Movie Review: The Ring (silent)
Year of Release: 1927
Country of Origin: UK
Director: Alfred Hitchcock
Cast: Carl Brisson, Lillian Hall-Davis, Ian Hunter
Plot outline: Two boxers compete for the love of a woman (IMDb).
An assortment of Hitchcock's greatest early movies are featured in a three-disc collection. The Ring is a traditional prizefighting melodrama, 
elevated by the richness of the characterizations and the stylish, Germanic use of the camera. But, the movie has its faults, but they are not faults of showmanship. The story is of the competition of two professional boxers, one her husband - Carl Brisson plays "Round One", a cocky young boxer who matriculates from sideshow bouts to the big time - and the other her nearly successful suitor, for one woman. Round One's marriage to Lillian Hall-Davis goes sour when she throws him over for the champ. An old and rather a thin story, but well told and well acted by Carl Brisson, Lillian Hall Davis and Ian Hunter. There is, too, an appearance in a minor part of Gordon Harker, which proves him to have a sense of humor and character and an extraordinarily flexible and expressive face which should some day make his reputation on the screen. Mr. Hitchcock's method of treating his subject may be roughly described by saying that it has something in common with both German and American technique. It has a German variety of photographic angle and a German love of suggesting emotion very skilfully by means of circumstantial detail, and it has sometimes an American smoothness and swiftness. During the climactic big fight, Hall-Davis realizes that she's still in love with Round One when she witnesses the brutal beating he's getting. As in Hitchcock's later suspense movies, sparks ignite between hero and heroine only when there's an element of danger involved. There are scenes of irrelevant farce which should have been omitted, but the big scenes are well contrived and in spite of its rather commonplace subject, the movie has distinction. (NYT)
My judgement: **1/2 out of 4 stars
Movie Review: The Lodger (silent)
Year of Release: 1927
Country of Origin: UK
Director: Alfred Hitchcock
Cast: Marie Ault, Arthur Chesney, June, Malcolm Keen, Ivor Novello
Plot outline: A landlady suspects her new lodger is the madman killing women in London (IMDb).
An assortment of Hitchcock's greatest early movies are featured in a three-disc collection. 
The Lodger, while it was not his first movie, was the first to truly deserve the designation "A Hitchcock Movie". A serial killer known as "The Avenger" (in reference to "Jack the Ripper" - the serial killings taken place in the autumn of 1888 in the largely impoverished Whitechapel area and adjacent districts of London) is on the loose in London, murdering blonde women. A mysterious man - British matinee idol Ivor Novello plays Jonathan Drew, a quiet, secretive young man - arrives at the house of Mr. and Mrs. Bunting looking for a room to rent. Drew's arrival coincides with the reign of terror orchestrated by "The Avenger". The lodger quickly builds a close friendship with Daisy, the Bunting's daughter, who is seeing one of the detectives assigned to the case. The detective becomes jealous of him and begins to suspect he may be the murderer ... causing plenty of anxiety for the house's other residents. As the story proceeds, circumstantial evidence begins to mount, pointing to Drew as the selfsame murderer. As the movie progresses, tension and fear continue to build until an ending that is exciting, if somewhat melodramatic. In addition to Novello's 1932 remake, The Lodger was remade in 1944 with Laird Cregar, then again in 1953 as Man in the Attic, with Jack Palance as Jonathan Drew. (NYT)
My judgement: *** out of 4 stars
Movie Review: A Man for All Seasons
Year of Release: 1966
Country of Origin: UK
Director: Fred Zinnemann
Cast: Paul Scofield, Wendy Hiller, Leo McKern, Robert Shaw, Orson Welles
Plot outline: The life story of Sir Thomas More, who stood up to King Henry VIII when the King rejected the Roman Catholic Church to obtain a divorce and remarriage (IMDb).
Adapted from Robert Bolt's hit play of the same title, director Fred Zinnemann presents us with an awesome view of a sturdy conscience and a steadfast heart. He crystallizes the essence of the drama in such pictorial terms as to render even its abstractions vibrant. This movie is an extended exposition of a man's refusal to swerve from his spiritual and intellectual convictions at the insistence of his King. And such ideological disagreements are difficult to state in visual terms, no matter how pyrotechnic the proponents and opponents may be. He doesn't allow his excellent cast to resort to pyrotechnics, except in the singular case of Robert Shaw's tempestuous performance of the unbalanced Henry VIII. Mr. Shaw is permittedly eccentric, like the sweep of a hurricane as he shapes a frightening portrait of the headstrong, heretical King who demands that More give acquiescence to his marriage with Anne Boleyn. Mr. Scofield is brilliant in his exercise of temperance and restraint, of disciplined wisdom and humour, as he variously confronts his restless King or Cardinal Wolsey, who is played by Orson Welles with subtle, startling glints of poisonous evil that, even to this day, are extraordinary for him. Mr. Scofield is equally disciplined and forceful in his several dialectical duels with the King's advocate, Thomas Cromwell, who is played by Leo McKern with truly diabolical malevolence, or in his playful discourses with his son-in-law, William Roper, whom Corin Redgrave makes a bit of a flop. In fact, it is this delineation of More's sterling strength and character, his intellectual vigour and remarkable emotional control, that endow this movie with dynamism in even its most talky scenes. And, heaven knows, it is talky - full of long theological discourses and political implications that you must know your history to understand. Throughout, Mr. Scofield manages to use the glowing words of the script and his own histrionic magnificence to give a luminescence and power, integrity and honor, to this man who will not "yes" his King. And he also gets some deep emotion in his ultimate farewell scene with his stalwart wife, played by Wendy Hiller, and his daughter, played (too softly) by Susannah York. This movie won six Oscars, including Best Picture, Best Director and Best Actor, as well as seven British Film Academy awards. A Man for All Seasons is a movie that inspires admiration, courage and thought. (NYT)
My judgement: ***1/2 out of 4 stars
Movie Review: The Sting
Year of Release: 1973
Country of Origin: USA
Director: George Roy Hill
Cast: Paul Newman, Robert Redford, Robert Shaw
Plot outline: In 1930s Chicago, a young con man seeking revenge for his murdered partner teams up with a master of the big con to win a fortune from a criminal banker (IMDb).
The Sting looks and sounds like a musical comedy from which the songs have been removed, leaving only a background score of old-fashioned, toe-tapping piano rags. Mr. Newman and Mr. Redford, dressed in best, fit-to-kill, snap-brim hat, thirties splendor, looking like a couple of guys in old Arrow shirt ads, are more or less reprising their roles in Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid. Mr. Newman is Henry Gondoroff, the older con artist in charge of the instruction of Johnny Hooker (Mr. Redford), the bright, eager, younger man who yearns to make what the movie calls the Big Con (swindle). Their quarry is a ruthless, vain, fastidious New York racketeer named Doyle Lonnegan, played by Robert Shaw in the broad manner. The director supplements the period sets and costumes with elaborate technical devices to move from one scene into another: wipes, iris-outs, images that turn like pages, title cards. It's all a little too much, but excess is an essential part of the movie's style. The Sting has a conventional narrative, with a conventional beginning, middle and end, but what one remembers are the set pieces of the sort that can make a slapped-together Broadway show so entertaining. These include a hilarious, thoroughly crooked poker game in which Henry blows his nose on his tie to the horror of Lonnegan, as well as a chase that lasts approximately two minutes, and the final swindle, the mechanics of which are still none too clear to me. The only woman with a substantial role in the movie is Eileen Brennan, who plays a madam with a heart of gold and enough time off to be able to assist the stars in the final con. It is not a terrible perversion of the romantic movie-team concept idealized by William Powell and Myrna Loy, Clark Gable and Lana Turner but, rather, a variation on the old Dr. Gillespie - Dr. Kildare relationship, with a bit of Laurel and Hardy thrown in. It is also apparently very good box office. (NYT)
My judgement: *** out of 4 stars
Movie Review: The Quick and the Dead
Year of Release: 1995
Country of Origin: USA, Japan
Director: Sam Raimi
Cast: Sharon Stone, Gene Hackman, Russell Crowe, Leonardo DiCaprio
Plot outline: Lady avenger returns to western town owned by a ruthless gunslinger hosting an elimination tournament (IMDb).
Ms. Stone makes a smashing entrance and then says little, with her mind occasionally wandering back to the childhood trauma that explains why she has come to town. In playing to her formidable strength, it's a definite improvement on Ms. Stone's other post-Basic Instinct career choices. It's hard to think of another actress who followed such an electrifying star turn with so many wan, unflattering roles and ineptly directed movies. This time, at least, she has the chance to taunt, mock, smolder and otherwise do what she does best. "What if you get killed? " asks the admiring little girl who watches Ellen carefully, providing an element of Shane appeal. "Well, I won't be around to answer any more of your dumb questions," Ellen replies. Mr. Hackman, whose presence makes Unforgiven another of the countless other westerns recalled here, is himself no slouch in the taunting department. Nobody plays a bile-dripping villain to quite the same slinky effect, even if he seems to have baited a dozen gunfighters too many before the quick-draw contest is finally over. On the night Herod lures Ellen to his lair for an intimate dinner - the kind where she secretly hides a gun in her garter - he and Ms. Stone prove themselves well matched when it comes to insinuating remarks. He: "I could give you more money than you'd ever spend." She: "I wouldn't feel liked I'd earned it." He: "Oh yes, you would." Not enough of this movie succeeds in being that wicked, but it uses a large and varied cast to sustain interest. Veteran actors from Pat Hingle to Woody Strode turn up in small roles, and Russell Crowe has a nice turn as the reformed gunfighter who has turned his back on violence until ... well, you can guess the rest. Also here, and commanding enough limelight to show why the camera loves him, is the immensely promising Leonardo DiCaprio, as the boastful young gunfighter who claims to be Herod's son and calls himself ... well, you can guess that, too. (NYT)
My judgement: **1/2 out of 4 stars
Year of Release: 1927
elevated by the richness of the characterizations and the stylish, Germanic use of the camera. But, the movie has its faults, but they are not faults of showmanship. The story is of the competition of two professional boxers, one her husband - Carl Brisson plays "Round One", a cocky young boxer who matriculates from sideshow bouts to the big time - and the other her nearly successful suitor, for one woman. Round One's marriage to Lillian Hall-Davis goes sour when she throws him over for the champ. An old and rather a thin story, but well told and well acted by Carl Brisson, Lillian Hall Davis and Ian Hunter. There is, too, an appearance in a minor part of Gordon Harker, which proves him to have a sense of humor and character and an extraordinarily flexible and expressive face which should some day make his reputation on the screen. Mr. Hitchcock's method of treating his subject may be roughly described by saying that it has something in common with both German and American technique. It has a German variety of photographic angle and a German love of suggesting emotion very skilfully by means of circumstantial detail, and it has sometimes an American smoothness and swiftness. During the climactic big fight, Hall-Davis realizes that she's still in love with Round One when she witnesses the brutal beating he's getting. As in Hitchcock's later suspense movies, sparks ignite between hero and heroine only when there's an element of danger involved. There are scenes of irrelevant farce which should have been omitted, but the big scenes are well contrived and in spite of its rather commonplace subject, the movie has distinction. (NYT)
