TheRetroCritic

I talk a bit about Alfred Hitchcock's The Birds .

Paul Thomas Anderson's latest film, Phantom Thread , sees Daniel Day-Lewis play a respected fashion designer who meets a waitress and starts a rather awkward relationship with her. This is, as far as we know, probably the actor's final performance in a film. In contrast to the grim and intense There Will Be Blood , this new film seemed like a potentially lighter and less depressing effort. In a way, this is true since we're dealing with a man who makes dresses rather than a scary moustached man who sucks up oil "milkshakes" from the ground but this remains another typically unnerving and dark P. T. Anderson creation. The point of the film not being the dress-making itself as this isn't exactly a biopic, but rather everything else. It's the relationship between the fussy and closed-off yet undeniably talented Reynolds Woodcock (Daniel Day-Lewis) and waitress Alma (Vicky Krieps) that takes centre stage. Woodcock is shown to be a true artist and a perfec

Gene Wilder and Gilda Radner star in Hanky Panky , a comedy thriller from Sidney Poitier about a man on the run after being accused of a crime he didn't commit who meets a reporter before they both find themselves entangled in a web of top secret intrigue. Don't let the inexplicably silly title fool you, this is actually a fun, at times suspenseful film. It's really not the ridiculous farce it sounds like and it is, in fact, more akin to something like Silver Streak in that, while it does have some comedy elements, it's mostly a thriller. There's a Hitchcockian vibe to this one as Wilder plays a similar role to Cary Grant in North By Northwest : a desperate man trying to prove his innocence. The whole thing starts with Michael Jordon (Wilder) flirting with a woman in a cab and offering to mail an envelope for her. Unfortunately, he is spotted helping her and, when she is later murdered, he becomes the prime suspect and some shady parties start questioning him

So they're making a film about Alfred Hitchcock starring Anthony Hopkins as the legendary filmmaker and he looks like this: I honestly can't get over how bad this looks. I mean, have they ever  seen the real Hitchcock? This odd, plasticky fellow above looks more like French right-wing politician Edouard Balladur... Or even... Actually, he looks more like... Ok, to be fair the knife tie thing is pretty clever. Not sure it's clever enough to get me hyped for this one, though. After all, the tagline is "Good evening".

Never quite my favourite Hitchcock film, To Catch A Thief has nevertheless grown on me these past few years. Similarly in tone to North By Northwest , it always felt like a slight, silly effort from The Master. And yet these days I find there's something irresistible about it. This is probably THE most chilled-out whodunit you'll ever see: there's little to no hurry. Characters have long chats while driving down the sunny French coast, stop by to have picnics, go for a swim... It's one big, long holiday with a freakishly tanned Cary Grant at the heart of it playing a cat burglar trying to find a copy-cat burglar in order to clear his name. But where the chillaxed nature of the film infuriated me as a kid, now I get the joke: take a typical Hitchock thriller and make it as lighthearted and tongue-in-cheek as possible, set the whole thing in the most inoffensive setting and get Cary Grant to wear horrible sweaters and scarves: voila! To Catch A Thief never pret

Bette Davis playing a killer with an evil twin sister? Sounds amazing, right? Especially when you've seen her in Whatever Happened To Baby Jane? and Hush Hush Sweet Charlotte , Dead Ringer just sounds like it could just be the best thing out there. And yet director Paul Henreid somehow succeeds in making this one of the least impressive evil Bette movies. So what went wrong? Well, for one thing the twin "effect" works about as well as the green screen in Hitchcock's Family Plot (obscure reference: it doesn't). Bette Davis also seems thrown throughout especially when she has to act alongside herself. There's delays in the conversations and she just doesn't sound natural or convincing. The film also suffers from a slow rhythm with very little actual suspense making this a somewhat dull experience. Visually at least Dead Ringer does well and there are a few Hitchcock-style sequences, most notably the first murder, which are admittedly a treat. One

  Alfred Hitchcock's lighthearted thriller may not always be number one in people's top Hitch-lists and it may have been overshadowed by more sinister and daring efforts like Psycho or Vertigo but North by Northwest was never meant to be anything more than good, suspenseful fun. Which it is. Cary Grant is wittier than ever in a role which sees him being constantly bewildered, drink driving, pursued by a plane, hanging off Mount Rushmore and causing a ruckus at a sales auction. But throughout, he never seems to take things too seriously and takes it all in its stride as we sit back and enjoy the Bond-style adventure he's been forced into. The film contains all the classic tongue-in-cheek Hitchcock traits: an unsympathetic mother, a tortured blonde love interest, a case of mistaken identity and, of course, suspense by the buckets. The final jump cut and joke right at the end cheekily reminding you one last time that North By Northwest is indeed mostly a fun, silly action

The poor man's Knight and Day ? Perhaps not. Depp and Jolie are hardly the B sides of Cruise and Diaz. If anything The Tourist is a more laid-back alternative to the pumped up nonsense of Knight and Day. Both films have similarities though in that they are both throwbacks to Hitchcockian spy movies in the vein of North By Northwest and To Catch a Thief . So which works better? I suppose it depends what you're in the mood for. If you're in need of some Mission Impossible -style silliness with multiple chase scenes and explosions then Knight and Day just about hits the spot. If however you want something just as silly but a tad more focused and sophisticated then The Tourist is a better bet: no dodgy CGI or slo-mo plane explosions there. Although The Tourist is far from perfect and is closer to Salt than anything else, it feels like it's suffered some unfair bashing. The chemistry between both leads and the predictable end "twist" being the k

  Sure there was no need to continue Norman Bates' story...but Psycho IV figures: while we're here, might as well tell the whole bloody thing! And why not indeed, finally we are given a clear depiction of Norman's less-than cuddly childhood. Psycho IV: The Beginning sees Norman being released for a bit and taking the opportunity to call a radio show and tell his whole story. The verdict? For a TV movie this is actually really good and rather compelling from start to finish. As a film, it keeps the focused attention of Psycho II and adds the more modern and more graphic look of Psycho III but still, of course, falls way short of the original film. Norman's flashbacks are often genuinely unpleasant and we once again get to know the character a little bit better. Perkins is, of course, a little older still but does well regardless. Overall, the whole thing is still really only worth a look if you've seen the previous two films and want some Psyc

  Underrated second sequel to Psycho with Anthony Perkins doing a better job than in the previous film, and not only in front of the camera. His directing is obviously filled with Hitchcockian influence and as clunky as it can be, overall he does pretty well. Of course, there are silly moments here and there and it can get kinda messy but it is enjoyable nonetheless. I must warn you though, Psycho III is a very different monster to its predecessors. Psycho II took its flawed character seriously and told his unlikely story in a compassionate way. Sure the ending was silly but for the most part, Psycho II did ok to stay focused. Psycho III however, is classic slasher flick fare: Norman is back to his old tricks and there's no bullshitting around! This third instalment is often seen as the lesser of the Psycho sequels, and wrongly so. For one thing it's infinitely more entertaining than Psycho II and Perkins clearly has a ball going nuts once again and directing

Surprisingly watchable sequel with an ageing Anthony Perkins twitching his way through his fading sanity. There are clumsy, dated effects, although they add comedy value (the knife through the mouth is always a winner) and the ending is somewhat rushed but the film is saved by some clever shots and an interesting enough storyline. But seriously now: who asked for a Psycho sequel? Granted there was a sequel to Bloch's novel but waiting until right after Alfred Hitchcock's death to step on his feet feels somewhat unnecessary and kinda sneaky. Sure there's enough in Norman Bate's release from the institution to tell a story, it's just not a story we really needed to be told. Besides, 23 years is a very long gap between both films and attempting to match the original's class, style and mood so late in the game is futile to say the least. Then again, after the initial feeling of WTF, once you get into Norman's more personal story you soon find

A film so classic reviewing it is almost redundant, Psycho remains to this day one of The Master's finest hours and one of the best horror films ever. Over the following years Psycho was much imitated, continued, even cloned (!) but you can't touch the original and nothing has even come close since to match Hitchcock's unsettling masterpiece. Every frame is carefully crafted and Janet Leigh's famously early demise is as infamous and delightful as ever. It is however Anthony Perkins' haunting portrayal of a quietly disturbed Norman Bates which steals the show: this is one of the great performances and wannabe bad-guys should watch it on a loop thereby learning a few things about creating a convincing and most definitely not hammy antagonist. The reveal at the end may not quite carry the punch it once had and the doctor's simplistic and over-indulgent explanation at the end is always somewhat tedious but as a whole, this is an unavoidable classic

Remaking classic horror films is now, of course, a common Hollywood trend. But back in 1998 such a thing was still regarded as sacrilege. And rightly so. As talented as a director Gus Van Sant may be, he is no Alfred Hitchcock. And remaking one of the latter's most beloved films almost shot for shot is not so much a hommage as it is an insult. Watching this remake is like watching someone butcher a classic. Not that it's a bad film, overall this new Psycho is pretty stylish and entertaining. But it just feels completely pointless and Vince Vaughn, as amusing as he may occasionally be, is not Anthony Perkins and he most certainly isn't Norman Bates. His Norman is bland, barely threatening and unconvincing. The rest of the cast does reasonably well but one could argue that there's very little challenge there when their jobs were essentially done 38 years ago...better. Van Sant's Psycho is worth seeing if you're a fan of the original and you feel

Cruise and Diaz are reunited for the first time since Vanilla Sky in this silly, sunny Hitchcockian spy comedy and although the film never reaches high levels of intelligence, what it lacks in brains it makes up for in gusto. Although it has been compared with the likes of North By Northwest , this is actually much closer to the lighter To Catch a Thief or even the Goldie Hawn/Chevy Chase 80's comedies. Cruise is clearly having a ball in a Mission Impossible -style role with added OTT silliness and Diaz is fine as his ditzy sidekick, if slightly annoying in places. The plot is nothing to ride home about, something about a powerful battery (MacGuffin) which may or may not be useful to something or other. Whatever. It provides little more than silly lines ("Because it's filled with POWER!") and a thin strand of reason to hold everything together. What really hurts the film strangely is the CGI. It works mostly but sometimes the green screen is jus

I have to say after all this talk of Hitchcock this and Hitchcock that I was expecting more than a "guy-in-a-box" concept movie. To give the film credit, for a film set in a coffin it does a good job keeping you entertained throughout. Loved the opening titles...and that's all I can say really. Overall Buried was pretty...pedestrian in its writing, acting and overall storytelling. Didn't think Ryan Reynolds was particularly convincing and a lot of his panting, screaming and heavy breathing felt forced and strangely comical at times. I also felt that the whole Irak setting and terrorist plot was obvious, clumsy and clichéd. Sure the film is a metaphor of the war etc. but it really didn't need to be. It should have just been about a guy in a box, with no recollection of how he got in, trying to call for help only to, at the end, get out and find that he's somewhere he never expected. Like a good episode of the Twilight Zone ! The bad guy on the phone felt s