I'm not Australian. :(

There’s a fine line between bad and good-bad.  This is bad.

But Harvey Keitel is enjoyable, and I think the script has some creative moments (it is written by Quentin Tarantino after all).

This isn’t really a review, I just want you all to know how much I disliked this film.  I don’t know where to begin with how many awful things there are in this “movie.”  But Keitel, Clooney, and some minor actor who I thought did a nice job but I’m too lazy to look up the name of save this film from getting one star as opposed to two. And those creative moments (SPOILER: like when a vampire lives after its heart is ripped out but dies as soon as it is stabbed with a pencil…).

(2/5 stars, 2.5/10)

A lot of people are talking about how this film is confusing, and I will admit that while watching it, there were moments where I had to stop and ask myself what was happening.  This occurred most often when I thought I had misunderstood what an actor had said or if I was caught off guard by well composed-shot or a moment of acting that I questioned or wanted to see again.  A lot of information is covered in a relatively short amount of time (note that TTSS is 123 minutes long, so actually, it isn’t very short).  The film didn’t feel very long to me at all (I’m sure it would on repeat viewings, as that is how I feel during most repeated viewings).  But this is one of the only times (recently) when I’ve watched a film without feeling like I was bored or ready for the characters to make a mad dash to the climax.

The ensemble cast is wonderful and everyone has their moments of standing out more than anyone else in the scene, but my favorite performances were from the supporting roles of Benedict Cumberbatch and Tom Hardy.  I’ve heard from other film lovers that Mark Strong stood out to them the most from the supporting cast, and I can respect this, but I think he needed some more screen time.  The same goes for Colin Firth, who I think has a nice presence in the film, but he isn’t needed to be seen more than what his character offers to this incredible spy-genre film.  All that said, I’d be happy with any supporting actor laurels these actors receive this season, but it’s Gary Oldman who truly deserves an Academy Award nomination for Best Leading Actor for his portrayal of George Smiley.  His expressions and body language are so subtle, but Oldman manages to tell the audience more about his character with his face than with any of his dialogue.

I believe you’ll definitely need to see this film more than once to fully appreciate everything it has to offer.  The way the material is handled—there are flashbacks and sometimes the audience has to switch perspectives from a different protagonist—sort of dishes out information in giant doses.  There’s just a lot to keep track of between many names and events and jargon to sort through.

(4 out 5 stars, or an 8 out of 10…I might change this to a 7 or 9 after a second viewing)

Kate Winslet is marvelous but at times seems miscast in this film.  Perhaps it’s just poor character development?  Side note for Doctor Who fans, this film stars Christopher Eccleston (The Ninth Doctor) and David Tennant (The Tenth Doctor) appears in a small role.  Some lovely composed shots, I just don’t think the direction and editing caters to the story of these characters the way it should.

(2/5 stars)

Another wonderful thriller from Alfred Hitchcock.  I don’t think I liked this film nearly as much as I thought I would.  Some of it came off as—dare I say it—cheesy to me.  It’s probably just a generation gap effect.  The romantic—er, sexual—tensions between leads Eva Saint Marie and Cary Grant are incredibly effective. I didn’t care much for the film’s first act, but once Grant’s character boarded that train for Chicago, I found some interest in the chemistry between the lead characters. (Maybe Eva Saint Marie has more of a supporting role…but I digress…)  Some of the film’s twists would normally not be so amusing, and the storyline may be a little contrite, but Hitchcock masterfully shoots the film to strengthen the tension when necessary.  They don’t shoot stories this well as often as I wish they would.

(8/10)

I’ve heard people argue that a film like THE SOCIAL NETWORK (2010) is about truth.  While I would argue otherwise, 12 ANGRY MEN addresses the issues of truth and the need to know the truth and speculate doubt better than most films, such as DOUBT (2008) and arguably, THE SOCIAL NETWORK.  The diverse cast of characters all propose their own insight while representing a different perspective for a jury.  It’s easy to see where other films have been influenced by this story line.  (While watching the film, I kept thinking about an episode of MALCOLM IN THE MIDDLE where Lois votes opposite of her fellow jury members in order to persuade them to discuss the trial thoroughly.  I’m sure if I took the time or examined more films, I could find other homages—and perhaps some that actually inspired this original play.)  The plot evokes an enriching nuance courtesy of thrilling performances from the cast, no doubt which have been empowered by sensible directing and beautiful cinematography.

(10/10)

I simply love this movie.  The direction is so creative and successful.  Not many directors can pull off such an innovative film like this.  Grace Kelly is absolutely stunning—I think this might actually be the only film of hers that I have seen.  The principle cast members all give nice performances.  The first act drags a bit, but the film has a nearly flawless pace overall. It’s unfortunate that something as great as this lead to the production of DISTURBIA.  (8.5/10)

I like the rising terror of the birds attacking the citizens of this small town.  The climax is absolutely terrifying!  Kudos to Tippi Hedren for a fantastic performance.  I think it kind of loses some luster after repeat viewings, but that could just be based on my experience with the film.  I definitely prefer watching it at night rather than during the day.  Of course, it is a horror film, so this is a no-brainer.  The relationships between the characters push the film forward rather nicely, supplying a good amount of tension to go along with the fear of the flying antagonists.  (7.0/10)

Easily Hitchcock’s best (and one of my favorite films, EVER made), this tale of mystery, deceit, and obsession just blows me away every time I watch it.  The journey of James Stewart’s Scottie into this intricate web of Hitchcock’s finest tricks is so evocative.  It provides a milestone in the evolution of filmmaking.  This is a timeless film that I watch for inspiration, innovation, and a reminder about why I love movies; it provokes thought and intrigue through every perfectly manipulated shot.  It’s a smart film, never being dumbed-down for audiences.  (10/10)

James Stewart may have thought he was miscast in this film, but I think it just may be my second or third favorite performance of his directed by Hitchcock.  I actually really enjoyed this film more than I thought I would.  It’s yet another wonderful portrayal of Hitchock’s ambitious brilliance, even if he falls a little short of his goal this time around (he makes up for it later with VERTIGO and PSYCHO).  As usual, the last act is full of prickly anticipation, and it’s wonderful to watch.  (7.0/10)

This is my second-favorite Hitchcock film (and at this time, I’ve only seen seven).  I’m glad that Hitchcock chose to shoot this in black and white.  I think it really adds to this style of horror, and I wish more modern (horror) films worked on this level of our psychology.  The score is probably one of my favorites, but Anthony Perkins’s performance as the psychotic killer is easily one of my favorite performances of all time.  He’s so haunting in his role, and it’s a shame he didn’t earn an Oscar nomination, or have a bigger career following this film—but I have not seen his post-PSYCHO work. (9.5/10)