Film: Strangers on a Train

Director: Alfred Hitchcock
Genre: Thriller
Source: USA (1951)
Rating: PG
Location/Format: TCM
Grade: A-

Hitchcock is a master. It's easy to get so focused on the masterpieces of his career (Vertigo, Rear Window, Psycho, The Birds, North by Northwest) and lose track of the fact that the guy may have reached the heights of his craft in those films, but he was making incredible films for years both before and after that fertile period.

Because I think Strangers on a Train is a pretty incredible little film. A lot of that has to do with Hitchcock's skill in creating tension--the carnival scene before the murder, for example, is creepy, seductive, and ultimately frightening. And he uses his villain's distinctive silhouette (with suit and hat) as a great motif throughout the movie. But in this case I think more of it has to do with Robert Walker's inspired and terrifying performance as sociopath Bruno Antony. 

For the first few minutes of the film, he is simply obnoxious, the kind of seatmate everyone hopes not to get on a train (or today an airplane). But quickly that obnoxiousness escalates to something menacing, something frightening, and Walker plays Bruno's casual cruelty with an ease and leisure that makes him all the more terrifying. (By the way, the fact that both this film and The Talented Mr. Ripley are based on books by the same author makes me really interested in reading some Patricia Highsmith. Bruno is sadistic, delighting in making people around him squirm in discomfort and fear. That he shows that same cruelty to his parents, at least one of whom doesn't recognize the monster he is while the other is his object of scorn, is perhaps a simple bit of Freudian psychology but it also underlies the moral emptiness of his character. I was really saddened to see that Walker died not long after this performance, apparently himself haunted by a lot of psychological demons. I don't want to read autobiography into his performance, because it deserves to stand on its own, but it's hard to separate those connections whenever an actor known for a dark role dies not long after (see The Joker from The Dark Knight). As in Heath Ledger's case, however, there's absolutely no indication that his death had anything to do with the role he'd just performed. And Walker's Bruno is so good I don't want to taint it. He's a gleeful sadist long before Hannibal Lecter or any of the other such characters that seem so common nowadays.

I wish Farley Granger had been a match for him, but he falls short for me. He doesn't have the same fire, and his Guy Haines is not just a bit dull but downright flat next to Bruno.

The film, as Hitchcock's best are, is full of both suspense as well as comedy--even the final confrontation between Guy and Bruno has an element of the absurd to it. But I believe that is all intentional, and it's really effective. 

I haven't seen Hitch's full oeuvre, but movies like this make me want to delve a little further into his catalog than just the standard big names. Excellent stuff.

 Alternate Film Title: "Hitchcock's Black Humor: Cast Your Daughter in the Most Annoying Role"

Book: Joyland

Stephen King is hit and miss for me. At times he's fantastic (11/22/63, The Shining, The Stand, etc.), at other times I don't know what he's doing, and he always struggles to maintain the last 100 pages or so. Fortunately, that's not the case here.

Joyland is not his finest effort, but it is an engaging little story, a little bit like a ghost story version of Adventureland. I think it's a lot more focused on character development than the haunting story, and ultimately is more interested in how the past and our histories shape and affect us a lot more than it is about the supernatural. The haunting and other fantasy elements are really just window dressing. That's a strength, because King lets himself and his characters enjoy this themepark world, the joy of discovering a talent, and that moment where you start to transition from youth to adulthood. He writes about those messy transitional ideas like a first love, a first loss, a first seduction. I think he likes these characters, and that's kind of nice given his ability at times to put his characters through torture. Like a lot of King books, it includes a few standard King plot points (telepathic kid being the biggest) which keep it from feeling fully fresh, but that doesn't stop it from being fun.

I listened to this one as an audiobook, and Michael Kelly's narration was really great. Ultimately this is a pretty bit of fluff, but sometimes that's exactly what you're looking for: the perfect book for a car trip.

Grade: B

Film: The Heat

Director: Paul Feig
Genre: Drama
Source: USA (2013)
Rating: R
Location/Format: Blu-ray
Grade: B

Paul Feig doesn't quite have the magic here that he had in Bridesmaids, but he does have Melissa McCarthy and her hilariously filthy mouth, and for most of the movie, that is enough.

While McCarthy seems to have recently risen to prominence, Sandra Bullock has made a mini career out of playing strait-laced FBI agents, and she does so again here, though she is willing to go pretty unflattering this time around, as repeated jokes are made about her age, her body, her aloofness. I respect that she's willing to let herself be the butt of a few jokes, not just make a Miss Congeniality 3 where she loosens up and everyone falls in love with her.

But really, Bullock isn't the attraction here. Melissa McCarthy is one of the funniest women in show business these days, and I like that the film does not make her the butt of the joke physically. I mean it does (her clothes, a few gags that boil down to "fat girl does physical stuff") but the mean body comments are about Bullock. McCarthy pities her, her life, her repressed persona, and she is free and open with who she is--to her benefit. For example, she is repeatedly approached by men who she has slept with and want to see her again. I thought maybe they would do something with that thread, but they didn't, and somehow I'm ok with that. Her issues with men are not necessarily what needs addressing, the movie says, and it's definitely not about how men see her. In fact, she seems to be set up a bit as a feminist icon, such as when she busts Buster Bluth early in the film for picking up a prostitute. 

I mean, she's pretty awesome. One of my problems with the film is the inconsistent portrayal of Bullock's character (is she good at her job or bad? I'm not clear), but McCarthy is consistently the dominant force in the room. Everyone respects her--even fears her--and her swearing like a sailor is just one more sign of her dominance.

The plot is all over the place, about twenty minutes too long, and like all buddy cop movies, the rules and the actual law don't seem to apply once they get going, but I'm happy to see McCarthy get more roles, and I'd continue to watch movies built around her talents and sense of humor. The movie's a mess, but it's a fun mess. A good way to spend a Saturday afternoon.

Alternate Film Title: "Buddy Cop Cliches: Now with Girls!"

Film: Hitchcock

Director: Sacha Gervasi
Genre: Drama
Source: USA (2012)
Rating: PG-13
Location/Format: Blu-ray
Grade: B-

This love letter to Alfred Hitchcock (and more so his wife Alma Reville) gets a lot of things right, a few things wrong, and adds some silly elements to Hitchcock persona while leaving out others entirely. 

First off, Anthony Hopkins tries hard, but his voice is so recognizable (and recognizably not Hitch's, given the director's own well-known vocal cadences from the Alfred Hitchcock Presents tv series), and he suffers under prosthetic make-up that works at times but often looks like a whole bunch of melting wax on his face. He gamely plays the master of suspense's droll sense of humor, but I think I preferred Toby Jones' darker and more complex take on the director in the HBO film The Girl. While Jones' Hitchcock is probably skewed negatively, Hopkins' Hitchcock is skewed, well, weirdly. The movie wants to credit him as a genius (which he was), and it nods to the psychosexual obsessions underneath his movies (he frequently stands at his blinds, voyeuristically watching the Hollywood starlets walk by), but then it goes to a kind of silly dark place, as the director has visions of/conversations with Ed Gein, the famous serial killer who inspired not only Norman Bates in Psycho but also Leatherface, Buffalo Bill, and probably even more film serial killers. It's a silly touch, as though Hitch's interest in psychology, voyeurism, and violence meant he was actually a little bit insane, and I found it off-putting. 

The movie gets some parts of the filming of Psycho right, while dramatizing others for effect. The shower scene, in particular, seems pretty different from the way most versions of the scene's filming have it happening, and Saul Bass (who is often credited with really inspiring that scene through his storyboards) is absent all together. 

I don't really have a problem with that, however, because though the movie uses the filming of Psycho as a jumping off point, it really wants to be a love story about the relationship between Hitch and his wife, Alma. She worked with him closely on all his films, and so director Gervasi explores who such a relationship could be strained by Hitchcock's public persona, his sexual focuses, and his ego. 

In that respect it does fine, I guess. I just think the interviews with Hitchcock that I've read make him a more interesting person than the film wants him to be. Too often this film is happy to boil him down to a sexually frustrated fat guy who may or may not be crazy. That's easier to show, but a lot less interesting, than real genius.

Alternate Film Title: "If This Movie Inspires More People to Actually Watch Psycho, I'm All For It"

Film: Shotgun Stories

Director: Jeff Nichols
Genre: Drama
Source: USA (2007)
Rating: PG-13
Location/Format: Netflix Instant Streaming
Grade: A

Jeff Nichols is fast becoming a rising star in my eyes. I saw his second film, Take Shelter, and was highly impressed. That film, grounded by an incredible Michael Shannon, is a fascinating look into faith, delusion, and need, and it is clearly biblical in scope. It's a powerful movie, and I was surprised that I liked his debut film Shotgun Stories just as much. It's got a smaller scale, a smaller budget, and a lot less flash, but it still is exploring some deep waters. It's hard to tell which film I like better--they're really neck and neck. Shotgun Stories reminded me in some ways of Badlands, Malick's first film, and though Nichols isn't quite as visually charged as a director, he does know how to make small-town Arkansas feel beautiful and meaningful.

Also, while Take Shelter feels biblical in scope, Shotgun Stories has the feel more of a Greek or Shakespearean tragedy for a major portion of the film. As two sets of sons, both with the same father but different mothers, watch the feud between them grow out of all proportion, the film builds a sense of inevitability and dread. Like Take Shelter, this film is also anchored by a strong performance from Michael Shannon, here playing Son, the oldest of the three abandoned sons. His resentment and frustration rumble under his face like deep underground currents, and he spreads that anger to his brothers almost by osmosis. It's a great performance, outshining the clearly-less-talented-but-still-effective supporting cast, but also elevating their work.

I haven't yet determined what I think Nichols is doing with masculinity, but I think it's a driving force of the movie. This is a man's movie, about sons trying to come to grips with their fathers. There are women present, but almost wholly to watch the men around them. That's an oversimplification, of course--Son talks about being raised by a "hateful woman" (his mother), and his relationship with his wife is one of the stakes of the film--but I was impressed with how much there was about manhood without directly addressing it as an issue. The sons are fishers and farmers; they work with their hands at repairing tractors and vans. Son struggles with his role as a provider for his wife and son (another son), and looks to find shortcuts through learning to count cards. Even the names of the three central brothers--Son, Boy, and Kid--are all names that highlight their gender and their relationships to an older authority figure.

And of course, at heart the film is about that heavy question of forgiveness. Is it better to take a more traditionally masculine approach to the wrongs that have been done to you--seek revenge, fight back, take an eye for an eye--or is it better to be perceived as weaker in order to de-escalate a situation. To forgive is in some ways seen as feminine, and yet if no one in the feud will forgive anyone else, the conflict could spiral out of control and result in the elimination of both parties. Whether it will or not--and whether that "masculine" approach is right or wrong--seems to be the central focus of the story.

I really loved it. I've seen a lot of good movies in the past few months, but Shotgun Stories is really going to stick with me. Highly recommend it.

Alternate Film Title: "Boy's Van Is Awesome"

Book: The Twelve

I have to admit I'm a big fan of Justin Cronin's apocalyptic vampire trilogy, and though this second volume took me a lot longer to get into than the first (The Passage), it still kept me hooked. Cronin is not afraid of harming, even killing, major characters, and as the division between good and bad becomes less black and white in this novel, it is clear that anything could happen to anyone. That uncertainty creates a feeling of dread in the reader that parallels the dread the characters in the book, and it's certainly effective.

However, reading this series as it is released makes me wonder if trilogies should only be published when all three are finished. I know that's silly, because what publisher would invest the money? And I know literature has a long history of stories by installment. But Cronin's world is complex enough--featuring characters from at least two different time periods, and several different locations--that it's easy to forget who is who and what is what in the years between the books' release dates. I found a website to help me bone up on the plot of The Passage before starting The Twelve, and it's a good thing I did. Cronin has a cool little device where he retells the events of the first book in the language of the King James Bible, but there are lots of connections I would have missed or characters I would have forgotten about had I not done a more careful prep work before starting this novel.  It's the same trouble I run into with George R.R. Martin's A Song of Ice and Fire series. So long between books and you forget, and I'm not a big book rereader...

At any rate, those complaints have little to do with the quality of the book, which I found high. It is a little bit more airport thriller this time around--I think Cronin's literary ambitions may have faded somewhat--but it is still an exciting and compelling read. I think he's doing some interesting things with concepts of faith and religion (as the title might suggest).  If you like apocalyptic vampire books (and there are seemingly more and more of them out there these days) this is a pretty good direction to go. 

Who am I kidding? I'd give my arm to be as effective a world builder as Cronin? Thumbs up.

Grade: A-

Film: White House Down

Director: Roland Emmerich
Genre: Action 
Source: USA (2013)
Rating: PG-13
Location/Format: Glynn Place Stadium Cinemas
Grade: D

Well, I guess for me the winner of the competing White House attack movies is Olympus Has Fallen. 

Because this is a bad movie. Like, embarrassingly bad at times. (Flag twirling . . . just . . . no). Emmerich may be the most destruction happy director of our era (and that's saying a lot, seeing as how Man of Steel just demolished a city for fun). He's a little smug here, name checking his own previous White House destruction in Independence Day, and seemingly trying to tick off every box on the "summer action movie" checklist:

• precocious kid
• hero who has to rise to the occasion and prove himself
• good guy aim - hits every shot as needed
• bad guy aim (after the initial attack) - miss every attack
• overly complicated plot with surprise twists that are telegraphed way too far in advance
• one-liners that mostly fall flat
• absolutely absurd levels of action, like to the point of exhaustion
• "serious" wounds that don't slow down the hero

I could go on, but why? By the way, Jamie Foxx is a completely unconvincing president, and Channing Tatum is a completely unconvincing father, but I would watch another movie where they co-starred because they do have a pretty good rapport. Too bad it goes to waste in this overly long bit of silliness.

The other thing I noticed watching this film (which I also noted when rewatching part of The Avengers yesterday) is that big action movies save money by casting all kinds of television stars rather than actual stars. Sometimes it works (everybody loves Agent Coulsen, right?) and sometimes it's just goofy: "Oh hey, there's the guy who was in Chicago Code!  Taub from House! Agent Broyles from Fringe! My favorite? One of the McPoyle brothers from It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia, who seems to be the one guy who KNOWS what a bad movie he's in and just decides to ham it up.

Seriously, though. I'm starting to wonder if, in addition to saving me a little money, this new MoviePass will just make me go see a lot more bad movies. 

Alternate Film Title: "James Woods Is SERIOUSLY Starting to Look Just Like George C. Scott"