Quote:
|
Originally Posted by merylsilverburg
Hehe, I actually don't like James Stewart too much...he seems, to me, the typical "all-American patriot" sort of guy (he displays this perfectly in the beginning of The Man Who Knew Too Much; but it's not just because of this film which is why I have this judgement of him, I always felt this about him). I suppose this is why Hitchcock liked to cast him because of his "average Joe" appeal...not saying this is bad, just to clarify.
|
That's the best part. He's so average that whenever something really goes bad and he somehow loses his temper, you can really find it believable. Just think of the western genre. Take John Wayne. He's the classic western hero. He never loses, he merely has a slightly "uncombed" look when he's in great danger. He never really risks anything. You can't feel sympathy for a superhero like that. Other western heroes are too gloomy or unpleasant, while a western movie, well, I think it has to keep you entertained too, or it becomes too much "historical" stuff and that becomes another story. Well, Mr. Stewart on the other hand is so average and mistreated, he gets punched, kicked and robbed all the times, and when he does he really looks miserable, so you can only think "Whoa!" when he gets mad and starts taking revenge. Take that movie... what was the title... oh yes, I think it was
Bend of the river. At some point he really loses it and you know when he loses it is not like when John Wayne loses it. It really means he's awfully mad and it's because something really wrong has happened. John Wayne can always take his revenge barely moving a finger. Fighting John Wayne is like fighting a colossus. There's no pathos in John Wayne
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by merylsilverburg
I must see more of Hitchcock's films...next on my list is Dial M for Murder, Rope, and North by Northwest - though I can't stand Cary Grant. 
|
Rope is good, but depends if you want "action" or not. Nothing really happens in that movie. It's all psychological struggle. More than in any other Hitchcock movie, I think. In fact, all the "action" happens before the movie starts, and the filming itself is one long sequence almost without interruptions, all filmed in the same small setting - an apartment - with very few characters.
I'm not very fond of Cary Grant myself. He's too much on the cool side without being at the same time on the dark side like other actors like Mitchum, for example. I find him very uninteresting and clumsy in his coolness. But some of his movies are ok.
Ratatouille was nice, especially considering the standards of more recent cartoons. But I don't get why animals have to be so silly to be noticed: they have to dance or sing orinvent things or cook to be interesting. Just for once couldn't they be simply... animals? I surely find hard to think of a dancing penguin or rat handling a colander as a cute creature