Film Reviews by JD

Sean Connery plays an all-knowing patient psychologist / boss who slowly unravels the cause of trouble in a troubled thief. I was not surprised in the bonus feature explanation to discover that Hitchcock had fused 2 characters to attract Connery to the role. It results in an unbelievable superman/businessman. Tippi Hedren plays a part that Princess Monaco was supposed to play. In short Sean is the only good actor in the cast. Not a bad film just ordinary.

There are so many plot lines that it takes 2 episodes to get going. 6 writers, how does that work? Some of the plots are intriguing some tedious or inevitable (romantic interest and affairs being compulsory for this genre) Maybe get rid of 4 of the writers. The worst thing about this film however is the acting of half the cast. The best thing is the production. Some shots of the arctic wilderness are awesome, some of the special make-up horrific. The 12 episodes go by quickly but compared with other series that Sofie Grabol have starred in, it is not great. A lot of loose ends which suggest a second series, I hope not. I do hope to see more from this production unit. It is a proper 18, scenes of torture, rape, murder, suicide and bears eating trapped men.

This 1966 Hitchcock stars Julie Andrews and Paul Newman as proper film actresses/actors, not Mary Poppins and the Sundance kid. The plot is difficult to follow ad sometimes a little unbelievable but intriguing and pleasant. Production a little basic by todays standard but very watchable.

A thriller with great humour. This film has scenes of disgusting violence (rape/murder) done in disturbingly personal horror. Then scenes of light gentle humour. The best is of the chief detective at home with his wife, who has prepared him inedible haut cuisine while he goes over the cases of the serial killer. Very dated in a good way. Covent Garden fruit and veg market pictured beautifully. 70's attitudes and 70's film production and acting. Today's target viewer will be in their 60's, a bit too dated for anyone younger.

With an awesome cast including Spacey, Postlethwaite and del Toro, this brilliant crime drama centres on a mystical character whose reality and identity are unveiled beautifully in the final scene. It is 20 years old and I have seen it before but well worth rewatching after such a long time. The 18 certificate is not a good reflection, there are some violent scenes but nothing that will shock most 15 year olds.

A war film about the survivors of a torpedoed British boat in the Atlantic. The occupants become increasingly stressed with dramatic consequences. Not greatly gripping or inspiring, just OK. B&W.

The subject matter is unpalatable. 2 men feel that they are of such superior intellect that they can murder an inferior man without moral impeachment. There may be generalisations relevant today but this awkward subject matter requires good acting of which this film is lacking. James Stewart is the exception but it takes more than one to keep a film going.

Hitchcock's daughter says in the bonus feature that this was his favourite film. It is one of his first in America. I don't think it is better than his more famous films (Psycho, Birds and Rear window) and I was not taken with the sudden switch from adoration to rejection of a niece for her uncle. Not well done and not elegent. An avarage 1943 B&W film.

A historic masterpiece. This 1941 film appears to be shot in B&W. You are however given the choice of watching in colour. The colours in some scenes are a bit surreal but generally good. Were all the frames individually coloured in? Wow. The plot is very delicately balanced. Is she paranoid or is he a ba***rd? You spend the whole film deciding. By today's standards it is a good film. By those of over 70 years ago it must have been impressive.

I don't expect many to read this review. If you are considering a lesser known 1954 Hitchcock you are already a certified film buff. Ray Milland was not known to me previously but he is an interesting actor. Good (not great), unglamourous and undramatic. Grace Kelly is the opposite. The entire piece is filmed in a room. Standard for a play (from which this was taken), unusual for a film. Good plot, not amazing but very entertaining.

This must be the first tension drama in which a murder is planned to happen at a particular moment in an orchestral performance. I have seen many similar variations since. The film has a familiar Saturday morning feel to it. Good enough to pass the time but not breathtaking. Doris Day has a reasonable singing voice but Que sera sera is not good enough to be sung twice in one film. Hitchcock uses the English actors to play the clumsy villans, the French to play the immoral murderer and the Americans to play the Hero/Heroine. If you stomach the stereotype it is watchable.

Series 1 was so good it was almost inevitable that 2 would be less good. The plot is, if anything, more interwoven, complex and compelling but the acting of many of the supporting cast is poor. As I type I notice that there are 4 Directors, 3 of whom were not involved with Series 1. 4 directors! How does that work? Maybe this has sapped the acting of some of the middle grade actors. It remains a series which is difficult to pause and I had to watch into the small hours to see the resolution. This is a series 2 where the plot hangs on the previous series.

Henry Fonda is an actor I had heard of but never watched. He justifies his impressive reputation. The importance of this film however for me is showing the gullibility of the mind, in that once guilt has been ascribed its removal is difficult and that some are keener to scrutinise the decision than others. The other area of psychology explored is guilt absorbed by others. A strangely common phenomenon, but in this case to extreme effect. Vera Miles tries I think too hard to be a glamour actress in a role demanding much more, but just about brings off the point of the plot.

With Psycho, Hitchcocks best known film. Famous for good reason. At the time the special effects were the best available. The scenes of bird attacks now however are shocking only to the naive and very young. I was only 11 when I saw this film first and was very scared. An adult watching this now would have to be very sensitive to be scared. The scenes of struggling with a clearly stuffed seagull are mildly amusing. It has a 15 certificate so this gives it a target viewer of 15 - 18 (any older would certainly see through the production) or 50 plus (watching it for a second time or just a Hitchcock fan who missed it).