find it scarier than PSYCHO. Something about it got under my skin and creeped me out thoroughly.
I'm glad to hear you enjoyed it! It's a thriller I've watched countless times. It's just effortless fun.
Zaroff is a great bad guy. I've seen Banks in other movies, like Hitchcock's original THE MAN WHO KNEW TOO MUCH and the infamous JAMAICAN INN, but this is easily my favorite role of his. He's campy but vicious in a way few horror movie villains tended to be around that period.
Yes, but I suppose the problem for Hepburn and Arkin was: once you've been in something as monumental as Wait Until Dark...its hard to ever find something as good. Could Arkin for instance ever have found a villain to play as great as Roat again? And he really wouldn't have been a great hero for a thriller.
--
Arkin probably would have never bested Roat as far as villain roles go, but I think he could have played an interesting everyman thriller character-- probably not the 70s conspiracy kind though. Those tended to use more conventionally attractive movie stars.
As for Hepburn, well, she got at least two good thrillers in her lifetime-- the third BLOODLINE was a bust though.
You're lucky you never seen BLOODLINE. It is without a doubt in my mind the worst movie she ever made. The script itself is sleazy, confusing, and dumb. And not only were Hepburn and Young dragged into it, but poor Omar Sharif and James Mason as well! Hepburn wanted to make a comeback into movies just as her second marriage was falling apart, but it never really worked out. BLOODLINE flopped.
It rips off a lot from CHARADE and WAIT UNTIL DARK. Like CHARADE, Hepburn's character is being targeted by homicidal criminals after her money and she has a romance with a man she isn't sure she can trust (here played by Ben Gazzarra, her lover at the time). Like WAIT UNTIL DARK, there's a scene where she wrecks her house after the phoneline has been cut-- in WUD, it's just the lightbulbs to put everyone in the dark with her (an act which has symbolic/psychological significance-- unlike the sighted men, Susy knows how to survive both physically and emotionally in darkness), while in BLOODLINE, she wrecks the furniture so when the assassin comes for her, he cannot make her death look like an accident (no greater emotional significance since her character here is just shoved from one setpiece to another).
I do not recommend BLOODLINE. Not even for the standard MST3K treatment.