What was the last film you watched?

[Marley Drama]

I See You (2018)
AKA 14 Cameras

After watching I See You on Prime, I found out it's really named 14 Cameras, and is a sequel to another film named 13 Cameras. There's not really anything in the film that leaves one feeling they've missed something, though it's possible (or probable) that the back-story with the creepy guy's "son" and the woman who's been in the hole in the ground for years were part of the original film. Whatever the case, this particular outing is not a great film. And for the sake of argument, let's just call this one I See You.

A few years ago I watched a film called The Rental, which I disliked at the time. This film (made a couple of years before The Rental) has an identical premise: Airbnb-type holiday let is rigged with cameras behind fan covers, in sockets and shower heads.

Compared with that film, I See You completely lacks any kind of suspense or mystery. We know who is behind the rigging, so the "horror" comes from watching him walk through the house while the tenants are out or asleep, sniffing knickers, using toothbrushes (why does nobody in these films own an electric toothbrush? Could it be because the urban legend of people doing things with toothbrushes always involves manual ones?) and even sucking on a lipstick. If you're particularly easily grossed-out, there are a few little touches that might make you shudder. Beyond this there's very little.

Probably the darkest and most compelling this gets is following the chat for the livestream he's putting out, as viewers start requesting items of underwear before finally bidding on one of the girls. But even that all comes to a head almost immediately, losing any potential tension.

With the backstories and various characters' stories crossing over, there are quite a few strands here, and this feels like a story with potential. It's just very poorly executed, and never manages to rise above feeling like a movie of the week.​

 

[Treeviewer]

Firstly, Amazon lied about the running time. It's actually an hour and 29 minutes. And believe, me, those six extra minutes made a difference when I started watching the clock towards the end of what felt like a 2 hour plus film.

The extra six minutes is ads, I assume.

 

[Crimson]

First Batman and now Beetlejuice. I wonder what other characters Keaton might consider revisiting

MR. GRANDMOM?

Unlike Harrison Ford, who seemed to resentfully revisit his classic roles with an eye firmly on the paychecks, Michael Keaton seems to joyfully embrace his iconic parts.

 

[Marley Drama]

The extra six minutes is ads, I assume.

That would be a reasonable assumption, since many films on Prime/Freevee now have ads (the one I watched last night had three or four breaks)

But in the case of Amityville there were no advertisements. Amazon had simply listed had the wrong running time.

 

[Oh!Carol Christmasson]

since many films on Prime/Freevee now had ads (the one I watched last night had three or four breaks)

This hasn't been implemented by Dutch Prime yet, but I guess it's only a matter of time, and that will be the time I'll cancel my subscription (although the ads may not appear in rentals which is 70% of the films I watch on Prime).
It's annoying enough that it happens on youtube but at least that doesn't cost me anything.

ROPE (1948)

Yes, I tried another Hitchcock film even though at this point I suspect nothing's ever going to match is four super-films: The Birds, Notorious, Rebecca and Psycho.
I was aware of ROPE's gay undertones, and without a particular context a lot of that first dialogue could indeed suggest a secret of the forbidden love.
I feel the real "kink" starts with hosting a dinner party literally on top of their very dark secret, it's something that borders on sexual exhibitionism, the excitement of getting caught.
But this part of the story is somewhat undermined by an equally strong angle: the feeling of superiority and the right to determine the significance of the lives of other people.
It doesn't ruin the story, it's just that it doesn't always look as interesting as it could have been.

Performance-wise, my favourite is Joan Chandler as Janet who balances her act between uptight and adorably self-reflective.
The story is predictable enough, I don't think anyone actually expected them to get away with it, and this is further confirmed by the insecure behaviour displayed by one of the murderers.
Of course the biggest contrivance, the badly used MacGuffin, is David Kentley's hat. It happens somewhere in the second half of the story and this implies that the original set-up of the perfect murder had never been sustainable. It comes out of nowhere and has nothing to do with the party and the characters hovering around the body in the trunk.
Speaking of which, the macabre aspect thereof is very effective especially because it's so easy to forget about it for a while. The recurring "sudden" realisastions that they're eating food that is displayed on top of the corpse of a loved one is wickedly sick.

After the film had ended it took a me a little while to understand that the solution to the murder mystery wasn't the main goal, hat or no hat. As I said, that comeuppance seemed almost self-explanatory from the very beginning.
The real comeuppance belongs to James Stewart's character Rupert Cadell who had always explained his murder-can-be-useful theory in such a smug and quasi-intellectual way.
Of course it was obvious that it was all "talk" but that never stopped him from talking about it, and apparently that goes back to the university years of these characters.
I'm not saying that he's to blame for what happened, it's the confrontation of his fancy and ignorant theory becoming reality, and his desperate ways to distance himself from it. He thought he was so clever, but he never thought about what he was saying beyond his own feelings of superior intellect.
Therefore I still think he's the villain of the piece, similar to Maggie Smith's character in The Prime Of Miss Jean Brodie.

Hitchcock ranked (so far):
The Birds
Notorious
Rebecca
Psycho
The Man Who Knew Too Much (1956)
Rope
Suspicion
Shadow Of A Doubt
Vertigo
Strangers On A Train

(Frenzy, I don't remember enough to rank it)

 

[Popular Piggy Defying Gravity]

This hasn't been implemented by Dutch Prime yet, but I guess it's only a matter of time, and that will be the time I'll cancel my subscription (although the ads may not appear in rentals which is 70% of the films I watch on Prime).
It's annoying enough that it happens on youtube but at least that doesn't cost me anything.

ROPE (1948)

View attachment 54611

Yes, I tried another Hitchcock film even though at this point I suspect nothing's ever going to match is four super-films: The Birds, Notorious, Rebecca and Psycho.
I was aware of ROPE's gay undertones, and without a particular context a lot of that first dialogue could indeed suggest a secret of the forbidden love.
I feel the real "kink" starts with hosting a dinner party literally on top of their very dark secret, it's something that borders on sexual exhibitionism, the excitement of getting caught.
But this part of the story is somewhat undermined by an equally strong angle: the feeling of superiority and the right to determine the significance of the lives of other people.
It doesn't ruin the story, it's just that it doesn't always look as interesting as it could have been.

Performance-wise, my favourite is Joan Chandler as Janet who balances her act between uptight and adorably self-reflective.
The story is predictable enough, I don't think anyone actually expected them to get away with it, and this is further confirmed by the insecure behaviour displayed by one of the murderers.
Of course the biggest contrivance, the badly used MacGuffin, is David Kentley's hat. It happens somewhere in the second half of the story and this implies that the original set-up of the perfect murder had never been sustainable. It comes out of nowhere and has nothing to do with the party and the characters hovering around the body in the trunk.
Speaking of which, the macabre aspect thereof is very effective especially because it's so easy to forget about it for a while. The recurring "sudden" realisastions that they're eating food that is displayed on top of the corpse of a loved one is wickedly sick.

After the film had ended it took a me a little while to understand that the solution to the murder mystery wasn't the main goal, hat or no hat. As I said, that comeuppance seemed almost self-explanatory from the very beginning.
The real comeuppance belongs to James Stewart's character Rupert Cadell who had always explained his murder-can-be-useful theory in such a smug and quasi-intellectual way.
Of course it was obvious that it was all "talk" but that never stopped him from talking about it, and apparently that goes back to the university years of these characters.
I'm not saying that he's to blame for what happened, it's the confrontation of his fancy and ignorant theory becoming reality, and his desperate ways to distance himself from it. He thought he was so clever, but he never thought about what he was saying beyond his own feelings of superior intellect.
Therefore I still think he's the villain of the piece, similar to Maggie Smith's character in The Prime Of Miss Jean Brodie.

Hitchcock ranked (so far):
The Birds
Notorious
Rebecca
Psycho
The Man Who Knew Too Much (1956)
Rope
Suspicion
Shadow Of A Doubt
Vertigo
Strangers On A Train

(Frenzy, I don't remember enough to rank it)

Great ranking though I´d put "Vertigo" at the top. I also rewatched "Rope" recently, and realized the current "subject" of the movie with today´s eyes is not if they are gonna be caught, or if they indeed are gay (I always assumed they were), but how vicious and deprecating John Dall is towards his friend (and lover): it´s almost a study on domestic violence, just look what a beech that character he is, how close their bodies are shown especially if they are arguing, and how frequently Dall´s character bashes Granger´s alone and, mainly, in front of other people. Yes, both of them are sociopaths but I highly doubt Granger ever dared to kill anyone at all if wasn´t so absorbed by Dall. This POV makes it a whole different movie, especially given the details of the play it´s based on, where Stewart´s professor had an affair with Dall´s student in the past. If Ryan Murphy notices all this, he´ll turn it into another of his morbid "Monster" miniseries...

"Remember this rope? I used to tie you up with it in bed..."

And yes, both actors were undeniably gay...in real life.

​

 

[Oh!Carol Christmasson]

is not if they are gonna be caught, or if they indeed are gay (I always assumed they were), but how vicious and deprecating John Dall is towards his friend (and lover): it´s almost a study on domestic violence, just look what a beech that character he is, how close their bodies are shown especially if they are arguing, and how frequently Dall´s character bashes Granger´s alone and, mainly, in front of other people.

I'm not sure what to think of them as friends (or a couple, from a gay perspective). There's nothing leading up to the murder therefore it's difficult to interpret Phillip's condition, his opinion of the victim or Brandon's superiority theory which apparently had to be explained to him (but in reality to us) after the fact.
I think Phillip mostly serves as a character that could ruin the secret between the audience and the murderers, and Brandon is only interested in showing professor Cadell his masterpiece.
While the gay subject is in the dialogue in the first act, I feel the gay connection is between Brandon and the professor.
This may sound a little fanficy but I could interpret Phillip's insecurity as being fueled by jealousy because he instinctively knew that it was never about him.
He's the "Sue Ellen" in this story.

 

[Oh!Carol Christmasson]

A HARD DAY'S NIGHT (1964)

The Beatles: Folie à Quatre.

Is it a film or is it a Beatles film? All I know for sure that it isn't a musical.
The story shows the Beatles responding mildly anarchistic to their pop stardom, further complicated by the shenanigans of Paul McCartney's on-screen grandfather. It wasn't clear to me from the beginning that he actually was a Beatles grandfather but it seemed improbable to keep him around for a such a long time if he wasn't.
The film also creates the opportunity to look at The Beatles, and what surprised me the most is that George Harrison whom I sacrilegiously refer to as "the fourth Beatle" gets way more screen time than Paul McCartney. It's almost as if the grandfather fills in for Paul.
John Lennon is obviously the one with the most sex-appeal, and Ringo Starr seems to be the most comfortable in front of a motion picture camera (although he was awful in the 1968 cult classic "Candy").

I can only speculate about the reasons this film was made, it certainly isn't particularly flattering or salesman-like. Not that their confidence needed a boost in 1964, of course.
It's also not a film to inform us that "see? The Beatles can also act!", and it's cleverly interspersed with montages of the band members behaving most energetically.
The one thing that always puts a big smile on my face is the hysterical fans, and while The Beatles were undoubtedly loved for their youth and sound I think it also shows - from the fans' point of view - a craving for celebrity for the sake of celebrity, and a mass hysteria that basically feeds itself as long as the band is considered relevant.

The music sounds as good as ever except that the more ballad-style songs only emphasize that they didn't do the greatest pop ballad of the 20th century: Sealed With A Kiss. But then again, if you play the 45 of All My Loving at 33rpm it kinda sounds like Sealed With A Kiss.
The story climaxes with a performance of She Loves You and sounds really great, but when I think about the fact that most Beatles songs of that time were versions of "she loves you yeah yeah yeah" I wonder what kind of impact it had on the artistic aspirations the band members may have had during this Beatlesmania.
There is something slightly disheartening about watching them performing those fantastic popcorn tunes in one consecutive sitting, and from that point of view the staged anarchy seems more than justified.

The editing is tight and I found it impossible to "get" the many gags, and if I have to be painfully honest, there were a few moments when I caught myself zoning out.
The performances by the supporting cast is uniformly good, and Victor Spinetti's knitted sweater is a real scene-stealer.
I put the DVD on the shelf, it's currently sitting between Disney'sThe Sword In The Stone and Séance On A Wet Afternoon. I just love it that this chronological order makes no sense whatsoever. I call it my "decorative confusion" although a less anally retentive person might point out that my DVD collection looks painfully neatly organised.

 

[Marley Drama]

Red Lights (2012)

The first I knew of this film was seconds before I watched it. I saw Sigourney Weaver's face in the thumbnail and that was enough for me.

As hoped, she's great here. Playing the expert in her field, haunted and somewhat incapacitated by unresolved trauma and a medical condition that requires her to pop pills reminded me greatly of Helen Hudson in Copycat and, to a lesser extent, Ellen Ripley in Aliens. The "field" here is paranormal phenomena. Her character has devoted decades to debunking and exposing psychics in general and Simon Silver in particular. Cillian Murphy is aiding and abetting her quest and it turns out the catalyst for each of them was a single encounter with a psychic (different in each case) where they received information relating to a loved one that turned out to be damaging.

The cast is an interesting mix. Robert De Niro as the slimy psychic gets to go theatrically large, with lots of roaring monologues to his character's assembled fanbase. Joely Richardson is boo-hissably arch as his aide (I found myself feeling anger at her smug character belittling Sigourney's character during a televised debate). Marvel's Wanda is the student out to learn from the two protagonists. Toby Jones and Ben Roberts' supporting roles worked particularly well, and I found myself questioning their motives.

The premise feels refreshingly different and there's plenty of scope for exploration, but I'd say it ultimately tries too hard to have its cake and eat it: aiming to please both sceptics and believers alike, whilst frustrating both. It talked big in its first hour, but ended up feeling more hollow and predictable than it should have. The last act felt far too Hollywood. There are a couple of twists and turns along the way. Most can be seen ahead of time. There's a significant change to cast dynamics after the first half, which isn't for the best.

It might not have delivered as powerfully as I'd hoped, and I have no desire to watch again, but I'm still glad I watched.





​

The real comeuppance belongs to James Stewart's character Rupert Cadell who had always explained his murder-can-be-useful theory in such a smug and quasi-intellectual way.
Of course it was obvious that it was all "talk" but that never stopped him from talking about it, and apparently that goes back to the university years of these characters.

His realisation that his own theory is the basis for this murder feels like the moment towards which it all builds. Based on his looks as each piece of the puzzle falls into place for him, I don't even think there's a question of him joining the collusion or keeping the secret. When he fires the gun into the air, I read it as an admission of his own defeat and failure as much as anything else.

it´s almost a study on domestic violence, just look what a beech that character he is, how close their bodies are shown especially if they are arguing, and how frequently Dall´s character bashes Granger´s alone and, mainly, in front of other people. Yes, both of them are sociopaths but I highly doubt Granger ever dared to kill anyone at all if wasn´t so absorbed by Dall.

The whole thing feels like an extension of their closeted relationship. Now there's another forbidden secret into which Phillip has been drawn thanks to Brandon's powers of persuasion. And once it's done Brandon has even more power because Phillip feels guilt. Brandon's brand of sociopathy means he feels nothing but a temporary thrill.

Brandon is only interested in showing professor Cadell his masterpiece.

And this is the key reason why it was doomed. Brandon's ego needs people to know what they've done so he can bask in his superiority, but the perfect crime is only truly perfect if nobody finds out.



Incidentally, a big part of Rope's appeal for me is the real-time aspect, and the fact it's shot to look like one continuous take. It feels charmingly stage-like.

Yes, I tried another Hitchcock film even though at this point I suspect nothing's ever going to match is four super-films: The Birds, Notorious, Rebecca and Psycho.

Are Rear Window and North By Northwest on your Hitch list? They're both towards the top of my list of his films.

 

[Oh!Carol Christmasson]

The whole thing feels like an extension of their closeted relationship

I didn't realise that the homosexual part of their relationship is factual, rather than something that could be "interpreted as".

And once it's done Brandon has even more power because Phillip feels guilt

Yes, as long as that feeling of guilt doesn't become too consuming. After all, the only way to get rid of the burden of guilt is to confess.
I guess it's only Brandon's larger-than-life ego that prevents him from worrying about anything. Maybe the possibility of Phillip's unpredictable behaviour would add to the excitement of it all.
I believe Brandon was the first one to bring up the subject of foul play connected with David's absence, there's a lot of teasing and flaunting that contradicts the desire to commit the perfect crime.
On the other hand, that kind of bluff could also work as a smoke screen based on the idea that a true criminal would never implicate himself, let alone in such a cocky way.

And that's what I meant with clashing themes. Is it the perfect crime and the joy of getting away with it in the most dangerous way, or is it about ridding population of its inferior or unwanted beings, as per professor Cadell's theory?

Gosh, it feels like Barnabas and Julia Hoffman trying to make sense of the strange goings-on in Collinsport.

Brandon's ego needs people to know what they've done so he can bask in his superiority, but the perfect crime is only truly perfect if nobody finds out.

And it would have looked so much better if it turned out that Brandon had planted the clue of the hat, just to make sure that Cadell wouldn't let it rest.

Are Rear Window and North By Northwest on your Hitch list?

Yes, they are to be watched in the foreseeable future, but not right now. I don't find Hitchcock very binge-watchable (and I'm currently binging something else at the moment).

 

[Marley Drama]

I didn't realise that the homosexual part of their relationship is factual, rather than something that could be "interpreted as".

I believe the characters were in a gay relationship in the original play, which wouldn't have flown in 1940s American cinema due to the Hays Code, so I've leaned towards it being implicit in the material (and of course it's easy to find).

Years ago I remember watching or reading something on the making of the film where it was said how brave Jimmy Stewart was to take the role when all three characters were "it".

But yes, equally I'm sure it's possible to watch without seeing any kind of suggestion and still get something from the film.

Maybe the possibility of Phillip's unpredictable behaviour would add to the excitement of it all.

Yes, I can imagine the risk is what makes it worth doing for Brandon. I'd think he'd find it too easy otherwise.

There's also that moment where he kind of throws Phillip under the bus with that chicken-killing story. He's toying with his guests by laying it out in the open and toying with Phillip by seeing how far he can be pushed in front of said guests.

He really wanted to see how far he could take it.

And it would have looked so much better if it turned out that Brandon had planted the clue of the hat, just to make sure that Cadell wouldn't let it rest.

Oh yes. That hadn't occurred to me, but I really like it.

Yes, they are to be watched in the foreseeable future,

Great! That's something to look forward to.

 

[Treeviewer]

This hasn't been implemented by Dutch Prime yet, but I guess it's only a matter of time, and that will be the time I'll cancel my subscription (although the ads may not appear in rentals which is 70% of the films I watch on Prime).
It's annoying enough that it happens on youtube but at least that doesn't cost me anything.

Having grown up watching commercial television I don't object to advertising as such, but it is irksome to have it suddenly introduced on a service I'm also paying to watch.

The story shows the Beatles responding mildly anarchistic to their pop stardom, further complicated by the shenanigans of Paul McCartney's on-screen grandfather. It wasn't clear to me from the beginning that he actually was a Beatles grandfather but it seemed improbable to keep him around for a such a long time if he wasn't.

I'm not sure what you meant by this. Storywise, he is Paul's grandfather, but actor Wilfred Brambell is not related to him in real life.

 

[Crimson]

ALIEN: ROMULUS (2024)

ALIEN (1979) and ALIENS (1986) rank very high among my favorite films, but otherwise I have little use for the rest of the franchise; I think the other ALIEN / PROMETHEUS films range from forgettable to terrible. ROMULUS started out pretty solid, seemingly trying to combine the techniques of the first two films. This could have been an enjoyable if derivative movie, but the last third is a boring mess. Elements of all of the other movies were incorporated, leaving the film feeling less like a cohesive narrative than a patchwork of scenes lifted from other movies.

 

[Oh!Carol Christmasson]

I'm not sure what you meant by this. Storywise, he is Paul's grandfather, but actor Wilfred Brambell is not related to him in real life.

I think it's about the way this character was introduced. He didn't say anything so I figured he was just an ordinary passenger and the boys were behaving mischievously.
Furthermore, the way they deliver their lines (throughout the entire film) is rather deadpan, perhaps intentionally to counterbalance the frenzy of the adventure itself, which makes it difficult to understand if Paul is joking or not.
I didn't know anything about the story, I didn't know there was going to be a grandfather character.

But considering what kind of film it is I don't think it matters if he's Paul's grandfather or just a character who gets mixed up in everything.

 

[Oh!Carol Christmasson]

NORTH BY NORTHWEST (22-10-2024)

Hey guys, has anyone seen the latest film starring Cary Grant? It's very exciting and it looks so very real!

From what I've seen so far, this looks like Hitchcock's most blockbuster-ish offering: a pre-James Bond without colourful villains, or any colourful characters for that matter.
Well, except for Cary Grant's Hollywood tan which I found quite distracting at times. It looks so much better in black & white.
Not every film needs breakout characters, and this story is all about the plot, but it's more fun and more discussable to have an opinion on characters and actors.

I love mistaken identities (in this case a mistaken non-identity) but after the first hour I could no longer remember what "George Kaplan" meant to villain Vandamm.
They had mentioned an undercover agent but somehow I could not predict it would be Eva Marie Saint.
Their supposed "bon voyage" scene in the forest looks very lovely and romantic, but that's what bon voyage scenes are for, I guess.

The film makes terrific use of its locations, indoors and outdoors, and I think Mount Rushmore is one of those locations that can only be used once in this kind of setting, or perhaps in any film ever made or to-be-made.
For a film that runs over two hours I find the ending bizarrely abrupt, it's almost as if they literally ran out of celluloid (I didn't check if all the credits were properly included).
All in all, a very entertaining and handsomely made film. The colours and artificiality in some scenes (the airport, for instance) made me think of LEGO, or something else that looks fascinatingly scaled down, or is it scaled up?

Hitchcock re-ranked:
The Birds
Notorious
Rebecca
Psycho
The Man Who Knew Too Much (1956)
Rope
North By Northwest
Suspicion
Shadow Of A Doubt
Vertigo
Strangers On A Train (I hate hate HATE it!)

+ Witness For The Prosecution as the best Hitchcock film Hitchcock didn't make.

 

[Oh!Carol Christmasson]

OH DEAR WINDOW! (1954)

It looks well-made, technically speaking, but everything else is surprisingly underwhelming.
The novelty of watching an actor watching other actors doesn't justify the film's generous running-time, but the main problem is the complete lack of suspense.
Why should I care about an unknown character killing another unknown character? They sure tried to ramp it up with many references to the victim's bodyparts but it still didn't work for me.
The other part of the story, which may have been the most important one, is the effect it has on the main characters.
Initially, Grace Kelly's character looks like the antagonist, the person who comes between the viewer and James Stewart doing his Hitchcock thing.
Little did I know that the story would take a nosedive once she got on board with the intrigue about the alleged murder.
Not because of Grace Kelly or the way she acts, but it robs the story of self-criticism. Because let's be honest, spying on other people is a very nasty business.
James Stewart does mention something about it towards the end of the film, but it's all quickly glossed over to make way for the crime part of the story, and it all ends in a typical Hollywood fashion as we see the "villain" attack James Stewart.
To add insult to injury, there isn't even a plot twist.

There's no chemistry between Stewart and Kelly at all, but at least Thelma Ritter provides some pleasant small talk.
The story of Miss Lonelyheart is far more interesting than the murder, and Miss Torso puts the "rear" in REAR WINDOW.
It's not a stupid film, I don't hate it, but it's been such a waste of time.

Hitchcock re-re-ranked:
The Birds
Notorious
Rebecca
Psycho
North By Northwest
The Man Who Knew Too Much (1956)
Rope
Suspicion
Shadow Of A Doubt
Vertigo
Rear Window
Strangers On A Train

(I swapped "Rope" and "North" because I remembered that Cary Grant did a topless/towel only scene, and then I also swapped "North" and "The Man" because no one sang Que Sera Sera in North By Northwest).

 

[bchristmastree9]

The Hallmark Movies & Mysteries original picture Nikki & Nora: Sister Sleuths, w/Hunter King and Rhiannon Fish as the titular sister detectives

 

[Marley Drama]

El Diario (2024)

The biggest problem I had with this film was that Prime seemed hellbent on showing me a bastardised version with ghastly, sacriligeous American dubbing. It took me a bit of playing round before I was able to find the original Spanish language with English subtitles (which was actually fairly straightforward, but I've never used their subtitles or changed audio on there before).

Distraction over, I was able to get into the plot of the film. With this being a 2024, made-for-streaming film, expectations were fairly low, I'd say. But it was only around and hour and twenty, I thought, so it was worth a chance. And it was.

If there are constraints by token of the fact that this is essentially a TV movie, they're utilised extremely well. There are a few iffy effects moments, but this is not a film that's about the effects.The small cast gives an intimacy that matches the story.

And what is the story? Well it felt fresh and original and not something I've seen before. Some might describe it as a ghost story but it's so much more. I felt there were elements of What Lies Beneath; The Others; even The Omen. But at its beating heart is also a soap operatic layer that's about family and relationships, and this is what keeps it really compelling. Beyond that, it's difficult to sum up, and best that I don't anyway, since this is a film which is best experienced organically without any foreknowledge.

The performances are all great - especially Irene Azuela in the central role - and the cinematography is gorgeous. It's sumptuous and filled with rich autumnal colours that pop from the screen. These are combined with moody shadowy haze. It's worth watching for this alone. But watch it the way it's meant to be watched... in its original language without tacky dubbing.​

 

[bchristmastree9]

Distraction over, I was able to get into the plot of the film. With this being a 2024, made-for-streaming film, expectations were fairly low, I'd say. But it was only around and hour and twenty, I thought, so it was worth a chance. And it was.​

The same way I felt about that Nikki & Nora film w/Hunter King and Rhiannon Fish-- I had seen it originally on Hallmark Movies & Mysteries w/commercials where it was in a 2-hr. slot (it was a good movie on first viewing), but now in seeing it on DVD, where it's only 84 min. (w/o ads), it's even better.

Sure, the disc may be an absolutely barebones edition (just the picture, and English subtitles), but I'm happy to have it that way and not have to deal with the commercials.

 

[Jock Ewing Fan]

"The Hitchhiker" (1953)

William Talman, better known for his role as Hamilton Berger in "Perry Mason"\

gives a superb performance as the villainous hitchhiker

From Wikipedia:

"The Hitch-Hiker is a 1953 American independent[2] film noir thriller co-written and directed by Ida Lupino, and starring Edmond O'Brien, William Talman and Frank Lovejoy. Based on the 1950 killing spree of Billy Cook, the film follows two friends who are taken hostage by a murderous hitchhiker during an automobile trip to Mexico.[3]

The Hitch-Hiker was the first American mainstream film noir directed by a woman. It was selected in 1998 for preservation in the United States National Film Registry as being "culturally, historically or aesthetically significant."[4][5][6] "

The Hitch-Hiker - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org