Vertigo (1958) - A Classic Movie Review by Andrew Lawrence

"Scottie, do you believe that someone out of the past - someone dead - can enter and take possession of a living being?"

"Alfred Hitchcock's masterpiece". "The best mystery movie of all time". "The most enchanting depiction of human emotion ever made". "One of the most important movies of the last 100 years." These are only a few of the many praises that have been sung about Vertigo, the 1958 romantic thriller that immediately split audiences and critiques in two, and continues to do so even 55 years later. Taking on these kinds of movies, the ones that everyone seems to love and admire, the so called "all time greats", is a humongous challenge for me as a blogger, because of how "set in stone" the world's opinion on these movies have become. As far as I know, disagreeing with the "fact" that Citizen Kane and Casablanca are two of the best movies ever made, would be just as insulting to most hardcore movie buffs as taking a dump on their porch would be. Seeing as this is my blog though; the place where I can write about everything and anything I want to, I'm just gonna go ahead and spill my beans. I don't like this movie. There it is. 

Now that that's out of the way, let's go ahead and get this review started. Vertigo takes place in San Francisco in the middle of the 1950's, where John 'Scottie' Ferguson, played by James Stewart, is forced into early retirement from his job as a police detective, because of his immense fear of heights following a tragic event. Having been unemployed for just a few days, an old college friend reaches out to him, and asks Scottie to stalk his wife, played by Kim Novak, around the streets of San Francisco for a while, in an attempt to find out why she's been acting "weird". Scottie reluctantly agrees to help out his old friend, and as his mission gets going, he discovers that there's a lot more to this woman than he initially though. As the movie goes on, Alfred Hitchcock's incredible understanding of human emotions and behavior quickly becomes apparent, and Vertigo virtually transforms into a study of devotion, deceit, manipulation and loneliness. 

In terms of technical precision, care, experience and devotion, few directors are as skilled, talented and innovative as Alfred Hitchcock was; that's pretty much a solid fact. Because of this, Vertigo is very impressive in terms of camera work and craft, but apart from that, I honestly don't find anything about this movie that exiting. I guess the performances of the main characters were alright, and the point of view shots of Scottie experiencing his fear of heights probably were impressive and innovation for the movie's time, but other than that? I'm not so sure. To answer the questions that most hardcore fans of Vertigo will be eager to ask me after this statement of mine, I've decided to do this next part of the review in a 'question and answer' sort of way. Here we go!: 

Q: "But Andrew, what about the nerve wracking suspense and the nail biting tension that follows this movie throughout?" 

A: Frankly, I've experienced more excitement in movie trailers and video game advertisements. Vertigo might have been groundbreakingly suspenseful and exciting when it came out 55 years ago, but compared to todays standards, it falls flat in every way possible, at least in my opinion. Take away the musical score, and you have one hour of someone driving around in a car looking weirdly confused, and another hour of someone trying to make an awkward and unbelievable relationship work out. I personally found Vertigo to be boring almost all the way through, which deeply saddens be, because of all the great things I'd heard about it prior to actually seeing it. The ending also felt really weird, abrupt and indecisive to me, and I wasn't surprised to found out that there were several different ideas thrown around regarding how the final moments were supposed to go down. 

Q: "What about the main mystery and the twists and turns that Hitchcock creates? Weren't you surprised and impressed by these?"

A: Well, I'd like to be able to say that I was. Movies that force its audience to think about what's going and put pieces together in order to experience some great revelation are infinitely exciting to me, but this movie's twists and mysteries didn't even have the power to make me raise my eyebrows. Vertigo's main mystery is explained in full detail just one hour into the movie, which was way too early for me to care enough about it, and it turned out to be no way near as jaw dropping as I'd expected. The whole thing honestly seemed very weird to me, and I couldn't help not caring about the underwhelming twists and mysteries. 

Q: "It's because your too young and too inexperienced that you're saying these things. You just don't understand how great this movie is, do you?"

A: That's the way opinions work. Disagreeing with a popular one brings people in trouble all the time, but I'd like to think that I've stated my case as clearly and respectfully as possible in this review. I do get why a lot of people love the living shit out of Hitchcock's Vertigo, because as I mentioned, this movie was innovative and ahead of it's time back in 1955. Being an 18-year-old kid who lives in a time where suspenseful and mystifying movies like The Unusual Suspects, Fargo and Memento exist though, I simply don't find Vertigo exiting and nerve wracking enough. I won't apologize for my opinions, because that's what they are; opinions, and accusing me of "not knowing what true movie magic is" or "not understanding what's great about this classic movie" just because I come from a period of time where things are different from what they used to be, honestly seems a little immature to me. 

In the end, I want to make one thing very clear: I do understand why this movie is considered a classic, and why a lot of people will defend it to their dying breath. I personally just didn't find it as entertaining as I'd hoped I would, and that's not just because I'm too young and too stupid to "get it", go ahead and read my review of On the Waterfront, an even older "all time great" that I've reviewed in the past, if you don't trust me. Alfred Hitchcock's masterpiece underwhelmed me severely, and I'm truly sad that it didn't turn out to be the mind blowing and jaw dropping experience I'd hoped for. Instead of overwhelmed, surprised and taken aback, Vertigo left me bored, saddened and facepalming. (2/6)

Vertigo IMDb page here

Vertigo tailer here

Psycho - A Classic Movie Review by Andrew Lawrence

"It's not like my mother is a maniac or a raving thing. She just goes a little mad sometimes. We all go a little mad sometimes. Haven't you?"

Alfred Hitchcock is widely considered to be one of the greatest directors of old Hollywood, and watching and writing about some of his classics is something I've been looking forward to ever since I decided to start reviewing older movies here on my blog. I actually bought his 1960 cult classic Psycho on BluRay about six months ago, but it wasn't until very recently that I actually sat down and watched it. The movie takes place in the late 1950's, and it focuses on Marion Crane (played by Janet Leigh), a beautiful young secretary from Phoenix, who steals 40.000 dollars from one of her employer's clients. She flees the city in fear of getting caught by the police, and after driving for two days straight with little to no sleep, she decides to spend a night at Bates' Motel, a desolate but nice looking place she just happens to stumble upon. This is where the story really begins to get going and where things become dangerous, especially when Norman Bates (played by Anthony Perkins), the Motel's proprietor, starts acting a little weird.

People have been calling Psycho the scariest movie of all time in many years now, but to be honest, I was very sceptical about this statement before watching it. Knowing that it's over 50 years old, I didn't have very high hopes for the horror element of the movie, seeing as the perception of what's scary and what isn't changes very rapidly as time goes by. Things that were scary 50 years ago aren't necessarily nearly as scary today; a great example of this is Stanley Kubrick's The Shining. It's a fantastic movie, absolutely, but to me, it just isn't as extremely horrifying and nerve wracking as people make it out to be. I wasn't expecting Psycho to be that scary either, seeing as it's 20 years older than The Shining, and now that I've seen It, I can confirm that it isn't. This doesn't mean that I didn't enjoy the movie as whole though, it just didn't make me feel the need to cover my face with pillows and blankets. 

Seeing as it is directed by Alfred Hitchcock, Psycho is an extremely well directed movie. The shots and the angles are well chosen and well edited, the phasing is great and the tone of movie is suspenseful and believeable, which all in all makes the movie very visually appealing and easy to go along with. It's one of those movies where you're able to feel how much the director cared about what he was doing, and some of the things that Hitchcock did in this movie are truly fascinating to me. Little things such as the imaginative conversations that Marion Crane has with herself about how people around her react when they find out about her crime, the overlaying closeups of Norman Bates' face and a skull near the end, and some of the scenes that are filmed as if seen from a bird's perspective are all extremely cool in my opinion. Alfred Hitchcock has definitely deserved his reputation of being one of the greatest directors of all time, and as a fan of movie creation and attention to detail, I appreciate everything this man did for the industry. 

No matter how well Psycho is directed, I do have one major issue with the script that I need to address. Even though the story is simple, thoughtful, surprising and easy to catch on to, almost none of the characters in the movie have more than an hour to "live" in. Some get killed 30 or 45 minutes into the movie, others take as long as an hour to get fully introduced, and the main character of the whole movie only has about 40 minutes of screen time. I honestly felt as though the movie was way too short to handle as many characters as it wanted to, and as a result, I almost didn't care about any of them on a personal level. Scenes that were supposed to make me cringe and shutter only made me raise my eyebrows, because I hadn't had enough time to connect with the characters that were involved. 

The performances that went into these short lived characters were all great though, and Norman Bates was especially well portrayed in my opinion. He's the main character of the movie, and even though he isn't introduced until 20 minutes into the sory, he definitely is the one with the most depth and the most screen time. I loved the way he was able to seem creepy and out of whack even when he was talking about regular every day stuff, and he definitely is my favourite part of the whole movie, simply because he's the only interesting character in it. Perkins' ability to deliver Alfred Hitchcock's extremely well written dialogue is incredible, and had it not been for the way the movie ended, Norman Bates could have been one of the most iconic and mysterious characters in movie history. By having Dr. Fred Richman explain every single detail about Bates and the mystery that has been the center of the entire movie, the conclusion of the story leaves nothing open to interpretation at all, which in turn means that the movie ends when the credits have finished rolling. I personally love it when a movie leaves me with a bunch of stuff to think about after it has finished, and by having Psycho end as it does, no sort thing is possible.

When everything is said and done, Psycho is a fairly exciting and mysterious movie about a human being who has lost his grasp with reality. By today's standards it isn't a very successful horror movie however, even though it does have some tense scenes and a some exciting elements to it. The problems I had with the character development and the way the movie ends drags Psycho down a lot for me, so I'd be lying if I said that the the movie left as amazed as other classics have. Hitchcock's incredible ability to create iconic and memorable movies does shine though the surface quite often however, and combined with Anthony Perkins' incredible portrayal of Norman Bates, the legendary director does manage to create a memorable movie that kept me entertained from start to finish. In spite of its problems, I'd say that Psycho is worth the watch because of it's legacy, its iconic elements such as the shower scene, Hitchcock ingenious ability to direct, and Perkins' incredible portrayal of Norman Bates. (3/6)

Psycho IMDb page here

Psycho trailer here

PS: This is what happens when Blockbuster goes on sale:

On the Waterfront - A Movie Review by Andrew Lawrence

"Isn't it simple as one, two, three? One: The working conditions are bad. Two: They're bad because the mob does the hiring. And three: The only way we can break the mob is to stop letting them get away with murder."

The late Marlon Brando is widely regarded as the greatest actor of all time, but until very recently, The Godfather was the only movie of his that I had watched. That being said, I wanted my new classic movie segment to start out with a bang, so what better choice than the greatest actor of all time's most  critically acclaimed movie was there? I saw At The Waterfront yesterday, and from the very beginning of the movie, I knew that I was in for treat. I knew the movie was gonna be a lot different from the movies I usually watch, seeing as it's almost 60 years old and all, but I have to say that I was pleasantly surprised at how powerful it actually is. As stated in my latest update post, I personally have a hard time getting out of my comfort zone and give older movies a shot, even though I'm well aware that these movies often are some of the more incredible and memorable ones. If you're one of these people as well, please, for the love of God, go watch On the Waterfront or any other old classic for that matter. Give it a chance, and I promise you that your view will change, and a whole new world of fantastic movies will open up for you. 

On the Waterfront came out in 1954 and immediately received wide critical acclaim, which also showed at that year's academy awards. Marlon Brando won his first oscar for his portrayal of Terry Malloy, a tough, mistreated but goodhearted longshoreman, and the movie was also rewarded with awards such as best picture, best screenplay and best director. Brando's character is a young dock worker who works at the waterfront in New Your City, a business that was completely dominated by the mob at that time, and like everyone else, he does whatever his bosses tell him to. Even though the working conditions were horrible and the pay was extremely low, the workers had no other choice than to do what they were told, if they didn't want to end up dead in a back alley. An eyeopening experience, a determined catholic priest and a lovely young woman eventually make Terry question whether or not he's capable of withstanding the mistreatment, the dominance and the corruption of the mob any longer, and as the movie gets going, our main character realises that the only way to make things better for him and his colleagues is to do something about the problem himself. 

This movie definitely is an "oscar worthy"-kind of movie, in the sense that it has a great message about the society of the 1950's and the people who lived in it to tell. Even though that kind of movie often tend to bore the regular movie goer, On the Waterfront did an good job of staying interesting and captivating throughout it's entire run time, which in my opinion largely is because of the way it's put together. Even though the commonly used Hollywood-model of "character introduction first, escalation of the main issue second, grand finale last" that the movie follows is extremely cliché'd, there's something very pleasing about the way everything that happens makes sense. All the scenes somehow seem to connect and mean something more to each other than they usually do, and all the little hints, details and character specific trademarks are followed up upon and used later in the movie to really emphasise something else. As a result, everything that happens in this movie seems important and well thought out, as if nothing happened by chance. It's a solid, well created movie that probably deserved to win the oscar for best picture, but more importantly, for best editing as well. 

Another very important part of this movie is the message it tells and the themes that it uses to do so. Terry is faced with several moral dilemmas throughout the movie, and the way he struggles to determine whether or not he should act on his own behalf or do what he knows in his heart is the right thing to do, is a joy to watch most of the time. Father Berry (played by Karl Malden) is crucial to this element of right vs. wrong, and he's the only person who tries to stand up to the mob to begin with. He has several scenes in which he tries to convince the workers On the Waterfront that the only way they can improve their situation is to stand up against the mob and witness against them in court, even though he knows it'll endanger their lives. This leads into another one the issues that the movie raises about society, which is the question of whether it's okay to be a "rat", someone who passes information on to the police. These moral dilemmas between choosing to do what is best for one self or what is best for the people around you is the core theme of On the Waterfront. I personally think that it was an alright plot, but then again, it wasn't nearly as interesting as some of the other elements of the movie. It felt a little too educational and a bit too shoehorned into the movie as well. 

One of the things about this movie that surprised me the most, is how quickly I bought the eventual romance between Terry Malloy (Brando) and Edie Doyle (played by Eva Marie Saint). It didn't take nearly as long before I got on board with their relationship and started caring about what was going to happen to them as it usually does, and I'm honestly not sure why. Both actors won academy awards for their performances in this movie, but honestly, I've seen romances before that were just as well acted as this one, but were as interesting to me as George Clooney's batnipples in Batman and Robin are. (weird, my computer doesn't recognise the word "batnipple".) What I do know is that the relationship between these two characters was the thing I liked the most about the whole movie, because it was incredibly important to me that they were gonna be alright and and figure things out. Marlon Brando's performance in On the Waterfront, which I'd heard basically in itself is what makes this movie a classic, was, as predicted, completely off the chain. Brando's way of becoming the character which he portrays is incomparable to anything I've seen in a long time, and his addition to this movie undoubtedly is one of it's biggest draws.

Watching On the Waterfront was a very pleasant and eye opening experience for me, because it made me realise that older movies can be just as enjoyable as newer ones. My favourite parts were Marlon Brando's acting and his and Eva Marie Saint's relationship, and the way the movie was put together and told through great editing, phasing and cinematography is truly admirable. My only real problem with the movie is that I felt as though the main plot was more interesting than entertaining, which in turn meant that I had to stay completely focused whilst watching and movie, in fear of loosing interest in what it was trying to say. The script definitely is oscar worthy for the reasons I talked about earlier, it just wasn't as entertaining and captivating to me as other parts of the movie were. For this reason, On the Waterfront, the all time classic, "only" gets my seal of approval, which of cause still is a good rating. (4/6)

On the Waterfront IMDb page here

On the Waterfront trailer link here