Change Your Image
turboshark
Reviews
Une ravissante idiote (1964)
Great chemistry between Bardot and Perkins.
I bought Une Ravissante Idiote to get a chance to see Anthony Perkins speak French - while his accent sounds fairly Anglo-American, it's not too noticeable. Perkins is Harry Compton, a spy set out on a mission to steal some confidential papers from Sir Reginald Dumfrey. Harry's in love with Penelope Lightfeather, whom is coincidentally the seamstress for Dumfrey's wife. Penelope is the inspiration for the title The Ravishing Idiot, as she is not exactly bright. At all.
Brigitte Bardot does a good job as Penelope, as she perfectly captures her aloofness and naiveté. However, she has this terribly strange laugh. That aside it's plain to see why Harry Compton is simply head over heels for Penelope, she's gorgeous and sweet - despite her lack of intelligence. He thinks to himself "She is an idiot, but you love her. You always wanted an English family. She is not English..."
The humor in this film is odd, and just plain silly. But Anthony Perkins is absolutely delightful and charismatic, and the situations in this film are interesting. A nice film to see if you are fans of Bardot and Perkins who work well together (albeit not getting along off-screen), but otherwise I'm reluctant to recommend it to the latter.
The Audrey Hepburn Story (2000)
Horrifying!
I heard of how horrible this made for TV movie was - but of course I was curious. I borrowed it from my local library... and I did not expect it to be THIS bad! I'm a die hard Audrey fan, and even I became bored during most of this film. Audrey Hepburn's life boring? Not at all - but they managed to make it seem so. I was becoming agitated with the way this was edited as well. The story kept switching from during the production of Breakfast At Tiffany's to her early life.
Jennifer Love Hewitt was miscast, as her performance as Audrey was insufficient. Audrey's persona is impossible to portray in the first place - but JLH? They could have chosen someone more appropriate for the role. I felt embarrassed for her, seeing her attempting an English accent and failing to capture even an ounce Audrey's spirit or charm. Her rendition of Moon River is okay, but calls for a dub - due to the style of her singing - it lost all fragility. As the movie progressed, I became more annoyed with her and irritable - exactly the opposite of how Audrey makes me feel. And I am clueless on why they chose Eric McCormack to be Mel Ferrer. Frances Fisher actually does resemble Ella Hepburn (Audrey's mother) a bit, and Jennifer Love Hewitt's profile looks similar to Audrey's, but that's all.
They make too big of a deal with her relationship with Truman Capote. Yes, it is true that he had Marilyn Monroe in mind for the role of Holly Golightly, but he sent Audrey a letter upon hearing about her being cast - and expressed how pleased he was.
Avoid this if you're wanting to know more about Audrey. You're better off reading her biographies (Barry Paris's is a fan favorite) and watching her films. This 'tribute' is appalling, for it makes Audrey seem like a tease and a ditz. It especially angered me how they focused so intently on how Audrey wanted to have children, manipulating it a bit to make it seem like she was heartless about the feelings of the others. The ending is also very unsatisfactory.
Psycho (1998)
Why remake Psycho? Here's why.
"Why?" is the first thought that comes to mind. Gus Van Sant has answered with saying that he wishes to expose one of his favorite films to modern viewers. "It was like staging a contemporary production of a classic play while remaining true to the original." I think that is where the problem comes in. Every scene was re-done exactly, movement by movement, shot by shot. The only real differences were the color and the cast.
First of all - the color. It was interesting to see it, but as you watch the film you realize why Hitchcock chose for it to be in black and white. It takes away from the dark atmosphere and is cheapened.
Almost everyone in the film was irrevocably miscast. Vince Vaughn as Norman Bates? William H. Macy as Arbogast? It was painful to see Vaughn attempt the exceptional performance of Anthony Perkins. He tries, but fails miserably to capture Norman's psyche. Most notably at conclusion - all the great quality is lost. Anne Heche is disappointing, she gains no sympathy from the audience as Marion Crane, which made the shower scene in the original so horrifying.
The only upside to this film is the score. Danny Elfman does a wonderful job updating Bernard Herrmann's wonderful music. It's fresh and clear.
*** This comment may contain spoilers ***
Van Sant also went through with Hitchcock's visions that he was unable to do because of censorship or technical difficulties. For example, the opening panning shot of the buildings in Phoenix. When the camera goes into the window were Marion and Sam are, it went straight through, which was Hitchcock's original intention. During the shower scene, Marion's bottom is in view when she falls over the tub. It was deleted due to censorship, but Hitchcock felt it was unnecessary anyway.
*** End of spoilers ***
It is not that they decided to re-make a classic that bothers me, but how they did it. Pat Hitchcock (Hitch's daughter) said that her father would have been humbled by someone wanting to re-do his film, and naturally. However, it would have been more intriguing to see this film actually updated to modern times - not re-done exactly which a few changes. The way I look at Psycho (98) is that it is best example to show how not to re-make a film. Re-makes should become the director's own, not specifically shot exactly like the original's. I got a chuckle out of Lila Crane saying "Let me get my Walkman first." You can't watch this without remembering how Hitchcock's was perfection. Even people who know nothing of it's inspiration will be uninterested with this.
Spider-Man 3 (2007)
Pure fun! But doesn't live up to the expectations...
Like many other Spider-Man fans, I had been anticipating the release of the film that would contain my favorite villain, Venom. Before it's worldwide release, the IMDb rating was over 8! I was looking forward to being very pleased with this third installment.
However, I came out of the theatre somewhat disappointed. Don't get me wrong - it is a great movie, immensely entertaining, packed with awesome special effects and ridiculously funny. So funny in fact, that even some of the scenes that were supposed to be sentimental or serious ended up with laughs. I'm sure I am not the only one who thinks that Tobey Maguire doesn't have the best 'crying' face, as the audience busted out laughing every time he did. Poor Tobey. He should have been directed more gracefully during those times.
Another reason I was so excited for SM3 was the introduction of Gwen Stacy, who was Peter's girlfriend in the comic books. Plus she was being portrayed by the absolutely talented Bryce Dallas Howard! I wish she had a larger role in this, but perhaps they saved that for the fourth film? There are too many stories meshed into this film. The murder of Peter's Uncle explained, Sandman, Eddie Brock and Venom, Peter and Mary Jane's relationship on the rocks - all in all not as good character development than the second film, which I still consider to be the best as a whole. Some say you must read the comic book to appreciate how perfectly it was adapted, but films and graphic novels are entirely different mediums. I do think Raimi did this the best it could be done.
OVERALL - I thoroughly enjoyed this film, and I think to come in not expecting anything would have been a better experience for me. Worth seeing in the theatre, especially hearing all the comments the audience makes - Peter's hair when he wears the symbiote, the dancing, Harry back to normal - you know what I'm talking about. I'll be looking forward to the DVD release. 7/10.
Psycho III (1986)
"Norman Bates directs Norman Bates,"
*** This comment may contain spoilers ***
...read the introduction of Psycho III on TV. I was excited to watch Anthony Perkins's directorial debut, but I must say that this film had so much more potential to be better than it was.
Psycho III in several ways, is better than Psycho II. It reveals much more about Norman as a person, not just a crazy old man with a mental illness. Anthony Perkins once told David Letterman of the Psycho franchise that "They're not really horror movies. They're tragedies." I really felt sympathy for Norman in this sequel above all the others. There is not a better word to describe everything about Norman than tragic.
Psycho III contains a lot of 'familar' scenes. The bell tower scene at the beginning inspired from Vertigo, when Norman's 'girlfriend' Maureen fell down the stairs of the home, done exactly the same way Detective Arbogast fell in the original film; 'floaty' like. After Norman 'saved' Maureen from her attempt at suicide, they have a quick heart-to-heart, in which Norman says "We all go a little mad sometimes," a famous quote from the original. Clearly Perkins wanted to pay homage to the Master of Suspense.
On to his performance - wonderful as always, but I can't help noticing that a lot of the Bates trademark movements and facial expressions were brought back in this sequel, some unnecessarily so. Sometimes it seemed as if Norman was parodying himself. Jeff Fahey as Duke, a musician with a cocky surfer boy personality was an interesting contrast.
Overall, I think Perkins should be given more credit. Sure, it isn't perfect - but I think it has a lot more heart. I think if certain scenes were removed, it would have been a lot better, particularly the end of the film where he brings back the infamous grinning 'stare.' It counteracts with what Norman overcame only a scene ago. But Psycho III doesn't deserve such a low rating. It's definitely worth a look - but don't expect a masterpiece. 6/10.