This movie was actually terrible. Like, so terrible.
I couldn't actually finish the movie because it was so bad. Julie was just so confrontational and annoying. She reminds me of my 4th grade self that got offended that I overheard 8th grade boys talking about periods. I wouldn't want to deal with my younger self again, and this movie is forcing me to do just that. I don't need another reminder of that time and this really just makes me mad. MR H GUESS WHAT HAPPENED! MY ENTIRE REVIEW DELETED AGAIN! YAYYYY (Here I go trying to recreate it.) Honestly the whole movie was ruined by Julie being such an obnoxious brat. Yes I understand her parents died but do you really need to ruin everyone else's lives when they try to objectively help you? No, it's not necessary. Again, I acknowledge that everyone grieves differently, but this is just over the top. On another note, the "high school-aged" MEN in this movie are really problematic and concerning. When the one guy just kept harassing Julie it made me so uncomfortable. No means no, it's really not that difficult of a concept to grasp. Plus these "seniors" are at least 27 years old. When did casting people that are clearly adults become a thing? And why? This just really upset me and overall was terrible. Mr. Miyagi is the only good thing about this movie. They really just should have stopped at the first one and kept it as a decent nostalgic movie.
0 Comments
Gonna be honest here- there were some things about this I was really excited for, and I feel like this movie just didn't deliver. It wasn't bad, but I just was left wishing there was more. The really good parts: imagery and cinematography The slightly disappointing parts: the over-the-top music and slightly underdeveloped internal conflict. I couldn't find the one picture that stuck in my head the most, (which is when Fr. Logan is walking along in a church and there is a statue of Christ carrying the cross in the foreground and it is focused on Logan walking along in the bottom of the screen) but this one will do. The black and white seems so rich in color (I don't know if that makes sense). It fits into the story line so well, and the effect makes the color look all soaked up and rich. There is a really good contrast between the lights and darks. There is a lot of symbolism in the shots too, and I could tell they put a lot of effort into the composition for each one. (Wait, smart moment--> mise en scene.) That was really well done. The premise is also genius, but this is where I get slightly disappointed, because I don't think it was executed as well as it could have been.
Cliff Montgomery never really shows us the internal struggle that his character struggled with in this situation. It seems like he just always knows the right answer and is always calm, cool, and collected, knowing exactly what to do and being Mr. (Fr.?) Perfect. I want to see the dilemma. It would have been a really powerful scene to see him take this to God or just have a breakdown. In reality, priests are still humans and still have pulls and struggles as well, but with Logan, you never see his humanity. It's always this "greater purpose" thing. So that was a little frustrating. And I also heard Hitchcock hated Montgomery, so maybe the solution would be to cast it differently because I wasn't invested in this at all. The other main issue I had with this is the score. It's terrible. Logan literally just went out to take a walk and you would think there's someone in the bushes waiting to stab him. It doesn't fit the movie at all. Kinda sad. Another point: It seems like the wife just randomly tells her husband that she doesn't love him. Later on, they smooth this over, but in the moment this scene happens there is like no buildup or warning. I get that the girl is supposed to be mysterious, but this is so out of place. I want some hint of anything before we get hit with the "I've never loved you." I don't know. I knew Hitchcock would end it with something unresolved, so I didn't really get too mad about the ending. Had I not been familiar with Hitchcock's distaste for endings I would have been really mad though. Overall not bad but there's stuff I wish was different. Would not recommend to a friend. Ok I'm pretty sure you can tell exactly what this movie is just based on that poster. Definitely a mistake to watch. I really have no idea how or why this is a movie. It's really bad. Since it's the same lead as "Happy Go Lovely" (David Niven), I assumed this would be as good as that movie. I was like oh wow I really liked him in this other movie, so it logically followed in my mind that I would love another movie with the same actor.
Welp. Yet again, I was wrong. I can definitely see how at the time, this movie was seen as charming. It definitely fit into the whole vibe of rebellious women learning their place. Which I despise. It makes me so mad that someone thought of this and was like haha yeah this would be really good. What if he have an obnoxiously feminist woman be tamed by this nasty photographer. It's just disgusting. Also the uncle makes me so mad. Like he has the audacity to show up and expect his wife (whom he left randomly one day and then shows up begging for money when he runs out)to accept and love him again when he literally ruined their family. Like seriously? And then he has this macho "women, am I right?" attitude. Ugh. Get over yourself. Honestly he needs therapy. And same with the aunt because she actually does let him in again. And then everyone acts like it's normal. And he's so toxic he's guilting her into letting him stay at the household he destroyed. I hate this. The whole thing just sucks. And i can't even get into the idea of all the couples reconciling at the end because I hate the entire premise of why they're mad at each other in the first place. And I know that you're supposed to be in favor of them reconciling by the end and like proud of them for growing as characters but it's so orchestrated to illustrate the "silly women, thinking they're deserving of basic equality" attitude that I can't accept it. Very strong It Happened One Night energy. This movie was made in 1947. It's so weird to me to think that Bicycle Thieves was made just one year later in 1948, because the two movies have such starch contrast in quality- this goes for editing, camera clarity, acting, and general plot. Especially because The Lost Honeymoon was made in America, which at the time was producing a ton of movies and had the resources to make beautiful films, while Italy was very limited on what they could produce. (Then again I realize this kind of forces Italy to make really good films, because there isn't the luxury of making films for "fun" or just to make them. Everything you do counts. So I guess this makes sense.)
This was one of those movies where the description on the back sounds so much more interesting than the movie itself. I had totally different expectations for what it would be, and the reality of the movie was so different I couldn't help but feel disappointed. If I could have developed this myself, it would be a lot more interesting. Hm that would be an interesting project: look at one of the descriptions for a movie and give it to a team to make a movie solely on the description without any of them having seen it before. I feel like that would be super cool to see what people came up with, but it would also be really hard to do because making a film takes a lot of time and energy but maybe that would be neat for like a college film class. OOH. I'm going to put this question in my blog so hopefully I remember to ask it in class. But Mr. H, (and I'll probably horribly word this so it doesn't make sense but the important thing is that I'm getting the thought down) There are certain things directors do in film to symbolize or represent certain things about the characters or reveal something. (Like in March, how they move across screen from right to left instead of left to right and that symbolizes like not being able to move forward, etc. Another example is like certain colors meaning certain things.) So my question is this: Do those techniques carry significance because directors subconsciously associated them with what they represent to the point that it became noticed that {x techinique} came to mean {this relevance ab the character} (like almost subconsciously) or was it that someone sat down and decided "ok if i do this, then it means this about the character" and then the meaning got attached to it purposefully? I think it's a mix of both, because it's almost a question of if things are discovered or created. Ok back to the blog. I could tell they tried to edit this and make it like "professional" with certain strategies, but because I could tell they were trying too much, that made it bad. Like there are really overly noticeable cuts and close-up shots, which just makes it look like they tried way too hard and put too much emphasis on strategies that aren't that remarkable. I wish this movie was what my expectations were. That would be really cool. Alas it was not, and therefore meh. Not as terrible as other things, but certainly not "good" by any sense of the word. The tone of this review is gonna be totally opposite of the abomination below this. (Yes, I'm talking about you, Texas Chainsaw Massacre. And yes, I'm still mad about that.) But let me change that madness into adoration, because this is now one of my absolute favorite movies. So adorable. Mr. H, you know how you say you love the dark stuff and secretly really enjoy things like how you go "Oh my gosh this is the most adorable thing humans have made and it's just so cute!"? (With the one Howard Hawks movie Bringing up Baby or It Happened One Night). Anyways, the point of this is that you would love this movie. It's everything I wish It Happened One Night was. And more. In my review of Witness for the Prosecution, I mentioned how I wanted the entire movie to be about the scene where Christine and her husband first meet. This movie is like that. SPOILER (whoopsies) THE END. OH MY GOSHHHHHHHH. My heart is melted. IT'S SO CUTE. SO CUTE. "What does the B.G. stand for?" *Bruno blushes* "Paul." AGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH so cute i cannot. The plot development of this is so good. And also Bruno knows she loves him for more than just his money because they know each other as people first. This movie is so fricking cute. It makes me so happy to even think about. During the dinner scene, "You see, the problem is you keep calling me darling." OH MY GOSH. STAB MY HEART WITH A STAKE AND JUST LET IT ALL POUR OUT BC ITS ALREADY A PUDDLE. Bruno is absolutely adorable and so cute and sweet and just oh my gosh. Sorry this review doesn't seem to be super like "good" but all I can appreciate is how adorably well done this is. If I could think more, then I would tell you exactly how and why it is so cute and wholesome but also not cheesily done so. You have to watch this. Please. I really don't understand why I keep watching movies I know I won't enjoy. I really don't understand it. Yet here we are.
This movie actually disgusted me. Like just looking up the pictures to add in to this film blog already make me want to throw up. Also it's so annoying and frustrating. Like I get that the point of every single horror movie is that you finally think it's over and the main character is alive and well and then the killer comes back. It's supposed to be "spooky" or whatever. No it's literally SO STUPID IT MAKES ME MAD. SO MAD. Like what is the point of fricking "killing" the stupid killer if they only come back to sink into a body of water and then they rise again. Like why not just come to life when you first "die"? Why the delay? It really just gets my goat. No actually it really makes me mad and I hate it. Also did the guy with guns who tried to save them in the beginning but was also a jerk know about this? Like how has he been able to survive in the town this long without being killed by the murderer? He knew the grandma or whatever she was was living in that house. Also how are all these creepy spooky killers in their 60s (at least) always so friggin strong? Like he's been sitting in a chair for 30 years, you think his muscles wouldn't work like that. Also how can he move so fast? And move that fast without making a noise?!?!?!?!? No! It doesn't work like that! The overalls alone would at least make a rustling noise, and you can't move quickly and silently in heavy clothing even if you haven't been sitting upstairs in the dust for forty years. (Quick sidenote: yes I am aware that I am mercilessly berating a purposefully nonrealistic film for not being realistic, but I don't care.) Anyways, it's so dumb. So so dumb. Like the moment the bus shows up, you know- you just already KNOW- that everyone will get trapped on it and killer will find a way in and everyone there will die. AT LEAST BE ORIGINAL WITH YOUR BUS DEATHS! LIKE I HATE HORROR BC ITS SO PREDICTABLE YET SO STUPIDLY ANNOYING LIKE UGH JUST STOP. (Audrey, why do you do this to yourself when you know you hate them?) And none of this is about how gory it is, I literally just hate the movie. The "gory" part is a whole other level of stupidity. Because clearly like it's not super super well done, and the bodily things are not terrible but the skin face thing. THAT WOULD FALL OFF OF HIM THE SECOND HE BREAKS A SWEAT. YOU EXPECT ME TO BELIEVE THAT A MAN PUTS A SKIN ON HIS FACE AND IT STAYS THERE AS HE FALLS INTO A POOL OF GOD KNOWS WHAT? Yeah no. I should not be this wound up about a stupid movie. Oh well. This was really well done. Even though I kind of predicted some of the twist, I still really liked it. The nurse also played the neighbor in That Darn Cat, so that threw me off for a little until I placed her. See, it's that same voice. I've heard that voice a million times before. Even though you hate this character, she does really good job, because you're supposed to hate her. She reminds me of everything I hated about my preschool teachers.
I just need to get this out. Sir Wilfred is absolutely horrible to the nurse. Absolutely horrible. And I don't necessarily like admitting it, but it's hilarious. His delivery is so good you can't help but laugh even when he's saying horrible things. It's also nice at the end when she does realize he is a human and will make the choices he's going to make, and that it's okay if they aren't the most beneficial to his health. She has a redemption arc, and I appreciate that it was included, because it wasn't necessary, just welcome. The wife is really good. Somehow I wanted the entire movie to be about how Leonard and Christine met. That scene is just so wonderful. I loved it so much, even if it was slightly creepy in the beginning. But once they get into the bedroom and they start making coffee, it's really cute. I want someone to make a movie just based on that scene. The dialogue is so cute and everything I just love it. It's adorable again, I really just wish it was the entire movie. The scene really doesn't belong or fit in with the rest of the movie. (Speaking purely from a genre standpoint because it plays into the character development later to come. I just mean that the whole cute atmosphere is never again matched in the movie except for when Leonard meets Mrs. French. The flashbacks are so cute, I want them to be their own little mini stories. Too bad it deals with a murderer. I think I like those two aspects more than the actual premise of the movie. Hm.) It took me a second to understand the whole wig thing. I genuinely did not know that was a thing in English courts. Anyways, the stair lift bit is pretty great. Christine is such an intriguing character. I love her. Also the accent is so good and it's almost calming. I want to keep listening to her talk. Also I did sort of predict she wrote those letters on purpose and then paid someone to give them to Sir Wilfred, but I didn't expect her to be the girl that gave them to him. I knew he wan't innocent but I didn't know Sir Wilfred was actually going to believe that. He always thought something was up with the wife, but didn't know what. I really wish he would have been able to tell the husband was nuts. But that really just goes to show that good people with good intentions make mistakes even while intending to do the right thing. I'm getting too caught up in this. I like the movie, and it was good. This was weird. I didn't even realize it was supposed to be a horror movie until the clown grabbed the kid on the bed. There's so many things here I'm questioning. It wasn't horrible, I just was left with "what did I just watch."
First of all, it's rated PG. So like normally PG movies are not horror movies. I just thought some random little girl would be talking to the TV. I forgot just how lax the ratings in the 80s were, and this was a great reminder. The amount of swearing alone would immediately take it off the PG in today's age. There were somethings about this that just made me question the parenting. Like the mom casually does drugs and is probably high when the chairs start moving so that's why she thinks it's funny. I don't know. The whole "ooh let's objectify the 16 year old as she goes to school and then observe it as the mother and then find it funny and laugh" sort of bothered me, because it seemed like the mom was okay with it. Like there needed to be more repercussions for those pool guys doing that than just the daughter flipping them off. Also the tree was so weird. Like there was a (sort of) explanation for the ghosts and all that, but the tree never really held relevance other than to try and eat the boy. I think I'm trying to make this make sense and it's just not working. The longer I think about it, the longer I just do not understand what in the world is going on. I don't think the producers knew either. I wish there was more in detail story about the graves. There was a dolly zoom when the mom is running into the room to save the two kids. So that was cool to see and notice that it was happening. I also saw a lot of j-cuts. It got weirdly Little Shop of Horror at one point- gave me flashbacks to freshman year. The bit with the neighbors and the t.v. remote never got resolved. I don't know if it was just a stupid little plot device or if it had significant meaning to the story. I think it would be funny if they heard Carol Anne's voice in the neighbor's house too. Overall it was weird, not what I was expecting, and didn't feel like a horror movie at all. It wasn't terrible, I just would not want to watch the second or third ones, and I'm left wishing there was more plot development. This post brings us back to the movies you're more used to seeing from me. Also an interesting bit of research shows that before they made this movie, Katherine Hepburn was not doing too well in the movies, and so this movie was almost like her redemption shot. But the producers didn't want to include other known stars in the movie in case it was another flop, because it would ruin the big stars' reputation too. Instead, Cary Grant and Jimmy Stewart were lesser-known actors at this time and pretty new. So that's how those two ended up in this movie. It's kind of crazy to think about, because both of them make the movie work so well, and are cast exactly where they needed to be. In terms of editing, there were some things that we've talked about in class before. There were a lot of J-cuts that I noticed during conversations, so that was neat to be able to pick up on. There were some match cuts, but not really philosophical match cuts, more of just "this thing looks like this other thing," but I guess if I really looked into it I would find the deeper meaning behind it. I must say I was not the biggest fan of some of the costumes. With that, I actually have to concede and mention Tracy's cover-up was genuis. I'll put a picture of it below. But anyways for the scene where her ex-husband, then fiance, and finally father all criticize her for viewing herself as some pristine heartless goddess meant to be worshiped, she is wearing what is supposed to be a swimsuit cover-up. It looks more like the robes of a goddess, which I just now picked up on. Genius. The acting in this was amazing. Same with the dialogue. The timing and delivery of all of the lines is impeccable. It's that specific sophisticated wit and humor that lesser actors would have portrayed as snooty. If any other actors had attempted this, you would have hated the characters for being jerks, but Cary Grant and Katherine Hepburn make it work so well. (Jimmy Stewart too, but more of this is written for Tracy and Dexter). It's so well done because not only do you really have to listen and pay attention to understand and really soak everything in, but once you do, it's really funny.
Also the scene where Tracy starts drinking and the buildup to it is just completely awful but in a good cinematic way. It's so good because you see people just being horrible to her and no one is there to tell her they love her for who she is, it's all this awful negative commentary. And the worst part is that she knows some of it is true. I think that's why she's able to let herself get carried away with Connor. Also I'd like to point out the fact that although Dexter is questionable as a husband at first, he really does take care of her and make sure she's alright. Like when the whole thing with Connor happens, he gets her a drink and talks her through it, and never once forces his love back onto her, he's just there for her. I really appreciate that in him that he's not trying to go nuts and make it a revenge thing or a "I hate George he's such a bad guy, I would never do that to you" type of thing. Hopefully you understand what I mean. Just to preface: My brother and dad are the kings of "Well actually that wouldn't really happen in this movie because [insert perfectly reasonable but mildly annoying reason that whatever just happened in the movie couldn't happen]." It usually really annoys me because I wouldn't have picked up on it if they hadn't pointed it out. It also annoys me because it detracts from the value of the movie. This is one of my favorite movies. That being said, re-watching it made me notice some MAJOR plot holes. Just in the first half hour, there's so many. I never picked up on them before, and now I can tell why people don't really like it as much as I did. I don't want to become like my dad and brother in this, but there's a lot of stuff that- even on the premise of the movie being to find hidden treasure from a map on the Declaration of Independence- just would not happen like that. There's so many examples too, like it's not just one big thing. (Mostly in the beginning when the ship blows up and splinters the entire ship except for the smuggler's hold where Ben and Riley are conveniently located.) See right there, yeah they would not survive that. Also just wanted to mention that I still really like the movie despite noticing all these plot holes. I still think it's good, but it's just one of those movies you remember being bulletproof but find a couple scratches upon closer examination. Ah yes, the word I'm looking for is romanticizing. I tend to do that a lot.
Anywhoozles back to the movie. Rewatching this I found a lot of plot holes/inconsistencies/unrealistic situations, but I also found a lot of really creative and well done cuts and edits, so I can appreciate that a lot. There was one scene with the microwave cut, it's really good. Once Riley hacks into the security system's cameras and goes "all right let's do this" or something and then it cuts to the "3...2....1....END" sequence of a microwave but you only see the numbers so you think it's a nondiagetic countdown. Then boom you see Been take a plate of chicken out of a microwave. I love it. Also in all of the clues, while Ben figures them out he's never so obscure that you have no idea how he reaches his conclusion but also not obvious enough that you figure it out before him. The writing for this is really good. I also want to be friends with Riley. He's like the embodiment of who I wish I was. (Maybe not the hacker part but the witty one liners). Riley is my spirit animal. Bottom line- Even after finding out it's not as perfect as I remembered, I still really like and enjoy this movie and it gives me heavy nostalgia. Top fifteen- maybe top ten- in my comfort movies. |
AuthorThis blog is forced. Don't worry, I don't need help or anything. Enjoy my weekly escape solely published for your viewing pleasure. ArchivesCategories |