The Personal Recommendation Hall of Fame IV

Citizen Kane, which I did not expect to like, was the movie that made me change my opinion of old movies. It was one of those movie experiences where I was thinking, while it was playing, this is really f'n good and it just kept getting better. After watching it for the first time I remember thinking that it felt modern, like it could have been released a few years before I watched it (late 90's).

Something tells me Orson Welles would have something poignant to say about that

I would not have guessed you would like Citizen Kane...and people say my movie taste is hard to figure out

I think Citizen Kane is a bit of a hard film to peg. It tends to give the impression to be a stuffy, boring drama which, paired with its reputation as the best film ever made, make people think they wouldn't like it, when in fact, it is extremely engaging and a lot of fun.

__________________

Is this the new longest HOF ever?

I mean I could probably post my reviews on the rest of the films I have in one go, but where's the fun.

__________________
"A film has to be a dialogue, not a monologue — a dialogue to provoke in the viewer his own thoughts, his own feelings. And if a film is a dialogue, then it’s a good film; if it’s not a dialogue, it’s a bad film."

- Michael "Gloomy Old Fart" Haneke

I came into this film thinking I was spoiled, thinking that instead of what actually ended up happening only the two children would be the ghosts/imagined, and so the experience of watching the movie was feeling more so like a re-watch. I was very much so enjoying how everything was fitting together with the context of the "twist". I was loving the atmosphere, the presentation, the slowness of it all, and I was just loving how much this wasn't the conventional horror film. It even had Kubrickian vibes to it due to the cinematography and the setting. Surprisingly, I was liking this so much that in my head I had it above Citizen Kane at one point ranking wise. Even after the father's appearance, which coincided with the film slowing down a bit and getting repetitive, especially considering how we've been trapped inside this mansion's doors for an hour by now, I was still admiring how his appearance added so much to our understanding of the main character's psyche...or so I thought.

The reveal happens. Dun, dun, dun, everyone is a ghost, and not only was that not what I was expecting, more importantly, I found it to be such a cop-out. Yes, the twist in itself is unique and genre-bending and is a great reversal of expectations, but this is not the film for it. It negates so many enjoyable moments and details that now, with the actual hindsight, make less sense. Had the children been just part of Kidman's imagination and coping mechanism for her loss, and had the servants been just playing along to feed her psychosis and not have her face the actual truth as it hurts too much, this would've been a great character study about a grief process so intense it has maddened a woman. It would've told the story of a mother's twisted lifestyle that implodes on itself once she uncovers right outside the graves belonging to her family, which snaps her back to reality. Even still, she would rather be in denial, and kick the servants out, only for them to come back later on and go along with this same routine that they've grown used to and even bored with by now. But instead, we got a twist that allows the answer to any question one could ask to be: "well, they're ghosts so...". Even then you would still have some questions with unsatisfied answers, like why any of them are even attached to this house to begin with and not at least a dozen of others more. The only explanation we get from the servants is an "oh we love this house", and there's no need to delve into why that's such an unsatisfying reason. Moreover, the fact that they're completely unrelated to the family and are actually from a whole other era is even more annoying. With Kidman and her kids, I guess it's because it's where she killed them and herself...whatever it is, it makes so much less sense for her to be as over-protective of them when they're all dead. Certain details throughout, especially in the dialogue, are now ripped of what initially made them amusing. When Mrs. Mills goes "you have no idea what grief can lead people to do sometimes", or when they all exclaimed how "she's starting to lose it again", those are a few examples of what I'm talking about. And the revelation of the graves belonging to the kids and the husband would've worked much much better for me than them ending up being of the servants.

Otherwise, this is a pretty good movie all in all. It has great performances by everybody, with Kidman being a stunner and the kids being incredibly adorable, loveable, and talented. The cinematography was amazing, matter of fact it's probably my favorite aspect to the film as it heavily contributed to the haunting atmosphere. As for the scares, they're scarce but very well thought through, and fitted right in with the ongoing tone.

Oooh, I love that film. Saw it in theaters and when the twist came up, it blew my mind. I think I heard the audience's gasp. So good


EDIT: BTW, I had never seen that poster, but it's horrible

Good going Okay!

This is one of the films I watched twice for the HOF, and after a second viewing I definitely appreciate it a lot more. The first half hour is still my favourite part of the movie, but overall the rest is just as solid and well done. It's shot well, and there's some great acting too. Anthony Perkins does a fantastic job. The way he speaks and behaves like an innocent child, down to the mannerisms even with how he's constantly biting his thumb, he was perfectly cast for the role as he even has such a clean and innocent looking face. Janet Leigh is great too but sometimes suffers from the same tropey kind of acting that was present throughout that period of time, I mean she couldn't act any more suspicious if she could during that whole first act. On the other hand, I loved that we got such a character to follow and have as the "protagonist" in the beginning, that alone diverted expectations, let alone the twist that she dies not even midway through, which of course I sadly already knew was gonna happen along with the final twist and all.

I just really dug the structure of the film, especially with how at first there was so much emphasis and importance put on the money, only for it to become irrelevant later on. The movie was revolutionary in other ways as well. By showing such gruesome death scenes, Hitchcock opened up the flood gates for all future horror films so they definitely have him to thank. And although they look goofy by today's standards, I can still appreciate them for what they are, and I was thankfully not spoiled of the detective's death which was genuinely shocking and unexpected, so who knows, I might've of loved the film had it not been for its unescapable notoriety and gigantic cultural impact.

All in all, this a pretty solid movie. Even the intro is amazing. The only real problem is that I couldn't get attached to anybody or anything going on, whether it be because of the nature of the acting, or because of how the characters were written, or even small stuff like hearing the mother's voice and conversations while the camera is far and outside of where it's happening, you know tropes like that. We also have the ending, which is infamously so overexplanatory and heavy handed, but just like other stuff I can overlook it and see where it was coming from and take in consideration the time when all of this was made, it makes it understandable but it doesn't better the experience either.

As great as Psycho is, it has just gotten better for me with every rewatch. Anthony Perkins' performance is mind-blowingly good once you pay attention to all the little nuances he puts on that character. Little movements, body language, mannerisms, tone of voice... he's excellent.

I'd have to say Anthony Perkins as Norman Bates is one of the finest acting performances recorded on film.

I agree.

I also agree.

I haven't seen Perkins in a lot of films, I did see Psycho II and thought he was brilliant there too. And yes I'm going to plug my review as I think Psycho II is underappreciated.

Psycho II my review

I don't remember if I've ever seen that one, but I've been reading/hearing a lot of good feedback about it in recent years. I have plans to check it out one of these days.

As for Perkins, I've only seen a handful of his films: On the Beach, Murder on the Orient Express, and a cheap TV film called Daughter of Darkness, and although he doesn't necessarily reach the levels he did on Psycho, I would say he's always interesting to watch. Maybe skip that last one, but the other two are good watches.

I've been wanting to see Murder on the Orient Express, ever since I watched that gawd awful remake. I've heard alot of good stuff about the original though.

Haven't seen the remake, but the original was a pretty good film.

They’re releasing the remake of the sequel this January I think?

Anyways, I like the original as well. Need to see the sequels and the Branagh remake yet.

I'm in the minority on this, but I actually liked the remake better than the original.