Category Archives: Movie Reviews – H

“Hitchcock” – 4 STARS

by

24

HITCHCOCK POSTER

You know, I just love movies about making movies. That’s one reason I thought the movie “Hitchcock” would be right up my alley. Another reason is that it’s about one of cinema’s greatest directors – Alfred Hitchcock. Yet another reason I was interested was because of the fantastic cast specifically Anthony Hopkins as Hitchcock and Helen Mirren as his wife Alma Reville. These and several other yummy ingredients had me really hungry for this film and after seeing it I can say that it’s quite satisfying.

But enough with the gastronomical analogies. “Hitchcock” takes place during the filming of arguably the director’s most popular and groundbreaking film “Psycho”. The movie begins just after the release of Hitchcock’s wildly successful “North By Northwest”. He still owes Paramount Pictures another film but he’s struggling to find the right one. He also feels that the studios and press believe he is past his prime and he wants to pick a bold project that will prove otherwise. He finds himself attracted to a Robert Bloch novel titled “Psycho”. He convinces Alma and his agent Lew Wasserman (Michael Stuhlbarg) that it’s the right choice but he has a harder time with Paramount president Barney Balaban (Richard Portnow). They finally reach an agreement where Hitchcock agrees to fund the picture for 40% of the profits and a Paramount distribution.

HITCHCOCK1

It’s really fascinating to watch the behind-the-scenes process and how Hitchcock labored to make “Psycho”. But a bigger and even more enjoyable part of the movie focuses on Hitchcock’s relationship with his wife. Hopkins and Mirren are a joy to watch. The two veteran performers dissect this marriage with surgical precision, bringing out so many interesting aspects of it. There’s a clear love that they both share for one another, but there’s an equally clear strain on their marriage brought on by the financial stress of funding the movie and by Hitchcock’s own negligence, pride, and fear of failure.

Hitch is betrayed as a self-assured man on the outside but he clearly has uncertainties on the inside. He has a wandering eye for his leading ladies and has a tendency to overindulge in food and drink – something Alma stays on him about. Alma is a talented writer herself and her uncredited contributions to Hitchcock’s creative process prove vital. Her growing frustrations lead her to begin her own collaboration with fellow writer Whitfield Cook (Danny Huston), something Hitchcock disapproves of. All of these pressures begin to wear on Hitch and ends up threatening the completion of “Psycho”.

As I alluded to, one of the real strengths of this picture are the performances. Mirren rightfully earns her award nominations that she has received. Hopkins does a fine job fleshing out this complex director under a coat of heavy prosthetics. He nails all the mannerisms and postures and his speech is almost perfect. But there’s one thing I struggled with. I never could quite get past that I was watching him do Alfred Hitchcock. Take Daniel Day-Lewis’ performance in “Lincoln”. I was so drawn in by his work that I forgot I was watching an actor play Abraham Lincoln. I never quite got to that point here. Don’t misunderstand me, it’s not a bad performance by any means. But I never completely bought into the idea that I was watching Hitchcock on screen.

????????????

I also have to mention the other supporting performances that I really enjoyed. I’ve liked Michael Stuhlbarg since seeing him in the Coen brothers film “A Serious Man”. He’s good here too. I was also impressed with Jessica Biel as Vera Miles. She’s an actress I normally don’t care for but she gives a nice subtle performance that works really well. But an even bigger surprise for me was Scarlett Johansson as Janet Leigh. I’ve never been completely sold on Johansson as an actress but I love the Janet Leigh she portrays. She’s beautiful and sexy but she’s almost a stabilizing influence on Hitch. She’s a lot of fun to watch in the role.

“Hitchcock” has a hard time escaping that biopic feel but it’s still a really good film. I think my love for the director’s movies and my particular affection for “Psycho” added a sense of nostalgia to my viewing, but there’s a lot more to this picture than just that. There are many clever little inclusions that go hand-in-hand with Hitchcock. For instance look closely and you’ll find his shadowy silhouette that fans of his will instantly recognize. Then there’s the cool opening and closing of the film that hearkens back the “Alfred Hitchcock Presents” days. These nifty treats fit in well with the solid script and wonderful performances and anyone with the slightest interest should come away well pleased.

“Heartbreaker” – 4 STARS

by

10

HEARTBREAKER POSTER

I’m a sucker for a good romantic comedy. Call me a softy but I really respond to them. Unfortunately the genre is in shambles as studios continue to pump out one lame, brainless rom-com after another. Maybe that’s why I get so excited when I actually find one worthwhile. Maybe that’s why I almost instantly rewatch it, knowing it may be a while before I get another good one. Such was the case with the 2010 French film “Heartbreaker”.

Okay, let me get this out of the way first. “Heartbreaker” is at times incredibly silly and like many romantic comedies it’s completely predictable. But that did little to quench my enjoyment of the film. For the most part “Heartbreaker” is smart even in its silliness and director Pascal Chaumeil wisely keeps the pace up, never allowing us to mull over the absurdity of some of the things we’re seeing. And then, by the end of the movie, I realized what a great time I had with the film and even that absurdity played its own little role in my enjoyment.

HEARTBREAKER

The story goes like this, Alex (Romain Duris) runs a unique business that breaks up relationships. He works with his sister Melanie (Julie Ferrier) and her dimwitted but tech-savvy husband Marc (François Damiens) to create elaborate ruses that persuade women to break off their relationships. But the team has their own honor code. Alex never takes a job involving a perfectly matched couple and he never breaks up a happy relationship. Alex plays the handsome swooner of the operation. Melanie play the well disguised ground operative. Marc handles everything technical. We learn all about their operation in the film’s amusing opening. Alex wraps up a successful job with a series of over-the-top lines that sets the smitten target woman free and left me laughing at his scripted sappiness.

Alex is approached by a rich father with ties to organized crime who wants his daughter’s engagement to an Englishman ended. The wedding is in a few days and the couple seems happy, but Alex, knee-deep in debt with a loan shark, puts his rules aside and takes the job. The crew heads to Morocco where Alex meets the daughter Juliette (Vanessa Paradis) and poses as a bodyguard hired by her father. Juliette is a spunky and independent young woman and Alex finds out that the job is going to be more difficult than anticipated. As the wedding gets closer, Alex begins to run out of options. On top of that, things are made more difficult by the fact that he’s falling for her. Bet you didn’t see that one coming!

Heart breaker

The story is clever and the laughs are aplenty, but I thought the biggest treat was the cast. I had seen Romain Duris in a handful of other movies but never in a role quite like this. He is very funny and he wonderfully channels that good-looking arrogance and occasional knuckleheaded cluelessness. Vanessa Paradis continues to impress me with every performance of hers I see. She’s really good here playing it straight while the others around her have the fun. But she has her own funny moments that pulls some good laughs from the audience. Paradis and Duris have an odd but convincing chemistry and that’s a key ingredient to making this such an enjoyable experience. If you doubt me, just wait until you see the “Dirty Dancing” scene. I’ll just leave it at that.

As I mentioned there is a lot of predictability along the way and there’s nothing that will catch you by surprise. But the filmmakers and the cast know this and they never try to sell you anything else. It’s a rare romantic comedy that caused me to laugh a lot and to genuinely care about the characters. I’ve rewatched “Heartbreaker” a couple of times now to see how it holds up. It’s still funny. It’s still entertaining. It still leaves me extremely satisfied despite its few flaws. Now I hear that there is a US remake in the works. There’s no need in that. I would much rather this film get a bigger audience. It certainly deserves one.

REVIEW: “The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey” (2012)

by

30

the hobbit poster

At the start of the year “The Hobbit” was easily one of my most anticipated films of 2012. But over time my excitement has been tempered by less than flattering reviews and some bad press centered around director Peter Jackson’s decision to stretch this limited material into three feature-length films. But at the end of the day there was no way I was going to miss this movie. I still consider “The Lord of the Rings” one of the greatest movie trilogies of all time so naturally a prequel would be right up my alley. But I was still cautious and maybe a bit skeptical going yet. Could Jackson recapture the magic of his first trip to Middle Earth or is this an example of going to the well one too many times? Well, while maybe not as polished as any of “The Lord of the Rings” films, this is still a wonderfully satisfying fantasy adventure that not only connects to the previous films but charts its own ground with great effectiveness.

First I have to say that I have never read J.R.R. Tolkien’s incredibly popular book. In fact, I am one who prefers seeing the movie first and then reading the book afterwards. So often fans of the books come out of movie adaptations feeling unfulfilled. On the other hand, if I read the book afterwards, it builds upon what I’ve seen on screen. That being said, I’ve heard from many people who have said this film does a good job of sticking close to the source material. That’s quite an accomplishment for Jackson and is something that will most certainly satisfy many more critical viewers.

HOBBIT

From a motion picture perspective, I was pleasantly surprised at how the film grabbed me and pulled me back into the amazing visual world created in the first trilogy. Right off the bat you feel a beautiful sense of nostalgia as Jackson revisits some very familiar places. There are also many familiar faces such as Frodo (Elijah Wood), Gandolf (Ian McKellen), Lord Elrond (Hugo Weaving), and Galadriel (Cate Blanchett). The movie’s presentation is also very familiar and Jackson’s strong camerawork and amazing locations were strikingly similar to the earlier films and that’s a good thing. Even the story does a good job of connecting itself to the previous trilogy. We see holes filled in and things set in motion that play out within “The Lord of the Rings” films. All of this really worked for me.

But the movie also sets out on its own path, a path which makes it uniquely different from the earlier trilogy. I was concerned because perhaps my least favorite part of the original trilogy was the early part of the first film which takes place in the Shire. I was leery at the thought of this film containing even more of that. But that’s not the case at all. Bilbo Baggins’ adventure with Gandolf and a group of dwarves into the world outside of the shire begins quickly and the remainder of the film follows a formula that’s fairly similar to “The Fellowship of the Ring”. Yes, there is a lot of tablesetting as we are introduced to new characters and the quest is define. But all of that should be expected especially for a big epic-scaled adventure trilogy such as this. We are also introduced to a few new characters including a young Bilbo Baggins nicely played by Martin Freeman. This is his story although it isn’t until later into the film that it really feels like it. We are also introduced to the most intriguing character of the movie Thorin brilliantly played by Richard Armitage. Thorin Is the leader of the company of dwarves and is the heir to a sacred land that the dwarves hope to reclaim. He’s a brave leader who is crippled by some heavy emotional baggage. He’s a blast to watch.

But this leads me into some of the problems with the film. The dwarves are a focal point of the film but we hardly get to know any of them. There are 13 dwarves in all but honestly I can only remember a small handful of them. And I couldn’t tell you much about them and wouldn’t know them by name. They simply feel underdeveloped and some of them seem to be nothing more than tag-alongs. Another issue I had with the film has to do with the quality of its heavy doses of CGI. There are some scenes that are simply breathtaking and will remind you of the great special effects work from “The Lord of the Rings”. But there are other times when the visuals look so transparently computer-animated. That’s usually not a big deal to me but here it seems so blatantly obvious in more places than I would have expected.

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey

I also have a couple of issues with the film that deals more closely to the script. For some reason, Jackson incorporates several scenes featuring bathroom humor that’s not the least bit funny. He throws in burps, snot, bird poop, and posterior gags that aren’t vulgar but they feel cheap and terribly out of place. It’s a strange direction for Jackson to go in and it doesn’t work well at all. This story also lacks the sense of peril that the first films had. Now I don’t want to fall into the trap of going to far in comparing this trilogy to the original trilogy. This is its own film and this trilogy should be judged on its own merits. But one of the things that made “The Lord of the Rings” so enthralling was the scale of the threat that hung over the entire series. In this movie the threat feels more personal and therefore not as significant. In other words, the stakes don’t feel as high which kept it from having the real sense of importance and urgency.

But I don’t want to leave the impression that I feel this is a bad or even mediocre movie. Quite the opposite, this is an exciting and intense fantasy adventure that had me from its opening moments. Even more impressive is the fact that it’s two-hour and 45 minute running time flew by for me. I was never bored. I was never checking my watch. It excited me. It thrilled me. It also had me remembering how much fun Peter Jackson’s Middle Earth really is. It has its obvious stumbles, stumbles that keep it from being as great as it could have been. But I am all on board with this series and I can’t wait to see what lies ahead in the next chapter. Some may be critical of Jackson, but for me he’s done so many things right with this material that I can easily give him the benefit of the doubt.

VERDICT – 4 STARS

REVIEW: “How the Grinch Stole Christmas” (2000)

by

15

GRINCHAs audacious as filmmakers can sometimes be, their finished products don’t always match their ambition. Such is the case with the normally reliable Ron Howard’s “How the Grinch Stole Christmas”. When I first saw this film, I left the theater with a pretty gnarly opinion of it. My dislike has eased up after a recent viewing, this time in the presence of my two children. They thoroughly enjoyed the picture and watching their pleasure naturally impacted my experience. But while I have a slightly more favorable opinion now, it only takes me so far with it.

Howard certainly had his work cut out for him. First, making a feature-length film out of a 26-minute animated short was a challenge. The script makes some required additions, some that work but more that don’t. And the movie gives its star Jim Carrey plenty of space to do his thing, this time in furry green Grinch attire. At first glance it’s hard to take the Grinch getup seriously. But it’s a pretty impressive transformation (Rick Baker and Gail Ryan won the Oscar for Best Makeup). Yet Carrey’s shtick grows tiresome and at times feels like a standup routine rather than a role in a full-length movie. The film also creates new storylines involving the Whos to try to stretch things out. But other than the expansion of the ‘cute as a button’ Cindy Lou character (played nicely by current hard rocker Taylor Momsen), the Whoville stuff falls pretty flat.

The second big challenge was visually capturing this unique world, first created by the pen of Dr. Suess in 1957 and and later with the classic animation of Chuck Jones in 1966. The scenery and background environments are vibrant and capture the imagination created in the original material. Whoville is a busy and colorful place which makes watching these Christmas-loving locals a bit easier. On the other hand, I didn’t remember the Whos looking quite so freakish. They’re protruding front teeth, wolf-like noses, and peculiar hairdos more closely resemble small woodland rodents. They’re quite silly looking and a bit distracting.

grinch photo

But for me this movie’s biggest transgression lies in the overall lack of charm that made the original short so great. To be fair, Howard does try to inject some feeling into the storyline. But these few instances of emotion are smothered by the film’s overall dependency on in-your-face slapstick and bathroom humor. And at times it feels more like a dark comedy rather than a spirited Christmas movie. The original story is still mostly intact and there are several clever nods that fans will appreciate. But unfortunately it’s missing the key components that made 1966 short so special – heart and soul.

“How the Grinch Stole Christmas” would be tough for any filmmaker to transform into a feature-length live-action film. Here Ron Howard delivers enough to know that it can be done. But he, along with a sometimes grinding script, undermine much of what they get right. There are things to appreciate about the film and it can be fun watching it with children. But even with all of its aspirations and risk-taking, it still falls short of being the fun and festive treat it wants to be. Instead it’s a repetitive and laborious exercise that just doesn’t pack the emotional holiday punch that it should.

VERDICT – 2 STARS

“How the Grinch Stole Christmas” – 2 STARS

by

1

GRINCHAs audacious as filmmakers can sometimes be, their finished products don’t always match their ambition. Such is the case with the normally reliable Ron Howard’s “How the Grinch Stole Christmas”. When I first saw this film, I left the theater with a pretty gnarly opinion of it. My dislike has eased up after a recent viewing, this time in the presence of my two children. They thoroughly enjoyed the picture and watching their pleasure naturally effected my experience. But while I have a slightly more favorable opinion of the film now, it can only go so far, and I still can’t call this a good movie.

Howard certainly had his work cut out for him. First, making a feature-length film out of a 26 minute animated short was a challenge. The script makes some required additions, some that work and more that don’t, and gives its star Jim Carrey many scenes by himself to just do his thing, this time in full green Grinch attire. When first seeing him, you’ll wonder how you’ll ever take the Grinch getup seriously, but the truth is it’s a pretty amazing transformation (Rick Baker and Gail Ryan won the Oscar for Best Makeup). But his shtick grows tiresome after a while and you almost feel like you’re watching a standup routine instead of a full-length movie. The film also creates storylines involving the Whos to try to stretch things out. But honestly, other than the expansion of the ‘cute as a button’ Cindy Lou character (played nicely by current hard rocker Taylor Momsen), the Whoville storylines are flat and utterly forgettable.

The second big challenge was visually capturing this unique world created by the pen of Dr. Suess in 1957 and the classic animation of Chuck Jones in 1966. I have to say the film looks pretty incredible. The scenery and background environments are nothing short of gorgeous and certainly capture the location created in the original material. Whoville is a busy and colorful assortment of visual splendor which makes watching these Christmas loving locals go about their frantic lives a bit easier in spite of Howard’s roughshod directing. On the other hand I didn’t remember the Whos looking quite so freakish. Their protruding front teeth, wolf-like noses, and peculiar hairdos more closely resembled small woodland rodents. To be honest, they were pretty silly looking and a bit distracting.

grinch photo

But for me this movie’s biggest transgression lies in its overall lack of charm that made the original short so great. Now to be fair, Howard does try to inject some feeling into the storyline. He does try to give it some heart. But these few instances of emotion are smothered by the film’s overall dependency on in-your-face slapstick and bathroom humor which sometimes makes it feel more like a dark comedy than a spirited Christmas film. The main story of the original is still intact and there are several clever nods that fans of the original will appreciate. But unfortunately it’s missing too much of the key component that made 1966 short so special – heart and soul. Carrey gives it his all, but Howard pushes too far.

“How the Grinch Stole Christmas” would be tough for any filmmaker to transform into a feature-length film. But here Ron Howard shows us enough to know that it can be done. But he, along with a sometimes grinding script, undermine everything they get right. Yet I still have to say that my reaction to the film now isn’t as vitriolic as it initially was. In fact, I can appreciate what the film does well a lot more especially after watching it with my children. But even with all of its aspirations and risk-taking, it still falls short of being the really fun movie that it could have been. With a little more polish and a lot more restraint this could have been a holiday treat. Instead it’s a repetitive and sometimes laborious exercise that just doesn’t pack the emotional punch that it should. That’s a shame.

REVIEW: “House on Haunted Hill” (1959)

by

6

I’ve recently spent a lot of time concentrating my movie watching on the horror and science fiction movies of the 1950s. This has proven to be a wonderfully entertaining project that’s allowed me to revisit movies I haven’t seen since I was a child as well as see new films that have been a joy to discover. Such was the case with William Castle’s “House on Haunted Hill”, a movie that I had heard of but never had the opportunity to catch up with. Now after finally seeing it, I can honestly say that I was thoroughly entertained. It’s a solid mixture of eerie tension and classic camp presented through a simple yet effective story.

The great Vincent Price stars as a mysterious millionaire named Frederick Loren. Imagine that, Price playing a mysterious character. Loren has rented a house with a very violent history and has invited five individuals to spend the night there. He bribes each with the possibility of making $10,000 each. All they have to do is live through the night. The entire thing is painted to be some type of twisted party for his wife Annabelle (Carol Ohmart). But soon the guests are terrorized by several unexplained occurrences and they begin to question whether or not the house is haunted or if they are in the middle of something much more sinister.

Of course we ask ourselves why these people would ever agree to come to such a creepy place to begin with. But in the opening of the movie, as the five are each brought to the house in their own hearse, we learn that each has their own important need for the money. As the story unfolds, I found myself being suspicious of several of the people while never being able to finger any of them. That’s a mark of good, suspenseful storytelling. Now I have to admit, as with many of these movies I kept thinking of better methods the group could use to ensure their survival. But that’s nitpicking. Afterall, wouldn’t things be really boring if they all used their brains?

The movie has several creepy effects that I must admit were quite gruesome considering the time the movie was released. Admittedly there were also some dated special effects that I couldn’t help smile at, but that were also part of the charm of watching these classic horror pictures. Castle’s inventive techniques were quite clever despite the small budget he had to work with. The atmosphere is pitch perfect and I found it easy to get lost in the spooky old house where the entire movie takes place.

Castle was known for his affection for horror and his numerous low-budget B-movies became a fixture in 1950s cinema. One thing that audiences often times experienced when watching one of Castle’s pictures was some type of theater gimmick. When “House on Haunted Hill” was released, moviegoers were treated to a floating skeleton that floated across the theater during a certain moment in the film. While we don’t get to experience that type of old-school fun when we watch the film, it’s still a highly entertaining piece of classic horror filmmaking wrapped up in a tight, compact 75 minute package.

“House on Haunted Hill” is a great example of how much fun the horror films of that period could be. Sure there’s some cheesy, stilted dialogue, the story is simple, and the effects aren’t going to satisfy someone expecting the best. But it’s a lesson in classic horror led by the master himself, Vincent Price. And considering much of the so-called “horror” that we get today, this was even more refreshing.

VERDICT – 4 STARS