Tag Archives: Alfred Hitchcock

I Confess Review

Posted on by
Reply

I_confess_poster
It’s time for a retro film from Alfred Hitchcock. The style is certainly a little different from his other films in the sense that you wouldn’t necessarily know that it was by him. Most of his films are more mystery centered whereas here you do know who the villain is the whole time and the tension is on whether Logan will crack under the pressure or not. It’s a fun film where you have to decide if he’s making the right move or not.

The premise is fairly simple. Logan is a Catholic priest and one day he finds out that the man whom he hired to work at the church murdered a man. Unfortunately, the murderer is the one who told him while in the confessional box. It is strictly forbidden for a priest to use any knowledge learned during this period so Logan must decline to help the police with the investigation when they ask him who the murderer is. Unfortunately, the evidence now makes it look like Logan is the murderer and he can barely provide a defense for himself. Is this the end of the line for him?

Keller is the actual murderer and he evidently doesn’t care if anyone likes him by the end. He’s always trying to make Logan look bad and also doesn’t seem very remorseful for murdering someone. He goes crazy by the end to conveniently help the police realize the truth, but the character isn’t ultimately all that important in the story. Logan can shut him down at any time. As mentioned earlier, it really comes down to whether or not he will abide by the code.

His faith is strong and he never ends up buckling and telling the police what he knows. He does a good job in his Catholic beliefs. I’m a Christian myself and luckily we have no such custom. I definitely don’t fault Logan for not talking since he did well according to his beliefs, but I felt like he could have handled the situation a little better. Aside from not wanting to talk about anything relating to the murder, he also didn’t want to talk about anything related to Ruth, which caused more issues. This meant that he did not even want to create an alibi for himself and effectively made himself look all the more guilty. Not to mention that he tried to dodge the questions and sidetrack the arguments a lot of the time.

Even if he didn’t outright say that Keller was the killer, Logan could have easily explained that he knew who the killer was, but couldn’t say because of the confessional rules. That would have at least given the police something to go with and I don’t believe that this is against the rules. Of course, it could come down to the fact that Logan may have thought of this as “cheating” the rules. It’s like a “lie of omission.” I still don’t believe in the concept, but many do consider it to be a form of lying and essentially cheating the concept of a lie. You’re telling a lie without actually saying anything. If Logan subscribed to that way of thinking, then maybe he felt that he couldn’t even admit that this had anything to do with a confessional. I personally disagree with his stance.

I do think that ommissions are not the same as lying. Take for example the classic example used for the lying debate. 2 Nazi’s walk into your apartment and you are hiding Christians in your attic so they say “Are you hiding Christians in the house?” You have quite a few options without actually lying and they all involve sort of skirting around the whole lying concept. One option is to respond via a technicality. Maybe your home is an apartment, a villa, or something that’s not technically a house. Then you can easily respond with a No and it’s not a lie. You could use an exclamation like “What” “How dare you accuse me of such a thing!” which is not actually lying, while still insinuating that you are saying no and then depending on what they follow up with, you can say no to the question without saying no to the original one. There are many such loopholes that you can exploit in many scenarios, but it does boil down to the fact of whether or not you consider this to be cheating the rule. By the way, I am of the side that believes lying is the better course of action than telling the truth in that case. You are committing a sin no doubt, but saying yes means that you will be killing the people in your house and taking away their choice of life. If it’s just your life on the line, then by all means it’s best to tell the truth and proudly accept your fate as a Christian. When other people are in danger, then self sacrifice is the concept that I subscribe too (Whether or not you have the courage to back up your tough words is another story though) and you are willingly sinning, but I believe that it is different from simply sinning for personal gain. You will have to answer for each and every sin, but I believe that the lives you saved and your willingness to repent and move on from the situation is counted as well.

Back to the film, if Logan believes that admitting to the confessional being the issue of why he can’t talk to be a loophole of the Catholic rule, then he naturally cannot even say this since it would go against his beliefs. It all depends on his feelings on the subject. Either way, he was definitely put in a tough spot, but Logan was a good character. I got worried when he was stranded with Ruth for a night, but he did a good job and handled the situation appropriately. Logan’s a solid lead character and while his actions were frustrating, he did the best that he could.

Most of the other characters were pretty annoying or unlikable. The only other really good character would be the detective. He did a good job of grabbing the facts and showing the other characters who was really in charge of the situation. You could almost root for the guy if you didn’t know that he was already on the wrong side. He meant well and that definitely counts for something. The Prosecutor was also decent and he knew how to have a good time. He would have won the cup game if not for the phone.

Naturally, Keller’s not a likable villain. He comes across as rather petty. His wife was better even if she acted a little too late considering that Keller never seemed like the most respectable guy out there. The other priests didn’t help Logan out all that much, but they were likely praying for him. They were just in a tough spot since it was hard to help him and they definitely understood his plight by the end of the whole ordeal. I did like the priest who had the bike with him, that was a fun gimmick to have.

Meanwhile, Ruth was surprisingly very antagonistic for most of the film. Her treatment of her husband was very uncalled for and she could never rebound from that. She married him for no real reason since she claims to have never loved him and immediately tried going back to Logan only to find out that he had put up the friend zone already. Sometimes, the friend zone card can be quite effective and it’s always great to see it played during a film. It’s one of the ultimate moves to pull in real life as well.

Overall, I Confess was a solid film. The mystery was already known, which always forces a different approach for a mystery. The courtroom drama was intense as always, although without a real defense, it was more one sided than I would have liked. I certainly recommend this film if you’re looking for a classic tale of whether the world can crush you enough to make you relinquish your beliefs or if you can find a way to persevere. It’s a good adventure with a well thought out plot. I don’t remember all that much plot hax at the moment, but I’m sure that I could think of some if I focused!

Overall 7/10

The Wrong Man Review

Posted on by
2

177
The Wrong Man is a unique film in the sense that it is a drama and a drama film. Those two sound almost the same though so it was probably just an error on the Google Search…maybe. I always like good retro films as the writing is always strong. I’d call this film a success although I did have one issue with the film that was decently sizable and kept it from being an epic 8. There’s another issue that holds it up a little in the realism angle, but it doesn’t affect the final score. Hitchcock says that this thriller is even more intense than some of his “fictional” ones and he’s probably right as the mix of court room drama and mystery made this a solid experience.

Manny is your average joe. He has a steady job and is known as a very dependable fellow around the neighborhood. Everyone knows him as a nice guy, but he is suddenly confronted by the police one day to answer for a list of crimes. He has apparently committed theft and assault several times. When asked, Manny claims innocence to all of this, but he is telling the truth or is he just trying to get off easy? Only time will tell!

This is supposedly based on a true story and I can believe it as I’m sure that cases like this have happened in the past. That being said, if we’re treating the story as if it really happened, then some scenes really stretched that line in the movie. There was one part where the cops decided to have Manny copy the letter that the criminal wrote to see if their handwriting was the same. It turns out that they were almost identical and Manny also made the same typo that the crook did. That was a little much if you asked me and at that point, I just figured that Manny had a split personality and did do the crimes. I think that this makes more sense than the alternative that the film gave us. That was the only scene that hurt its credability in terms of realism, but one scene is all that you need for something like this.

The only problem that I actually had with the film was the part where Manny’s wife went insane. It happened so suddenly as she was fighting for his innocence one day and the next, she had quickly fallen into despair. Apparently she had already been dealing with this, but the sudden breakdown was still a bit much. It was also very unnecessary to the film if you ask me. The film really would not have changed almost at all if she had stayed strong. The film would have also been more fun that way and Manny could have had someone else on his side. We do get a happy ending for her after a timeskip, but it just furthers the point that this plot was really shoehorned in.

Back to the realism part for a second. It is a little iffy how two of Manny’s witnesses just died so mysteriously. I suppose that mystery films need some red herrings, but everything was conveniently against Manny. He probably would have been doomed in court, but at least he had the character witnesses of his boss and the hotel owners. What he lacked in evidence and proof, Manny made up for with personal connections. I ended up liking his lawyer even though the guy seemed a little fishy at first. He pulled through when it counted and noticed that the jury was very bias and against Manny so he quickly called for a rematch. It was a very good choice on his part and I had barely even realized what the jury was doing. This guy certainly knew his stuff.

Manny was also a good main character. He could have handled the situation a little better I suppose, like talking to the owners of the shop a little more. It’s possible that it would have helped them realize that they had the wrong man. Manny also acted a little suspicious when his wife started to talk to the lawyer about possible witnesses and he quickly made an excuse to leave. Extra red herrings I suppose. The wife was likable before she went insane. A decent heroine, but that subplot hurt her.

I did like the cops as they tried to give Manny a fair shake the whole time, despite the fact that they had basically decided he was guilty from the start. I guess they figured that lying to his face would calm Manny down. The fact that they did call his wife was very iffy though. That just felt shady. These are the cops, not the mafia. What’s with all the secrecy? A few times, you would have thought that they weren’t on the level,but since this is based on a true story, I disregarded that notion since it would have been a little too fantastic. (In the original sense of the word, not good, but just unbelievable) “An innocent man has nothing to fear” is a line that the cops use quite a lot and it’s a memorable one. While it is only mostly true, it’s still something to keep in mind when you’re falsely accused. If you’re a modern film lead, you could even crack a bunch of jokes despite the severity of the situation.

As you would expect, the writing and the script are spot on. Even when Manny and the cops are starting to get a little heated, they use sophisticated burns to stop each other. Another suspicious character was Manny’s step brother, but he ended up being on the level so that was good for the lead. Manny certainly couldn’t afford to have any more enemies in this film. His two sons were also all right I suppose, but you could also call them filler and I’m glad that their roles weren’t any bigger.

The main draw of the film is simply the suspense as the mystery hooks you in. I thought that the film was very enjoyable and the mystery was handled well. I also really liked the court scenes and still love those. There wasn’t as much back and forth as usual since we mostly only saw it from the attacking side, but it was fun nonetheless. The film’s decently long, but doesn’t drag out. I would have liked to have scene the fake Manny a little more, but it wasn’t necessary to the plot I suppose. While the characters looked similar, I still don’t see how it fooled so many of the characters.

Overall, The Wrong Man is a good retro film. The suspense is certainly real and Manny is put through the ringer. The court case was fun and I liked all of the cop interrogation scenes. They were definitely enjoyable and the cops were portrayed as they should be. They knew their job and completed the mission without a whole lot of difficulty. It was also fun to see the old meatstore owners take out the criminal near the end. They definitely had gusto! I certainly recommend this film if you’re looking for an old fashioned mystery and a story about a man who must prove his innocence no matter the cost! There are no real negatives in this film aside from the wife’s subplot so you can just kick back and enjoy the show!

Overall 7/10

North by Northwest Review

Posted on by
Reply

Northbynorthwest1
Looks like it’s time to check out one of the classics by Hitchcock. This film plays out like a James Bond adventure in many ways, which is good and bad. The film is certainly nice and long so there is enough time to fit in quite a few plot points, but the movie ends up being one of Alfred’s weaker ones. It just can’t hold up to some of his other classics, but gives it a good effort.

Roger was just an ordinary joe for a while. He had a good job and he was satisfied with how his life was going. One day, he is kidnapped by a group who claims that he is actually Mr. Kaplan. Roger is angered by these accusations, but he drinks a beer and is nearly tricked into driving off a cliff. He regains his wits in time to survive, but how will he prove his innocence? The police are irritated by his driving while drinking trick and then Roger is framed for murder. With everyone after him, it’s going to be tough for Roger to escape. This will take all of his extreme skills.

As I mentioned, the film is a little like James Bond. One of the ways in which it is similar is how long the film is. The plot is constantly changing as the film goes on and new situations present themselves. It’s safe to say that you won’t see the ending coming from the early parts of the film because of how many transitions are present. Length can be a tricky thing, but this film handles it rather well even if I do prefer the first half of the film to the second.

See, at first, Roger is just your average joe. He is framed so he tries to clear his name after he escapes the country. We get to see him jump on trains and outrun the government. The second half has him become more of a special agent as he tries to deal with the villains. The film turned into a bit of a spy movie as we had special agents and villain organizations. Still pretty good, but a pretty big shift.

In an unfortunate similarity to James Bond, Roger begins to like one of the antagonists and they have several prolonged scenes of trying to start a romance. It goes on for quite a while and these scenes are what brings the film down. Even when Roger is trying to enact a plan or get revenge on the enemies, he takes the time to flirt and ignore the fact that Eve wants him to just leave her alone. How many times do you have to be betrayed to get the message right?

The “heroes” are also more than a little shady. I’m talking about the council who is aware of Roger’s plight. Not only do they do nothing to help the guy, but they actively try to destroy him at one point as they don’t want to risk Eve’s safety so they allow Roger to walk into a trap with one of the airplanes. (Or was it a helicopter?) It’s hard to forget that Eve was in on it so the romance should have been over and done with it. None of that “It wasn’t personal Roger” talk could get out of that one.

Roger’s mom is a pretty funny character to have around. She doesn’t take the situation seriously at all and puts Roger in many tough plights. As far as she is concerned, Roger is guilty and just making up stories to make himself look better. She had to miss a show because of Roger and I like to think that she is holding it against him for the whole movie and that’s why she’s giving him such a hard time. Missing the opera is certainly not fun.

Roger was a likable character for a while, but then he went James Bond and it was all over. The guy stopped being the epic protagonist that he used to be, but he still had his moments. The auction plan was brilliant as he did a good job in summoning the police. He started to act with more confidence in the second half of the movie as he finally began to gather his bearings and accept his role. It’s easy to root for the guy even if I don’t care for his character.

Eve is in a tough spot right from the start. She is forced to make quite a few tough decisions. It’s hard to say whether she makes the right ones or not, but then she shouldn’t have continued to mess around with Roger. There was no reason for it and endangering the mission is not cool if she was still planning to take it seriously. The main villain is fairly dull. He talks a good game…but he really doesn’t have much of a role. He’s simply the villain and there’s not a whole lot to say about him. He actually still liked Eve the whole time until he found out about the treachery as she was his girlfriend before she ever defected. He simply underestimated the power of morality and money.

As with most spy type films, there is a bunch of plot hax to be found here. Right from the start actually as Roger is held a gun point while in a very high class restaurant. The place is bustling with people and nobody notices this. Roger isn’t exactly subtle about the situation and the gunmen don’t really try to quiet him down. You’d think that the place had been deserted and the no witnesses part comes back to haunt Roger. Roger also walks right into a government establishment and allegedly take out a powerful politician. Where were the guards and how did nobody notice that Roger did not actually commit the act? These are the kinds of questions that you will have to ask yourself as you watch the film. Plot hax like this doesn’t really hurt the film, but it will make you shake your head a little.

As expected of such an old film. The writing is very good and the characters all sound respectable. Even the villain is polite in a passive aggressive way as he threatens Roger. I was surprised to see that the soundtrack was also very quick and ready to go. You don’t expect such a colorful soundtrack in such an old movie, but we had some nice tunes. That helped the film really be complete.

Overall, This is another compelling installment by Hitchcock. The main thing that holds it back is the relationship between Eve and Roger as it doesn’t make sense and is unnecessary. Once Eve sold him out to the villains, that should have been the end of that. We hardly needed more flirting after that. The film is quite long and the film uses this effectively. You’re in for a good ride in this film despite its faults. I recommend this film if you’re really into the James Bond films and you would probably like it even more than I did. However, if you’ve seen some of Hitchcock’s other thrillers like Dial M for Murder, you may find it to be a bit lacking. This film was extremely close to getting a positive rating after all, but I don’t do .5s so it had to be held back.

Overall 5/10