Classics: Laura

“Laura” is an irresistible whodunit with a seductive style that heats up with every scene.

When a young woman is murdered, Det. Lt. Mark McPherson is called in to solve the crime. Dana Andrews plays McPherson. He’s slick and cool and knows how to play his suspects. But the hitch in his game is falling in love.

This isn’t just any murder victim—it’s her… Laura.

McPherson is haunted by the large picture of her that hangs in the living room. His life is set to pause as he practically lives at her apartment, looking through her personal affects—Laura’s pictures, diaries and letters written by her suiters. All this is necessary to solve the case but an obsession forms and it seems he can’t pull himself away.

Now, every mystery needs its cast of suspects. And this casts is highly entertaining…

There’s Waldo (Clifton Webb), the narcissistic writer who’s as wealthy as he is influential. He’s an older man obsessed with Laura. But it seems everyone is obsessed with her. Waldo snubs his nose at those beneath him, which means he does a lot of snubbing because he has the highest regard of himself.

Shelby (Vincent Price) is the unemployed boy toy who loves Laura while involved with another suspect Ann (Judith Anderson). He’s weak minded and needs to be kept to survive.

Ann is a rich woman who has no problem financially keeping her man. And she has her eyes set on Shelby.

There are twists and turns in this mystery, keeping you guessing at every turn. McPherson has a knack for keeping his suspects off balance with a provocative way of making them defensive while relaxing and keeping a sly coolness about him.

The tone has a sexy noir feeling. With enough rain to give that classic film aura usually found in this genre. Flashbacks are perfectly woven in to see how Laura fits into their lives. She’s a beautiful woman with a tremendous heart and a toughness that makes her difficult to tame, which is also part of her allure.

I’ve watched this film several times and I never tire of it. I wish it was longer because I can’t get enough of these characters and this world. The film centers on McPherson so we don’t see as much of the lives of the suspects except for how they connect with Laura. But that’s to be expected in a whodunit. It has a satisfying ending that makes sense and doesn’t feel forced. And the acting and character interactions are on point.


Score: 9.25/10

Classics REVIEW: Touch of Evil

“Touch of Evil” is worth the viewing if for no other reason than the opening sequence. It begins with a long one-shot scene that serves to fill the audience with dramatic tension as the camera travels along a street.

Orson Welles shows why he is known as one of the greatest directors to ever film. His varying of camera angles and use of bizarre close-ups help to create mood and dread. Though as with the sign of those times, some of the moments can be a little hokey or overacted with exaggerated expressions. But that’s to be expected.

The story is set on the Mexican-American border where a murder forces both sides to work together. It plays as more than a murder mystery with the issue of morality injected into the story where corruptness comes at the main character from different places.

Charlton Heston stars as Mike Vargas, a Mexican lawman. I admit, it’s a bit odd seeing him play a Mexican and I’m not a fan of whitewashing, but I can give this 1958 movie a pass. Though I had to keep reminding myself who he was playing, particularly during the scenes where he interacted with Mexicans. He’s a newly married man, who is asked to solve this crime. Though he’d rather spend time with his wife.

Orson Wells plays the American Police Captain, Hank Quinlan—a hardened man who may have been idealistic at one time; but there is no sign of that man in this film. However, there is a slight crack that shows he may have cared for someone once. He’s a recovering alcoholic who believes in doing whatever is necessary to get his man. And as the choices he has to make get difficult, he finds himself one step closer to the bottle.

The plot of “Touch of Evil” weaves in various characters and their motivations that, on the onset, don’t seem to connect until midway through the movie when both Quinlan and Vargas question a suspect.

There are seedy elements that come into play that try to influence the outcome of the investigation.

This Film Noir carries the mystery till the end, folding in some twists that alter the path of where you think the story is going to go. There are some very tense moments throughout, especially with Janet Leigh’s character, who plays Susan Vargas—the wife of Charlton Heston’s character.

Criminals use Susan as a tool to get to Mike Vargas. And this is where I think some elements veered off into…


The land of implausibility…


These moments are brief. But what makes them stand out is that they are essential to the plot or at least how Mike Vargas is affected.

Susan Vargas’ character is sort of stalked or harassed by a subplot. And there are moments that make me shake my head and ask:

• Why would she go off with them all alone?
• Why would her husband leave her in some isolated place?
• Why is this place kept by someone who doesn’t seem to know what the heck is going on?
• Also, when Mike Vargas goes to the hotel, he seems more upset about a missing gun than a missing… well… 

All in all, if you’re looking for a Film Noir, “Touch of Evil” offers both the tension and multi-layered story that has you wondering what will happen next. It’s unpredictable and very well acted.

Ending Questions

This movie leaves two questions:

1) Did they catch the killer? It would seem the answer is YES. It was mentioned that he confessed. Though I do wonder because Quinlan wanted the suspect to be pressed hard, to be broken because the suspect wouldn’t confess (at first). Just how hard was he pressed?

Considering this is a Film Noir, I think it fits better for the answer to be YES because it makes it all the more tragic at the end. They had the right guy all along, and so all that occurred after the scene with the explosives in the box didn’t need to happen.

That’s how I like my Film Noirs!

2) Was she raped? My guess is NO. But I think she was supposed to be assaulted in the original script. There were supposedly re-shoots. Add that to the fact that one of the characters wanted to “watch”. Surely she wasn’t there to “watch” nothing.

I think the studio changed its mind and so we have the conversation between characters that say she was just drugged to make her believe something bad happened. I think this was added later when the studio had changes made. I also think she was originally going to be drugged with something other than sodium pentothal.

Times were different back then. The fact they they had a lesbian was probably a bit much for them, let alone all the other things.


 Score: 9/10

Classics REVIEW: What Ever Happened To Baby Jane?

Tremendous acting from two mega stars create an intense story of culpability and self-imposed misery instigated by jealousy and plagued with guilt. The film showcases the unsettling relationship between two sisters who are bound together through a history of sibling rivalry boiling over into emotional abuse.

Bette Davis plays Baby Jane, a has-been child star whose only positive memories reside in the dreams from that young girl she once was—while her adult life is burdened with the everyday chores of caring for a sister she resents.

Joan Crawford’s Blanche is confined to a wheel chair, held prisoner by a mentally ill sister and the stair case that looms below her second floor bedroom. Unlike Baby Jane, Blanche wasn’t a talented child; however, as an adult she came into her own and evolved into a talented actress with an incredible future ahead of her, until the car accident where the cops found her on the ground and a drunken Baby Jane missing from the scene.

Blanche watches her old movies and remembers those glory days while Baby Jane trashes those movies because she, the child star, was supposed to be famous. It should have been her, not Blanche. And so the two sisters are locked in a struggle where Baby Jane controls everything and torments her sister on a daily basis.



The contrast between the two actresses is electric. Joan Crawford is under the current. She performs with a controlled calmness. And in fear of her own life, she can’t help but crack and even crumble under the strain as she tries to tame her sister’s insanity. As opposed to Bette Davis, who’s portrayal of Baby Jane is like a storm brewing on its best days—and on its worse, a hurricane thrashing against the current.

Rumor has it that the two stars didn’t get along in real life and maybe that added to the brilliance displayed on screen.

The film delves into the psyche of Baby Jane that showed a descent into madness that was unnerving to watch. The focusing of the camera on things like the stair case, the phone and the mirror helped build the tension and, in some, cases create a creepiness that had you on the edge of your seat. And there were moments of shock and horror as the film progressed albeit with a couple of exaggerated incidences.

“What Ever Happened To Baby Jane” is a psychological horror that makes bold choices to demonstrate the extremes of an destructive rivalry between two sisters.


Score: 9.25/10

REVIEW: Batman v Superman - Dawn of Justice

There’s a lot to discuss with this movie and I suspect people will be talking about it for years to come. I’m sticking to a spoiler-free review so I’ll probably do separate posts with more details and spoilers. But for now, I’ll avoid spoilers.

This movie didn’t work for the critics and was divisive all around. It’s not a perfect movie. But despite its flaws, I loved this film having seen it three times.

This is not your ordinary comic book movie. For me, “Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice” is an emotional sci-fi drama that dares to explore the psychology of two of the most iconic superheros as it answers two intriguing questions:

How would you feel knowing there’s a powerful alien with the ability to destroy the world living alongside you?

How would you feel if you’re a powerful alien who wants to feel like you belong in the only world you've ever known while using your powers for good, but you’re met with fear, skepticism and god-like adoration?

Batman/Bruce

In a beautiful visual display, the film reenacts the destruction from “Man Of Steel” but from the perspective of Bruce Wayne. This sets in motion his anxieties. Batman has always been a paranoid superhero, who’s always prepared for the worse. And as the film proceeds we can clearly see his emotional descent that pushes him to want to terminate Superman.

On a side note: Can we please have a “Justice League: Tower of Babel”.

Superman/Clark

The object of Batman’s hate, Superman tries to navigate through a world in which everyone has an opinion of him. Unlike previous movies, this Superman’s actions have consequences. There’s a political element inserted into this film where people question whether Superman should get involved in world affairs. His Clark persona is idealistic and has issues with Batman’s brutality. This incarnation of Superman/Clark is compelling and relateable as he is set in the real world where he is viewed by many as a God.

Lex

Pulling the strings is Superman’s arch nemesis, Lex Luthor. And this version of Lex isn’t looking for beach front property. His hate stems from philosophical and religious feelings that date back to his past experience.  He has a high intelligence and a thirst for knowledge and power but ultimately Superman’s existence has exposed Lex’ own inadequacies which has him questioning just how much power he truly has.

The acting is top notch from every character. Ben Affleck has brought the dark knight to life—an older, more brutal Batman. Henry Cavill IS Superman. Jesse Eisenberg, the more controversial choice, really worked for me. You can see the crazed anger seething underneath the surface. There’s this scene on the helipad between Lex and Superman that is so brilliantly acted by both and the dialogue is fantastic.

As much as I enjoyed the film, there is room for improvement. The editing could have been better in some places. And as far as the structure, it would have benefited from a traditional stream lined method of story telling instead of the connect-the-dot method, particularly regarding Lex Luthor and the reveals surrounding his characters (as I tip toe around spoilers). 

The film was aesthetically beautiful, like pages from a comic book brought to life before my eyes. Superman was a sympathetic figure, given a lot of depth. While, the internal struggle of Batman as he is brought up from the depths of mistrust to one of hope because of Superman is wonderful to watch unfold. Superman ultimately saves Batman’s soul and I’m interested in seeing their relationship deepen in future films.

And I look forward to the 3 hour version blu-ray.


  Score: 9/10 stars

REVIEW: The Lobster

Asks the question

what animal do you want to be in your next life? 

“The Lobster” is a social sci-fi film with a unique perspective on the familiar themes on relationships and finding a mate. Romance in movies is so common, that it’s not confined to just romantic films. It’s intertwined with all other genres. And yet, “The Lobster” adds a complexity to the subject matter—the likes of which are both bold and refreshing.

Colin Farrell leads a very talented cast. He plays the role of David, a recently widowed man who checks into a hotel designed to serve as a dating center where single people hook up. But it’s not your ordinary type of hook up. It’s a mandate.

Rules of the society

Every one must be married. No single people allowed. But there are even rules to your choice, but I won’t go into that.

Bottom line… you have a given amount of time to stay in the hotel to find your mate.

What happens if you don’t find a mate?

You’re turned into an animal. David’s choice if he doesn’t find a mate in the allotted time?… you guessed it, a lobster. Strange choice.

Whereas, dogs (like this one below that is staying with David) are a very popular choice. At least we now know why there are so many dogs  in the world. It’s all starting to make sense.

The tone is a bit quirky. There’s a dead-pan flavor that runs throughout. The film is listed as a comedy, but I didn’t see it as such. There some amusing parts, but it plays as a drama with very dark humor sprinkled throughout.

The expanse of this world

I appreciated that “The Lobster” didn’t confine itself to just the hotel. David branches outside to the woods where he comes in contact with people who live in the wild.

Here we explore the lives of the loners, who exist to buck the system. As with life, there is more than one point of view. The loners represent those who refuse to follow the rules the society has laid down.  

And so ultimately,  “The Lobster” is a look at conformity and rebellion--the personal sacrifices one has to make in order to comply and the consequences of defiance.

This quote from the movie really stuck out at me:

“It is more difficult to pretend that you do have feelings when you don’t, then to pretend you don’t have feelings when you do.”

The tension builds during the second half of the film with the addition of these loners. And we learn that the thing about rules is that it’s not just restricted to the conformist.

 “The Lobster” was a well written story that takes finding a match and turning it on its head.  It’s a love story that is as heartfelt and as it is wicked… as beautiful as it is cruel.


Score: 9.75/10

The Revenant Is A Beautiful Piece of Filmmaking

The Revenant exemplifies the fortitude of the human spirit set against a harsh environment that pushes back; while humanity, at its worse and best, clash like the hoofs of a horse against the frigid snow.  

Leonardo DiCaprio leads the cast in a tremendous performance that won him his first Oscar. Tom Hardy was also brilliant in his role.

The Revenant is sweeping dramatic western that takes us on an emotional and stressful journey, visually aided by incredible directing. It’s gritty and doesn’t hold back.

Every shot is stunning garnering Oscars for directing and cinematography, as well. The camera work as it follows the characters and the action puts us right in the middle of the action. There’s this one scene where the camera travels down the flow of the river, giving the audience a front row seat to the hecticness of the waters as if we too were riding the waves.

I can understand why the actors and crew felt challenged during the shoot. The environment was harsh and most of their time was spent in the outdoor during wintery conditions.

Set during the 1800s, The Revenant is based on the true story of Hugh Glass with John Fitzgerald as his foe.

From the start, there is conflict between Glass and Fitzgerald. There’s a racial element that has Fitzgerald not trusting Glass. Fitzgerald could have used more character development; but with the screen time he was given, the film did a good job of setting up his past in a way that explains his mistrust.

With fur on their backs, Fitzgerald, Glass and the others are hunted by a team of French traders & Indians and are forced to flee on foot.

This exchange, in particular, tells us a lot about what matters to Fitzgerald. The Captain ordered everyone to leave their goods behind to prepare for any battle that may await them, but Fitzgerald isn’t too pleased.

“You rather hold onto the pelts or your life?” - Captain Henry

“Life? What life are you talking about?! I ain't got no life! I just got a living and the only way I get to do that is through these pelts!” - John Fitzgerald

A series of events happen and Glass is left for dead and the only thing that keeps him from dying is his thirst for revenge. And so a large chunk of the film is Glass surviving his injuries, enduring the harsh elements and evading bad guys, with memories of his loved ones to keep him company.

A very good film with a satisfying ending.

Score: 9/10