It's a Wonderful Life (1946)
Starring Jimmy Stewart, Donna Reed, Lionel Barrymore, and Henry Travers
Directed by Frank Capra
Written by Frances Goodrich, Albert Hackett, and Frank Capra
The (current) RyMickey Rating: B
Showing posts with label jimmy stewart. Show all posts
Showing posts with label jimmy stewart. Show all posts
Wednesday, December 30, 2020
Monday, October 05, 2020
Anatomy of a Murder
Anatomy of a Murder (1959)
Starring Jimmy Stewart, Lee Remick, Ben Gazzara, Arthur O'Connell, Eve Arden, and George C. Scott
Directed by Otto Preminger
Written by Wendell Mayes
The RyMickey Rating: C
Thursday, January 03, 2013
Movie Review - It's a Wonderful Life
It's a Wonderful Life (1946)
Starring Jimmy Stewart, Donna Reed, Lionel Barrymore, Thomas Mitchell, and Henry Travers
Directed by Frank Capra
Don't get me wrong...It's a Wonderful Life is a good film with some really solid performances from Jimmy Stewart as working man George Bailey, Donna Reed as his long time love Mary, and Lionel Barrymore as the crotchety banker Henry Potter. I just think it's a teensy bit too drawn out. Let's be honest...the really good, emotionally riveting stuff occurs once December 24th hits and George's uncle loses that $8000 in cash sending good old George into a downward spiral resulting in his attempt at ending his life so his family can at least reap his life insurance policy. (If you, like me, haven't seen this movie yet, crawl out from under the rock you've been living under. No apologies for spoilers, here.) Once Clarence (Henry Travers) comes down from heaven to work his magic on George, the film becomes surprisingly heartwrenching. I actually found myself getting a tiny bit choked up -- no tears, or anything, but the story was quite touching.
It's the final act that makes It's a Wonderful Life the classic it has become. It's a bit of a shame that it takes so long to get there, but it's a film I imagine I'll watch again in a few years. While it won't become an annual tradition for me, it's definitely deserving another watch down the line.
The RyMickey Rating: B
[Note: I realize the above is not much of a review, but I'm so late to the game with this one, I figured why bother with a lengthy opinion.]
Sunday, October 24, 2010
Hitchcock Month - Vertigo
Vertigo (1958)
Starring Jimmy Stewart, Kim Novak, Barbara Bel Geddes, and Tom Helmore
Directed by Alfred Hitchcock
It has probably been over a decade since I last gave Vertigo a chance. I remember thinking that I didn't understand in the slightest where the love for this film was, and I definitely fell into the camp that found it overrated. Cut to ten years later, and I'm quite happy that I gave this film another look. I don't know why (although I'm going to chalk it up to a more sophisticated film palette), but I found Vertigo quite an intriguing film that manages to have some great performances from its two leads and some intriguing direction from the Master of Suspense.
Scotty Ferguson (James Stewart) is a policeman who, after witnessing a fellow officer plummet several stories to his death while trying to save Scotty himself, develops a severe case of agoraphobia (the fear of heights). Scotty takes an early retirement and is soon hired as a private detective by a former college schoolmate of his, Gavin Elster (Tom Helmore). Worried that there is something psychologically wrong with his wife, Elster wants Scotty to make sure she causes herself no harm. While trailing the lovely Madeleine (Kim Novak) around San Francisco, Scotty begins to realize that Madeleine is slowly going insane as she seems to believe that her fate will end up similar to that of one of her ancestors who committed suicide. I hesitate to reveal any more plot, so I'll stop here. Needless to say, there's romance and thrills along the way, and as is the case in most Hitchcock films, people are not always as they outwardly seem.
I think what bothered me most before when watching Vertigo is that it perhaps seems a little pretentious. To me, this is possibly the most "adult" film Hitchcock helmed -- it's suprisingly intelligent in its portrayal of its two main characters. There's very little room for humor and everyone onscreen is tortured in their own ways. No one's the least bit happy and perhaps that's why I always looked down on it. I don't know what it says about me now since I like the film, but I guess I'm relating to these tortured souls on a better level.
Oddly enough, there's not a whole lot of story here, and the one fault of the film is that there are moments here or there where you kind of want to scream, "Get on with it already!" Still, it's the pacing that really shows a master at work. The deliberate pacing allows the audience to slowly see the paranoia building up in both Scotty and Madeleine. By the end, we in the audience are certainly uncomfortable watching what is unfolding before our eyes and I'm not sure that would have been possible if the film didn't slowly build to that point.
There's some beautiful and clever camera work from Hitch and it's obvious that Hitch was in his Golden Era ('58's Vertigo, 59's North by Northwest, and '60's Psycho). From the exciting police chase opening that starts Scotty on his downward spiral to a trippy Salvador Dali-esque dream sequence (a concept that works much better here than in Hitch's earlier Spellbound), Hitch knows how to create great moments in his films. Everything across the board is top notch here from the exquisite lighting to the haunting score by Hitch's longtime collaborator Bernard Herrmann.
And I can't forget to discuss the two leads -- Jimmy Stewart and Kim Novak. I'd venture to say that this is one of Stewart's finest roles. While I'd still say he's charming here (at least in the opening scenes), Stewart is really an incredibly damaged guy in Vertigo for reasons that I really don't want to reveal in case anyone hasn't seen the film. Love can mess with a guy's mind and Stewart's mind is certainly messed with. And Kim Novak is looked upon as the quintessential Hitchcock blonde because of this flick, and while she may be sexy and alluring, she's quite an actress, too. Hers is a difficult role to play (once again, I'm staying vague to avoid spoilers) and I thought she tackled it quite well. [Hitch, on the other hand, appeared to have a different opinion, saying in a later interview of Novak, "You think you're getting a lot, but you're not."]
If, like me, you haven't given Vertigo a chance in a while, I'd certainly pop in the dvd another time and test it out. You may be pleasantly surprised. I know I was.
The RyMickey Rating: A-
Monday, October 18, 2010
Hitchcock Month - Rear Window
Rear Window (1954)
Starring Jimmy Stewart, Grace Kelly, Thelma Ritter, and Raymond Burr
Directed by Alfred Hitchcock
Whenever we watch movies, we're kinda being voyeurs. Secretly looking into the lives of people we don't know, watching their every move, and judging them based on their actions. My recent viewing of the reality-driven documentary Catfish coupled with watching Rear Window on the same day made this voyeuristic idea really stick in my craw. I'd love to say that this flick (which is deemed a classic by nearly all) doesn't work just to be a contrarian -- but it works on nearly every level.
Jimmy Stewart is L.B. Jefferies (Jeff, for short), a world-traveling photographer who is stuck in his apartment with a broken leg. To pass the time, he stares out his window and watches neighbors in his courtyard apartment complex. What starts out rather innocently turns into something frightening when he believes that one of his neighbors (Raymond Burr) killed his wife. With the help his girlfriend Lisa (Grace Kelly) and nurse Stella (Thelma Ritter), Jeff attempts to solve the alleged crime.
Let's start by saying that similar to Hitchcock's Lifeboat which was contained to the boat itself, the camera in Rear Window never leaves Jeff's apartment. Yes, we see outside the apartment, but we only see it through Jeff's eyes. We see what he sees (including a sexy introductory first-person shot of Grace Kelly moving in on us with her crimson red lips slightly parted for a kiss that we'd certainly be happy to give her). We are the voyeur just as he is the voyeur. In my opinion, moreso than in any other Hitchcock film, the viewer is transported into the movie and essentially becomes L.B. Jeffries.
And let's be honest -- with the alluring Grace Kelly by your side, who wouldn't want to be in Jimmy Stewart's shoes? Kelly, whom I thought was rather flat and cold in Dial M for Murder, is charming here, as is Stewart (but when isn't he charming). Raising the flick to another level is Thelma Ritter as the abrasive, yet kind nurse whose line deliveries are good for a chuckle nearly every time she speaks. Plus, add in the rather amusing cast of neighbors whom we come to know through our view from Jeff's window and all of the acting is top notch.
What really amazes me about the flick (and what I foolishly didn't really notice until this viewing which is why I'll keep mentioning it) is what I already stated above -- we never leave Jeff's apartment, but somehow Hitchcock manages to keep moving his camera so the viewer never gets bored. With the exception of Psycho, this very well could be Hitchcock's best directed film. It may not have the extravagance of North by Northwest or the cleverness of Rope's long takes, but Hitch has crafted a film that literally places the viewer in the shoes of the main character -- a rather unique and difficult task that he acheives with seemingly great ease.
The RyMickey Rating: A
Friday, October 15, 2010
Hitchcock Month - The Man Who Knew Too Much (1956)
The Man Who Knew Too Much (1956)
Starring Jimmy Stewart and Doris Day
Directed by Alfred Hitchcock
This 1956 version of The Man Who Knew Too Much is Hitchcock's only directorial remake. Choosing to redo a flick from his early British days, Hitch definitely shows that he got better with age as this remake utilizes essentially the same story, but raises the tension much higher thanks to some wonderful performances from Jimmy Stewart and Doris Day.
Pulling much of the plot from the original (although changing it enough to make it feel genuinely like a new movie), the McKenna family is vacationing in Morocco. While there, the family meets a Frenchman named Louis Bernard. Right away, wife Jo (Day) finds the man to be sketchy, but her husband Ben (Stewart) shrugs off her apprehensions. Shortly after they meet him, Bernard is killed in a Moroccan marketplace, but just before he takes his final breaths, he tells Ben that a foreign diplomat is going to be killed in London and Ben must alert the British authorities. Unfortunately for the McKenna's, the wrong people witness Bernard telling Ben this secret and they kidnap the McKenna's young son, warning the couple that if they tell the police anything and impede their planned assassination, their son will be murdered.
As you can tell, the plot is similar and there are similar set pieces to the original, but everything works to much better effect here. My biggest qualm with the original and the reason the film ultimately didn't work was that the two actors playing the kidnapped child's parents were almost playing the whole situation for laughs. They weren't nearly panicky enough considering what they were going through (note that this is also the fault of the script which doesn't allow them to be freaking out). In the remake, however, Jimmy Stewart and Doris Day are genuinely disturbed by the goings-on. Day, in particular, who is so well known for her romantic comedy leading roles is fantastic here. The scene where she first is told that her son has been kidnapped is gripping thanks to her. Jimmy Stewart is being Jimmy Stewart. He's the everyman in seemingly every movie and the same goes for him here. I think it's impossible not to like the guy, but he's simply adequate here. He does nothing particularly stunning, but the part doesn't really call for that either.
The climax of the film -- the assassination attempt of a foreign minister -- is very similar in both films and while both are surprisingly tense, the remake is a tad better. For nearly ten minutes, there's not a single word of dialog spoken. Instead, the only sound in the scene (which takes place at a concert at the Royal Albert Hall in London) is a booming orchestral piece of music. The tension builds at a slow pace and Hitch is an expert at building suspense.
Music plays a truly integral role in the remake with Doris Day's character singing what later became her standard classic song, "Que Sera, Sera." Written for the film (and the recipient of an Oscar), the film showcases Day's lovely voice, but Hitchcock brilliantly weaves the song right into the narrative. Apparently, the studio wanted Day to sing a song in the picture which didn't please Hitch in the slightest. Nonetheless, when he heard the song, he felt it was perfect for the film and I must say that I was thoroughly impressed with how flawlessly it flows with the film.
It had been quite a while since I had seen The Man Who Knew Too Much, and while it doesn't quite reach the levels of North by Northwest or Psycho, it's a very good film that I should pop into the dvd player a bit more often.
Pulling much of the plot from the original (although changing it enough to make it feel genuinely like a new movie), the McKenna family is vacationing in Morocco. While there, the family meets a Frenchman named Louis Bernard. Right away, wife Jo (Day) finds the man to be sketchy, but her husband Ben (Stewart) shrugs off her apprehensions. Shortly after they meet him, Bernard is killed in a Moroccan marketplace, but just before he takes his final breaths, he tells Ben that a foreign diplomat is going to be killed in London and Ben must alert the British authorities. Unfortunately for the McKenna's, the wrong people witness Bernard telling Ben this secret and they kidnap the McKenna's young son, warning the couple that if they tell the police anything and impede their planned assassination, their son will be murdered.
As you can tell, the plot is similar and there are similar set pieces to the original, but everything works to much better effect here. My biggest qualm with the original and the reason the film ultimately didn't work was that the two actors playing the kidnapped child's parents were almost playing the whole situation for laughs. They weren't nearly panicky enough considering what they were going through (note that this is also the fault of the script which doesn't allow them to be freaking out). In the remake, however, Jimmy Stewart and Doris Day are genuinely disturbed by the goings-on. Day, in particular, who is so well known for her romantic comedy leading roles is fantastic here. The scene where she first is told that her son has been kidnapped is gripping thanks to her. Jimmy Stewart is being Jimmy Stewart. He's the everyman in seemingly every movie and the same goes for him here. I think it's impossible not to like the guy, but he's simply adequate here. He does nothing particularly stunning, but the part doesn't really call for that either.
The climax of the film -- the assassination attempt of a foreign minister -- is very similar in both films and while both are surprisingly tense, the remake is a tad better. For nearly ten minutes, there's not a single word of dialog spoken. Instead, the only sound in the scene (which takes place at a concert at the Royal Albert Hall in London) is a booming orchestral piece of music. The tension builds at a slow pace and Hitch is an expert at building suspense.
Music plays a truly integral role in the remake with Doris Day's character singing what later became her standard classic song, "Que Sera, Sera." Written for the film (and the recipient of an Oscar), the film showcases Day's lovely voice, but Hitchcock brilliantly weaves the song right into the narrative. Apparently, the studio wanted Day to sing a song in the picture which didn't please Hitch in the slightest. Nonetheless, when he heard the song, he felt it was perfect for the film and I must say that I was thoroughly impressed with how flawlessly it flows with the film.
It had been quite a while since I had seen The Man Who Knew Too Much, and while it doesn't quite reach the levels of North by Northwest or Psycho, it's a very good film that I should pop into the dvd player a bit more often.
The RyMickey Rating: B+
Monday, November 30, 2009
Movie Review - The Shop Around the Corner (1940)
Christmas Movie a Day #6
The Shop Around the Corner
Starring Jimmy Stewart, Margaret Sullavan, and Frank Morgan
Jimmy Stewart is Alfred Kralik, a young man working in Mr. Matuscheck's (The Wizard of Oz's Frank Morgan) gift shop. Unfortunately for Kralik, he doesn't get along with new hire Klara Novak (Margaret Sullavan) -- they're constantly bickering back and forth. Little do Alfred and Klara know that they are, in fact, each other's anonymous pen pals. As they fall in love with each other via letters, they're despising each other in person.
The thing that makes the simple, obvious story work much better than it has any right to is the great performances. Is there anyone more regular-guy charming than Jimmy Stewart? He's the gosh-darn nice everyman and is a pleasure to watch in nearly anything and this is no exception. His wordplay off of Margaret Sullavan is wonderful, and she's a huge part in making it work. Looking at her imdb page, Ms. Sullavan did not become a star and certainly didn't appear in too many films after this one. I wonder why. Surely she's not the most attractive woman to grace the silver screen, but she's not bad on the eyes, and she's quite funny. And add Frank Morgan's lovable mug into the mix and it's quite a trio.
Simple, sweet, and really charming, this flick (while not having much to do with Christmas at all) is definitely worth checking out if you're a fan of Jimmy Stewart (which I know some who are reading this are).
The Shop Around the Corner
Starring Jimmy Stewart, Margaret Sullavan, and Frank Morgan
Directed by Ernst Lubitsch
I know I've seen this movie before (maybe in my Romantic Comedy Analysis film class in college) and I seem to remember disliking it. I don't know what I was thinking, because this movie is a gem, filled with great performances and a cute story.
Jimmy Stewart is Alfred Kralik, a young man working in Mr. Matuscheck's (The Wizard of Oz's Frank Morgan) gift shop. Unfortunately for Kralik, he doesn't get along with new hire Klara Novak (Margaret Sullavan) -- they're constantly bickering back and forth. Little do Alfred and Klara know that they are, in fact, each other's anonymous pen pals. As they fall in love with each other via letters, they're despising each other in person.
The thing that makes the simple, obvious story work much better than it has any right to is the great performances. Is there anyone more regular-guy charming than Jimmy Stewart? He's the gosh-darn nice everyman and is a pleasure to watch in nearly anything and this is no exception. His wordplay off of Margaret Sullavan is wonderful, and she's a huge part in making it work. Looking at her imdb page, Ms. Sullavan did not become a star and certainly didn't appear in too many films after this one. I wonder why. Surely she's not the most attractive woman to grace the silver screen, but she's not bad on the eyes, and she's quite funny. And add Frank Morgan's lovable mug into the mix and it's quite a trio.
Simple, sweet, and really charming, this flick (while not having much to do with Christmas at all) is definitely worth checking out if you're a fan of Jimmy Stewart (which I know some who are reading this are).
The RyMickey Rating: A-
The Christmas Spirit Scale: 2/10
(The Christmas Spirit Scale is a totally pointless rating that is simply my feeling about how "Christmas-y" the movie felt to me)
The Christmas Spirit Scale: 2/10
(The Christmas Spirit Scale is a totally pointless rating that is simply my feeling about how "Christmas-y" the movie felt to me)
Thursday, March 05, 2009
A Book a Week - Rear Window
Book Eight-and-a-Half of the Book-A-Week Quest
Rear Window (original title - It Had to Be Murder)
by Cornell Woolrich (1942)
This one was a short story, so I can't legitimately say it was a book (which is why this is book 8.5). 36 pages just doesn't count.
When I started reading it and I looked and saw how many pages it was, I was utterly confused how Alfred Hitchcock could've made such a great movie with it.
The reason Hitchcock succeeded is that he added so much to it. Heck, Grace Kelly's character wasn't even in the novella...and Rear Window without Grace Kelly would've been sacrilege! (Not to mention the fact that the novel didn't even include the great character actress Thelma Ritter's role as Jimmy Stewart's nurse)
It was pretty much just "eh." That's the best way to describe it. The movie fleshed everything out and was much more suspenseful. In this one, the guy suspects that his next-door neighbor has murdered his wife and then we discover whether he did or didn't. That was it. There was nothing exciting to it.
Do yourself a favor. See the movie. It's one of Hitchcock's best and one of my favorite movies of all time.
You can skip the book.
Sunday, February 22, 2009
Classic Movie Review - The Philadelphia Story (1940)
starring Cary Grant, Katharine Hepburn, and Jimmy Stewart
directed by George Cukor
screenplay by Donald Ogden Stewart
directed by George Cukor
screenplay by Donald Ogden Stewart
Liz Imbrie: We all go a little haywire at times, and if we don't, maybe we ought to.I had seen The Philadelphia Story before, and I didn't remember loving it. Since the word "classic" is bandied about in regards to this flick, I thought I'd give it another look. Unfortunately, my opinion didn't change a whole lot.
The film starts promisingly, striking a very comedic tone from the first scene, but it then shifts to a more subdued tone that just doesn't mesh with the beginning.
Tracy Lord (Hepburn) was once married to C.K. Dexter Haven (Grant), but they have since divorced, finding their biting, sarcastic attitudes incompatible. Cut to a few years later and Tracy is due to be married again. The Lord family is famous in the Philadelphia social scene and the editor of Spy Magazine wants to send reporter Macaulay Conner (Stewart) to cover the shindig. There's a variety of misinformation, misunderstandings, and misdeeds that create chaos leading up to the impending nuptials...ideally, that chaos would inspire comedy, but the director really didn't allow the humor to ebb and flow. There were literally 15 minutes at a time where I didn't smile or chuckle. And that's where the problem lies with this flick. If you're trying to be a comedy (which the first 15 seconds of the film tell me that it is), you need to scatter the humor throughout. (Obviously, fault goes to the writer here, as well.)
All the acting is good, but the three leads really get overshadowed by the supporting characters, particularly Ruth Hussey as Macaulay's photographer and Virginia Weidler as Tracy's teenage sister. Weidler steals every scene she's in, and if, as a viewer, you're anxiously waiting for a minor, unimportant character to come back onscreen, there's something wrong with your flick.
It's not that The Philadelphia Story is a bad movie, but I don't think it lives up to the "classic" label that it often receives.
The film starts promisingly, striking a very comedic tone from the first scene, but it then shifts to a more subdued tone that just doesn't mesh with the beginning.
Tracy Lord (Hepburn) was once married to C.K. Dexter Haven (Grant), but they have since divorced, finding their biting, sarcastic attitudes incompatible. Cut to a few years later and Tracy is due to be married again. The Lord family is famous in the Philadelphia social scene and the editor of Spy Magazine wants to send reporter Macaulay Conner (Stewart) to cover the shindig. There's a variety of misinformation, misunderstandings, and misdeeds that create chaos leading up to the impending nuptials...ideally, that chaos would inspire comedy, but the director really didn't allow the humor to ebb and flow. There were literally 15 minutes at a time where I didn't smile or chuckle. And that's where the problem lies with this flick. If you're trying to be a comedy (which the first 15 seconds of the film tell me that it is), you need to scatter the humor throughout. (Obviously, fault goes to the writer here, as well.)
All the acting is good, but the three leads really get overshadowed by the supporting characters, particularly Ruth Hussey as Macaulay's photographer and Virginia Weidler as Tracy's teenage sister. Weidler steals every scene she's in, and if, as a viewer, you're anxiously waiting for a minor, unimportant character to come back onscreen, there's something wrong with your flick.
It's not that The Philadelphia Story is a bad movie, but I don't think it lives up to the "classic" label that it often receives.
The RyMickey Rating: C
Saturday, February 07, 2009
Classic Movie Review - Call Northside 777 (1948)
starring Jimmy Stewart
directed by Henry Hathaway
screenplay by Jerome Cady and Jay Dratler
McNeal: I went into this thing believing nothing. I was skeptical. I figured Wiecek was using his mother to spring him. But I've changed my mind. This man is innocent, Mr. Palmer. I know that without any doubt.
screenplay by Jerome Cady and Jay Dratler
McNeal: I went into this thing believing nothing. I was skeptical. I figured Wiecek was using his mother to spring him. But I've changed my mind. This man is innocent, Mr. Palmer. I know that without any doubt.
Based on a true story, in Prohibition-era 1932, a cop is killed while drinking at a speakeasy and a man named Frank Wiecek is arrested, convicted of murder, and sentenced to 99 years in prison. Ten years later, Wiecek's mother, convinced of his innocence, buys a classified ad in the Chicago Times posting a $5000 reward for any information leading to a reversal of her son's conviction. Intrigued by the ad, skeptical newspaper reporter P.J. McNeal investigates the ad and discovers that everything may not have been kosher in the conviction of Wiecek.
The story is kind of trite. It's basically a cut-and-dry "investigation-type" movie. It's simply a newspaper reporter hunting down facts and figures. In that sense, it's weak plotwise. The film begins, ends, and is scattered throughout with an odd voiceover narration that makes it seem like a newsreel from the 30s or 40s. Completely unnecessary, it takes you out of the story entirely.
Additionally, this film was apparently one of the first times that a lie detector was seen onscreen and they seriously spent 10 minutes explaining what a lie detector does, how it works, and how they determine the validity of a person's responses. Similarly, at the film's climax, the 1940s audience saw an "early fax machine" (so to speak) detailing how photos were transmitted over a phone line (I think...something like that). When that's your climax, you've got a problem.
Now, it wasn't all bad by any means. Jimmy Stewart alone is enough to be worth a watch. He does nothing special here, but it's Jimmy Stewart. How can you not like this everyman? There are additionally some rather touching scenes involving the convicted Wiecek, his mother, and his wife that at least provide some emotional impact in an otherwise "by-the-book" storyline.
Another plus is the fact that many of the scenes were shot on location. While I've complained about the "newsreel" feeling of the film, the location shots at least provided a sense of realism. It reminded me of a low-budget indie film of today -- shot on a low budget, the real locations and the character actors (Jimmy Stewart is really the only person I had ever heard of before) definitely were a plus.
Unfortunately, Call Northside 777 wasn't a hit in my book. It was an okay flick that I'd really only recommend if you're a Jimmy Stewart fan. If you are, definitely give it a look...but this one doesn't quite stand the test of time.
The story is kind of trite. It's basically a cut-and-dry "investigation-type" movie. It's simply a newspaper reporter hunting down facts and figures. In that sense, it's weak plotwise. The film begins, ends, and is scattered throughout with an odd voiceover narration that makes it seem like a newsreel from the 30s or 40s. Completely unnecessary, it takes you out of the story entirely.
Additionally, this film was apparently one of the first times that a lie detector was seen onscreen and they seriously spent 10 minutes explaining what a lie detector does, how it works, and how they determine the validity of a person's responses. Similarly, at the film's climax, the 1940s audience saw an "early fax machine" (so to speak) detailing how photos were transmitted over a phone line (I think...something like that). When that's your climax, you've got a problem.
Now, it wasn't all bad by any means. Jimmy Stewart alone is enough to be worth a watch. He does nothing special here, but it's Jimmy Stewart. How can you not like this everyman? There are additionally some rather touching scenes involving the convicted Wiecek, his mother, and his wife that at least provide some emotional impact in an otherwise "by-the-book" storyline.
Another plus is the fact that many of the scenes were shot on location. While I've complained about the "newsreel" feeling of the film, the location shots at least provided a sense of realism. It reminded me of a low-budget indie film of today -- shot on a low budget, the real locations and the character actors (Jimmy Stewart is really the only person I had ever heard of before) definitely were a plus.
Unfortunately, Call Northside 777 wasn't a hit in my book. It was an okay flick that I'd really only recommend if you're a Jimmy Stewart fan. If you are, definitely give it a look...but this one doesn't quite stand the test of time.
The RyMickey Rating: C
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)