The greatest western ever made

Once Upon a Time in the West (1968)

While thinking about which movie is the best western ever made, this movie popped right into my mind and I started to think how easy it actually was to pick the best western. I could never name the best drama ever made or action movie or horror movie or comedy for that matter, I just wouldn't be able to choose between the top 5 or 10 of them. But the best western, there was no hesitation. Saying that this is the best spaghetti western would already be a bold statement, I know quite a few people who would argue in great length that The Good, the Bad and the Ugly (1966) is the best and to a point I would agree with them. But the western genre is a lot bigger than just the spaghetti westerns, so saying this is the best western ever seems a bit crazy. Some might argue that the classic American westerns are the best westerns, like TheSearchers (1956) or High Noon (1952). Some people say the best is Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid(1969) and some argue it's Unforgiven (1992). Those are all brilliant westerns and true masterpieces in their own right, but for me it's this movie above all others.

I'll try to explain why I think so. I apologize for the spoilers, but really if you haven't seen this movie, stop reading now and go watch it! First of all this movie looks amazing, every shot is framed with perfect detail and I could take any frame out of this movie and put it up on my wall as a piece of artwork. Backing up the beautiful pictures is the music by Ennio Morricone which is among the best he has ever made for any movie. The cast is spot on perfect. Claudia Cardinale does probably the best performance out of all the women in the history of westerns. Charles Bronson is perfect as the man on a vendetta, a person who has something inside... something to do with death. Jason Robards as Cheyenne is probably the most intriguing character, while he's the comic sidekick, he's also most of the time the voice of reason and a force to be reckoned with. In complexity his character is a great balance for the archetypes of the other characters. Henry Fonda as Frank is the ultimate villain, bright blue eyes which hide evil inside. Not only those main characters, but the supporting cast is quite brilliant as well, like Gabriele Ferzetti as Morton the polio ridden railroad tycoon or Lionel Stander as the barman teaching Jill the ways of the wild west. Add to those a surprisingly intriguing story and you have a brilliant movie. I mean sure the story is somewhat thin, but so it is in most of the westerns, so in that standard this is in a league above others.

Then again most of those things above could be said from other westerns as well. Like The Good, the Bad and the Ugly (1966), beautifully shot, brilliant and maybe even better music, great cast and an intriguing story. But what for me puts this one above it is driving motives behind the characters, in The Good, the Bad and the Ugly (1966) it's money, the whole movie is about money or well gold in this case. This movie has way more complex motives, there's of course the money for Frank and for Cheyenne at start but he has another motive as well, cleansing his history and to do something good for a change. Then there's Harmonica whose motive is revenge and Jill whose motives are love, money and the hope of a better future. All of them thrive to make a difference in their own way either for themselves or for others. That for me is far more interesting than just one driving force of a motive. And I'm still not saying that The Good, the Bad and the Ugly (1966) would be in any way a bad movie, it's absolutely brilliant, but when you compare two masterpieces you must go into the tiniest of details.

Another thing which sets this one apart from the rest is the ending which is just pure cinematic perfection. And I'm not talking about the epic standoff between Harmonica and Frank, I'm talking about what happens after that. When Harmonica returns there's that moment when you hope for a happy ending, but soon realize that would have never been a happy ending. The ending is more than just about Jill, Harmonica or Cheyenne, it's about how the industrialism ended the whole western lifestyle. That shot at the end with the tracks of “civilization” being stretched across the wild frontier, Cheyenne lying there dying and Harmonica riding away from the future is by all standards a perfect finale. The ultimate ending, not only to the story of the film but also to the wild west and the whole western genre.

100%

The Wicker movies

First a bit of background story before we go into the movies. The Wicker Tree (2010) stood in my shelf for over a year before I now finally watched it. Reason for this was that once it came out I of course rushed to get it, but I decided to watch The Wicker Man (1973) before it to refresh my memories of it. That was actually a bad mistake, The Wicker Man is pretty much a perfect movie so it raised the bar so high that I knew the sequel could never live up to it. So I decided to give the sequel a better footing and put it back to the shelf to wait for a better time. Well the “better” time was now as I'm trapped at home with a nasty flu. But first a few words about the original and unfortunately the remake as well.

The Wicker Man (1973)

One of the best horror movies ever made and a movie which would most likely be in my all time top 10 list if I ever had to make one. I can't praise this movie enough, it's perfect in every aspect and especially the mood is just something unbelievable. It does what most horror movies tend to forget nowadays, it builds up tension slowly but surely until it gets scary as hell before the absolutely devastating ending. A brilliant masterpiece that can stand multiple viewings despite the easily spoilable plot.

100%

The Wicker Man (2006)

Even though the best thing to do with this movie would be to just forget it's existence, I'll put it here as well, kind of like a warning to stay away from it. I haven't seen this since it came out so can't say how it would work today, but then again I don't want to ever watch it again. It's one of the worst remakes ever, missing every single aspect that made the original so brilliant, and all in all just a horribly bad movie.

0%

The Wicker Tree (2010)

Sequels are always hard and nearly every time fail to live up to the expectations. This however had all the things on paper that could make it good. It's written and directed by Robin Hardy, the same man who wrote and directed the original so there was a good possibility it would be something like the original. Even though I had very little expectations, mostly just hoping that it would at least be somewhat entertaining if nothing else, I was still disappointed. This continues the story of the village 37 or so years later, though it's left a bit unclear whether it actually is the same town as Summerisle was on the original as this time it's called Tressock, but it's very similar none the less. A young American gospel singing couple (Henry Garrett and Brittania Nicol) travel there to spread the word of the lord and much to their surprise they are warmly welcomed there. Well the town's folk of course have other plans for the naively simple couple and things go along similar paths as the original. The less you know the better. The story in itself was actually quite good and intriguing, but unfortunately everything around it and especially the way it was told didn't work at all. Both Garrett and Nicol were rather bad, though then again their roles were so one dimentional that even better actors might have had trouble with them. But that didn't bother much as that's the way they were supposed to be, it fit the story and gave it a bit of dark comedy as well. The real problem acting wise is the rest of the cast, they were all quite bad. Especially Graham McTavish who didn't fit the role in any way. Only one who at least tried to put some effort into it was Honeysuckle Weeks. But the acting didn't ruin the movie it's the story telling which did it. There's an attempt to a similar tension building as in the original, but this time all the attempts for dark comedy broke the tension as in the original they fit right in most of the time even helping to build the tension. And the mood from the first one was nowhere to be seen. It just proves how hard it is to recreate the incredible mood from the original when even the creator of it can't do it again. Another thing that troubled me was that the movie was quite amateurishly made, some scenes looked like they could be from some cheap soap opera. So even though the story was nice, this is in no way a good movie, rather bad actually. This probably works better as a book and Robin Hardy seems to be a better writer than a filmmaker, so I guess I'll give the book a try some day.

33%

The filmography of Quentin Tarantino

As these were not here yet and since I just watched most of them once again, I'll write my thoughts about them here briefly. Sorry about the short reviews on some of them, but really if a movie is perfect there's not much else to add to it. I'll only include the movies directed by Tarantino, even though many of his scripts directed by others are considered as his movies. Maybe one day I'll revisit those as well. You can find my review of Django Unchained here.













Reservoir Dogs (1992)

This wasn't the first Tarantino movie I ever saw, actually I didn't even know about it's existence before I saw the one below. But after that I stormed every video rental shop in the city until I found this. I remember once I finally saw it I was actually disappointed, I mean I still thought it was a good movie, but as I was expecting another Pulp Fiction, I was let down a bit. That of course has changed since then and nowadays I think this is a brilliant masterpiece. Not only is this the best "heist" movie ever made but it's also one of the best crime movies ever made. Can't really say anything about it that hasn't been said a million times, so I'll just say it's a brilliant movie and I'd rank it as Tarantino's third best film.
98%













Pulp Fiction (1994)

I still remember when I first saw this at the theaters, something I guess I'll remember for the rest of my life. I saw it at this crappy small basement theater because I was 17 at the time and the movie had an age limit of 18, but they were cool enough in that theater to not care so much. So me and my date who was a year younger got in without any problems, even though they generally were quite strict about those age limits even back then. Now that I think of it and starting to feel all nostalgic I shouldn't call the theater crappy, I actually wish there still was theaters like that today. They had character and their own feel to them, unlike these multiplexes today. Anyway the reason why I remember it so clearly is because I was totally blown away by the movie. It was something I had never seen before and didn't even think that there could be movies like this. This was one of those movies that changed me in a way. For better or worse that I don't know, but ever since I saw it I've sought out more of these 70's exploitation movies. Seeing this movie today I found some scenes not working as well as back then, like that foot massage discussion seemed to be surprisingly dragging and uninteresting. Then again I still think the second half of this movie is probably the best comedy ever made, so it balances it out more than well. Pretty much a perfect movie, Tarantino's best and one of my all time favourites.
100%













Four Rooms (1995)

For this one I'll give a proper review as this seems to be the one most people haven't seen from Tarantino's filmography. Then again this is only one fourth of a Tarantino movie, but still I think it belongs to this list as there's a clear segment and story of the movie which he wrote and directed. The problem with these kinds of movies is the difference between the makers, which usually makes the movie rather uneven. And that certainly was the problem with this one as well. There was an attempt to glue the stories together with Ted the Bellhop (Tim Roth), but unfortunately that was one of the weakest parts of this movie. Tim Roth has never done a worse performance, so much over acting and his character is all over the place all the time. Might be partly the fault of the four different directors, but still it's a weak effort. Anyway this movie has a very bad start as the first story by Allison Anders is just plain crap and even though it's only 15 minutes or so it's still way too long to give any hope for the rest of the movie. The second story by Alexandre Rockwell worked a bit better, though as the bar was set so low by the first one it wasn't much of an effort. Again bad acting and a useless story, though not as painful to watch as the first one. The third story by Robert Rodriguez is where the movie finally gets going and there's some actually funny moments. Antonio Banderas was also very strong, pulling out the best performance of the whole movie. This third story was the strongest one in the movie, apart from the ending of the fourth. Then the fourth story by Quentin Tarantino, it's actually quite a weak story as the basic idea of it is copied from Alfred Hitchcock Presents episode. Then again that's not the real problem as the idea is what sets up the absolutely drop dead hilarious ending of the movie, it's just the 20 or so minutes leading to it. The dialogue, even though it's nicely flowing as you'd expect from Tarantino, is just plain boring most of the time. Luckily the ending saves a lot, but still it felt like Tarantino didn't really put that much of an effort for this. All in all the movie is not good, with one great episode, one good episode, one bad episode and one just shit, it's way too uneven and mostly badly acted. It's actually a shame as replacing the first two episodes with better stories and better storytellers and someone focusing on directing Tim Roth this would have been a great movie.
45%













Jackie Brown (1997)

Before this movie came out I had become a fan of the 70's exploitation flicks and Pam Grier was one of my favourite actresses, with Coffy (1973) as one of my all-time favourite movies. So expectations were high as always and this one surely delivered. This movie is a bit of an oddity in Tarantino's filmography as it's his only adapted screenplay and it's told in quite a linear format. But that actually only adds to the beauty of this movie. I haven't read the book by Elmore Leonard so can't say for sure how good the adaptation is, but as a stand alone movie this is absolutely perfect. This one probably has the best mood of all of his movies and the best soundtrack to boost it. Tarantino's second best movie.
99%













Kill Bill: Vol. 1 (2003)












Kill Bill: Vol. 2 (2004)

I'll put these two together as that's the way they were meant to be, one four hour action extravaganza. I was really blown away by these when I first saw them, but I must say these are the ones I have most seldom revisited out of Tarantino's works. That doesn't mean they wouldn't be amazing, it's just that four hours is a long running time for a movie no matter how great it is. So my only gripe with these is the length, even though watching them again I really can't think of a single scene worth leaving out. It's very hard to place brilliant movies in any order but I'd say this is Tarantino's fifth best film.
95%













Death Proof (2007)

Tarantino's take on a slasher, though this time the usual knife is replaced with a car. The cast is great as always, even though it's a Kurt Russell show. The biggest problem of this movie is that Tarantino kind of forgets that slashers need to have people dying on them, not just chatting along. Sure when the killing starts it's brilliant, but really there's too much talking and not enough action for a grindhouse movie. Tarantino's worst, but still a good movie none the less.
75%













Inglourious Basterds (2009)

The absolutely brilliant cast carries this hilarious movie with maybe Brad Pitt's best performance ever to boost it. The thing that troubles me with this one is the continuity errors, there's way too many of them and even multiple times in one scene. I don't usually complain about things like that and I've seen plenty in Tarantino's other movies as well, but for some reason I keep spotting way too many of them in this one. But that's small details as this is Tarantino's fourth best movie.
97%

Sorry about the short reviews, but really long praising posts are rather boring to read and well I kind of expect most people have already seen these movies.

The true heart of punk music

The Punk Syndrome (2012)

I missed this one at the theaters, even though I heard praises about it, just never found time for it and I usually tend to push documentaries out of the way of other movies. So yesterday it got the TV premiere here in Finland and I surely wasn't going to miss it this time. For all the Finns who missed it, you can still watch it for the next 6 days here. For everyone else I guess you have to wait for it to come to a film festival near you or DVD/BR release. And trust me it's definitely worth the wait. So what's the film all about? It's about the greatest punk band in the history of punk, called Pertti Kurikan Nimipäivät. It follows the band from the first steps to stardom, including all the conflicts between the members, whether they are musical differences or simply just not liking how someone is looking at you. Even though these guys are hard core to the bone, there's also friendship as a glue to keep this powerhouse together and the women of course. Their songs have the essence of punk in them. Pulling no punches on subjects like prejudices, government corruption, institutionalization and unfair bureaucracy. Not to forget subjects like coffee after the sunday church or pedicures. How could it ever be more punk than that? When these guys hit the stage old ladies look in fear and the fans go apeshit crazy pounding their fists in the air while the whole venue shakes from the power of the music. These guys are pure punk! Oh and they are all mentally disabled.

I can't really rate this with anything else than the top score as it's just perfect for me. That being said though there are some problems with this documentary, especially for people outside Finland, as it doesn't explain anything, it just follows. So I can understand people losing track on what's going on, like on the elections, political parties, independence day ceremonies and such. But it's not really that important, the most important part you'll definitely get, though be warned it might change you into a punk rocker. Another thing this film leaves out is the origin story, where did this band come from, but it's not really needed. If the film got you interested, you can find out those details yourself and that's part of the beauty of this documentary. You could compare it to a documentary following a year with for example the Rolling Stones, you don't need to know where they came from, you either like them or you don't. All I can say is that I love this band.

100%

Best of 2012

All of these best of a year lists seem to have some sort of rules. Mostly it's the movies that premiered that year, but that would leave 2 great movies from my list as there are festivals where the lucky ones can see the movies before the actual premiere. So I've decided to make my own rules and included all of the new movies that I saw in 2012. Might be a bit unfair on the case of those 2 as they have not yet got their proper premiere here in Finland, but in many other countries they have been playing for quite a while now. Then again that also includes many 2011 movies in my list as there was no way of seeing them before 2012 here, many of those have been on the best of 2011 lists of others. So these are the 10 (well 11 actually) best new movies I saw in 2012.


 










10. Dredd (2012)

I was a huge fan of the comics as a kid and after that horrible piece of garbage starring Sylvester Stallone, I didn't have my hopes high for this new adaptation. But much to my surprise it was absolutely brilliant. Quite true to the comic it's ultra-violent with tons of dark comedy and a suiting in-your-face attitude. Once the action starts it doesn't really stop until the end credits roll, what more can you ask from an entertaining action movie?
80%













10. The Raid: Redemption (2011)

Had a huge trouble choosing between this and Dredd as they are so similar in many ways. Where Dredd has the dark comedy at it's side, this one most definitely beats it on the martial-arts aspect. They are both like insane roller coaster rides that knock the wind out of you and as there are so many similarities to them I can't really choose, both of them deserve a spot on this list.
80%













9. Skyfall (2012)

I know, what the hell does a Bond movie do in a top 10 list? Well it's the best Bond in ages, maybe even THE best Bond, though would have to revisit most of them to say that for sure as it's been a long while since I saw some of them. What I can say for sure it's the best looking Bond ever, thanks to Roger Deakins' brilliant cinematography. It also has one of the best Bond villains, played by Javier Bardem. And not only those but it's simply a great movie.
82%













8. The Artist (2011)

Leaving the theater I was thinking that this might be the best movie of the year, but then it hit me, this is a one viewing only kind of movie. Next time you see it it's not nearly as good and eventually it might prove to become quite dull. Don't get me wrong, it's absolutely magnificent and well worth watching but it's really not the kind of movie that you'd want to see from time to time until the end of the world. It kind of already gave you everything with one viewing and if you'd watch it again you'd just pay too much attention to the little details. Well at least I would, so I'll just treasure my memories from it and leave it be in the future. And like I said, those memories are well worth experiencing and then some, hence the spot on this list.
85%


 










7. Beasts of the Southern Wild (2012)

Feel good movie of the year. Sure it goes to almost glorifying poverty and does have some issues, but you just don't care as it's such a gorgeous and magical movie. I guess what I'm most at awe about is that this is the director Benh Zeitlin’s first movie, even many veteran directors couldn't pull off this kind of a perfect blend between dreamlike fantasy and gritty realism.
87%


 










6. We Need to Talk About Kevin (2011)

Well I guess this is the feel bad movie of the year. Absolutely devastating story done in a way where the drama almost turns into horror. Haven't read the book so can't compare them in any way and after seeing this movie I kind of don't want to read it either. Tilda Swinton pulls out the best performance of any of the movies I saw in 2012 and she didn't even get a nomination for the Oscar.
89%













5. Killer Joe (2011)

Wow, didn't see this one coming, out of nowhere the old man William Friedkin comes around the corner and gives you a punch in the face you won't forget. By far Friedkin's best movie since 1985 and one of the best movies in 2012. In many ways this movie has the same unforgiving attitude as his last masterpiece To Live and Die in L.A. (1985) even though the movies don't have much else in common. Just about everyone in this movie gives out a stellar performance and the direction is quite brilliant. I could almost hear Friedkin saying “well you asked for it, so here it is in your face”.
90%













4. Moonrise Kingdom (2012)

Well I've become kind of a Wes Anderson fanboy so not a big surprise this one ended up in here. However it's a great movie, even without the fanboyism, it's a bittersweet coming of age story with real depth to it, of course not forgetting the comedy of it all.
91%


 










3. The Cabin in the Woods (2011)

Second movie directed by a first timer on my top 10 list, it's definitely been a wild year and so is this movie. One of the best comedy-horror movies in ages and by far the best of the year. I know here also the fanboy factor comes into play as this movie has more references to horror movies than you can count, but it's not only that. This movie just keeps on giving, growing bigger and wilder by the minute until the end which is almost orgastic. And as far as witty and clever films come, this is in a league of it's own.
95%













2. Hugo (2011)

Martin Scorsese doing a children's movie, what has the world turned into? Well, to a lot better place I must say. This movie is pretty much cinema perfection, technically flawless, entertaining, thrilling, emotional and thought provoking. It's also like the best cinema history lesson you could think of. Sure as a filmaholic I could have wished for a bit more depth and details to it, but for the average moviegoers who haven't seen any of Melies' films it's perfect. You could say it's the movie Melies deserves and then some. This would have been by far the best movie of the year, but then I saw the one below and had the bittersweet task of dropping this to the second best of the year.
99%


 










1. Cloud Atlas (2012)

Well I guess the hell froze over and my idol mr. Hitchcock is turning in his grave, but the Wachowski's actually made a movie which is so groundbreaking it deserves my utmost respect. Not only is this movie the best of the year, it's the best of the decade and one which should set the standard for the upcoming “Hollywood spectacles”. Now most of you might think I'm crazy as there are problems with this movie, it has some big plot holes, it's a bit uneven, it could be a bit shorter, it's overly melodramatic, it borders cheesy at times and even the messages the movie delivers are a bit too obvious. Also the cast is not exactly brilliant, I mean most of them are great, but for example Tom Hanks was Tom Hanks on most of his characters. But all of that is nonessential as this movie does what most of the big Hollywood movies try to do, appeal to everyone, and does it brilliantly. It has something for everyone mixed in to the script like most of the big films nowadays, but the trick is that it's all essential for the bigger picture. Now, there have of course been movies which blend and bend the genre boundaries. There have been movies which have multiple intercutting story lines. There have been movies where the actors play multiple roles. But I have never seen a movie which has all of the above and the separate story lines not only support each other, they also build each other and together build a master story line which turns out to be quite an experience. So the parts you don't usually really care for are so much easier to take as they all together create something larger than what I've used to seeing in the cinema lately. It's like they took the whole conventional cinema apart like Lego blocks and built something fresh and inspiring out of those pieces. I must say that Tom Tykwer and the Wachowski's have some balls to pull off this kind of movie, even though one of them is missing his/hers nowadays (ye bad pun I know, sorry). It's not easy to make a movie that in a conventional sense should fall apart and actually make it work. The art of cinema needs movies like this to keep it evolving, it's not perfect by any means, but someone will come along and take the ideas of this movie and move them closer towards perfection. For that reason alone this movie is nothing short of a masterpiece.
100%


That's the list for 2012. I know the Finns have to wait for a few more months to see Cloud Atlas but I had to put it in as well, but hey, at least there's something to look forward in 2013. I of course haven't seen all of the movies released in 2012, but I think I've covered most of them and especially the most interesting ones. Lots of great movies got left outside the list, but 10 is such a small number and it wasn't that hard to choose those in the end. It's been a surprisingly good year in movies in 2012 and I'm surely looking forward for 2013 as there's some very promising movies coming. Lets hope I can keep this blog a bit more active this year...

The scum of New York in 4K

Taxi Driver (1976)

I got the chance to see the newly restored version of this in glorious 4K and it surely was a beauty. What's so special about 4K then? Well, as Finland is always quite late in the development, all but one of the digital projectors in Finnish theatres are 2K, though I think that's the case in many other countries as well. 2K is a bit bigger than your full HD resolution, 4K is twice as much, so you can watch it on a huge screen quite close and still won't spot the pixels. The thing however is that the only 4K projector in Finland at the moment is at the National Film Archive's theatre and it's a small one with only about 60 seats, so the screen is quite small as well. So the resolution didn't shine through as much as it could have. At first I was a bit worried if the picture would have been over processed to give it an unnatural face lift, but luckily that wasn't the case. It looks like the very first film print of the movie probably looked. The grainy characteristic of the film stock is still there and it still looks gritty as it is supposed to, only it's clean of dirt and the colors are bright again. So definitely it looked stunning. Enough of the pixels and on to the movie itself. I actually have no idea what to say about it that hasn't been said already a million times. It's one of the best movies ever made and one of those movies that are considered as general knowledge. Anyone who likes to watch movies should already have seen it. This was probably my sixth or seventh time I saw it and I must say it hadn't lost a bit of it's power and actually I noticed even some new nuances in it. That's what makes a brilliant movie, you can experience it again. I mean you can of course watch a movie many times, but only a few movies you can experience again even though you know every shot by heart. It's a master class on direction, the cast is superb, the music is absolutely brilliant and the mood is just unbeatable. A true classic and one of the best movies ever made. If you haven't seen it yet, don't tell anyone to avoid embarrasment and go see it as soon as possible.
100%

The filmography of Alfred Hitchcock - Part 4: the 1950's

With both of the first Transatlantic Pictures movies having poor box office returns, the 50's didn't start well for Hitchcock. Surely he had become a star in his business during the 40's, but that was nothing compared to what he would become after the 50's. He went from independent back to the studio system and that proved to be the key to a phenomenal success. This is by far my favourite Hitchcock decade so pardon the praises, but what can you do when he did a masterpiece after another.



Stage Fright (1950)

Hitchcock started the 50's by going back to the basics. It begins as the basic story of a wrongfully accused man on the run from the police and a woman helping him out to clear his name, but it's a lot more complicated and the less you know the better. It's a murder mystery with lots of comedic moments, shot in black and white, so it clearly was someway a step to the more familiar turf. Funny thing about the ”basics”, this movie doesn't just have a love triangle, it actually has two of them. So there's lots of familiar themes for Hitchcock, but what makes this movie so special and also what made it be such a failure in the eyes of the moviegoers back then is one key element that Hitchcock uses to brilliantly play the audience. Can't tell you what it is or it would spoil the movie, but the audience felt they were betrayed and that the movie was flawed. Nowadays it's nothing special, the viewer gets fooled in movies all the time, but back then it was a huge thing. And that simply brilliant twist is why I love this one. Hitchcock is basically toying with the audience and just as the suspension is reaching it's peak, he slams the truth in the face of the viewer taking the suspension into levels of horror never seen in movies of it's time. Absolutely fantastic film making. The cast is quite great, though I don't know why, but I've never really liked Marlene Dietrich, but never the less she also does a fine job. The production began as a Transatlantic production, but was taken over by Warner Brothers as Transatlantic was struggling with money. I'm surely glad they did as this is one of Hitchcock's most under rated movies and a true phenom proving how far ahead of time Hitchcock was. The movie didn't receive much appreciation back when it was made, but it surely does today.
90%



Strangers on a Train (1951)

Hitchcock went back to studio films and continued on the thriller path, which he didn't eventually part from that often anymore. This movie may not be the one that comes out first when you talk about Hitchcock, even though it is one of the most famous and one of his most referenced works. It tells the story about two men, Bruno and Guy, who meet in a train and as they chat away it becomes apparent both of them have someone in their life they would like to get rid of. Guy has a troublesome wife and Bruno despises his father. Bruno suggests that they “swap” murders, other one kills the one who the other wants to get rid of and vice-versa. Guy laughs at the idea, but later when his wife is found dead and Bruno comes to claim his end of the “agreement” things get quite messed up. The story is quite brilliant and it's the true driving force of this movie with witty dark comedy and some quite intriguing points. The acting is quite ok, Robert Walker as Bruno does the best job of them, rest of them are not bad, but nothing special either. There are tons of brilliant Hitchcockian scenes, the lighter, the strangling, the tennis game, the carousel, the love tunnel, only to name a few. It's filled with them. With a better cast this would be in the top 3 of Hitchcock's movies, but it surely isn't far from it now either. A classic masterpiece.
94%



I Confess (1953)

This was the last film Hitchcock did for Transatlantic Pictures and eventually the company folded soon after. Father Logan hears a killers confession and gets mixed up in a police investigation. This movie has the Hitchcock's favourite theme of wrongly accused man told with a twist of moral dilemma of professional integrity against the integrity of private life. It's done superbly with some great Hitchcockian moments and a flawlessly traveling story. The cast is superb as in most of Hitchcock's following movies from the 50's and was a nice surprise to see Montgomery Clift in a bit different role. All in all great movie, even though it's not the best what the master has to offer.
83%



Dial M for Murder (1954)

After three black and white films Hitchcock didn't just return to color, this movie was actually shot in 3D. Though it didn't run too long as 3D and was released regular ”2D”, as even back then the gimmick didn't work too well as it doesn't work nowadays either. But anyway this is one of my favourite stories in Hitchcock's films. It's a nice little thriller where a man plans a perfect murder and hires a killer to murder his wife, but the plan doesn't work exactly as planned. Won't give out anymore about the plot as it's very nicely twisted. Like many of his previous films, this also is based on a theatre play and most of the movie happens in one room with long scenes of dialog. But it doesn't matter at all as the dialog is quite great and the story is truly intriguing. The cast is quite great, especially John Williams as the chief inspector does a great part. Even though this is a small scale movie and it's pretty straight forward without any tricks, it still works great even today.
92%



Rear Window (1954)

I really don't know what to say about this one without sounding an overly hyped fanboy. This movie is perfect in every aspect. It has the best lead couple in all of Hitchcock's movies with James Stewart and Grace Kelly, both of which have appeared in other Hitchcock's movies as well, but never together. It has some of the best scenes I've seen in any movie, some which even today haven't been matched. My favourite one of them is a single continuous take at the beginning which tells us more than 20 pages of dialog. The shot moves from a window to a man who's sweating in a wheelchair with his leg in cast, on the cast there's written ”here lie the earthly remains of L.B. Jeffries”, then it moves to a smashed camera where it moves to a picture of a race car crash with a tire flying towards the camera, then it moves to other photos from around the world where it moves to a negative of a beautiful woman and ends into a pile of magazines which have the woman on the cover. I mean that single shot tells us everything we need to know about the man, what happened to him, what's his name, what's his occupation, who's his love and so on. Absolutely ingenious. The story is brilliant even today, no matter that it's been copied so many times and the way it's made is just something spectacular. I don't want to praise too much, even though this movie surely deserves every bit of it, so I'll just say once more, it's perfect. Fun little trivia about the movie, it was considered lost for years as Hitchcock bought the rights for himself to give it as a legacy for his daughter with four other movies. It also had at the time the largest indoors set ever build for a movie, the whole block you see was built inside a studio. A technological and especially an artistic masterpiece. This movie should be considered general knowledge, so if there really is someone out there who hasn't seen it yet, do so now.
100%



To Catch a Thief (1955)

Ironically Hitchcock's most successful movie from the 50's is also my least favourite of his movies from the 50's. But that doesn't make it a bad movie in any way. It's still a good romantic thrill ride. It tells the story of a retired cat burglar who gets wrongfully accused for jewel thefts and needs to find the real thief to get the police off his neck and before he'll be killed by his old criminal partners. But that all is more of a sub plot, the main thing here is the romance with the ex-thief and a rich woman. The chemistry between Cary Grant and Grace Kelly is the real driving force in this movie. I guess Hitchcock noticed that as the thriller is kind of left in the shadows. As the movie is shot in the stunning scenery of Monaco, the director wanted to take a vacation from his usually darker side with this light hearted little romance story. Suiting to the scenery the movie is shot quite brilliantly and ended up grabbing the Oscar for cinematography. Quite a disturbing fact about the movie regards the famous chase scene where Grace Kelly drives away from the police in the narrow mountain roads of Monaco, she was actually killed in a car accident 27 years later on that very same road. This movie was one of the most successful movies of the 50's and even today it's quite enjoyable light entertainment.
70%



The Trouble with Harry (1955)

If I had to name 10 best movies of all time this would be one of them, hell, it would be in the top 5. The movie itself is not exactly the usual Hitchcock you'd expect as it's not really the kind of thriller he's most known for, but you can clearly see that all the elements are still there. It's basically a story about a corpse of a man, who many people get involved with but no one knows how he died or worse yet who killed him. The poor guy gets buried and dug up quite a many times and transported all around the town while everyone seems to have a different opinion on what to do with it. One of the first real black comedy movies and all in all pure brilliance every second of it. The quite unknown cast is superb, the mood is one of the best I've ever seen in any movie and the story is simple but still highly efficient. This is the movie that has inspired most, if not all, of the modern black comedy specialists. This movie also started the famous collaboration with Hitchcock and composer Bernard Herrmann. There's a scene in this movie that is probably my favourite scene of all time in any movie, won't spoil it but it involves a closet door that won't stay shut. A definite masterpiece, a classic that never gets old and one of the best films ever made.
100%



The Man Who Knew Too Much (1956)

I really don't know why Hitchcock wanted to do a remake of this one. The original was already a very good movie. Sure it was done with a very low budget and the acting could have been a bit better at times, but still it worked good enough. Well he surely fixed the low budget, there's not many costs spared on this one and the acting part is a lot better also. Though Peter Lorre on the original was quite brilliant, but his absence is well covered by James Stewart and the rest. Never really liked Doris Day though, guess she should have sticked to singing, though I guess that didn't go too well with her either. Actually her biggest hit ended up being the song from this movie, ”Que Sera, Sera”. The fixes to the storyline work quite well and at parts the story is better than the original. The Albert Hall sequence on the original was already great, but on this one it's just magnificent and there are a lot more of those Hitchcockian tricks in thise one. Can't say this is better than the original, but it's surely not worse either, it's just as good.
81%



The Wrong Man (1956)

This is not your typical Hitchcock, even though it has the common theme of wrongly accused man. This time it's not a fun witty romantic thrill ride, it's a darker toned tragedy. That's what I love about this movie, he takes another angle on his most common theme, how being wrongfully accused of a crime can destroy your life. It's based on a true story and the script is quite brilliant. The acting is also stellar with both Henry Fonda and Vera Miles doing one of their best performances. It's shot in black and white which only adds to the tragic tone of the movie. There's not many Hitchcockian tricks and the movie is very straight forward, but that's only a good thing as this kind of drama really doesn't need them. I see this step towards more dramatic content, kind of as a practice for his next project which of course turned out to be the defining movie of his career. This movie was the first to have a prologue by Hitchcock, though he later added them to his other movies as well. Amazingly after more than 50 years this movie is still as relevant as it was back then and that's a sure sign of a classic.
90%



Vertigo (1958)

Hitchcock at his best. All the knowledge aquired during the years comes down to this masterpiece. It's Hitchcock at most Hitchcockian, if that makes any sense at all. The story is brilliantly twisted, it's brilliantly acted, it's brilliantly shot and the mood is just something unbelievable. Hard to review this one as all of the aspects of the movie are just perfect. So I'm not going to write long lines of praise, I'll just say it's one of the best movies ever made and if you haven't seen it yet, it's your loss.
100%



North by Northwest (1959)

So what do you do when you've just done a whole career defining masterpiece? Well, you do another one of course. I'm not even trying to compare this to Vertigo because that wouldn't be fair to either of them as they are completely different movies. This is back to the usual Hitchcock theme of a wrong man in a wrong place at the wrong time. The script itself offers little new to the genre, and the sets and effects are kinda clumsy at today's standards. It's also shamelessly aimed to the general public not even trying to challenge the viewer. But all of that doesn't matter as it's one hell of an action adventure thriller with so many memorable scenes it's just unbelievable. The crop duster scene alone is worth the watch, not even mentioning the others. Again a masterpiece.
96%


Links to the other decades:
1920's - 1930's - 1940's - 1950's - 1960's - 1970's

The filmography of Alfred Hitchcock - Part 3: the 1940's

While the 30's made Hitchcock the master of suspense and the ”go to” guy when it came to entertaining thrillers, the 40's made him an auteur. Hitchcock left England to direct a ”few” Hollywood movies. He himself thought he would only do a couple of them and then return to England to continue his career there. Well, he did return to England, 30 years later after he had become one of the most influental filmmakers in the world. But more about that later. The start of his Hollywood career was not easy. He made a bad deal with David O. Selznick signing a seven year contract with him. Two auteurs don't really mix up that well and Selznick actually ended up renting Hitchcock to other studios more than employing him himself. That of course with a sweet profit to the pocket of Selznick. But even though Hitchcock got screwed for quite a bit of money and the beginning wasn't easy, he did some absolutely brilliant movies. And later in the 40's, after the 7 year contract ended, he went independent in an effort to break out from the studio system.



Rebecca (1940)

Hitchcock's first Hollywood film is also the first and eventually the only movie by him which won the best picture Oscar. It's a story about a woman who marries a widowed man only to end up living in the shadow of the dead wife. There's romance as always but this time with a psychological thriller and an intriguing mystery mixed to it. This diversity makes it quite a brilliant story with enough depth to really tickle your brain. The cast is quite superb with Laurence Olivier and Joan Fontaine, but the best part is by Judith Anderson as the creepy house maid. The movie looks stunning and people seem to miss one huge visual aspect of this movie witch should be given more credit. The movie uses deep focus photography quite brilliantly, something not common in movies before it and something that Citizen Kane (1941) is praised as the ”pioneer” of the style, even though Hitchcock used the same style a year earlier. This is a cinematic masterpiece and a must see for pretty much everyone. I just can't stop wondering how brilliant the movie turned out to be even though there were a lot of disagreements between Hitchcock and Selznick. For example the absolutely stunning ending of the movie would have been a lot different if Selznick would have had his way. But Hitchcock didn't want him re-cutting the movie so he edited the picture in camera, a method that didn't allow re-editing afterwards. I'm surely glad he did this as the movie is perfect the way it is.
96%



Foreign Correspondent (1940)

After their first project not ending the way Selznick wanted, even though the movie was a hit and ended up grabbing the Oscar, he rented Hitchcock out. Hitchcock went and did this movie about a reporter who tries to expose enemy agents in Europe. With the help of a young woman they go up against the spies. Hitchcock is doing what he does best. This movie has it all, there's action, thriller, mystery, adventure and of course romance with a war looming around the corner. Simply brilliant, not a boring moment in the film and as usual some of the scenes are just phenomenal. For example the plane scene near the end was just pure brilliance. The overly patriotic ending was a bit too cheesy, but then again that's what it was in most of the war time movies.
89%



Mr. & Mrs. Smith (1941)

Hitchcock stayed rented out and being convinced by Carole Lombard took on this romantic comedy. Although he had done some in the past, it's definitely not his ”ballpark” so to say. Despite the name, this has nothing to do with the newer movie with Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie. This is a story about a husband and wife who find out that they are not legally married, this turns into a love triangle when the husband's colleague steps in to court the ”ex-”wife. Despite it not being very Hitchcockian story, he is quite at home with it. Pretty much all of his movies have comedy and romance in them and love triangles he did quite a few back in the 20's, so it's definitely not bad at all. Guess people dismiss this one as it isn't a thriller what they expect from Hitchcock, but it didn't bother me. The chemistry between Carole Lombard and Robert Montgomery is quite great and the movie has a good vibe to it. Time hasn't been kind to the movie as many of the jokes don't really work today when marriage isn't such a huge thing anymore. Still it had enough to keep me entertained.
66%



Suspicion (1941)

After the brief visit to the romantic comedies, Hitchcock went back to thrillers. This movie uses one of Hitchcock's common themes, the suspicious wife. A woman marries a man but after the honeymoon finds out he isn't exactly what she expected. Soon she starts to suspect the man from a murder and fears for her own life as well. The start of the movie is quite common romance with a bit of drama in it too, but the towards the end the thriller bit kicks into gear. And during the end half this movie is at it's best. There are some quite brilliant Hitchcock moments like the milk glass scene and the car ride among others. I liked that Cary Grant gets to show a bit meaner side of himself in this one, even though his fans were quite outraged by the fact that their hero might be a murderer. Joan Fontaine does a solid job as well and even grabbed an Oscar for her performance. Knowing that Hitchcock wanted a different kind of ending, I have to disagree with him a bit, I think the ending is quite great as it is now. Not near the top of Hitchcock's movies, mostly because of the dull start, but still worth the watch. The DVD I have had a colored version of the movie as well, but I really have to say the black and white version is way better than the colored one. On the colored version the colors were all smeared up and the picture looked out of focus most of the time. On the black and white version there were no such problems.
72%



Saboteur (1942)

Hitchcock was supposed to do this one with Selznick, but Selznick sold the script and rented out Hitchcock to Universal once again. Again there's the theme of a wrongly accused man with a woman in the run with him who fall in love. An aircraft factory worker gets accused for sabotage on the factory, but as he knows who did it, he decides to flee and solve the mystery himself. He gets help from a blind man whose niece joins him on his quest as they end up getting involved with a big organization behind the sabotage. The cast is quite great, especially Otto Kruger as the farmer with connections to the organization and Vaughan Glaser as the blind man. The main characters Pricilla Lane and Robert Cummings are not bad at all either. You can even spot Robert Mitchum in there as well, though only briefly as an extra. This movie has one of my favourite Hitchcock moments when the factory gets burned, that smoke against the white wall is simply brilliant. The ending at the Statue of Liberty is quite magnificent also. Though it's of course overly patriotic, but as it's a war time movie what else would you expect. Even though there were many great things about this one, it's not exactly great. It's way too similar to The 39 Steps (1935) with it's themes, it even has similar scenes in it. So it has a bit of a recycled feel to it. But other than that this is still quite a solid witty thriller.
73%



Shadow of a Doubt (1943)

As it was such a lucrative business for Selznick to rent out Hitchcock, he continued to do so. And who can blame him, easy money without any risks. Selznick got paid well no matter how the movie actually did in the box office. Though as most of the times the movies turned out to be hits, one can question was it smart thing to do or not. Anyway, Hitchcock has himself said that this is his favourite movie out of his filmography and it surely is a great one. It's a story about a family who gets a visit from the uncle of the children who no one has seen in a long time. The reunion is full of joy and basically dreams come true until the young woman of the family discovers quite a disturbing secret life of his uncle. The happy family movie turns into a very striking thriller. The cast is quite great with Joseph Cotten and Teresa Wright as the main characters, but also the father, played by Henry Travers, and his friend, played by Hume Cronyn, are brilliant. Even though the movie is a bit dated at parts it still nails you to your seat and manages to even surprise you at times. That's a sure sign of a classic. Brilliant movie with quite a few Hitchcockian moments and the careless fun atmosphere is working like a charm before the thriller kicks in. The ring scene made my skin crawl.
91%



Lifeboat (1944)

A Hitchcockian thriller on a lifeboat, that's truly something special. Even though this has received some recognition lately, this is still by far Hitchock's most under rated movie and actually one of the most under rated movies of any director out there. This movie basically invented a genre of it's own and a style of film making that's copied in so many movies even today. Every disaster movie out there ows to this one. The movie starts out with a freighter being torpedoed during World War II. The German U-boat that torpedoed the freighter got hit also and sunk. A very diverse group of survivors from the freighter gather up in a lifeboat to try and sail for help or to the nearest shore. They pick up one more survivor who happens to be from the U-boat and happens to be the very man who sunk their ship. Needless to say that things get complicated, not only do they have to fight the German who's the only one who knows where to go, but they also have their own quarrels to make things even more complex. The cast is pretty much perfect and all do a stellar job. The story is intriguing and builds up nice suspense to keep you entertained. Surprisingly enough it's not overly patriotic, being a war time movie and having a theme that could exploit it quite easily. Sure it has many patriotic themes to it, but it handles most of them quite open mindedly. Really have to lift my hat to Hitchcock that he could build such a brilliant movie with nothing more than a group of people and a lifeboat. This movie is right at the top with the best of Hitchcock, a brilliant almost forgotten masterpiece.
100%



Spellbound (1945)

Hitchcock returned to work for Selznick on this thiller set in the world of psychoanalysis. It's a story about a young psychiatrist, played by Ingrid Bergman, in a mental institution who gets a new boss to run the institution. She starts to suspect that her boss, Dr. Edwardes, played by Gregory Peck, is not really who he claims to be, but manages to fall in love with him before that. Turns out Dr. Edwardes has actually gone missing and the man pretending to be him is accused for his murder. The woman runs out with the man and tries to figure out what has happened with psychoanalysis. The story is very intriguing, but it's a bit too much dated for modern audiences. There are still some very nice themes in it, but overall it stays a bit too superficial to be anything more interesting. The cast is great and there are tons of great Hitchcockian moments. Especially the gun scene at the end is pure brilliance. Salvador Dali was hired to make the dream sequence and it surely is quite disturbing like you'd expect. All in all this movie has many things right but the story is just a bit too dated to make it a great movie watched today.
70%



Notorious (1946)

Selznick needed money again and Hitchcock was rented out again. I bet this is one of the movies where he surely regret it later, even though he made a very sweet profit from it none the less. This is probably Hitchcock's most famous movie fromt he 40's and it surely is a great thriller with tons of classic movie moments. A woman, played by Ingrid Bergman, is asked to spy on a group of Nazi friendly people in South America. She ends up falling in love with the man who asked her for the job and when she needs to marry a member of the Nazi party, things get complicated. The trio Ingrid Bergman, Cary Grant and Claude Rains is absolutely brilliant, but Leopoldine Konstantin steals the show as the mother of the Nazi friendly man Bergman's character has to marry. This movie probably has the most ”McGuffin's” in any Hitchcock movie. ”McGuffin” is an object that drives the plot and raises viewer tension and this movie has no shortage of those. A coffee mug, a wine bottle and probably the most famous key in the history of cinema. How such small objects can drive a plot and raise such emotions is just beyond me, simply a brilliant effort. A masterpiece in suspension building with that Hitchcock feel almost overflowing from it.
99%



The Paradine Case (1947)

Hitchcock's last movie for David O. Selznick turned out to be quite a mess. The movie went well over budget and schedule as Selznick insisted on expensive reshoots and rewrites. That resulted in a very uneven court house drama. Gregory Peck plays a lawyer who takes on a case of a woman who is accused of murdering her blind husband. There's drama, love triangle and a bit of mystery too, but it lacks the witty touch to it and there really is not much suspension in it, despite it being a thriller. The ending was quite striking, but getting there was surprisingly boring. The cast is quite brilliant and especially the actresses, Ann Todd, Ethel Barrymore and Alida Valli, all do a stellar job. Gregory Peck was a bit of a miss as the troubled lawyer though, but none the less manages to squeeze out a decent performance. The cast carries the movie when the story fails, but as the story is so weak there's not much they can do about it. In the end the movie is a bit too much on the boring side to keep the entertainment up. The movie flopped at the box office and ended Hitchcock's and Selznick's collaboration into one of Hitchcock's worst Hollywood films. They surely weren't friends, far from it, but still it's a shame as that duo did make some brilliant movies and this wasn't really the ending that era deserved. Then again one could easily say that the movies were brilliant just because of Hitchcock, but I believe Selznick had his say on them as well and that fight between them shaped the movies to what they are today.
42%



Rope (1948)

Hitchcock was finally free from his contract with Selznick and founded his own production company called Transatlantic Pictures with his long time friend Sidney Bernstein. This was their first production and Hitchcock without any limitations went a bit wild with it. It's Hitchcock's first color feature which produced quite a bit of problems by itself, for example it looks like the makeup artist had trouble doing the makeup for the men in color as they are quite powdery. But the color not the main technical advance this movie presents, most notably the movie is shot with seemingly one continuous take. Well actually in 10 minute segments as that was the length of the film reel, but he disguises most of the cuts quite cleverly. And when ever he really makes a notable cut, it is to underline the importance of the shot. That works quite brilliantly and knowing how gigantic the cameras were back then, that was surely a huge effort. So the Hitchcock trickery is well in hand on this one, but unfortunately the story is a bit off. It's just a bit too theatrical for a movie and not really subtle in the story telling. Kind of like everyone has to think out loud so that the audience knows what's going on. That unfortunately waters down the otherwise quite intriguing story. The story is about two men who murder their friend and host a party right after to their and the victim's friends, kind of to give them an alibi and to in a macabre way celebrate the perfect crime. Things of course don't go as planned and Hitchcock gets tons of suspense to play with. The cast is fairly good, though they all do a fair bit of over acting, probably because of the theatrical nature of the story. This was the first Hitchcock movie with James Stewart, who I think is the best of the male actors in Hitchcock's movies and they ended up doing 4 movies together, but more about that later. Unfortunately the movie was a bit too experimental and the audience didn't take it too well. Also it didn't help that the movie was banned in several US cities due to the themes of homosexuality and thus failed to do well on the box office. But watching this now you just have to give some credit for the strong themes it has and the absolutely brilliant way it's made.
85%



Under Capricorn (1949)

Hitchcock himself said that he made this film only for Ingrid Bergman. It's certainly an oddity in Hitchcock's filmography, being a costume drama with some suspense elements. It's again a love triangle, this time set in the 1830's Australia. The story and the setting are quite good and promises a lot more than the movie in the end delivers. Again Hitchcock uses long takes, but this time they really don't work as well. They kind of slow down the already very slow paced movie even more and somewhat water down the suspense of it. The movie looks great, the settings and the lighting are quite brilliant, but that really doesn't save it from getting boring. Really don't know why the French appreciate this movie so much and it's often considered there as one of Hitchcock's best. I've seen this twice now and still can't see the brilliance of it. As a curiosity it's worth watching as it's not really a Hitchcockian Hitchcock film, but I doubt anyone else but die hard fans of Hitchcock can get anything interesting enough out of it. The movie failed at the box office and things didn't look good for Transatlantic Pictures when the 40's came to an end after two financial failures.
55%


That's it for the 40's. My favourite Hitchcock decade, the 50's is next, so brace yourself for some top scores. As always don't hold your breath over it, it will come eventually.

Links to the other decades:
1920's - 1930's - 1940's - 1950's - 1960's - 1970's