Topic: Dave's DVD/Blu-ray Reviews

[Najemikon]

Even I liked Psycho 

I was just going to say exactly that!  Dave has the honour of being the only person so far to give the film a kicking, on this forum at least. Ah, well. Good to have an opposing view I suppose.

Shame it's wrong.

[dfmorgan]

Even I liked Psycho  

Just looked at the other reviews here and it seems I am in a very, very small minority. Just wonder what would have happened if I had stuck with my first thought of a 2 .    

Dave

[snowcat]

When I first watched Psycho I felt a little underwhelmed also, I felt it was nothing compared to some of Hitchcocks other films and couldn't understand why films like Rope and Rear Window didn't have the same following, then I re watched it and enjoyed it a whole lot more. I think the second half of the movie post murder is stronger then the first half but that is my 

[Najemikon]

Even I liked Psycho 

Just looked at the other reviews here and it seems I am in a very, very small minority. Just wonder what would have happened if I had stuck with my first thought of a 2 .   

Dave

 

That would have just been silly! The basic structure of the film is so brilliant it deserves more than that. Emma remarks the second half better than the first, but I find the scene in the office such a brilliant narrative trick that it's very hard to call. For Hitchcock to do that, at that time, is one of the most audacious moves in mainstream cinema and has never been so successful since (Tarantino tried it most recently with Death Proof). It could easily have killed off his career, but for his habit of involving the audience, so you would feel like part of the film even when you're being manipulated. With Peeping Tom in the same year, Michael Powell was just as audacious and that did ruin him. Another brilliant film that suddenly I find difficult to recommend to Dave! 

[dfmorgan]

As Emma said though on first view she was underwhelmed as well and it took a further viewing to enjoy it more. May be it will improve on me next time I watch it.

With Peeping Tom in the same year, Michael Powell was just as audacious and that did ruin him. Another brilliant film that suddenly I find difficult to recommend to Dave! 

Amazon UK have the special editon from 2007 for a fiver. Should I go for it?

Dave

[Najemikon]

You might as well at that price, Dave. It would be interesting for you to compare at least.

I don't want to speak for Emma, but while all great films get better with each viewing and occasionally some are so brilliant you need to seem them twice at least, Psycho should grab you by the balls on the first viewing. Otherwise you'll only ever appreciate it, never love it.

I mean, I doubt you'll ever get from a grudging 3 to an enthusiastic 5! but whatever, its horses for courses at the end of day. If you're the opposite of Tom, you may enjoy Rear Window or Vertigo more.

[dfmorgan]

You might as well at that price, Dave. It would be interesting for you to compare at least.

Order placed

I don't want to speak for Emma, but while all great films get better with each viewing and occasionally some are so brilliant you need to seem them twice at least, Psycho should grab you by the balls on the first viewing. Otherwise you'll only ever appreciate it, never love it.

I mean, I doubt you'll ever get from a grudging 3 to an enthusiastic 5! but whatever, its horses for courses at the end of day. If you're the opposite of Tom, you may enjoy Rear Window or Vertigo more.

Yeah a 5 might be far away but possibly a 4 could appear. I'll have to give more thought to Hitchcock and maybe get a few more, this being the only one I own and as I already said The Birds is the only other one I can say I've watched all the way through, but that must have been on TV as I don't own it on any format

Dave

[Tom]

I mean, I doubt you'll ever get from a grudging 3 to an enthusiastic 5! but whatever, its horses for courses at the end of day. If you're the opposite of Tom, you may enjoy Rear Window or Vertigo more.

I quite liked Vertigo. It got a 4 from me. That I didn't quite enjoy Rear Window was also surprise to me. This is one of Hitch's I expected to enjoy very much.

[goodguy]

Dave has the honour of being the only person so far to give the film a kicking, on this forum at least.

While I didn't give Psycho a proper kicking, I posted my rating () in the Hitchcock thread. That's entirely subjective - I do agree with some of the points Jon made about the merits of this film (here and in his review), but I can't bring myself to care.

[dfmorgan]

Lagaan: Once Upon a Time in India

Year: 2001
Director: Ashutosh Gowariker
Cast: Aamir Khan, Gracy Singh, Rachel Shelley, Paul Blackthorne

Overview: Queen Victoria's India. The year is 1893. Champaner… a small farming village in Central India. On the outskirts of the village stands a British cantonment, commanded by Captain Russell (Paul Blackthorne) - an arrogant and capricous man who wields the power of life and death over the villages under his jurisdiction.

'LAGAAN' - a story of a battle without bloodshed.

Fought by a group of unlikely heroes led by Bhuvan (Aamir Khan), an enigmatic young farmer with courage born of conviction - and a dream in his heart. Helped by Elizabeth (Rachel Shelley), an English rose who came to India and lost her heart, and Bhuvan's pillar of strength, Gauri (Gracy Singh), the young and perky village girl who dreams only of a home with the man she loves.

A story of extraordinary circumstances thrust upon ordinary people. Adversity faces with fortitude and injustice with dignity. Faith and courage come face to face with arrogance and ruthlessness… and the human spirit triumphs.

Watched: 11th. Aug 2010
My Thoughts: An enjoyable film. I thought that maybe I had seen it before but was pleased to find that I hadn't. An over-bearing boorish English army officer, Captain Russell (Paul Blackthorne), takes pleasure in belittleing the locals. The local villages are in the middle of a long drought and Captain Russell decides to double the taxes (Lagaan). When challenged by the local villagers, led by Bhuvan (Aamir Khan), he decides to play them in a game of cricket with an important condition, the penalty being triple taxes if the Army win and no taxes for 3 years if the locals win. There is also a sort of love triangle for Bhuvan between Elizabeth (Rachel Shelley), the sister of the Captain, and Gauri (Gracy Singh) a local village girl.

My Rating: A very enjoyable 4

Dave

[dfmorgan]

Peeping Tom

Year: 1960
Director: Michael Powell
Cast: Carl Boehm, Moira Shearer, Anna Massey

Overview: From Michael Powell, the acclaimed director of A Matter of Life and Death and The Red Shoes, comes one of the most controversial films ever made in Britain, and a masterpiece of psychological terror.

By day, Mark Lewis (Carl Boehm) works as a focus-puller in a film studio, supplementing his income by shooting glamour photographs for a seedy Soho newsagent. By night he seeks victims for his gruesome obsession with filming the look of pure, unadulterated fear – the legacy of his fathers sadistic experiments on him as a child.

Released in 1960, shortly before Hitchcock's equally shocking Psycho, the film was praised by the leading trade paper Kine Weekly as 'at once tender as well as horrifying'. But it provoked British critics into a fury of disgust: 'the sickest and filthiest film I can remember seeing' (The Spectator); while Tribune wanted it 'flushed swiftly down the nearest sewer'.

Powell's career never recovered from the scandal. But twenty years later, Peeping Tom was hailed as a misunderstood masterpiece – especially by filmmakers such as Martin Scorsese and Bertrand Tavernier – and today its wit and beauty, as well as its insight into the voyeurism of cinema, have made it a modern classic.

Watched: 14th. Aug 2010
My Thoughts: OK not a film I can say I enjoyed however I did find it to be interesting. There are obvious similarities to Psycho, released the same year, in that the protagonist has been twisted by an overbearing parent and that they then go on to murder people. However whilst in Psycho we don't get clarity on the murderer until near the end of the film here we meet him committing his first offence at the beginning. Unlike Psycho this film kept me interested through to its completion. Hard to believe that it caused such a furore when it was released, especially when you look to todays offerings in the Saw  franchise and those from the Hostel and The Grudge stables, but it did and effectively killed off Michael Powell's career.

My Rating: An interesting 4

Dave

[Najemikon]

Peeping Tom Hard to believe that it caused such a furore when it was released, especially when you look to todays offerings in the Saw  franchise and those from the Hostel and The Grudge stables, but it did and effectively killed off Michael Powell's career.

Not so hard to believe when you consider that the Saw and Hostel movies are empty gimmicks, designed for an audience who know what they are in for. But it isn't about graphic violence and the real reason is very simple.

Narratives have an "emotional focus"; the character that the writer/director wants us to identify with and older films were structured in a very disciplined manner that such things were absolutely vital. Powell's conceit of filming from the point of view of the killer forces the viewer to -for want of a better word- sympathise with him. It exposes the voyeuristic nature in the audience and there is nowhere to hide. It doesn't matter that the killings aren't graphic. It was still a step too far for audiences of the day and if you think about it, what film since has tried the same trick with such commitment and elegance? Shame that Powell suffered for it because he was nothing short of a genius.

This is why I have always linked Peeping Tom and Psycho. What Hitchcock did with his film was just as audacious, working again with the emotional focus by asking the audience to follow this lead character, understand her, imagine where she might end up... oh. Hold on. What just happened in the shower? That can't be right!

There is no finer example of the idea that Hitchcock considered himself an audience member. It's like he's gleefully trying to scare himself as much as us while telling us a story. If you follow the same train of thought, Powell clearly wanted to disturb the viewer, hold a mirror up and ask us to take a good long look at who we really are. It came out before Psycho, but it's almost as if he's telling audiences off for enjoying such thoughts and exposing them as voyeurs. Clearly no-one wanted to be told off!

Antares will detest me for saying this after taling about Powell, but it's this kind of playfulness I like about Tarantino. He messes with the viewers perception quite brilliantly in the notorious ear-slicing scene in Reservoir Dogs.

[Antares]

Not so hard to believe when you consider that the Saw and Hostel movies are empty gimmicks, designed for an audience who know what they are in for. But it isn't about graphic violence and the real reason is very simple.

Narratives have an "emotional focus"; the character that the writer/director wants us to identify with and older films were structured in a very disciplined manner that such things were absolutely vital. Powell's conceit of filming from the point of view of the killer forces the viewer to -for want of a better word- sympathise with him. It exposes the voyeuristic nature in the audience and there is nowhere to hide. It doesn't matter that the killings aren't graphic. It was still a step too far for audiences of the day and if you think about it, what film since has tried the same trick with such commitment and elegance? Shame that Powell suffered for it because he was nothing short of a genius.

This is why I have always linked Peeping Tom and Psycho. What Hitchcock did with his film was just as audacious, working again with the emotional focus by asking the audience to follow this lead character, understand her, imagine where she might end up... oh. Hold on. What just happened in the shower? That can't be right!

There is no finer example of the idea that Hitchcock considered himself an audience member. It's like he's gleefully trying to scare himself as much as us while telling us a story. If you follow the same train of thought, Powell clearly wanted to disturb the viewer, hold a mirror up and ask us to take a good long look at who we really are. It came out before Psycho, but it's almost as if he's telling audiences off for enjoying such thoughts and exposing them as voyeurs. Clearly no-one wanted to be told off!

Very well put. Peeping Tom is one of the great, yet virtually unknown horror films in the history of that medium. Other films would follow decades later that put you in the killer's head, but those would glorify the gratuitous nature of the deed's shown. This film did it with subtlety.

Antares will detest me for saying this after talking about Powell, but it's this kind of playfulness I like about Tarantino. He messes with the viewers perception quite brilliantly in the notorious ear-slicing scene in Reservoir Dogs.

It was a great read until this...mentioning Tarantino in the same breath as Powell is akin to speaking the names of Jayson Blair and Edward R. Murrow in regards to journalistic integrity.

(click to show/hide)

Sometimes you make my eyes bleed.  

[dfmorgan]

 

Thanks for the comments Jon and Antares. I shall go away and cogitate upon them.

Dave

[Najemikon]

Thanks for the comments Jon and Antares. I shall go away and cogitate upon them.

Well, you just make sure you clean up afterwards. 

 

It was a great read until this...mentioning Tarantino in the same breath as Powell is akin to speaking the names of Jayson Blair and Edward R. Murrow in regards to journalistic integrity.

(click to show/hide)

Sometimes you make my eyes bleed.   

 

If I knew who Jayson Blair was...