lowefreddy Reviews

Great Expectations (1946)

A beautiful adaptation of a phenomenal book.

[9/10 · 15 May 2024]

Great Expectations is like Daphne du Maurier's 'Rebecca': it's such a good novel that no film adaptation will ever really match it. However, this is a stunning piece of cinema: a very lovingly crafted adaptation that stays very close to the book. Classic cinema of this era is usually brilliant anyway - think of the 40s and 50s adaptations of Pride and Prejudice, And Then There Were None, Jane Eyre, Les Misérables, etc - and this film is no exception.

Unusually, whereas many literary adaptations of this era tend to make the story more farcical, this film is rigorously faithful to both tone and plot of the book, even including small touches I was not expecting to be included: e.g. The twist about who 'Molly' is, Jagger's speech about impoverished children slipping through the cracks, etc. It also - like the Jane Eyre of this period - heightens the story's more gothic elements, which is most welcome, especially in the early scenes with Magwitch.

The police chase on the water is fantastic. That's where the novel gets really exciting, and they transpose that excitement excellently to the screen.

And it has an utterly perfect performance of Herbert Pocket from a very young (and very good-looking!) Alec Guinness.

Moby Dick (1956)

That was pretty bad.

[2/10 · 14 May 2024]

To be fair, I doubt it is the film's fault - it's the source material! What was Herman Melville thinking? I've not read the book, but reviewers say this film is a fairly close adaptation. It's about a young man called Ishmael who wants to go to sea, so he goes to a seaside town, stays at an inn with his new friend Queequeg who is Polynesian and described as a "cannibal"...and then they go on a whaling voyage manned by the sinister Captain Ahab, who reveals to them that they're actually there to hunt down the white whale Moby Dick who is responsible for the loss of his leg.

And that's the story. Hunting a whale for a whole film. Yawn. I'd hate to read the book after seeing this.

This film does have some interesting themes of Christian morality. First mate Starbuck is desperate for the hunt to be called off because rather than Ahab killing whales for the good of society, he is purely acting out of personal vengeance...and that offends God. There is a sense that Ahab is this devilish figure leading his charge on a doomed voyage where they are all destined to follow in his blasphemous fate. That was interesting at least.

It was also interesting racially. The cross-cultural friendship between Ishmael and Queequeg - especially the symbolism of Ishmael being rescued by Queequeg's coffin - is probably the closest a novel of this era could get to some kind of progressiveness.

Apart from that...I don't see the appeal. The ending is a total bloodbath. It's just a boring pursuit story. I must be missing something.

Jane Eyre (1996)

I love this version!

[10/10 · 17 April 2024]

I'm a huge fan of this film. It's a beautiful production. It's gorgeously shot. The music is stunning. The acting is fantastic, and whilst the pacing is a little leisurely (my sister found this film quite boring), I just thought it was brilliant. Speaking as a huge fan of the book who has seen most screen versions of Jane Eyre (and honestly, a lot of them aren't that great), this is probably my favourite.

Charlotte Gainsbourg gives a really interesting rendition of Jane. She doesn't quite stay true to the book - while book Jane is a quiet character, she has quiet confidence, and still has a very clear feisty spark to her. Whereas Gainsbourg's interpretation is quite solemn and withdrawn. It is hinted that this version of Jane is emotionally scarred from Lowood: when she flees Thornfield, she returns to Lowood to visit Helen Burns's grave, which is a nice extra touch. All of that said, it's a beautiful performance. It's a slightly different interpretation from the novel, but it's still interesting, and what she chooses to perform she performs excellently.

William Hurt gives a compelling performance as Rochester. Unlike any other adaptation, these producers are faithful to the book to make Rochester plain rather than stunningly handsome (no offence William Hurt, but those sideburns would bring some people's breakfast up).

This film also has the best depiction of Bertha I've seen. The wedding sequence is transposed to screen phenomenally well - one truly senses just how devastatingly sad this story is for everyone concerned. Bertha in this film is very vulnerable and terrified when people come in to see her; it is a sympathetic presentation sensitive to what Bertha has gone through. Rochester, to this film's credit, also has a line about how the care she received at his house was better than it would have been in a Victorian mental hospital...despite how much he has suffered to provide it for her. Everything about the wedding scene and Bertha's reveal is handled brilliantly.

Bravo! It deviates from the novel in places - most notably in Gainsbourg's performance - but I still can't fault it. Moving and romantic: top marks.

Wuthering Heights (1939)

So bad.

[1/10 · 13 April 2024]

This film is dire. I usually like classic cinema but this did not do it for me at all. It did not stay even slightly true to the tone of Emily Brontë's novel. Considering this story is supposed to be about primitive, animalistic, savage cruelty, every character in this adaptation is so prissy and posh! The plot feels so trivial: Catherine falls in love with Heathcliff, then Edgar, then Heathcliff, then Edgar again, followed by lots of posh whining...ugh. It did not work. And the ending was so stupid; one moment was almost like pantomime.

Why was Catherine played by such a posh actress? She's supposed to be from Yorkshire. She didn't have a trace of a Yorkshire accent.

0/10. Dire.

The Beekeeper (2024)

Hell yes - loved it!

[10/10 · 1 February 2024]

This film is a wonderful piece of nonsense with a superb cast. It's your typical guilty-pleasure action romp, with a subtle (but definitely present) social justice bent to it - even better! It exposes the evil of those call centres who prey on the vulnerable and scam innocent people out of their savings.

'The Beekeeper' opens with a genuinely unsettling, uncomfortable scene where we see a good-natured, elderly woman get scammed out of her entire savings, pension scheme, and even the income of a charity she was in charge of - and this results in her committing suicide. What the scammers didn't reckon on is her typically stoic, quiet beekeeper, played by Jason Statham, who doth take no ****! He bursts in and brings down the whole edifice in typical action-film style, making it look easy of course.

Walked out of the cinema feeling great.

Pride and Prejudice and Zombies (2016)

This film's great!

[10/10 · 7 May 2023]

I love this film! I'm a die-hard fan of Jane Austen and films like this more than deserve their place in the canon of adaptations. It is brilliantly escapist and very creative. It's got a surprisingly star-studded cast - Lily James, Sally Philips, Matt Smith, Douglas Booth, and Charles Dance - and it's even rather moving towards the end. Moving in ways you would not expect for a zombie film. Lily James and Sam Riley make for a feisty and charismatic Lizzy and Darcy; they played their roles just as beautifully as any other L/D actor pair.

I do recognise that this is an Austen film about zombies; an in-depth analysis is missing the point a bit. HOWEVER...

The zombies are a nifty device to elaborate on Jane Austen's social commentary. Lizzy's choice to get married is further complicated by having to "relinquish her sword for a ring". Getting married means she can no longer be a warrior. Women are forced to make the ultimate choice: fierce battle prowess, or a traditionally stable marriage? And so, we have a society where "expectations" of women are much more literal, rather than symbolic.

Equally, the sexual politics are interesting. There's a neat symmetry throughout the film with Lizzy and Darcy's relationship. In the beginning (while they're pretending to hate each other), Darcy saves her life, much to Lizzy's chagrin. Then, at the end, Darcy is sent into battle and SHE saves HIM. Therefore, their relationship is built solidly on equality. In the novel, equality is built through them both realising their character defects; in this film, this is - again - a more concrete process.

Bravo to all involved!

The Lodger: A Story of the London Fog (1927)

Is this Hitchcock's best silent film?

[10/10 · 18 September 2022]

That was fabulous. That was significantly better than I was expecting - is it in fact one of Hitchcock's finest early works? I was surprised by that; it is absolutely brilliant.

It's the first Hitchcock silent film that I found quite moving. There's a powerful ballroom dance sequence (you'll know it when you see it - the music, black-and-white, actors' faces, ugh all of it), not to mention that the central romance is one you find yourself mildly rooting for! Ivor Novello is phenomenal. (He was a good-looking man wasn't he?) Very charismatic, dark and mysterious - wonderful. He works well opposite his foil 'love interest', as played by Malcolm Keen. Both Keen and Novello have creepy, spine-chilling moments - but they humanise their characters well.

Additionally - I liked this with Jamaica Inn and Strangers on a Train and I liked it here! - Hitchcock basically rewrote the novel. The first third follows Mrs Lowndes's book quite faithfully. Then it just goes mental. I love it! I don't mind if filmmakers stick religiously to a book, but if they do it with so much reverence that the film gets slow and self-indulgent, it becomes unbearable. I like a film adaptation that does something very different and slightly throws the accuracy to the wind. I enjoy the audacity of it.

(Especially regarding Joe Chandler - what the hell did they do to his character? In the book he's rather sweet, if a bit naïve. Here he turns into a vengeful, obsessive twit, who just manages a five-minute hero redemption arc towards the end. Why? Don't know. Hey-ho, interesting interpretation.)

As with all Hitchcock silent films, another wonderful thing is that you never notice the lack of dialogue. Honestly, you don't need it! Hitchcock's visual storytelling is wonderful and you genuinely understand everything that happens. 'The Lodger' is masterful and, long story short, you should all watch it. (How was this only his third film?)

Love Streams (1984)

What was that??

[1/10 · 24 July 2022]

I hold £5 in my hand. That £5 belongs to the person who can explain to me what on Earth this film was supposed to be. (Apart from any good.)

Worst film ever made?

The Skin Game (1931)

Terrible.

[1/10 · 22 May 2022]

Apart from maybe 'Marnie', this might possibly be the worst film in Alfred Hitchcock's entire canon.

For one thing - and I'm not sure why this is - the sound quality is absolutely dreadful. The jarring frequency of the microphones is loud enough to sometimes drown out the voices of the actors. Some occasionally concerning feedback noises also suggest that something's not quite right with the tech behind the scenes(!). Not helped by the fact that the actors' enunciation - by modern standards - isn't phenomenal away, so it can be extremely difficult to follow what is actually going on in the plot.

The story itself (and this is neither the fault of Hitchcock nor the actors) isn't that original. It seems to be a combination of Romeo and Juliet and Tess of the d'Urbervilles, and a fairly boring combination at that, centred around agricultural politics?

We don't get treated to much (if any?) suspense or tension either; instead, our usually very expressionistic director just gives us shots of a room where two characters talk...and follow them around as they continue talking...(and as I've said, you're only guaranteed to comprehend about 50% of it).

What follows therefore is a boring, 82-minutes-too-long, incomprehensible, suspense-free drama where you're constantly wondering if the apparatus was about to explode...or if it's just a film hard to 'restore' properly for modern viewers.

Murder! (1930)

Yawn. Boring!

[1/10 · 10 May 2022]

I love Hitchcock's early stuff: The Ring, The Farmer's Wife, and even Rich and Strange are films which I've derived much enjoyment from. I would heartily recommend to not waste your time on Murder!, or at the very least, watch it if you're having trouble sleeping. There is no humour, chemistry, energy, adrenaline, drive, or purpose to the plot. The film drags at a devastatingly slow pace. The story already feels derivative even for 1930 - Agatha Christie was already doing this sort of thing far better - and Sir John and Diana are really boring with no chemistry. Hitchcock did sometimes lose interest in his lead actors, initially very excited to work with them but soon thinking, "actually I don't want to tell the story from their point of view - they're too damn boring!" (Not an actual quote.) One wonders if he had true faith in Norah Baring's portrayal of Diana, given that she's barely in it...and does not give the most convincing performance as a woman sentenced to death. (I've never seen such a nonchalant-looking prisoner!)

Would only recommend to Hitchcock completists. If I weren't one, I'd have aborted after about half an hour.

No Time to Die (2021)

'No Time To Die' is stunning!

[10/10 · 3 October 2021]

I shouldn't write reviews the moment I've finished the film, largely because opinions change and vary and develop after mulling things over. But having seen all the reviews that IMDb have deigned to list first (despite this film having received predominantly brilliant reviews!), I feel the need to defend it. For maybe that one reader who finds this on an Internet scroll. :)

Let me start by saying - 'No Time To Die' is a beautiful film. It is completely and utterly stunning. It's difficult to sum up what James Bond means to you if you are a massive fan (sorry, some melodramatic stuff coming up) - and I consider myself one. I watched all 24 films very close together during a time of personal crisis. They were instrumental in helping me heal, so I'm quite attached to this series. And I loved 'No Time To Die'.

What's all this about it being too politicised? I certainly agree with the apprehensiveness - the TRAILER made it look very politicised. The film itself is completely devoid of any gender identity politics (thank Christ). You know those two women in the trailer who looked really arrogant and nasty, seeking basically to dumb Bond down for being a male chauvinist? Turns out the trailer cut out all the scenes where Bond held his own against them, and it also cut out the scenes where those two women turn out to be two of the COOLEST CHARACTERS IN ALL OF BOND. You will love them both by the end (they're not even in it as much as you'll expect).

That's the political side of things out of the way. Now let's get onto the storytelling:

'No Time To Die' is bold. Very bold indeed. Plot twists, story developments, and breathtaking finales occur that would never have made it into a typically 'escapist' Bond film. I love the Roger Moore 70s era - doesn't everyone? - but it's fair to say that those films feel almost like episodes in a TV series. They tick along entertaining the masses and that's fine. 'No Time To Die' is not that. It's an emotional rollercoaster! You will come out of it feeling in shock and possibly a little numbed (so don't go on IMDb and give it a terrible review to make yourself feel better). Things happen in 'No Time To Die' that would categorically never happen in a Roger Moore one.

AND YET - it is still a Bond film. A Bond film through and through. Gunfights, car chases, gorgeously filmed action sequences, fabulous locations, action-packed final battles, larger-than-life characters, hilarious dialogue (thank you Phoebe Waller-Bridge) - it's all there. Bond is still at the centre-stage. You've gone to see a Bond film and you will get one. It's bold, yes, and very different from the 'norm', but it is still a film about that fantastic character who we all know and love.

I will ardently defend this. Please go and see it.

The Lady Vanishes (1938)

One of Hitchcock's very best.

[10/10 · 21 August 2021]

Hitchcock's British films are a fascinating (and mixed!) bunch. 'Young and Innocent' is less than impressive; "The 39 Steps" is imperfect but earns its hype; "Jamaica Inn" is an underrated and delightfully farcical romp. "The Lady Vanishes" is the most outstanding of the lot, and ranks among one of the best films that Hitchcock ever made.

(Up in the top ranks with Psycho and North by Northwest!)

A pacy and heartwarming plot is what makes this film successful. After an amusing few minutes spent at a hotel where a group of stranded travellers are forced to stay, the main bulk of the piece is set on a train travelling across continental Europe. Our heroine (played brilliantly by Margaret Lockwood) befriends an elderly Agatha-Christie-esque English lady named Miss Froy, who then goes missing. What follows is so simple, yet effective in its simplicity: a woman trying to discover what has happened to her friend on a train journey, unravelling a spy mystery which takes different turns each step at a time.

A cast of funny, charismatic characters, combined with the brilliantly simple and captivating setup, the main arc of the film (rather like all of Hitchcock) is not what is at stake (who can be bothered with government spy secrets?) but rather the entertaining journey to uncover them. I am not surprised this film gained Hitchcock Hollywood recognition. Rightly earned too.

This is outstanding. An absolute must-watch.

Jamaica Inn (1939)

I thought that was rather good!

[10/10 · 19 August 2021]

What's all this about 'Jamaica Inn' being Alfred Hitchcock's worst film? Of course it isn't.

Let me draw a comparison. Just one year after this, Hitchcock adapted another du Maurier classic: Rebecca. Although his 'Rebecca' adaptation has a far better reputation, if it were a desert island Hitch choice between 'Rebecca' and 'Jamaica Inn', I'd take the latter without thinking twice. I'll tell you why: Hitchcock may have changed the book, but he makes the story FUN. In 'Rebecca', I found his trademark playfulness notably absent, and though it was a much more faithful adaptation (and still a good film!), it is a bit too solemn and mechanical to return to again and again. 'Jamaica Inn' is a blast from start to finish, and can't fail to leave a smile on your face.

Charles Laughton is completely ridiculous: talk about a cartoonish, pantomime villain. But here's the thing - his performance works. The whole film generally is a bit cartoonish and pantomime - and it works! This is 'guilty-pleasure-Hitchcock' at its finest, and that is why I ended up loving it. The second half is better than the first half, largely because one spends the first half nervously wondering if the film will live up to its dire reputation. By the end, you've thrown those thoughts away and you're just going along for the ride.

Is this one of Alfred Hitchcock's most farcical films? Absolutely. Does that mean it's bad? Quite the opposite. This was a complete comedy funhouse and I had a great time. Watch it after a good meal (maybe with a few drinks inside you) and you'll be surprised.

Chernobyl: Abyss (2021)

Terrible!

[2/10 · 16 August 2021]

I was quite excited when I started this. I thought it would be a fresh, alternative perspective after the phenomenal HBO version, especially given that this actually came from the country where Chernobyl happened. Plus, anything to raise people's awareness of the atrocities of the incident.

Sadly, "Chernobyl 1986" is quite rubbish. Its main problem is that it is boring! How can you film a story about Chernobyl and make it completely devoid of any drama or tension? Talk about dull beyond belief. Half my family went to bed before the end.

Not helped by the fact that the protagonist sprints through the nuclear power plant - in scenes worthy of Hollywood at its most dire level of cringeworthy - pulling out his burnt, dying, blood-vomiting comrades from the ruins...and he remains completely unscathed. At the rate that character was going, he'd have been dead in about ten minutes.

Watch for a drunk, popcorn 'bad-film' fest; otherwise skip.

Young and Innocent (1937)

Very OK!

[7/10 · 2 August 2021]

This is not one of Alfred Hitchcock's best films. Many of his "innocent-man-wrongfully-accused" films are among his very best work, and don't suffer from the recycled formula in the slightest. Films like these include 'Saboteur', 'Strangers on a Train', 'North by Northwest', and 'Frenzy'. Unfortunately, one does feel the formula here. The experience of 'Young and Innocent' mostly left me yearning for 'The 35 Steps' again.

But 7/10 - it's still a good film! Not one of his very worst. Nova Pilbeam is wonderful, and the all-too-famous tracking shot is (though arguably underwhelmed by the hype) still rather clever. Just not one I'd return to in a hurry.

The 39 Steps (1935)

Salt-of-the-Earth Hitchcock - you'll love it!

[10/10 · 12 July 2021]

Notable similarities to 1951's Strangers on a Train and 1959's North by Northwest (among countless others), as well as being almost identical to 1942's Saboteur, it is clear from the off that Hitchcock was establishing here his favourite formula: innocent everyman embroiled in extraordinary criminal conspiracies.

Yet somehow, Hitchcock is able to use and reuse and reuse the exact same formula, and it does not get old. If you love Hitch, then for heaven's sake get on and watch The 39 Steps. It's a salt-of-the-Earth, box-ticking, marvellously escapist production. Its now-recognisable formula doesn't so much alienate you as invite you in like an old friend. Much like its sister film 'Saboteur', its ending is rather abrupt...but who cares? Utterly utterly brilliant.

North by Northwest (1959)

"Patience is a virtue." "So is breathing."

[10/10 · 15 May 2021]

Yeah, love it. What Hitchcock fan doesn't?

North by Northwest is generally considered one of Hitchcock's more agreeable works across his fandom, and one understands why. James Bond fans will certainly love it (in fact you'll recognise one of its scenes that was later used in 'From Russia With Love'!). It defies symbolic or metaphorical interpretation and invites you to enjoy a whirlwind of off-the-wall adventure.

(The title is, after all, "north by northwest". North by northwest does not exist. Rejection of realism is the point of this film. This film is supposed to be escapist entertainment, no deeper meanings required if you are not so inclined.)

Cary Grant is hilarious as the baffled everyman caught up in a spy network. Eva Marie Saint does not disappoint either as the feisty, calculating, double agent sidekick. I love the scene where she has him hidden in the fold-up bed in the train compartment so the police don't find him:

"Patience is a virtue." "So is breathing," Cary Grant's muffled voice murmurs from behind the wall.

The final act is also entertaining as a high-adrenaline, soundtrack-heavy, final climax to your typical spy adventure. That obviously also pleases my inner 007 biases. Above all, Hitchcock's main USP is his ability to tell a satisfying story, and North by Northwest is one of the very best examples of that.

I love it. It is one of Hitchcock's best. Go and treat yourself and find some clips from it to binge-watch (or just sit down for the full thing).

Vertigo (1958)

Not for me. I just hated it!

[2/10 · 15 May 2021]

My earlier IMDb review of 'Vertigo' was a little more forgiving, confidently claiming, "one can learn to love things! Maybe I just saw it at the wrong time..." That was before watching it a second time.

Unpopular with critics and audiences when was first released, it has since been reappraised. This is an occasion where I think they got it right the first time. There are two reasons, in my book, why some people (fewer than you think) sing this film's praises:

1) The fantastic orchestral soundtrack (I won't deny that).

2) All our current talk of 'the male gaze' (bring the sick bucket): a concept that this film so aptly embodies and critiques.

If you do genuinely enjoy this film, I am very pleased for you! Paid film critics - and a select group of IMDb reviewers with a taste for the surreal - no doubt love it. But what about just a normal film-lover who does it for a hobby? Or somebody seeking entertainment after a hard day? I can guarantee that absolutely nobody sits down after a hard day to watch 'Vertigo'. It is slow and dull beyond belief. The mood sucks the life out of the room. The characters (especially Scottie Ferguson!) are just bleakly terrible people. They have no redemptive qualities or charisma. Kim Novak was probably the best of the crew; she could at least elicit some audience sympathy.

Hitchcock was a masterful director. This is one of his most overrated films. If you want a good Stewart/Hitchcock collaboration, 'Rear Window' and 'Rope' are two masterpieces. Other far superior Vertigo-contemporaries in Hitchcock's canon include 'Psycho', 'Dial M For Murder', 'North by Northwest', or 'The Birds'.

Dial M for Murder (1954)

My second favourite Hitchcock film.

[10/10 · 15 May 2021]

So far in my life at least, my second favourite of this director's work, only losing out to 'Psycho'. Frederick Knott's play has been faithfully and superbly reproduced for the screen, losing none of its glamour, nor becoming boring in the adaptation process. Every minute of it is so satisfying to consume and it is one of his very best.

Ray Milland stars as Tony Wendice, a former tennis player plotting the (very elaborate!) murder of his wife, played by Grace Kelly. Rather like 1948's "Rope" (another great Hitch production), the action is almost exclusively set in this one flat in Mayfair, but it still remains surprisingly engaging. That's Hitchcock for you. Not many directors could have pulled that off.

It took me a while to grow accustomed to Ray Milland's performance. I initially thought he was quite flat, but having reconsidered I now very much enjoy him as the cool, calculating villain. Grace Kelly is of course also fab, as is the wannabe-Poirot detective at the end.

Admittedly, part of this film's success is definitely the source material, not just Hitchcock's contribution. The play is just so effective and gripping that pretty much any rendition of it is going to be a decent piece of entertainment. Hitchcock has nonetheless succeeded in adapting it, reproducing it with accuracy and care, whilst simultaneously cementing it into the cinema canon as well as the theatre one. What more could you ask for?

The Trouble with Harry (1955)

Hitchcock's "Jean de Florette".

[9/10 · 15 May 2021]

Just to be clear, this is absolutely nothing like 'Jean de Florette' in terms of plot. I mean more in terms of cinematography: it's absolutely beautifully shot, with lots of countryside views to enjoy as the slow but cheerful story moves on.

That aside however, I went into 'The Trouble With Harry' with little expectation as it is certainly one of Hitchcock's more understated ones. Turns out it is a hidden gem. It is perfect if you need some Hitchcock comfort food: wonderful location, compelling characters, a witty and engaging plot, a dead body, an amusing ending, and just the epitome of 'feel-good'. Nothing particularly bad happens in it at all. (Somebody casually dies in the opening credits, but it transpires that not one character cares, so it becomes very easy for the audience to follow suit!) Shirley MacLaine stars in her first film role (imagine landing your first ever film with Alfred Hitchcock!) and does a very good job, although her role is of course not quite as extensive as in her later films. The acting is of a high standard throughout (it does of course have something of a theatrical nature, but it is not unwelcome).

Overall, this film is what you get if you take 'Jean de Florette', remove all the sadness, combine it with Shakespeare's "Comedy of Errors", add in a dead body and plenty of bonkers humour, and add in all your usual Hitchcock staples. That man could definitely tell a good story and this is no exception.

(Just keep your eyes peeled for his cameo. It's a 'blink-and-you'll-miss-it' moment.)

Rope (1948)

Watch this if you're missing the theatre.

[10/10 · 17 April 2021]

Much like 1954's Dial M For Murder, this film is shot exactly like the play upon which it is based: all is set in one apartment and filmed in (mostly) continuous, very long, theatrically executed takes. The technical skill that goes into shooting a film in just nine takes is undeniably impressive - as this set of reviews so aptly points out - and the effect is one of being at the theatre. I'm usually wary of filmed theatre, but of course, this is Hitchcock, and so he pulls it off effortlessly. If you miss the theatre in these times of lockdown, this is the film for you!

But there are many USPs other than the filming technique. John Dall and Farley Granger are great fun to watch as the two main leads. (I much prefer Farley here than in his second collaboration with Hitchcock, Strangers on a Train.) Initially, I completely missed that the two main leads were implied to be homosexual, both the significant use of 'the' when referring to "the bedroom" and the close proximity the two of them stand at throughout the course of the story completely passing me by. Whilst I maintain you can watch this film without interpreting them as gay, it is even more entertaining to rewatch it with that in mind - because once one knows, the chemistry is sizzling! You can practically feel the tension as Philip (Granger) tries to wrestle with his feelings for Brandon (Dall) while also wracked with guilt at the murder.

Of course, the main thread throughout the story is ultimately the murder, not the relationship. Such a simple premise - two people have killed, hidden the body in the room, will they get away with it? - but it's oh-so-effective. If you are a Hitchcock fan, this is one of his more agreeable classics, and it has earned every critical acclaim and positive review it has earned over the years (although to watch it solely for its technical expertise, as I've said, is somewhat reductive towards its greater merits).

Shadow of a Doubt (1943)

This was Hitchcock's favourite?

[6/10 · 16 April 2021]

It was fine...but it baffles me that Hitchcock chose this as his favourite! How could he later think that this was superior to a film like 'Psycho'? Maybe there is some technical superiority here that he took pleasure in. I found it to be just okay, an interesting and engaging story but far from anything on his spectacular level. The acting is of a high quality throughout - it certainly has its positives - but generally I regard it as one of his more overhyped ones.

Saboteur (1942)

Excellent film - people should talk about it more!

[10/10 · 16 April 2021]

Hitchcock's 1942 thriller "Saboteur" is a total blast from start to finish. It contains many precursors to what would later fuel his top masterpieces - Strangers on a Train, North by Northwest - and even though it's not a top-drawer masterpiece in of itself, it's still so worth your time. (This is much better than 'Shadow of a Doubt'!) The prime example of how a great film doesn't have to be a masterpiece. Telling a good story is enough. Hitchcock fans should treat this as a must-watch - an early gem.

Rebecca (1940)

Not my favourite Hitchcock, but easily my favourite 'Rebecca'.

[8/10 · 16 April 2021]

This is hands-down the best adaptation of Daphne du Maurier's "Rebecca". It's hauntingly shot, with superb shimmering black-and-white cinematography and a shivery spooky atmosphere. Laurence Olivier is credible as Maxim, but the ultimate shoutout goes to the highly talented and stunningly gorgeous Joan Fontaine as the second Mrs de Winter. Judith Anderson also sets the bar high with the first in a series of excellent Mrs-Danvers-performances (followed by Diana Rigg and, more recently, Kristin Scott Thomas).

Although it works well as an adaptation of the novel, it's not a Hitchcock film that I find myself returning to again and again. His trademark playfulness is notably absent, and it also suffers from the irritating 1940s habit of playing orchestral music in the background of almost every single scene. If Hitchcock hadn't made his signature cameo - walking in the background of Jack Favell bickering with a police officer - you probably wouldn't immediately detect that it was directed by him.

Despite being an early work, should Hitchcock really have reflected on this film with a grimace later in his career? No. An early work, yes. A disappointment - no! He contributed the best adaptation of what is an horrifically difficult book to adapt. This is a good one.

Psycho (1960)

This film earns every word of its praise!

[10/10 · 20 March 2021]

Some all-time famous cult classics don't live up to expectations. You watch them and think, "...just a tiny bit overrated", shrugging off the disappointment. Psycho is not one of those films. This film has rightly earned every single positive review, critical acclaim, new generation of fans, all of it - not to mention having aged like fine wine. As this site's other reviews so aptly point out, if you haven't seen it yet, for heaven's sake stop reading the reviews and get on it!

Anthony Perkins is outstanding. The plot is outstanding. The atmosphere and cinematography are outstanding. The music is a particularly outstanding standout. Hitchcock tends to pull off winners anyway (please see Rope, Dial M For Murder, and The Birds) but this is a particularly marvellous one. It's worth watching just for that final scene alone! Good luck trying to forget that.