Review: Hitchcock

During my undergrad days at Brandeis, I took a course that focused on Hitchcock’s filmography.  Most enrolled in this class because they thought it was a lay up; I took it because I love movies.  For the next three months I had the pleasure of watching more than fourteen of his films and delving into a series of interviews conducted between Francois Truffaut and Hitchcock himself.  After twelve weeks and three term papers, I came away with an appreciation for the master of suspense, so it was with a curious eye that I watched Hitchcock starring Sir Anthony Hopkins.

The plot of the film finds Hitchcock some thirty plus years into his career searching for his next great endeavor.  When he comes upon Psycho, a gruesome novel about a trouble young man, he decides that it should be the basis of his next film.  Unfortunately, the esteemed director has trouble getting studio backing, thus the plot of the film focuses on his endeavors to finance, produce, and direct the controversial project himself.

I liked the film, but I readily admit that it’s not for everyone.  A movie about making a movie doesn’t exactly scream, “Must see!”  So if you have never had an interest in Hitchcock, his movie Psycho, or gaining a small window into the history of movie making this film is not going to do much for you.  Let me be clear though in this one regard, Hitchcock (the movie) isn’t a biopic or a documentary-style film, but instead a clear dramatization of real life events that at times panders to the lowest common denominator in regards to Hitchcockian associations.  Even still, director Sacha Gervasi spins a decent yarn about the man’s efforts to bring the violent offbeat story of Norman Bates to life.

What elevates this movie above others of this ilk (i.e. Dragon: The Bruce Lee Story) is the work of Anthony Hopkins and Helen Mirren as Hitchcock and his wife Alma Reville respectively.  Their attention to detail, their chemistry as a couple, and the way they cultivate the flaws in their respective characters makes this film an interesting character piece.  That you can at times forget you are watching a story about an iconic director and instead focus on the nature of the relationship between a husband and wife is a credit to their crafts.

Also in the plus column is Scarlett Johansson.  I love Scarlett Johansson, but that doesn’t mean I think she is a good actress.  The last time I thought she was really extraordinary onscreen was way back when in Lost in Translation.  While her work as Janet Leigh is nowhere near that stratosphere, she does a nice job with the character.  Likewise for Toni Collette who absolutely disappears into the role of Peggy Robertson – Hitchcock’s production assistant.  In a lot of ways, this movie is about the women in Hitchcock’s life and Collette does a great job of making her character feel important.

Unfortunately, it’s not all pluses across the board in the acting department as Jessica Biel continues her unimpressive run of underwhelming performances.  Looking both pouty and sleepy at the same time seems to be one of her go to acting moves, but she has yet to realize that it simply does not work.  As Vera Miles, she fails to add anything to the narrative besides apathy.  Danny Huston also turns in a pedestrian performance as Hitchcock’s antagonist, but more than anything he seems like a walking cliché straight out of a bad episode of Mad Men.

The best way then to frame a movie like Hitchcock is to think of it as the gambling equivalent of a pick ‘em.  Is it good movie?  Sure.  Is it well acted?  For the most part.  Will you like it?  Maybe not so much, depending on your sensibility.  The premise is niche and the pace is slow and this will be a major turn off for most.  If however, you are a fan of cinema of Hitchcock himself, I would recommend giving this one a look.  There are no big reveals or stand out moments, but it is well acted and films with good acting have been in incredibly short supply lately.

Standout Performance: Helen Mirren.   She does a great of delivering a nuanced performance as Alma, who represents the heart of the film. 

Read More

Review: The Debt

The Debt is the ultimate exercise in misdirection.  Not so much because it is a film full of plot-twists (because it’s not), but because it has you thinking that you are watching one thing when you’re really watching something else entirely.  You see, the movie possesses the three key Hollywood elements that make you think you are viewing movie greatness:

1. An esteemed cast featuring players known for dramatic roles (i.e. Helen Mirren, Tom Wilkinson, Ciaran Hinds, Jessica Chastain)

2. Heavy hitting subject matter set against the backdrop of a major historical event – Mossad secret agents capturing a Nazi War criminal in East Berlin post World War 2.

3. People with European accents.

The misdirection then resides in the fact that you are not really watching a good movie at all.  In fact, the movie – like a lot of the accents in the film – is just plain bad. 

For me, that epiphany came during the third act when the misdirection faded and I realized that I was being lulled into apathy.  It didn’t matter that writer Matthew Vaughn and director John Madden (not that John Madden) had thrown everything but the kitchen sink at me.  Troubled pasts, a festering love triangle, hand-to-hand combat, covert operations, a scandalous cover up – not one of these element made me care a lick about how things would play out.

Helen Mirren, Tom Wilkinson, and Ciaran Hinds are pedestrian as the three Mossad agents.  Jessica Chastain, Marton Csokas, and Sam Worthington – as the flashback younger versions of the aforementioned trio do not fare much better.  If for nothing else, at least that makes for consistency.  The issue at hand here is that the premise, the material, the composition of the cast all seem to aspire to achieve some great level of film-making, but no one is seemingly up to the task of stepping up.

When done well, drab lighting and slow pacing can be considered art.  When done poorly it is lazy directing and cinematography.  And while walking around a film with one persistent scowl may work for Christian Bale, for the rest of Hollywood it comes off as a half-hearted attempt at exuding gravitas.  And so the peril the protagonists face and the claustrophobia of their situation never really manifest onscreen.  In fact, I found myself wishing that someone would put Jesper Christensen’s Doktor Bernhardt down for the count - not so much for his crimes against humanity but more so that the end credits would roll.

Unfortunately, it takes a good two hours for that to happen.  Had I not paid for the digital rental, I would have pulled the ripcord long before things faded to black.  I cannot recommend this movie – neither as a rental nor for cable TV.  I never thought I would utter these words in regards to a Helen Mirren movie, but I preferred her performance in Arthur. 

Standout Performance: If I had to pick one person, I would say Jessica Chastain.  But since I don’t, I will say none.

Read More

Review: Arthur (2011)

It has been slim pickings for On Demand lately. As a result of, I’ve been half-heartedly circling around three movies for some time now: “Arthur,” “Limitless,“ and "Sucker Punch." With the city being pounded by rainstorms of seemingly biblical proportions, I was forced to take the plunge. “Arthur” was the film of choice for no better reason that it begins with the letter “A” and thus required less effort to find in the On Demand menu.

This movie is another in a long line of Hollywood remakes that in no way was screaming for a refresh. The original - starring the affable Dudley Moore and the grating Liza Minnelli – was just barely entertaining enough for a 1981 B-movie punch drunk with sentimentality. The same can be said for the update, which stars Russell Brand as a drunken millionaire man-child who must make the ever-popular-in-film choice – “for love or money.”

If you liked Russell Brand’s turn and return as Aldous Snow in “Forgetting Sarah Marshall” and “Get Him to the Greek,” then you will find some entertainment value here as clearly Jason Winer has directed him to play the same character only with the juvenile-factor amped up ten fold. You spend half the movie waiting for Jonah Hill, Jason Segel, or any other Judd Apatow cohort to walk on screen at any moment.

The straight man to Brand’s man-child follies stands in the form of a nanny played by Helen Mirren. Despite the fact that this project was an obvious cash grab for the accomplished actress, she reminds us that she does in fact know how to act. Her thawing in a lot of ways mirrored my own as I watched the movie; eventually succumbing to the inevitable swelling of sentimentality that marks the third act. As for the rest of the cast, Jennifer Garner and Nick Nolte’s respective characters are absolute clichés and Greta Gerwig, as the down-to-earth love interest, does a very poor man’s imitation of Zooey Deschanel.

I would not recommend you go out of your way to see this movie. Put it on your Netflix queue somewhere near the bottom and let it stay there until you run out of good movies to watch. The film really screams TBS, USA, or FX. And as a movie playing on cable in the background while you’re doing some work on your computer or drafting your fantasy football team is where it provides the most value.

Notable Performances: Helen Mirren still has great screen presence.

Read More