Family Plot

Family Plot

Hitchcock's last picture. 1976. Director: Alfred Hitchcock.

The fake psychic, Blanche (Barbara Harris), is told by a customer, the rich and old Julia Rainbird (Cathleen Nesbitt), that Blanche will get 10 000 dollars if she can find Julia's sister's son who was given up for adoption for a long time ago.

Julia wants to make this man her heir and Blanche agrees to help, 10 000 is a lot of money. But what Blanche didn't expect was to get involved in a mystery of thiefs and kidnappers.

This movie isn't bad at all, but it's not near Hitchcock's earlier masterpieces; Notorious, Vertigo, Psycho and some others. This hasn't fully got that suspense which he is so famous for. But as I said, not bad at all.

It's entertaining, but never so exiting that you must hold breath because it's so exiting. Not like that, unfortunately. It's kind of... more soft and not too deep. The caracters aren't that interesting and touching as Scottie in Vertigo, Norman in Psycho, Mrs De Winter in Rebecca and Gregory Peck's caracter in Spellbound.

Barbara Harris is best in this movie. She's most interesting and her caracter is both stupid and funny, but also rather clever, sometimes. It's Hitchcock's last picture. I wish that it would have been more to remember. If he would have ended his inspiring and marvelous career in movie business.

Hitchcock was the best director of all time, and still is. Even though he's dead. But he's still remembered and has inspired so many people, including me, to love film and the making of it. Maybe he was kind of snobby and so, but as the master of suspense, he has lots and lots of fans worldwide, including me.

Frenzy

Frenzy

Very unpleasant story about a mad raper in London. 1972. Director: Alfred Hitchcock.

An unknown man has raped and strangled several innocent women in London. The notorious distinguisting feature is that the victims have all been strangled with a tie. Nobody is safe as long as the killer on the loose.

Richard Blaney (Jon Finch) is a man with not much money and not many friends. One of the friends he got is the cocky Robert Rusk (Barry Foster). But what Richard has no clue of, is that Robert is the raper and murderer. When Richard is accused for raping and strangling his friend, Brenda (Barbara Leigh-Hunt), he has to find out the truth before it's too late.

This movie contains some really unpleasant scenes, such as the horrifying rape-scene. I was filled with such hate against that awful Robert Rusk when I saw that scene. He's a monster, really. Not worthy to live.

Barry Foster who's playing Rusk is probably not like the caracter, but I can't help thinking that maybe he is. He's very convincing as Rusk, which makes it all even more unpleasant. The caracter is so scary and awful that you just want to grab a gun and shoot him or something...

I'm not what you would call fond of the style of this movie. The style of the decade. 70's isn't famous for having lovely clothes, that's what I think. It also seems like a time of a mess of drugs and negative freedom. Dirty in some way. I like it more when it's clean...

Topaz

Topaz

Slow and disapointing. Not starring any really famous actor or actress. 1969. Director: Alfred Hitchcock.

Someone is leaking information to the Soviet Union about what a defected KGB-agent has told the French Intelligence Service. Someone in the French Intelligence Service is a mole. Who?

When I was sitting in the living room, ready to watch a Hitchcock movie, I was expecting something exiting. Something thrilling. Something with suspense! But what do I get? A boring movie which isn't touching or thrilling at all.

It was really a disapointment. I hate to say that about a movie of the greatest director of all time, but that's how it is. It would be a lie to say the opposite. It's too long too. I thought that it would never end.

One of the worst things is that I never cared about any of the caracters. In all of the other Hitchcock movies I've seen, I had feelings about the caracters. They were interesting. But none of the caracters in this movie is. It's really sad that it's like that, but I can't do anything about that.

That there's no famous actors or actresses doesn't have to mean that the movie is bad, but very often it actually does. This movie has no actors that I really know anything about, no actresses either. The only one is Karin Dor who played an evil woman in You only live twice. But she's not really famous...

Torn Curtain

Torn Curtain

Paul Newman and Julie Andrews stars in this political thriller. 1966. Director: Alfred Hitchcock.

The esteemed american physicist and rocket scientist Michael Armstrong (Paul Newman) and his assistant and fiancée, Sarah Sherman (Julie Andrews), are to attend to a conference in Copenhagen. Michael starts acting mysteriously.

Michael then fly to East Berlin, when Sarah believes that he's really went to Stockholm. She follows him to Berlin, thinking that he has defected to East Berlin. Micheal isn't as he used to be. He's very strange. What's really going on, and is there something bigger then him defecting happening?

Julie Andrews, who "usually" starred in sweet musicals, is really good here. She's not just a singing governess in the Alps. She's an adult, talented actress who can act in thrillers too.

Paul Newman is, of course, great in his role. He's a terrific actor, even if he and Hitchcock argued about the script and such. You can't really notice it in the movie, which is great. Newman didn't come from the same generation as actors like Cary Grant and James Stewart. Newman questioned the script and such, which wasn't appreciated by Hitchcock.

The scene where Michael Armstrong and a woman murders a man would have been much better if it would have had Bernard Herrmans great music too it. I saw the version with music after watching the movie, and the one with music was much better. More exitement.

Marnie

Marnie

Tippi Hedren and Sean Connery stars in this psychological thriller. 1964. Director: Alfred Hitchcock.

Marnie Edgar (Tippi Hedren) is a woman with an unnatural fear of men, thunderstorms and the color red. She's also a bit of a kleptomaniac. As if that weren't enough, she changes her looks and give false identity pretty often.

She gets her self employed at a company, steals the money that the company has in a safe, and then leave. But even though she may call herself Margaret Edgar or Mary Taylor, she's still Marnie. The same troubled Marnie.

When Mark Rutland (Sean Connery), the owner of a large printing company, recognizes Marnie as a thief from another office, he blackmails her into marrying him after tracking her down when she has robbed him too. But her phobia is causing great trouble, how long will it take before she'll try to end it all?

Because I don't find Tippi Hedren so especially good as an actress, which is also the case here, this movie isn't as good as it could have been. Sean Connery is good enough to make this movie more thrilling then it would have been with a less interesting actor.

Sometimes, I don't understand where this movie will lead. What's the thing that has to be solved? But in the end, it's rather exiting. Not the the church tower scene in Vertigo, but exiting enough considering the earlier parts in the movie.

The Birds

The Birds

Introducing Tippi Hedren in her first big role. 1963. Director: Alfred Hitchcock.

Melanie Daniels (Tippi Hedren) is the spoilt daughter of a rich man owning a large newspaper. She comes to an animal store to get a mynah bird that she have ordered. It hasn't come, but during waiting for the cashier to make a phone call, she meet the handsome Mitch Brenner (Rod Taylor).

He's looking for some lovebirds, and pretending to think that Melanie is an employee at the store, he makes her helping him looking for them. Melanie then learns that he's joking, but after seeing him leave, she decides to get him some lovebirds and give them to him.

She goes to Bodega Bay, a small town at the coast. But when the town, which is usually a quiet little town, is attacked by birds, Melanie, Mitch and the others there has to fight for their lives. What's the reason for these attackings?

That last question is never answered in the movie. That's really bad because if you never find out why it's happening, it's not so very interesting. If there's a war, you want to know why. Why is the most interesting question in the world. 'Why' is what we care about.

Tippi Hedren is really a terrible actress. She can hardly act and it's obvious that nobody could have chosen her for the part only for her acting skills. She's very good-looking, but that's not everything that matters in this world.

I'm very irritated of that in this movie, all women seems totally helpless against the birds. Melanie always screams: "Mitch, do something!". Can't she do anything on her own. It's the same with all other women. Really irritating.

Psycho

Psycho

The best horror movie ever made, and maybe the best movie by Hitchcock. 1960. Director: Alfred Hitchcock.

To be able to marry her beloved boyfriend, Sam Loomis(John Gavin), the good-looking Marion Crane (Janet Leigh) steals 40 000 dollars and then flees Phoenix where she lives. She feels guilt and becomes scared of what her boss and everyone else will think.

But she doesn't turn back and return the money. Nothing will stop her from going to Sam and marry him. But then she didn't know of the Bates Motel or the owner, Norman Bates (Anthony Perkins), or his mysterious mother...

This is one of the very few horror movies I've ever seen. But this movie isn't a stupid, disgusting piece of crap which most horror movie today are. This movie is done very nicely. It's dark, scary... and filled with suspense.

I'm not a fan of horror movies, especially not the ones made today. But I love this movie. Even if I find it very scary in some scenes, it's still not just a movie with scenes just made to scare you. The cinematography is great.

This could have been made in colour, but I think that it's splended in black and white. Everything becomes darker and the exitement increases. Shadows, darkness and horror. That's scary.

Anthony Perkins is marvelous as Norman Bates. His eyes, voice and way of acting. It's all perfect for the role. Maybe not like the Norman Bates in the book on which this movie is based on, but as the Norman Bates in this movie. Perkins is really radiating real talant.