"Mr. Holmes" Review

Though this blog is concerned with all things cinema, the recent release of Mr. Holmes is far more suited to a Sherlock Holmes-focused blog. Therefore, if you're interested in hearing the thoughts of a Sherlock Holmes obsessive, click here to read my review of the film on my other blog The Consulting Detective.

As a side-note, Saturday will be the first in a series of posts which I am submitting as part of various blogathons being hosted throughout the month of August. Check back regularly for more.

The Batman Debate

Batman is my favorite superhero. I think it’s because, in comparison to other superheroes, he’s fairly grounded. Bruce Wayne only needs incredible intellect, brute strength, and an unlimited amount of monetary resources to pull from. I’m inclined to think that a great number of other people like Batman too; just about every decade has seen its own Batman screen adaptation. And, with the upcoming Batman v. Superman: Dawn of Justice, I thought I’d take a look at the two most famous Batman franchises to reach cinema screens: Tim Burton’s Batman and Batman Returns and Christopher Nolan’s Dark Knight Trilogy. Sorry Joel Schumacher – I think it’s better if we forget your little contribution to the Batman legacy.

Today, the general consensus is that Nolan’s Batman, more specifically The Dark Knight (2008), is the best Batman movie – best Batman anything out there. IMDb currently shows The Dark Knight holding a 9.0 user rating. That makes it one of the highest-rated films on the cite – behind only The Shawshank Redemption and The Godfather Parts I and II. Meanwhile, Burton’s Batman from 1989 holds a 7.6 rating and the follow-up Batman Returns a 7.0. That’s a pretty dramatic difference in user opinion. And, I’ve got to admit that I am one of the few who believe that Burton’s two Batman films are superior. That’s not to say that The Dark Knight isn’t a good movie, but by no means does it deserve to be ranked the fourth best film on IMDb.

So, what has led me to the determination that Burton’s is the better film? Well, to compare the two let us look only at Batman and The Dark Knight. They are, in some ways, similar. Batman acts as a lone crusader in crime-ridden Gotham, acting outside the purview of the police, and must match wits with The Joker who has taken on a gang of criminals and gangsters to carry out his dirty work. Both films are also dark, recasting the Caped Crusader in his original, darkened light. But, the singular difference – and I think the difference which elevates Burton’s film – is that the original is a fun movie. Neither Batman nor The Dark Knight feel like comic book movies, but while the latter is simply a run-of-the-mill action flick, Batman is more respectful towards its source material.

I am of the opinion that when a comic book is being adapted to the screen, it is a difficult proposition. Comics have their own continuity – intense, complex continuity – which is hard to translate fully to the screen. So, if a movie doesn’t adapt every tangled plot thread from a series of comics, I understand. However, Batman managed to get the elements right. It presents us with the most popular Joker origin story which, though never truly confirmed, was proposed in the fan favorite graphic novel The Killing Joke. That origin cannot be said for The Dark Knight. More is made of Heath Ledger’s Joker performance than Christian Bale’s Batman, and he is the highlight of the movie. But, in an effort to bring the character into the modern era, screenwriters Jonathon and Christopher Nolan, made their new Joker all but unrecognizable. Yes, he is a first-class psychopath, but little else makes the transition to the screen. It is understandable when changes are made to a character to keep up with the times, but it’s imperative that that character remain, at their heart, the same.

And, let’s just speak a moment about the look of the films. I think Burton’s Gotham City – partially modern and partially Gothic, set in an ambiguously timed location, is evocative and mirrors comic book artwork. It fits the atmosphere brilliantly. Again, Batman doesn’t feel like a comic book movie, but it does respect its source material while The Dark Knight seems determined to distance itself from its origin.

Now, as I said, The Dark Knight is not a bad movie. I will say that its action sequences are better. It’s a more intense movie elevated by some first class explosions and set pieces. Also, The Dark Knight doesn’t feature any Prince songs. Hey, I have nothing against Prince, but really who thought: “This Batman movie needs more Prince.”

At the end of the day, it really is all up to opinion and your tastes. The best thing about Batman is that the character has seen so many different versions that no matter what your mood you can kind a Batman to satisfy it. Want some ‘60s camp? Try the Adam West TV series. Dark, ‘80s fare brought to you by Tim Burton at his best? Try Batman and Batman Returns? Want some intense, high octane action? The Dark Knight Trilogy will satisfy that. And, if you’re looking for a good laugh, Batman Forever and Batman and Robin fit the bill pretty well. 

"Mary Shelley's Frankenstein" and Horror

“I busied myself to think of a story which would speak to the mysterious fears of our nature and awaken thrilling horror. One to make the reader dread to look around, to curdle the blood, and quicken the beatings of the heart.” – Opening narration of Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein (1994)

Last time I took a look at Hammer Film’s Frankenstein series; each one of their films steeped in moody, Gothic elements which made them all, on some level, creepy, and true horror films. Speaking of the Frankenstein story, which, more-or-less, created the horror genre as we know it today, I couldn’t help but take a look at another adaptation of Shelley’s novel – the 1994 adaptation directed by/and starring Kenneth Branagh. This is a film which is, I think, unfairly judged and put down today. Why? People were expecting it to be something which it was not.

Interestingly, in the 1990s, Francis Ford Coppola was involved in three literary adaptations – all of which were ostensibly horror films. The first was 1992’s Bram Stoker’s Dracula which found Coppola directing; the second Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein (1994) and the third Sleepy Hollow (1999), the last two on which he served as a producer. Now both Dracula and Sleepy Hollow are (on a whole) horror projects, so already modern audiences are being misguided looking back. Seeing Coppola’s name attached a Frankenstein project in the ‘90s could easily make one believe that the finished product was an out-and-out horror film. It is only one of the elements which could lead modern audiences astray. Frankenstein, in today’s popular culture, has become a horror product. 1931’s Dracula may have gotten the ball rolling for horror films in Hollywood, but it was Frankenstein, released the same year, which showcased the possibilities of horror films, and sent every major Hollywood studio scrambling to follow in Universal’s wake.

Frankenstein continued to be portrayed in this light throughout most of the twentieth century. I’m think it’s probably safe to say that the horror-movie incarnations of Mary Shelley’s creation are a little better-remembered today. After all, Frankenstein’s Monster, like Dracula, has simply become part of our culture (even if we do insist on calling the Monster Frankenstein – but I digress). So, for anyone who, like me, was going into this movie today, we had several decades worth of preconceptions to put up with. However, there was one vital difference between Kenneth Branagh’s 1994 film and all the others: it was called Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein.

Now, I do not purport to be anything like a literary professor who has analyzed Shelley’s writing time and time again, but I like to think that I know a little bit more about the novel than the average layperson. And there is one little, albeit very important fact, which I would like to contest: Mary Shelley’s novel isn’t very scary. At the time of its initial publication, I do however feel that Frankenstein or The Modern Prometheus sent a shiver or two up the spines of its readers. The idea was pretty taboo, especially in 1818. The idea of a man, a mere mortal, playing God and creating life was a thing of mythology, like Prometheus of the novel’s subtitle, or Pygmalion. The concept of the mad scientist was simply unheard of in fiction because it had never been done before. The other thing, which most people do not seem to realize, is that Frankenstein was not a Gothic novel. Mary Shelley’s novel was written during the Romantic era, a literary movement which dwelled on emotions, and the importance of life. Gothic novels were almost the polar opposite; preoccupied by death and decay. It’s actually an interesting reversal; the original Frankenstein was preoccupied by life while the movie adaptations which followed were constantly moored in death.

So, with a title like Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein, the style and the tone of Branagh’s film would have to mirror the original novel. So, what we get is not exactly an out-and-out horror film, but a very convincing drama. Now, I think I ought to mention how much I like Kenneth Branagh. He has rapidly become one of my favorite actors/directors; his 1996 adaptation of Hamlet being a film of truly epic proportions, and it is criminal that the film is so overlooked today (however that’s all discussion for another time). Now, Branagh as a director, prior to 1994, was mainly known for his Shakespearean work: he debuted in 1989 with Henry V and prior to Frankenstein had worked on an uproarious adaptation of the Bard’s Much Ado About Nothing. The point is I cannot imagine a director like Branagh, so skilled in classical drama, being attracted to a project like Frankenstein based solely on its horrific possibilities.

Under Branagh’s hand, Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein becomes an evocative character study of Victor Frankenstein, his fiancée Elizabeth, and, of course, The Monster. In this way, the movie is quite like its literary counterpart. Branagh manages to do all this while managing to jettison the book’s philosophical discourses. It’s a very well-handled drama, which, while not exactly scary, is still engaging viewing.

That’s not to say that the film is entirely without thrills. One of the film’s most thrilling scenes comes not from Shelley’s novel but the screenwriters’ imaginations. One of the other complaints leveled at the film is that a movie entitled Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein, the movie does change some of the plot. I should put up a SPOILER warning for the following passage so… SPOILERS. Following the death of his wife, Elizabeth (per the novel), Victor Frankenstein goes off his rocker and decides to bring her back to life. He is successful in his endeavor, only to be confronted in his lab by the Monster who believes the resurrected Elizabeth is his requested bride. Elizabeth cannot handle the pressure of the situation and lights herself on fire and in the process burns Victor’s lab to the ground. END OF SPOILERS

That bit of final act mayhem is certainly not in Mary Shelley’s original, but it serves to add a little bit of horror to this film which so many people complain is not scary. By doing what he does, Victor goes completely off his rocker; in the process of creating a human being, Victor Frankenstein completely loses his humanity. It’s not the blood-and-thunder, in-your-face type of horror which so many associate with Frankenstein, but it’s a subtler kind of horror, more in-keeping with the original novel and its tone. Retaining the tone and nuance of the novel is something which cannot always be said for Coppola’s own horror film Bram Stoker’s Dracula.

So, here’s the point in all of this: Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein is a great film. Sure it isn’t exactly scary, but neither was its source material. And despite keeping its creator’s name in the title and then going and changing plot points, those changes don’t conflict with the original story or its original tone. Today, it’s a film which is sadly overlooked because modern audiences level mediocre reviews at it. So, I say give it a try. Just make sure that you have a completely open mind going into it, and you too can see what a minor masterpiece the movie actually is.

*

As a side-note, I will be changing things up a bit next time as I have looked at horror films quite a bit lately on this blog. What can I say: I like horror movies?

Ranking Hammer's Frankenstein Films

Last time I celebrated Hammer Films’ tremendous output by ranking their Dracula films. Today, I continue ranking some of their movies as I take a look at their Frankenstein series.

Hammer released six Frankenstein films starting in 1957 and running through 1974. Unlike their Dracula series, there was something of a consistent quality to all of their films so it is a bit more difficult to rank them. Therefore, the following list will be a bit more subjective. Also, it’s worth mentioning that I have not seen 1970’s The Horror of Frankenstein so I have not included it in this list. That film was more-or-less a darkly comedic remake of The Curse of Frankenstein and did not fit into the Canon which Hammer created, so, frankly, it’s omission from the following list shouldn’t be missed. So, without further ado, let’s dive right in.

6. The Evil of Frankenstein (1964) – An oddly uninteresting Hammer entry, its dullness made all the more surprising due to the fact that it was made in the studio’s heyday. Aside from the usual sumptuous use of color which marked nearly all of Hammer’s films, there is very little which sets the movie apart. It seems to take its style and storyline from the Universal horrors of old – which wouldn’t be a bad thing if it weren’t for the cartoony execution of the story What’s more the Monster, clearly modeled off of the Boris Karloff original, is pretty childish-looking. Is there anything to recommend in the film? Peter Cushing is as usual excellent, Peter Woodthorpe chews the scenery in the most entertaining way possible, and the score by Don Banks is top notch.

5. Frankenstein and the Monster from Hell (1974) – Frankenstein and the Monster from Hell is a movie which tried too hard to keep up with the times. In production as The Exorcist was released worldwide, the film tried to amp up the level of violence and gore on screen, but added very little to the story. Despite its weaknesses, the movie does have a genuinely downbeat and Gothic mood which is elevated with its asylum setting. The Monster, played by David Prowse, is sufficiently scary-looking and Peter Cushing turns in a fine performance playing Baron Frankenstein for the last time. By this point Frankenstein has lost all his wits and has little respect for the life and death of others. It’s no masterpiece, but an often overlooked and worthy installment in Hammer’s series.

4. The Curse of Frankenstein (1957) – This one holds the distinction of being Hammer’s first Gothic horror, and for that reason it plays out as something of a prototypical film. It is by today’s standards a little stagey and can get long in places, but it is moody and a nice-looking film. Cushing’s first outing as Baron Frankenstein is one of his best and few actors have matched Christopher Lee’s outing as Frankenstein’s creation. The Curse of Frankenstein is hardly the best of Hammer’s films, but it’s certainly one of the most important.

3. The Revenge of Frankenstein (1958) – There aren’t many sequels which can surpass the film which preceded it, but Revenge of Frankenstein may hold that distinction. Peter Cushing, already comfortable in the role of Baron Frankenstein, is in even better form here, and he is supported by some equally fine talent, especially Francis Matthews as the Baron’s new assistant, and Michael Gwyn as the Creature. Revenge of Frankenstein is a dark and brooding film, much more so than the first, and there are implications of vivisection and cannibalism which make the film one of Hammer’s darkest and finest.

2. Frankenstein Must be Destroyed (1969) – This film finds Peter Cushing’s Baron Frankenstein at his nastiest. Employing crude implements, blackmail, and murder the Baron is out to perform brain transplants. Cushing’s turn as Frankenstein plays up all of the Baron’s irremediable qualities, and yet we the audience cannot help but rally behind him as a character. The movie is without doubt one of Hammer’s best executed horror shows, directed by Terence Fisher with great aplomb. Cushing is supported by excellent talent from Simon Ward and Veronica Carlson as well as Freddie Jones who is without doubt the most pitiable of all the Monsters in the Frankenstein series.

1. Frankenstein Created Woman (1967) – A contender for Hammer’s saddest film, Frankenstein Created Woman is also one of their most unconventional. It’s a film which manages to combine (of all things) metaphysics and revenge into one glorious package. It’s a film which was praised by Martin Scorsese as one of his favorite movies, and it’s easy to see why he loved it so much. Peter Cushing never looked as impressive as he does in this film and has excellent screen chemistry with Thorley Walters who portrays the Baron’s assistant. Susan Denberg must also be commended for her fine performance as the subject of the Baron’s experiments. Frankenstein Created Woman is a moving and incredibly compelling watch. 

Ranking Hammer's Dracula Films

Hammer Films really did redefine horror films during their heyday. Between the late ‘50s and the early ‘70s, the studio’s Gothic horrors reinvented the classic horror characters of Dracula, Frankenstein, the Mummy, and others. As a vintage horror fan, I find nearly all of Hammer’s films a pleasure to watch, so I thought that today I would rank some of their movies: specifically their Dracula series which began in 1958’s Dracula and ended in 1974 with The Legend of the Seven Golden Vampires.

So, beginning with their final, and ninth entry in the series, and counting down to one, let us begin.

9. The Legend of the Seven Golden Vampires (1974) – Legend of the Seven Golden Vampires is one of those films which you know will fail even before you watch it. It is hardly Hammer’s finest hour and makes very little sense. When the film was in production, Hammer was in financial straits so a partnership with Shaw Brothers Studios in Hong Kong seemed like a good idea, and to Hammer’s credit, a kung-fu/horror film is at least original. But, the film is a plotless mess only redeemed by the ever welcome Peter Cushing playing the role of Van Helsing for the last time. As to the vampire count, he’s not played by Christopher Lee but by the very unthreatening and campy John Forbes-Robertson. Legend of the Seven Golden Vampires is to be skipped except for the ardent Hammer or Peter Cushing fan.

8. Scars of Dracula (1970) – Trying to contend with the blood and gore of films such as George R. Romero’s Night of the Living Dead, Hammer injected some needless extreme violence into Scars of Dracula. A cheap-looking film, the untasteful violence does not prevent the viewer from seeing past the paper-thin plot and the mediocre acting. Christopher Lee is on hand to play the Count, and Doctor Who fans may take interest in Patrick Troughton’s turn as the Count’s slave, but Scars of Dracula is an uninteresting and forgettable installment in the series.

7. The Satanic Rites of Dracula (1973) – A direct sequel to the previous year’s Dracula A.D. 1972, this film once more found Dracula and Van Helsing matching wits in 1970s London. Unlike its predecessor, this film takes itself far more seriously; it’s plot revolving around Devil worship and strains of Bubonic plague. It’s not a bad film per se, but a certain oddity managing to combine Hammer’s traditional horror elements with the conventions of a spy thriller. Writers Alan Barnes and Marcus Hearn rather aptly likened The Satanic Rites of Dracula to an episode of the famed British spy series The Avengers.

6. Dracula Has Risen from the Grave (1968) – Without doubt the most atmospheric entry in Hammer’s Dracula series, Dracula Has Risen from the Grave has been described as “a minor triumph of style over content.” The simplistic plot is made up for by the film’s beautiful color scheme; director Freddie Francis bathing scenes in vibrant colored camera filters. Lee has seldom appeared as evil as he does in the film and he is supported by some of Hammer’s finest actors, including Veronica Carlson who was arguably Hammer’s finest leading leady. Dracula Has Risen from the Grave is also boosted by some excellent, show-stopping set-pieces, most notably the failed staking of the vampire.

5. Dracula A.D. 1972 (1972) – Probably a bone of contention for many regarding this list, I am quite partial to Hammer’s first modern-day Dracula. It is campy and dated with characters quite calmly blurting out such cliché seventies lingo as “far out” and “dig the music kids,” but it’s a fun, entertaining romp – the sort of thing which Hammer did best. Christopher Lee looks great making the most of his limited screen-time and Peter Cushing is great as the modern-day Van Helsing who must come to grips with the evil which his family has fought for several generations. Be sure to look out for the, out-of-place but fun, musical score by Mike Vickers and the exciting prologue set in the Victorian Era.

4. Dracula: Prince of Darkness (1966) – A moody and atmospheric film, Hammer’s first Dracula sequel to actually feature the Count, is a simplistic but bombastic horror film. Christopher Lee’s Dracula is at his creepiest, not uttering a single line of dialogue. The film has some of the series’ most memorable scenes such as Dracula’s resurrection (which employs a lot of blood) to the staking of the woman who has become a vampire at the count’s hands. Andrew Keir also turns in an excellent appearance as Father Sandor, the film’s make-shift Van Helsing and hero of the picture.

3. Taste the Blood of Dracula (1969) – Originally envisioned as yet another Dracula film which does not feature Dracula, the Count’s inclusion in the script is rather forced, but the story is without doubt the strongest of Hammer’s sequels. It is one of the few Hammer horrors to have something of a subtext which finds Dracula acting as something of an authority figure for the young people in the cast persuading the to rebel against their parents. Taste the Blood of Dracula also manages to combine the changing trends in horror films; there is an increased presence of violence and gore, but it never feels contrived and out-of-place. It’s a creepy, excellently executed film.

2. Dracula (1958) – Dracula is one of my favorite films and it is a fun, entertaining film. Christopher Lee has seldom been better as the Count and Peter Cushing is in rare form as Van Helsing. The movie is the perfect example of what Hammer did best with its grand set-pieces (the staking of Lucy, the final confrontation between Dracula and Van Helsing), and performances which at times elevates the script. Dracula stands out as not only an example of Hammer at their best, but horror movie filmmaking at its best.

1. The Brides of Dracula (1960) – It’s rather odd that Hammer’s finest Dracula film doesn’t include Dracula at all. Nevertheless, Brides of Dracula is one of the most entertaining horror films the studio produced, and one of the most entertaining horror films of all time. Peter Cushing takes center stage as Van Helsing turning in one of his finest performances. Replacing the Count is Baron Meinster portrayed by David Peel whose screen presence is just as great as Lee’s and one must also mention both Martita Hunt as the Baron’s mother and Yvonne Monlaur as the young schoolteacher who Van Helsing swears to protect. Both women turn in fine performances in a film which is at once fun, bombastic, and at times quite creepy. Brides of Dracula is the Hammer film which I would invariably recommend to any Hammer novice. 

Alfred Hitchcock's Greatest Film

Directors often do get the short end of the stick when it comes to fame. It seems like a director today must be extremely prolific or appeal to the masses in order to be remembered by audiences. Some of those prolific directors are honored as the greats; their work being both prolific and revolutionary in the history of filmmaking. One of those names, without doubt, is the great Alfred Hitchcock. In a list compiled by Entertainment Weekly, Hitchcock was named the best director of all time, his name appearing above such names as Orson Welles, Stanley Kubrick, and Martin Scorsese.

Today, there aren’t many who dispute Hitchcock’s impact on modern film. If there is any director whose work is still analyzed in depth its Hitchcock’s. I am a huge Hitchcock fan, and have been ever since I stayed up late one night to watch Rear Window for the first time. Since then, I have come to not only appreciate Hitchcock’s work for its entertainment value, but its historical significance. The only problem – if you can even call it that – is that I simply like too much of his work. Aside from Saboteur (1942) and Lifeboat (1944), it’s not likely that I would pass up the opportunity to sit down and watch a Hitchcock movie.

Because I enjoy so much of his work, it becomes a lot harder to pick out his best movies. In fact, it seems to me to be a topic which is hotly debated among film fans in general: what is Alfred Hitchcock’s greatest film? In an effort to answer that question, I have narrowed down a list of my top five favorite Hitchcock films and from there hope to determine which of the five is my overall favorite. Now, this will be entirely subjective, so I’d like to just make two things clear from the start. First, picking my five favorite films does not mean that if it’s not on the list, I don’t like the movie. Picking just five was a difficult task, and I’d like to reiterate that I love almost all of Hitchcock’s movies. Second, the subjectivity of this post means that you may not agree with my pick. I am not claiming that my pick is Hitchcock’s best, it is just my opinion. So, without further ado, here are my top five favorite Hitchcock films (listed in chronological order based on release date).

First up is perhaps my most unorthodox pick, one which seldom crops up on lists of Hitchcock’s greatest movies: 1948’s Rope. Rope was Hitchcock’s first color film and there is something decidedly eerie about the movie’s washed-out color scheme. Based on a play by Patrick Hamilton, the movie is about two college students, who, poisoned by the ideals of their professor (James Stewart), murder one of their other classmates simply to see if they can do it. The murder is however only the beginning for they invite the victim’s family and friends to dine all the while hiding his body under their very noses.

Set entirely in one apartment, Rope betrays its stage-bound origins, but this never seems to hinder the film in any way. In fact, Hitchcock makes the most of the single setting and amps up the tension considerably. Rope is also well-known for being the film which appears to be shot entirely in one take, which also make the movie feel rather like a play. This too adds to the tension because there is no fancy camera trickery to distract the viewer from the plot and the performances. Rope is entirely driven forward by its actors and its story and is the perfect exemplification of the suspense of which Hitchcock was so clearly the master.

Speaking of performances, a word must be said about James Stewart, who cast against type here, is a pretty unlikable guy. Stewart, of course, specialized in American everyman characters like George Bailey or Elwood P. Dowd from It’s a Wonderful Life and Harvey respectively. Here, Stewart is a manipulator, his theories of superiority eventually leading to one of his student’s deaths. Stewart does manage to redeem himself by the end – he’s clearly learned the error of his ways – but he’s never the cuddly, ball of fun which I usually associate with Stewart on a whole.

Hitchcock himself wasn’t entirely fond of the finished product, agreeing with the overall negative reviews. Despite his belief that Stewart was miscast in the film, it didn’t prevent Hitchcock from using him again down the road – in a film called Rear Window.

As I noted above, Rear Window was my first exposure to Hitchcock and I have been a fan ever since. Once again starring James Stewart, here the actor stars as L.B. Jeffries, a wheelchair- bound photographer, who confined to his small apartment, takes to spying on his neighbors across the way and comes to believe that he has witnessed a murder. There honestly is not much I can say about Rear Window which hasn’t already been said (something which applies to most of Hitch’s films), and I’m not here to analyze it. But, what I love about Rear Window aside from its great premise and fine acting, are the characters. L.B. Jeffries is the perfect kind of character for the situation in which he finds himself and Jimmy Stewart was the perfect actor to play him. Far more comfortable in a down-to-earth role, Jeffries is instantly likable and identifiable. While she may not be as identifiable, Grace Kelly is perfectly cast as Jeffries’s girlfriend Lisa, and makes for a likable, sweet character.

But Rear Window also succeeds in building up its minor characters. Even without much dialogue or screen-time, Jeffries’s neighbors Miss Torso, Miss Lonelyhearts, and others all become central and developed and we, the audience, become just as involved in the plight of Mrs. Lonelyheart as we are in Jeffries’s investigation.

Interestingly, James Stewart is the star of my next pick, Vertigo. Vertigo is perhaps the darkest and most brooding film on this list. In fact, it may be the darkest of all of Hitch’s movies. Stewart again plays an everyman, John “Scottie” Ferguson, a detective who is already fighting his conscious after a crippling bout of vertigo causes the death of a policeman. Following his recuperation, Scottie is hired to the tail the wife of an industrialist. He believes her to be possessed to a ghost.

Vertigo is a haunting film to watch; the elements coming together to create a disquieting air which is really indescribable. The beautiful San Francisco locations only heighten the sense of evil, mystery, and sadness which pervades the film. It’s an interesting juxtaposition which Hitchcock used in a number of films: that the strangest things (his greatest set pieces) can take place in the most recognizable locations, but it works perhaps its best herein. Despite all the ingredients coming together, Vertigo was a failure at the box office, Hitch unfairly blaming the failure on Stewart. It’s for that reason that Hitchcock chose his other famed leading man and collaborator for his next film.

When Hitchcock wasn’t making thrillers like Rear Window or Vertigo, he was helming “wrong man” films, and he showcased this subgenre best in North by Northwest. Starring Cary Grant, the film finds advertising mogul Roger Thornhill on the run after he’s mistaken for a spy by a group of enemy agents. Targeted by both the bad guys and the police, Thornhill crosses the country running into set-piece after set-piece. North by Northwest may just be Hitchcock’s most fun film. Sure, the characters are in constant peril, but the story is engaging and never without a touch of humor. The set-pieces are arguably the most famous in Hitch’s long career: from the assault by crop duster to the chase across the faces of Mount Rushmore.

Last, but certainly not least is the film which Hitchcock is without doubt known for today; the one which inevitably heads up the list of just about every “Best of Hitchcock List”: Psycho. It may be an unoriginal pick, but Psycho is one of those movies which changed film forever. It more-or-less gave birth to the slasher film sub-genre, but also pushed the envelope like no movie had done before that point.

The best thing about Psycho though is its longevity. Going into the movie knowing all the twists which were to come in no way inhibited my enjoyment. It is still an engaging movie, the performances are top-notch and the score by Bernard Herrmann is one of his finest.

So…the time has come. What is Hitchcock’s greatest film? Well, the obvious answer may be Psycho, but there is one thing about Psycho which a lot of people seem to overlook. Hitchcock always spoke of the importance of suspense in films and Psycho isn’t exactly known for its suspense. The film’s most memorable scene – the stabbing in the shower – is a shock not only as a scene, but also in the overall film. It was positively unheard of to kill off the central character so early in the film. As a bit of misdirection, it’s fantastic, but it sort of goes against Hitchcock’s mantra.

So, I’ll go the less obvious route with a film which is simply brimming with suspense and nominate Vertigo as the finest film from the master. Vertigo is a movie in which the viewer is, for most of the running time, kept in the dark as to what’s going on. It is probably the closest to a whodunit that Hitchcock ever directed, and just as craftily executes some slight-of-hand like the later Psycho.

Vertigo is one of those classic movies which needs a re-evaluation. As noted above, Hitchcock himself was disappointed by the film’s failure and yanked the film from re-distribution. It is, however, one of Hitch’s finest movies – eerie, moody, and very suspenseful. It is the perfect example of what a Hitchcock movie is like.

So, do you agree with my choice? If not, what do you believe to be Hitchcock’s finest film? Feel free to leave a comment below. 

Sir Christopher Lee (1922-2015)

I think that I can speak for a large majority of film fans when I say that we were shocked to hear of Sir Christopher Lee’s passing. Lee is one of those actors who everyone at some point in time has had a run-in with, even if they were unaware of the fact. A cursory glance at Lee’s filmography explains why. According to IMDb, Lee acted in 281 titles, whether he was on screen or lending his voice to an animated feature or video game. It’s because Lee had such an impact that cinema that he is missed so much today.

For me, I was introduced to Lee at a pretty young age. Being the enormous Sherlock Holmes fanatic I am, it’s not surprising that my introduction came from Lee’s performance as Sir Henry Baskerville in Hammer’s The Hound of the Baskervilles (1959). Lee also helped develop my love of all the James Bond films. When I was first introduced to the secret agent in Dr. No, I admit that I was a little underwhelmed. For a while I didn’t quite know what to think of Bond films on a whole; that was until I decided to give The Man with the Golden Gun a whirl. Why did I choose that title: it was to see Lee’s turn as villain Francisco Scaramanga without doubt.

But for me, Lee will always be remembered for his horror film roles. The man himself insisted that he appeared in only one horror film – 1957’s The Curse of Frankenstein. However, I daresay that Lee will be remembered best for his multiple performances as Count Dracula for Hammer. Lee’s Dracula simply revolutionized the character. Until 1958 when he donned the vampire’s cape for the first time, the public still associated Bela Lugosi with the King of Vampires. Lugosi’s theatrical delivery of course set the precedent for vampires throughout all time, but Lee flipped that conception on its head. Lee’s Dracula was a true force to be reckoned with: he is the epitome of evil in the film, and even today when Hammer’s Dracula no longer manages to frighten us, Lee’s Dracula can still send shivers up and done one’s spine.

Lee was simply hypnotic as the count, but he was hypnotic in nearly everything he did. He made for fascinating viewing in all of his roles, even when he wasn’t playing a character endowed with hypnotic ability. Who could forget Lee’s Kharis the mummy whose sad eyes and brute force makes him a terrifying threat in Hammer’s The Mummy? Or what about his pompous Paul Allen in The Two Faces of Dr. Jekyll who all but oozes slime and is still incredibly watchable? Even late in Lee’s career, his fascinating characterizations did not cease. His cameo in Tim Burton’s Sleepy Hollow sets the tone for the remainder of the film in only minutes. Similarly, Lee’s appearance as Dr. Wilbur Wonka in Burton’s Charlie and the Chocolate Factory is a great character study, even if Lee is only on screen for a few minutes.

Lee will probably be remembered for his contribution to cinema as a cool, calculating villain, but he worked just as well in the role of the hero on the side of the angels. While it may be all but impossible to properly judge Lee’s turn as Sherlock Holmes in Sherlock Holmes und das Halsband des Todes (Sherlock Holmes and the Deadly Necklace) after he was dubbed over by an unknown actor, it is hard not to like Lee’s curmudgeon of a detective in Sherlock Holmes and the Leading Lady and Sherlock Holmes and the Incident at Victoria Falls which came out three decades later. Lee also turned in great performances as a hero in Hammer’s The Devil Rides Out, and in the entertaining romp Horror Express opposite Peter Cushing.

Responding to the news of Lee’s passing, Mark Gatiss tweeted out that Lee was “criminally underrated.” I’m inclined to agree. When an actor makes a name for himself primarily in horror films, the actor isn’t always highly regarded in certain circles. But, as Robbie Collin of The Telegraph wrote, “He could turn shlock into Shakespeare” and few horror actors can claim that distinction.

Christopher Lee, you shall be missed.

As a side note, did you know he could sing too? Click here to see