Suspicion (1941) (spoilers)

Joan Fontaine plays Lina McLaidlaw, a shy and reserved heiress, who falls madly in love with playboy Johnnie Aysgarth (Cary Grant) and marries him after a whirlwind romance.  But she soon discovers that her new husband might not be the man she thought he was, and after a number of incidents shock her, she even begins to fear for her own life.

I would give this film 7 out of 10, because despite all the hokum, and a Hollywoodized ending, I did actually enjoy it a lot.  I’m not sure that it stands up to a lot of scrutiny – woman marries man who clearly can’t be trusted and then is surprised when she can’t trust him.  Nonetheless, it is entertaining throughout, and it is also interesting to view Lina through the eyes of modern viewer.  Because the question that springs to mind is why on earth did she not kick him into touch, pack his bags and tell him to leave?!?! Of course, the film was made in 1941, and it perhaps was not so easy for a woman to divorce her husband without creating a major scandal along the way, particularly in the circles in which Lina and Johnnie moved.

Anyway….Joan Fontaine won an Oscar for her role in this film, although I thought that Grant outshone her in almost every scene (Grant however was shunned by the Academy for much of his working life, and didn’t even receive a nomination for his work in this film).  Fontaine was good, but seemed overly-dramatic at times, although this is also something that seems to be the case in a lot of Hitchcock movies.

The main problem with this film is the ending, which Hitchcock changed, presumably to appease the censors.  There are major spoilers ahead, so stop reading now if you don’t want to know anything further…

Of course, Johnnie had to turn out to be a good guy at the end – or at least not the bad guy that Lina had suspected him to be.  Just when she thought that he was going to try and kill her (and that he had also killed a friend of his, whose death he stood to profit by), it transpires that no!  He wasn’t trying to kill her at all!  And he didn’t kill his friend either.  So Lina forgives and forgets, and all is well again.  Just like that.  The problem here is that throughout the film, Johnnie HAS been shown to be completely untrustworthy – stealing from his cousin, gambling away money which wasn’t his, etc., etc.  So okay, he’s not a murderer, but there’s still a whole load more stuff for him to answer to, but that is all forgotten by Lina.  (Frankly, if this were real life, it would be hard to sympathise with her when he inevitably messes up again.)

BUT….I still enjoyed the film!  I liked Cary Grant’s performance very much, and there were some good supporting actors, especially Nigel Bruce, who played Johnnie’s friend Beaky.  Even Hitchcock’s trademark suspenseful music seemed well placed in this movie.  So despite writing a post which appears to do little but criticise, I still think the film was worth watching, and if you don’t think too much about the storyline, I would recommend it, especially to fans of either Cary Grant or Alfred Hitchcock.

Year of release: 1941

Director: Alfred Hitchcock

Producer: Harry E. Edington

Writers: Anthony Berkeley (novel ‘Before the Fact’ as Francis Iles), Samson Raphaelson, Joan Harrison, Alma Reville

Main cast: Cary Grant, Joan Fontaine, Cedric Hardwicke, Nigel Bruce, Dame May Whitty, Heather Angel, Auriol Lee

Read Full Post »

‘Gone Girl’ by Gillian Flynn

On the morning of Nick and Amy’s fifth wedding anniversary, Amy disappears and foul play is suspected.  As the police investigate, fingers are pointed straight at Nick; all the evidence suggests that he has hurt Amy (or worse), and as he protests his innocence, nobody, including the reader, is sure who to believe.

There is a split narrative, with Nick describing events on the day of and the days following the disappearance, and also talking about his marriage to Amy, and through Amy’s diary entries leading up to their fifth wedding anniversary.  Through their two voices, a tale is told of two people who meet, fall in love and get married, and seem to have it all – until they don’t.  Until job losses, financial worries and parental problems threaten their happiness, and slowly but surely, the truth is revealed.

It’s really hard to review this book, because I think it is absolutely essential that there are no spoilers for anyone reading it.  However, I will say that I really really liked the first part, where it was never quite clear what had happened.  Then comes a twist, and a change of pace, which I initially was quite disappointed by, and I thought that the book would suffer because of it – but I was wrong.  The level of tension was kept up, and I found the book hard to put down.

I thought the characters were really well written, even if I didn’t particularly like some of them.  (Nick was not that likeable, and Amy’s parents were vomit inducing!)

My only gripe with this book was the ending, which, while well written, and which was actually very clever when I look back at it, didn’t satisfy me,  but I can’t say why without giving away important plot points.  Overall though, this book was a terrific read, and I will be seeking out Gillian Flynn’s other works.

(Author’s website can be found here.)

Read Full Post »

‘The Lost Years’ by Mary Higgins Clark

Biblical Professor Jonathan Lyons has discovered a parchment which he believes to be a letter written from Jesus to Joseph of Arimathea.  However, before he can return to the parchment to the Vatican Library, he is murdered – shot dead in his own study.  The Police believe that his wife Kathleen, who suffers from Alzheimer’s disease is responsible, as it was known that she was jealous about his affair with another woman.  However, the couple’s daughter Mariah refuses to believe that this could be the case and sets out to find out the truth.  Who would really want to kill Professor Lyons, and why?  And where is the mysterious document that he talked about to his friends?

This is the first book I have read by Mary Higgins Clark, and will almost certainly be my last.  It may not have been a good choice of hers to read (I have read reviews by fans of Higgins Clark, who have said that this is not one of her best), but it has pretty much put me off venturing further with her novels.

Don’t get me wrong – I actually quite enjoyed parts of it, and it’s certainly a book that doesn’t require too much thinking, but even while reading it, I found myself shaking my head and thinking what a load of hokum.

There was very little characterisation – there was nothing particularly distinctive about any of Richard’s close circle of friends, around whom much of the story revolves.  The only characters who were quite distinctive were Mariah’s friends Alvirah and Willy – and frankly, Alvirah was a complete nightmare.  I would imagine that she would be a neighbour from hell, going around recording people’s conversations on a brooch that was really a microphone, and sticking in her nose everywhere.  (I can’t imagine that this was even remotely realistic; I am sure that the Police would have told her to stop interfering with their investigation, as she seemed to be doing more enquiry and investigation work than they were!)  I am told that these characters have appeared in previous novels by this author, which is another reason no to read them.

So overall, while this was not a book I hated, I certainly couldn’t say that it was a good or believable read – I was unable to care about any of the characters, even remotely!  Higgins Clark is a hugely popular author, and certainly doesn’t need my recommendation, which is fortunate, because I am not able to give it.

(Author’s website can be found here.)

Read Full Post »

‘The Man In the Picture’ by Susan Hill

 

This is an interesting novella, which left me with mixed – but generally positive – feelings about it.  Cambridge alumnus Oliver visits his former tutor, the elderly Theo Parmitter, and Theo starts to tell him the story of a painting hanging on his wall, which depicts a carnival scene in Venice.  Overall, there are three narrators – Oliver, Theo and a Countess who used to own the painting before it came into Theo’s possession.  Between them, they reveal the secret of the painting – or not so much, because it wasn’t really a secret – after about a third of the book, I guessed pretty much what was going to happen.

In less than 150 pages, Susan Hill has certainly crafted an interesting story, with plenty of atmosphere.  It was very easy to read (and could easily be read in one sitting) and enjoyable overall, but the ending was no surprise, which may be why at the end of it, I was slightly bemused.  Maybe I was hoping for some kind of shock denouement.

This is definitely a story where the pleasure is in the journey, not the destination.  Worth reading; satisfying, but not spectacular.

(Author’s website can be found here.)

Read Full Post »

‘Under the Dragon’s Tail’ by Maureen Jennings

This is the second book in the Murdoch Mysteries series, set in Toronto in the late 1800s, and featuring Detective William Murdoch.  The series spawned three movie length television films, and a five (so far) season television show.  The television show is one of my favourite programmes, and I was eager to read the books.  I thoroughly enjoyed the first book in the series, and this one is no disappointment either.

In this installment of the Murdoch Mysteries, a woman named Dolly Merishaw is found murdered in her home.  Murdoch discovers that she was a former midwife, who provided a place for unwed mothers to have their children, as well as providing drugs to aid abortion, but that her mean and greedy nature caused a lot of anger and resentment among the women whom she ‘helped’.  He quickly discovers that she is the victim of murder, and there are no shortage of suspects.  However, when one of her young foster sons is also discovered dead a week later, he has no idea whether he is looking for one murderer or two.  His investigation takes him to some surprising places, and he realises that a lot of people have secrets which they wish to remain hidden.

As with the first book, the story is pacey, and kept me guessing throughout.  (There were clues to point the reader in the right direction, but Maureen Jenning is capable of throwing in some surprises as well!)  I really like the character of Murdoch, although he is quite different from the Murdoch of the tv series.  As portrayed in the book, he comes across as less sensitive and somewhat coarser.  His faithful sidekick Constable Crabtree is as amiable and likeable as viewers of the show know him to be, although in the book, his physical description is very different, and he has a wife, whereas in the tv show, he is a bachelor.  Brackenreid barely appears in the book, and is not a very likeable character when he does(!).  This book gives the first mention of Doctor Julia Ogden – a main character in the tv show.

This particular book takes Murdoch through the upper and lower classes of Toronto, and I thought the portrayal of the city in the late 1800s was particularly evocative and enjoyable.  Clearly, the author has researched her subject extensively.

Overall, I found this to be a very enjoyable read, and would definitely recommend it, especially to fans of crime and/or historical fiction.

(Author’s website can be found here.  For more information about the television show Murdoch Mysteries, please click here.)

********************************************************************************************************

Click here for my review of season 1 of the television series, Murdoch Mysteries.

Click here for my review of the first Murdoch Mysteries novel, Except The Dying.

********************************************************************************************************

Read Full Post »

Twilight (1998)

No…not the vampire love story with Kristin Stewart and Robert Pattinson. This film boasts an impressive cast – Paul Newman is the lead (and still looking great at 73), with Gene Hackman, Susan Sarandon, James Garner, Liev Schreiber, Reese Witherspoon and Stockard Channing. Newman plays Harry Ross, a slightly down-at-heel retired private detective, who lives with his friends Jack and Catherine Ames (Hackman and Sarandon). When Jack, who is dying of cancer, asks Harry to do him a favour, Harry finds himself entering a murky world of betrayal and deceit, and uncovering some unsavory aspects of his friends’ past.

This film reminded me very much of the film noirs which were so popular during the 1940s and 1950s – in fact, I could almost imagine it in smoky black and white, with Humphrey Bogart starring! That is no criticism on my part; I thoroughly enjoyed this movie. It has a mature (and I do mean mature, not old) cast, and a mature storyline. The acting is, as you would expect from such a stellar cast, impressive throughout, and Newman is perfect as the narrator and hero – of sorts – of the picture. He combines his natural charm, with world-weary emotion. You get the feeling that Ross is just plain tired of the world he inhabits, and he is just one of many characters in this film who are unsatisfied wtih their lives. Susan Sarandon has a timeless beauty, and looks stunning here, and Hackman….well, he’s just always terrific.

The plot has twists and turns, but it doesn’t get too complicated, which is a good thing. I like films that encourage the audience to think, but not films that are just too convoluted and end up being just plain confusing.

I would say that this is not the best film that any of the stars ever made, but if you are a fan of any of the cast, it is certainly worth a watch.

Year of release: 1998

Director: Robert Benton

Producers: Michael Hausman, Arlene Donovan, Scott Rudin, Scott Ferguson, David McGiffert

Writers: Robert Benton, Richard Russo

Main cast: Paul Newman, Gene Hackman, Susan Sarandon, Stockard Channing, Reese Witherspoon, James Garner

Read Full Post »

Anatomy of a Murder (1959)

James Stewart is Paul Biegler, a former District Attorney turned small town defence lawyer. He is called upon to defend Frederick Manion (Ben Gazzara), an Army Lieutenant accused of shooting dead the man who Manion believes raped his wife Laura (Lee Remick). As Paul digs deeper into the circumstances surrounding the crime, he realises that things are not as clear-cut as they initially seem. And that is before he has to face the fearsome – and fearless – prosecutor Claude Dancer (George C. Scott)…

Well….WOW! This is a superb film. I actually put off watching it for a long time because of it’s length; it runs at 2 hours 40 minutes, and I don’t generally like films that are much longer than two hours (blame it on my attention span). However this film gripped me from the word go, and once the action moved to the courtroom – about an hour into the film – it really became compelling viewing. The role that James Stewart will always be most remembered for is probably George Bailey in It’s A Wonderful Life. And while that certainly is a wonderful film, I preferred him here, and thoroughly enjoyed his performance as the morally ambiguous Biegler. He was not let down by the rest of the cast either – it’s hard to pick any one performance as outstanding, because everyone in the cast was excellent. Lee Remick, Ben Gazzara, Eve Arden (as Biegler’s smart, loyal but long suffering secretary), Arthur O’Connell (as Biegler’s friend, the alcoholic Parnell McCarthy, who finds a reason to stop drinking and start living, as he works with Biegler on the case), and George C. Scott. If this were any other cast, Scott would probably steal the show with his excellent performance!

The story ticks along nicely, with plenty of twists and turns, and I found myself switching points of view, and never quite sure what the truth was. There was tension, atmosphere and even a few laughs as the story unfolded.

However, I do have one gripe with this film and that was the ending! By that, I mean the last 7 or 8 minutes, which is not too bad for a film of 160 minutes. I won’t give anything away, but for me, the ending was unsatisfactory and not what I was hoping for. Nonetheless, it was a hugely enjoyable film, and I would certainly recommend it, especially to fans of courtroom drama – this is one of the best!

Year of release: 1959

Director: Otto Preminger

Producers: Otto Preminger

Writers: John D. Voelker (book), Wendell Mayes

Main cast: James Stewart, Lee Remick, Ben Gazzara, Arthur O’Connell, Eve Arden, Kathryn Grant, George C. Scott, Murray Hamilton

Read Full Post »

‘Except The Dying’ by Maureen Jennings

This is the first book in a series of seven, which are collectively known as the Murdoch Mysteries, all of which feature a Canadian Police Detective named William Murdoch, who solves crimes in the late 1800s, in Toronto.  Three of the novels were adapted into television movies, starring Peter Outerbridge as the title character, and a five season (so far) television show, with Yannick Bisson in the title role, featuring the characters from the books, but with all new storylines, has proved very successful.  The tv series is one of my favourite shows, so I was looking forward to reading the novels, and seeing where the character of William Murdoch began. 

I certainly was not disappointed.  This fascinating novel which combines crime drama and historical fiction, is quite different from the tv show – Doctor Julia Ogden does not appear in this book at all, and Inspector Brackenridge only plays a minor role, whereas both of these characters are major characters in the show.

However, I do not intend for this review to be a comparison between the show and the books, especially as both are equally enjoyable in their own right.  The story in this first Murdoch book revolves around the death of a young lady, who is found naked and frozen to death one wintery night.  As Murdoch and his colleague, Constable Crabtree investigate the murder, they find that almost everyone connected with the young girl has secrets of their own, and there seems to be no shortage of suspects for the crime.

The ending was not predictable; a few times I thought I had worked out who was responsible, but I was pleasantly surprised.  The character of Murdoch is well drawn, as is that of Constable Crabtree.  Also, the family with whom the dead girl resided were also well fleshed out.  There were no real gimmicks or twists in the story – just a very well told detective story, which showed Murdoch’s quick intelligence and dogged determination.  I also thought that life in Toronto in the late 1800s was well depicted,with the atmosophere leaping off the page.

It’s a cliche to say it, but this book really was a page turner.  I would highly recommend it to any fans of historical fiction or crime novels, and I look forward to reading the subsequent books in the series.

(Author’s website can be found here.  For more information about the television show Murdoch Mysteries, please click here.)

********************************************************************************************************

Click here for my review of season 1 of the television series, Murdoch Mysteries.

Click here for my review of the second Murdoch Mysteries novel, Under the Dragon’s Tail.

********************************************************************************************************

Read Full Post »

Niagara (1953)

This film was not directed by Alfred Hitchcock. But it could have been…I feel that certainly it must have been influenced by Hitchcock. All the Hitchcockonian (is that a word?) traits are there: a crime that does not turn out as it’s supposed to, the requirement of huge suspension of disbelief, jarring music to signal that SOMETHING SIGNIFICANT is happening, and of course, a beautiful blonde bombshell. In this case, the bombshell in question is Marilyn Monroe. She plays Rose Loomis, a woman who has come to Niagara with her emotionally unbalanced husband George (Joseph Cotten). However, Rose is scheming with her young lover, to murder her husband so that she and said lover can be together. Enter young couple Ray and Polly Cutler (Casey Adams and Jean Peters), on a belated honeymoon, who end up getting entangled in the Loomis’s unhappy marriage, and the fall out from Rose’s plan.

I actually did enjoy this film a lot, even though it was hard to take seriously. Marilyn Monroe is stunning and certainly looks the part of a femme fatale – all pillar box red lipstick (even when she has just woken up in the morning), and practically busting out of her very clingy clothes. I really really like Marilyn in comedies (and I do believe that she was under-rated as a comic actress). I’ve seen her in other dramas, where she did much better work than here, but in Niagara, she becomes a caricature, and at times overacts quite obviously. Casey Adams, as the husband in the honeymooning couple was beyond annoying. He seemed to spend most of the film grinning inanely and came across as nothing so much as an overgrown schoolboy.

However, Jean Peters and Joseph Cotten were both superb – Stevens in particular. I actually thought that Stevens’ character Polly, who was a demure but witty and compassionate wife, looked far more attractive – although certainly not as striking – than Rose. Peters also played the part extremely well, not being too over the top, but remaining believeable in an unbelieveable plot. Cotten also excelled as the brow beaten husband of Rose, at the end of his tether, and seemingly aware that things between them were not going to end well.

The storyline is hard to take seriously, but not hard to enjoy, with the requisite twists for such a film. The ending came somewhat abruptly – but I liked it. And with a total running time of just over an hour and half, the scripting is nice and tight, and the plot moves quickly, thus holding interest.

Overall, despite it’s obvious flaws, this is a film which is well worth watching at least once.

Year of release: 1953

Director: Henry Hathaway

Producer: Charles Brackett

Writers: Charles Brackett, Walter Reisch, Richard L. Breen

Main cast: Joseph Cotten, Marilyn Monroe, Jean Peters, Casey Adams

Read Full Post »

Vertigo (1958)

This 1958 movie was the final of four collaborations between Alfred Hitchcock and James Stewart. The film performed modestly in cinemas, and Hitchcock apparently blamed Stewart for this, saying that at 50, Stewart was too old to draw in large audiences anymore. (Hitchcock also made a few less than complimentary comments about female star Kim Novak.) Regardless of it’s initial viewing figures, it has since become regarded as one of Hitchcock’s best films, and a classic of the genre.

I find Hitchcock’s movie’s somewhat hit-and-miss. To Catch A Thief and North by Northwest are both superb (maybe it’s the Cary Grant effect) and if you haven’t seen them, you definitely should! This is the third Hitchcock/Stewart I’ve seen, and is my favourite of all three, although it’s not perfect by any means.

Stewart plays John ‘Scottie’ Ferguson, a detective who leaves the police force, due to suffering from acrophobia. An old friend named Gavin Elster asks Scottie to tail his wife Madeleine, as Gavin is concerned about Madeleine’s unusual behaviour and fears that she will end up hurting herself. Scottie accepts the job, but quickly becomes obsessed with Madeleine…

There was a lot to enjoy about this film – Stewart (whatever Hitchcock thought) was perfect in the role of Scottie, a man who finds his equilibrium disturbed by the elusive and beautiful Madeleine. Personally, I thought this was one of the best roles I had ever seen Stewart play. I also really liked the dynamic between Scottie and his friend Midge (Barbara Bel Geddes). Kim Novak looked stunning as Madeleine, and she gets the chance to really demonstrate her acting chops in this film. There was real chemistry between Stewart and Novak.

The story itself is pretty straightforward, but there is a big twist, which I absolutely refuse to disclose here. Had I known about it before viewing the film, it would certainly have spoiled it for me, so I won’t spoil it for anyone else.

However, the film raises as many questions as it answers. There is an air of implausibility about the whole thing – a common thing with Hitchcock films – and one scene in particular, while intruiging enough, seems to serve no real purpose. I also find the use of highly dramatic music at moments of tension to be unnecessary, although I appreciate that at the time that the film was made, it was probably a very effective technique. (I always just feel that I don’t need dramatic moments to be signposted; I can spot them for myself).

In the hands of less capable actors, this film could have fallen flat. However, the talents of the two main stars keep things tense and interesting, and fans of the genre, and I would recommend watching it at least once.

Year of release: 1958

Director: Alfred Hitchcock

Writers: Alec Coppel, Samuel A. Taylor, Pierre Boileau, Thomas Narcejac, Maxwell Anderson

Main cast: James Stewart, Kim Novak, Barbara Bel Geddes, Tom Helmore

Read Full Post »