Reviews

This is by far one of my favorite films ever. I haven't seen it since I was 9 or 10 about 12 years ago. I absolutely love Patty Duke's performance, and the film is so balanced and witty. It definitely inspired me to be a filmmaker and I would love to see it again.

TCM is one of the best horror movies ever made, and also one of the few that is truly frightening. It's too bad that its reputation tends to precede it. Personally, although I'm a huge fan of horror, I'm not much of a fan of "slasher" movies. TCM is what I'd call horror... not necessarily "slasher." In fact, I'm consistently surprised by the LACK of explicit violence in this film. It's a testament to Hooper's directorial skill, and even more to the cinematographer's, that the fear TCM instills is more the result of technical artistry than explicitness. And of course, the outright weirdness of the story and the characters helps too. Another thing I love about TCM that rarely seems to be mentioned is the soundtrack--atmospherically speaking, it's first rate. Chilling in its minimalism. Words that describe TCM: Claustrophobic. Sweaty. Relentless. In my opinion, the best of horror breaks down something like this: TCM. Night of the Living Dead. Dawn of the Dead. Dracula (1931). Psycho. Really, what else _is_ there?

Has a child performer given as pure and brilliant a performance as Ana Torrent did in Victor Erice's allegorical masterpiece? This film has everything going for it; great performances, a honey hued atmosphere courtesy of Luis Cuadrado's genius as a cinematographer, and subtle, dreamy direction by Mr. Erice. I had often heard many works described as "dreams" in particular Bergman's works ("The Silence," "Hour of the Wolf"). As far as I'm concerned, this film ranks right beside the works of the master. It is an intense and involving work of art, which beckons us to look at a violent world, through the eyes of the children populating the screen. Many images stand out; among them the girls jumping over a fire and Ana sitting next to the "monster." This film should be seen by anyone who appreciates brilliant cinema. It will not dissapoint you, I guarantee.

Freezeframe close up....that image still lingers in my mind. Truffaut's "The 400 Blows" is not only his best work, but the best film I've ever seen. It paints such an accurate view of life; the pain, the awkwardness, the loneliness, and the love. The first time I saw it was on Bravo a few years back. The film felt so contemporary to me, that it shocked me to see it was made in 1959. Jean Pierre Leaud gives a devastating performance. Its strength lies in the fact that he's not playing a cute, lovable boy, but a true teenager. This might be the first time a director did not condescend to its child actors. (Truffaut, along with Spain's Victor Erice, remains one of the best child directors in the history of cinema). The cinematography is incredibly sophisticated, and yet approachable by anybody's standards. I have read that Truffaut regrets using the Jean Constantin score, but IMHO, it works to this day. It gives the film an emotional punch, particularly through the final frames. I know I will never grow tired of praising or watching this film. It is simply the best.

This film is one of the gems of the Golden Age of Mexican Cinema. It was shown in Puerto Rican television repeatedly throughout the 80's, and it was one of the films which inspired me to be a filmmaker. The acting, in particular the performance by Pedro Infante, was powerful, and the story is quite engaging. Looking at it now, as an adult, I find it still packs a punch, but in the way Sirk's "Immitation of Life" does. It is an engaging piece of melodrama which periodically succumbs to prejudiced (maybe even condescending) attitudes towards its Black characters. The end, however, becomes a testament to the human spirit. Douglas Sirk would have been proud.

Well, I must admit that Mr. Van Sant didn't self-destroy. His "reprise" of "Psycho" is a noble experiment, though the sound effects he added (i.e. masturbation, etc.) were not really necessary. That is really what sets Hitchcock apart from him, that he would never stoop to such cheap tricks;especially because from then on the audience couldn't help but laugh at everything Norman Bates (Vaughn) did. Instead of empathy,fear or even contempt, the audience found him funny...not at all what Perkins' performance does. However, Vince Vaughn's charisma on screen is amazing. He has star potential written all over his face (and awesome body!). The other performers were just as effective, and Van Sant's direction although mostly faithful, did leave some of his personal imprint. His addition of the birds inside the fruit cellar was wonderful,as was Julianne Moore's shows of strength and self-confidence; but the addition of the spider on Ms. Bates' face was stretching it...even cheap as were the addition of Van Sant trademarks (images of clouds, etc.)in completely unnecessary parts (It's as if Mr. Van Sant is yelling out "look, look! I still have my clouds in! Not to mention the sadomasochistic imagery! I am still original, folks!") . As a whole, the thing that impressed me the most was not the film itself, but the audience's reaction. They constantly screamed during the classic scenes, which leads me to believe that 99% of this audience had not even seen clips from the original. Maybe that was Mr. Van Sant's intention to begin with; maybe he wanted to bring Hitchcock's style to an audience that would otherwise never see it. Too bad some might say, I say--oh well.